the you know fire alarms the sprinkler line that needs to go to the street and also the sprinklers
that need to be updated and are added and to all the units as well and is this project feasible if
you continue the long-standing four unit use uh no it is not as you can see at the bottom we'll be
you know we'll be losing money the first couple years and even after that that's if everything
goes perfect, we still will be breaking even. And is this project feasible if you make it a
six-unit project? Yes, it is because we will be able to spread the significant cost for the
smoke alarms and sprinkler and running the new lines to the street among six units instead of
four units. And just to be clear, did you prepare exhibits 10A and 10B? Yes, I did.
Yes, I did.
And again, if this variance were denied, what's likely to be happened?
And again, if this variance were denied, what's likely to be happening?
Will this property be demolished?
Given the current state of it, we'll most likely have to demolish the property as there are structural issues with it.
Thank you.
And did you hear my earlier statements?
And are they true and correct?
And do you adopt them as your testimony?
Yes, I do.
I have no further questions.
Hi, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions from the our comments from the virtual audience
um sir i have a miss jacqueline blyther wells with her hand raised i will
sure hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
sure my name is jacqueline blyther wells j-a-c-q-u-e-l-i-n-e blyther b as in boy
l y t h e r hyphen wells w e l l s all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed um mr chair and the board uh we had a meeting a
community meeting i reside at 6619 west gerard avenue um the homeowners from 6601 gerard avenue
to 6619 Girard Avenue, we have a private driveway. The roofing company, which is next door to 6602
Haverford, they have no access to our driveway. They only had a backyard. And when they decided
to convert that backyard to a driveway, which is a safety issue for the people on our side,
on gerard avenue coming out uh they decided to convert that and i had called 3-1-1 thank you
mr chairman i don't know why the roofing company next door is relevant to us
so so ma'am listen listen a minute i'm sorry you know so this is about the particular property
we're talking about i i can't have you testify about the roofing company what they did next door
I guess the real
the only question I have
are you in favor of this property
getting the variance
what else you may unmute yourself please
I can't have you testify about the roofing company
roofing company has nothing to do
with what the variance has to do with this building
okay Ms. Wells yes Ms. Wells to hear what I'm saying you can't testify about the roofing company
in a case relative to this property here no I'm sorry yes you're you're absolutely correct but
what he said was that because of the parking that they need they wanted to also convert it
and and that is no i i think i think what he said he's going to park behind his property
but there's no parking there they had no deed to a parking lot when they purchased the property
there was only a backyard and he's coming into the private driveway okay okay so so so thank you
very much here's what i'm going to do is i'm going to give him a chance to respond that he'll explain
But thank you for calling in and bringing us that information.
Mr. Chairman, as you can see on the screen, we have the survey.
And at the rear of our lot and the rear of the other lots is Adams Street.
It's no longer open on the city plan, but it still exists on the city plan.
So that is used by everybody to access their properties.
If you pull up the deeds for the ones on Gerard Avenue, like I have,
they note that Adams Street is the rear of their property.
uh adam street on the style street and it's 25 feet wide so we have a 25 feet
paper street that exists as shown by my photos and we would access the two parking spaces behind
our property off of this street that uh this paper street that does exist that everybody else uses
as well so we would be doing just what everybody else does in the community thank you is there
anybody else in the virtual audience that has a comment
miss eloise young with her hand raised i have an honor to speak sir okay hi could you state
your name please and spell for the court reporter my name is eloise young first name e-l-o-i-s-e
last name young y-o-u-n-g do you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do proceed good afternoon mr chair and members of the board i was a little surprised
to hear you say that the coordinating rco hmc square did not take a position because
The coordinating RCO, HMC Square, did not take a position, because we did take a position,
and the position is that we are opposed to this project. On April 7th, I facilitated a virtual RCO
meeting, it was actually the meeting that Ms. Blyther Wells was referring to, to discuss 6602
Haverford Avenue on behalf of HMC Square Community Association, and none of the 20 members
of the community who were present voted to support this project as it was proposed.
Now, that alone is a very strong statement, especially when you consider that 6602 Haverford
is currently a vacant blighted eyesore. We certainly don't like vacant blighted eyesores,
especially in our community. So why didn't anybody at that meeting vote to support this project as it
was proposed? Well, there were several reasons. Let's talk about the demonstration of hardship
first. We believe that the only hardship these owners have demonstrated would be of their own
making. And I say that for two reasons. First of all, we were told that the owners purchased the
property under the auspices of 29th Street Partnership LLC, an entity that they own,
and that the property would be managed by Broken Ground Properties, another entity they own.
We asked them, how did this property even get on your radar? And they told us that the previous
owner came to them because that person couldn't afford to make the needed building repairs.
These are seasoned real estate professionals who understood the condition of the building
and the cost to repair it when they chose to purchase the property.
It was interesting today to see exhibits, I think, 10B, the cash flow analysis, because
none of that was presented to the community.
But the second reason that I say that the hardship would be of their own making is that
the owners insist on creating six units, even though they told us that the building is already
set up for four units.
This significantly increases renovation costs, yet they were unwilling to consider leaving the property with four units.
During our meeting, community members, including Ms. Blyther-Wells, expressed vehemently.
Anything anybody else said, Mr. Chairman?
I'm sorry, could I please?
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, Mrs. Young, listen, you can't, she already, she already spoke here.
you can't testify to what she said so you can't you can't do it you know hearsay so you just
you know tell me what you believe and that's where we want to be okay
yes during our meeting community members vehemently voiced concerns
so i i think the fact of the matter is they did not take a position there was some comments about
some people wanted four units some people wanted to support what they had which what changes 11
people are against it but the rco did not take a position so that's where we are chairman bergman
the the copy of the the meeting summary that's right there don't move the version that i emailed
highlighted oppose i see i see but what i'm saying look at the look above there that doesn't
take a position. So when I say they didn't take a position, they didn't take a position.
No, this was highlighted, opposed. It says final position. If I could show my screen,
I have the letter and it says final position taken by coordinating RCO is one of opposed
is highlighted on the letter that I emailed on Sunday, April 10th at 7 55 PM. It's highlighted
in yellow. It's opposed. I'm just telling you what we had in front of us today. And the reason
we're opposed is because we have concerns about density, parking, unit size, affordability,
and accessibility. For all these reasons, along with the owner's failure to demonstrate hardship,
we oppose this project. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. That's fine. Is there anyone else in the audience
that has a comment? There's someone here with just the name of Galaxy A51 with the hand raised.
do you want me to allow them to speak sir please okay they've been about to speak
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
hello hi could you hi could you state your name please and spell stephanie mccullum okay s-t-e-p-h-a-n-i-e
m c c o l l u m right and um wait a minute you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
Right. Wait a minute. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
I am opposed to this project because it is a hazard to our neighbors that share this driveway.
It's not enough room. He's only showing photographs of the back of his property only.
And the construction would be a total mess.
The people can park on the street. I'm not opposed to him having a four unit.
that's fine, but opening up a driveway to create a space for parking, no. It causes a hazard
between the neighbors that share this driveway coming in and out. We don't know who's coming in
and out, and I'm not testifying against trauma, but trauma didn't do their thing right anyway.
They did what they wanted to do. Okay, thank you. Okay, yeah, you're welcome. You're welcome. Thank
you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Ms. Stephanie McComb had her hand raised. I have an auditor to speak.
Did I already have her?
Yeah, I think they're the same person.
That's the same person.
Stephanie McComb? Okay. I'm sorry.
All right. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial mixed-use zoning.
under that zoning multiple dwelling units would be allowed by right the zoning here presents a
clear hardship to the reuse of the property the character of the block is primarily institutional
so the proposed multiple family dwelling units would not negatively impact the surrounding
properties and requiring parking would not be feasible due to site constraints so the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the use variances thank you mi 2022
two zero zero one zero six four sixty six oh two Haverford Avenue I vote yes
Carol Tenere my vote is yes Thomas Holloman my vote is no excuse me excuse me Mr. Chair um
there are two refusals on this one and I want to make sure I'll get I'll I'll Mr. Mattione there
was two refusals one dated the 24th and one the 25th which one is it I thought it was the one
dated 25th there are two refusals on the refusal there's a refusal for the number of units and
there's a refusal for not having six or three parking spaces both on the 25th right on the 25th
right yes no Mr. Mr. Mationi this is Hillary just when I went on Atlas to pull the refusals there
was one from January 24th and one from January 25th they appeared to be identical but I wanted
to check with you before so that we make sure we put the correct one in the record correct and I
use the one from the 25th i believe that's the only one i got okay okay the other one may have
been released this is granted per refusal dated the 25th all right thank you mr chair i vote i vote yes
are we refuting now yeah go ahead carol carol tennari my vote is yes
my vote is no james snell my vote is yes
thank you so
we have one one more case left on the uh the two o'clock list i'm going to take a five minute
break mr matione it's your case we'll be back in five minutes and then we'll finish that and
then go right to 3 30 because i think we only have a few cases so let's take a five minute break
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
our five minutes are up here as you wish i'm i'm ready okay so we're going to go back to the
2 o'clock list, number 11, MI-2022-001-009-748-North 40th Street, Mr. Matteoni.
Also, a letter of support from the West Belmont Civic Association.
He's coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Mr. Chairman.
Hi, Mr. Mattione, you've already been sworn. Could you identify who your client is on 40th Street and the relationship to the property?
Who your client is on 40th Street and the relationship to the property?
Certainly.
Certainly. It's 748 North 40th Street, LLC. They're the owner of the property.
And Robert Sherman, the principal, is available today as well.
Harold Tenere, our vice chair, has a few questions.
Mr. Matione, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all those above.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Sure, thank you.
Is the screen up?
yes it is all right thank you sorry about that uh again i represent it's michael maddione
and i represent uh the owner of 748 north 40th street and i have robert sherman here with me
today the principal and we presented tax clearance information the refusal the letter of support from
the west belmont civic association the coordinating rco that was joined in by the belmont alliance
civic association and other rco in the area the zoning site plan floor plans renderings