characteristics of any particular lot that may allow this board to find a unique and
unnecessary hardship warranting of the grant of a use variance. All single-family homes in this area
front either on Stewart Street, I don't know why this aerial says Marion Avenue, this is Stewart
Street, or on Lancaster Avenue. There are no single-family homes fronting on North 54th Street
in this immediate area. We also submit that the number of proposed units is also the least
minimum, as the density proposed is consistent with the density of surrounding structures.
Additionally, as the evidence has shown today, eight units are most appropriate for the layout
of the proposed structure and is not overbuilt from a dimensional perspective to accommodate
the proposed density. Furthermore, the units are varied in size to accommodate a wider range of
rental price points and tenant preferences. This corner lot is uniquely situated to accommodate
slightly higher density, to accommodate both the ADA-adaptable units at the first floor,
as well as units that benefit from more light and air than is typical with multifamily development.
The new 11 and 12-unit developments just south of this have similar unit density per lot square
footage, ranging from about 200 to 350 square feet per unit. Given the uses of surrounding
properties, the historical use of this property for five units, including the commercial space,
the comprehensive plan recommendation for a rezoning at this site, the design
The comprehensive plan recommendation for a rezoning at this site, the design presented to the board today, and the length of time that no single-family use has been established, this proposal is the least deviation from the relevant zoning code provisions.
Now, in terms of the community, this one was a bit unusual.
I do want to just address that momentarily.
When this application was filed and processed, there was no RCO for this property that was
currently identified at that point by the city. As a result, the councilman's office stepped in
and assigned this project to the next nearest RCO, which is HMC squared. We went through the
normal process and scheduled a meeting, which was held on October 10th. In preparation for the
October 10th meeting, I happened to notice that the Hestonville RCO was all of a sudden showing
as an RCO for this property. I immediately reached out and invited them to attend the RCO meeting,
which they did. That email is shown at Exhibit 15, which I'll bring up in a minute.
At that meeting, the representative from the Hestonville RCO questioned, understandably,
why the project had not been assigned to her group. She acknowledged that her group had failed
to file the RCO paperwork and was therefore not in the system at the time this application was
processed. Once that confusion was resolved, she expressed concern about what residents were in
attendance at the meeting, hoping that the Hestonville community was represented. We confirmed
that mailings were sent, and we did show the certificates of mailing, which we did also
include in your packet here at Exhibit 15. These notices went to addresses on Stewart Street,
Lancaster Avenue, North 54th Street, Jefferson, Hunter, and Conestoga Streets, so we did express
our confidence to her that the local community was well represented at that meeting. That said,
we did also express at that point our willingness to have another meeting.
HMC Squared issued a summary sheet noting the predominant result of support with the
proviso that we have a separate meeting with Hestonville representatives. The day after the
meeting, I reached out to the Hestonville RCO and requested another meeting. A few days later,
I was advised that they would be in contact. Again, on October 22nd, someone reached out
but did not specifically respond to the request for a meeting. I then followed up again on October
23rd, November 7th, and November 25th, but received zero response from them. All of that correspondence
is shown at Exhibit 15. And again, it's just shown to establish to the board that not only was
the Hestonville RCO in attendance during the RCO meeting, but we did make a very concerted effort
to attempt to have a second meeting with them, but we ultimately were not successful. So again,
seeking to validate that the local community was represented at the October 10th meeting
and to bolster the clear support for this project, my client did visit the local community
and fortunately was able to secure two individual letters of support, as well as seven signatures
of support from residents on Stewart Street, which are, of course, the ones that are most
directly impacted by this project. So this applicant we submit went above and beyond the
call of the code, not only to secure support from the assigned RCO, but to further ensure that all
RCOs and residents felt that they had an opportunity to weigh in if desired. We submit
the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air.
This area will benefit economically from this proposal by creating new residents in the area
to support local retail stores and businesses, particularly given the property's location
directly across the street from the commercial corridor.
This structure itself is being designed to harmonize with the physical character of the neighborhood,
and more detailed analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 12,
and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
At this point, I would ask for the administrator to look for Serge Maslenikov and unmute him.
Serge Maslenikov has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
uh hi uh my name is sergey maslanikov s-e-r-g-e-y-m-a-s-l-e-n-n-i-k-o-b
M-A-S-L-E-N-N-I-K-O-B.
Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, Counsel.
Thank you.
Serge, have you heard all of the testimony and evidence offered before the board today?
Yes, I do.
Would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
At this time, do you have anything further you'd like to add?
Not really, except that whatever you said, that's how it was.
We tried to meet with the neighbors and unfortunately didn't get a response.
So I spent half a day walking down the street, talking to the neighbors,
explaining them what I'm trying to build here and got some signatures,
which is, I mean, like in terms of building,
it's really nice looking building on the corner with a lot of lights
and a nice brick facade.
That's what I wanted to say.
Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
I have a question. Can you can you go back to the rendering for a second?
Just curious, I know that it was a corner property and, you know, it was pretty much a green space.
I just wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity to replace some of the trees that would be torn down.
So I see them on the renderer. So I guess they're dancing street trees.
Yeah. Okay. That's the plan. Yeah. All right. Thank you.
The questions from the board.
Yes. Sure. My question is, you said that there were other four unit buildings in the area, and then there was one that had been approved to have 11 or 12 units.
is there anything else in between i mean there's four and then there's this 11 or 12 and you're
proposing eight so that kind of puts you in the middle i guess but yeah so you know unfortunately
as as we mentioned this block of north 54 street there's nothing there uh so there's there has only
been one proposal on this particular block, which is mid-block, and that was the proposal that was
four. Now, the block south of this, that's where you find 11, 12, 12. So again, given the location
of this property at the corner and the fact that it can really truly benefit from a much more
favorable design, that's where the density here is more appropriate than it might have been had
this been a mid-block location that truly can't accommodate the same type of interior unit design
because you can't put the windows. So it's sort of trying to balance, certainly not going for
11 or 12. These are slightly larger lots. So just trying to sort of balance the units based on the
lot size itself and the corner location all right thank you sure questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
jessie delage planning commission
Thank you, Meg Kavanaugh, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is documented prior multifamily use of this property with four units in a structure that has since been demolished, dating to the 1960s, although the requested variance is not the minimum variance that will afford relief.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance with proviso, limit the number of units to four.
number 17 mi 2024 is 0 0 4 7 2 2 16 92 north 54 street i vote yes well johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes
tanetta graham my vote is yes i own my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
Thank you, counsel. All right. Number 18, MI 2024-004-727-4815 North Knight Street. Joseph Consul is the attorney. There's unanimous support from the Logan Civic Association. Vote was eight to zero.
Good morning, or good afternoon.
Mr. Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Joseph Consul.
It's J-O-S-E-P-H.
Last name, C-O-N-S-O-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you? I do. Okay. Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Could you?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the person?
Yeah, my client is Bianca Almonte, the owner of the property. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed
to share the screen. Okay, sharing my screen. Okay, I'm here on 4815 North 9th Street. This
property has been owned by my client and her mother since 2006. The property is
a currently a single family home. My client hired a contractor to install a deck and convert the
first floor level, which is technically below grade, but I'll show you the pictures in a second
that it actually goes out to the street in the back to convert that property into an apartment
unit, so making the single family into a two-family unit. The deck was constructed in the back of the
property, and they began work on the rest of the property. However, it came to light that the
contractor did not have permits, and so my client hired a designer. The designer, Magda Green,
did the plans, the plans are submitted, the refusals came in, and the two refusals that came in was for the deck that exists, which is the first refusal on your screen now.
A deck may not be enclosed by walls or a roof above the usable surface of the deck.
And the second one is two-family not approved in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Addressing the two-family use, this block has a lot of properties that need love going up and down the block.
We found several properties that have two-family conversions but are not currently legal.
The only one we found that was currently legal and is actually a smaller property than ours, ours is approximately 1,488 square feet as a footprint. This one's 1,322 square feet is 4852 North 9th Street.
So it's across the street, but otherwise identical, only slightly smaller.
Also, zoned RSA 5 was approved by this board in 2020, almost an identical request.
The work had been done on this one, and the board had approved it for two units.
So we believe that the two-unit use is consistent and beneficial for the block.
Um, my, uh, my client can, you know, can, can attest to that testimony as well. Um, but the, the block does need, um, rehabilitation and we, we believe that the, I mean, the, the work done so far looks nice.
unfortunately it was not permitted uh my client was unaware when she hired the contractor as
she'll attest to that um they were doing this without permits or plans and she spent a a lot
of money on on this work that was that was done here um so in terms of the deck uh you know there's
several of these um properties that uh face each other uh along blocks that touch each other here
this is kind of like a crude aerial photo but there are you know at least one two three four
five approved decks on here that can be seen there are a couple on this side on the side
of the street that we're on and then more on the other side the let's see if I zoom in a little
bit there's a whole row of them here 480 4844 4840 and 4836 one on the left which is 4829
and then 4816 at the bottom of the screen there so we're hopeful that the deck ask is is reasonable
as well. The plans submitted actually show the floor plan for the proposed unit on the lower level, which would be one bedroom, living room, utility space.
oh shoot
right me
get back up
and a laundry space that exits directly out to the street,
which I'll show you in the photos next.
In addition to that, the plans included the exterior elevations
for the deck that was already installed,
and I'll show you the photos now.
It's the refusal, it's the front of the property.
So there is an entrance to the basement unit in the front.
As you can see here, that's always existed.
And still in the front, take you to the back.
so then this is the back that leads to the covered deck and entrance to that basement space
and there's an image there so um you know as we saw the aerial but this is the parking spaces
for those properties and several of them have um parking spaces with decks there was some
anticipation that uh removing um what was considered a garage although there wasn't
Actually, a garage there would have generated a refusal, as was noted on the plans, but it didn't.
The only refusals were for the deck and for the two-unit use.
Otherwise, everything else was dimensionally appropriate.
Here's what the interior of the space looks like.
this property was already
really nicely done
prior to
this request
got a project information form
or deed
show that my clients took possession
And I believe my client can attest to the fact that her family owned it for a while prior to that.
I believe that's all that I have in terms of a presentation.
Again, seeking to legalize two-unit use there, consistent with a legalization on a smaller property on the same block.
and we believe this property will be a benefit to the community. It's beautiful.
The block needs some beautiful properties, and we're hopeful we can get the board's approval.
Bianca, are you in the audience to raise your hand?
Can I see your hand?
Yes, Chair. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Bianca Peralta.
P-E-R-A-C-A.
Peralta is P-E-R-A-L-T-A.
I have Almonte, but I changed my last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.