I know. That's why I asked.
And it says sold for $89,000. Yep.
Correct. So it was purchased for $89,000. Okay. No, I have no other questions.
Other questions from the board?
questions or comments from our attorney
Hillary Emerson
not at this time Mr. Chair
questions from the audience
questions from the virtual audience
Chair I have Tracy
L with a hand up will be allowed
to speak
hi Tracy hi can you hear me I can could you please state your name and spell for the court
sonographer hi my name is tracy eel e l right t-r-a-c-y tracy okay do you swear or affirm
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
Yes, I do.
Tracy, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I live directly across the street from this property.
Please proceed.
I'm concerned about some of the, first of all, one of the documents that he had there
said 2315 East Cumberland Street.
It didn't reference West Cumberland Street.
and I don't remember it being a funeral home
and I've lived in a neighborhood, not on Cumberland Street,
but I lived in the neighborhood for the last 60 years or so.
And I like to say that in terms of the integrity of the block,
it's always been a single homeowner's single family homes
And just the culture of the block is one that encourages single-family homes.
Duplexes start encouraging other types of activity on the block in terms of just crowding in, just crowded conditions at this point, crowded parking conditions, crowded living conditions.
um the the initial um the initial request was to turn it into two two bedroom apartments but
they just renamed the rooms a den and they renamed it another name but they intend to use it as a
bedroom but it's not set up officially because the space is not there a bedroom has to have a closet
But they're not accounting for some of those things. So I'd just like to say that in terms of the culture of the block, it's always been a single family. And we, the neighbors, we signed petitions also. And we got over 30 signatures to say that it should be kept single family home.
Okay. Thank you for taking the time to call. Mr. Anastasia, do you have any questions?
Not for this witness, Mr. Chair. Again, this was physically set up, marketed, promoted, and sold as a two-family dwelling. Page 72 of my exhibit shows that.
The plans are for two one-bedroom apartments in order to reduce the concerns about density that some of the folks at the community meeting had.
However, overwhelming majority of the folks on the block support this, which is why we submitted our petition.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Good question.
How many other duplexes are on the block that you know of, Vern?
Thank you.
They may not all be legal, but there are more than three, two and or three family dwellings.
Thank you. Anyone else in the audience?
I can't speak to how many were marketed and sold as that. I can only speak to this one.
Thank you.
This was a legally marketed, sold duplex.
Planning Commission. Two more hands. Okay.
The first one is Strawberry Mansion Community Concern has been promoted.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
They're coming in now.
Hi, can you hear me?
I can.
Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Bonita Cummings, B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Strawberry Mansion?
Community Concern and RCO.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I just wanted to also state that the petitions are dated after our community meeting.
None of that was presented at the time of the public meeting.
and none of those residents on that petition that was demonstrated today were present at that
meeting. The members that were present at that meeting did have also, they do have also a
petition. There was some technical difficulty with getting it where it could be loaded up to
the zoning board. So, you know, this, the idea of pitting neighbors against one another after the
fact is very harmful, and they have to live in those blocks together. None of those people were
in attendance, as you can see from the dates, to the concerns of the residents who did take the
time to participate in the public meeting. Also, there were renovations. We went out to do
Also, there were renovations. We went out to do visits to that property. We witnessed, which we did reach out to L&I, I'm not sure what their position was, of renovations being done to accommodate what they are indicating was already available.
The last known family in that property was in that property as a single family property, not as a duplex.
And so I just wanted to indicate those things and that there is no demonstrated hardship for this property.
And the preservation of the neighborhood character for that particular block is what is trying to be preserved.
And it is one of the better blocks and a good block, family block, in the Story Mansion community.
Thank you. Thank you for taking the time. Mr. Anastasia, you have any questions?
Just again, to point to the history of the property, there is a history showing from several decades ago that the property was attempted to be converted to a two family dwelling.
and that if we asked the witness how many members of the immediate block who are mostly impacted
attended the RCO meeting, she would have to tell you that there were very few, less than a handful,
which is why we went door to door on the block, showed everyone the refusal and the plans,
asking for their support, and they wholeheartedly...
One more person, Verna. I'm going to move on to the next person.
Yes, the next one would be a person calling in with the last four numbers, 3552, will be promoted.
Aye, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
This is Adrienne Fernandez, Swampoodle Neighborhood Process Association, RCO.
Adrienne, just for the record, state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Adrienne Fernandez, and my last name is spelled F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This house can be rented out successfully as a single-family home.
In our wider region, single-family home rentals are very successful.
And for the extra couple hundred dollars a month that the owner is seeking, it's not worth violating the preservation overlay or the character of the neighborhood, which I'm very familiar with because my family has had friends on these blocks since I was a child.
I had no idea that house was being used as multifamily, and the proper information about the type of zoning was easily available on many free city records, Philo.gov records, but that information was available.
That was not a multifamily address.
We are definitely opposed to it being changed to multifamily.
Also in this area, in that particular small area, we have a lot of the oldest.
We have a highest concentration of like centurions, like a lot of the oldest relatives, oldest, excuse me, neighbors in our area.
And increasing occupancy in the homes is not to their benefit.
Many of these neighbors sell their homes to each other.
And that's information I know from our family friends in that area.
so um i'm opposed to it okay um it should stay a single family and also um if the board votes to
allow multi-family i would add which i hope not but i would ask that um provisos would be that
it's limited to two apartments there's no basement living the trash has to stay indoors
Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience? Planning Commission.
Amy Wood with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing single-family residential RSA 5.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance to the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for multifamily.
Thank you.
This case is being held for discussion in executive session and vote on February 12th at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if I just could just briefly comment on the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Chair, if I just could just briefly comment on the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Thank you.
The unique physical condition is that the property is physically set up, presents itself as a two-family dwelling.
My client did not convert this.
He did not create this hardship.
The property was physically set up.
it was marketed, as my evidence shows, it was sold, and it was purchased as a physical two-family
dwelling. And all the evidence suggests that that's exactly what happened here. As a result,
we're not asking to change anything. We literally want to legalize the pre-existing non-conforming
use that was set up, marketed, and sold and purchased as a two-family dwelling. And thank you.
Thank you. And as I stated, this case is being held for discussion and executive session and vote on February 12th at 2 p.m.
Number two, MI 2024-005-504-2300 North 18th Street.
Al Nockmson is the attorney.
so knockamson could you state your name and spell it for the stenographer
uh yes uh alan a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you there's a letter of
conditional support from all in the family group associates the rco wants specificity regarding the
proposed commercial use um our vice chair has a few questions for you good afternoon council do
you agree to leave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to attack this i do have you emailed in
all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing yes we have thank you council please proceed mr knockamson before you
start so um hillary has a note here you may need to request updated revised plans could not locate
egress wells on plan to jason to proviso form i think there was a i think there was a yeah that's
a note to me because i think the i think the original plans are with the proviso form in the
packet so it's just a note to be to make sure if this is granted that the correct plans are stamped
okay so yeah because i think i think they're late maybe later on in the packet
but they weren't with the proviso form it looked like the original plans so but that
yeah that's just a note for me for later all right all right getting feedback i don't know why but
let's see um let's see i'm going to share my screen
Hi, so I'm here to present 2300 North 18th Street. This is a project that was actually recently approved by the board, not recently, a few years ago, for two residential units above and a commercial unit on the first floor and a lower level. This is a CMX1 property. What happened is my client used an architect who...
Hey, can you speak up a little bit? It's a little hard to hear you.
I'm going to put it as close as possible. They butchered the drawings. And so when they discovered it, we were outside the 18-month administrative review process. So we have to go through this whole process again.
The only change is that the building structure now takes the full width of the property before it was like a few inches off and that was discovered at the building permit application stage.
So this is something that the ZBA has seen before or another aeration that ZBA saw before and approved.
So during our presentation, we'll review the notice of refusal.
As the chairman stated, there was conditional support for this project.
the condition is they want us to make sure that we use the commercial unit as cmx1 zoning which
we have no objection to so we wouldn't object to a proviso limiting the commercial unit to cmx1 uses
second uh the third um exhibit is the revised proviso plan form at the request of the community
we put an egress well in the back for the commercial unit.
There's no residential units in the lower level.
Then the property history, which includes the zoning permit where the ZBA approved two units above and one unit on the ground floor in a lower level.
And then it's not uncommon to have this type of nearby nonconforming multifamily use.
There's multiple instances of multiple residential units on this block.
Then we'll review maps of the area and photographs of the property or plants.
Then we'll review maps of the area and photographs of the property or plants and drawings.
I have Chris Johnson of 24 seven design who designed this project also in the virtual audience should be.
It's the owner of the property, Brian Wise, and he'll adopt my testimony.
Then we have the RCO meeting notice where we'll show proof that we mailed notice of the community meeting to addresses within a 250 square foot radius.
Then our application for appeal, our deed to the property, and our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, this is what this board has seen before. Again, we had a technical issue at the building
permit stage. That's why we're back here, but the notice refusal is simple. It's straightforward.
It's a commercial unit vacant on the first floor and lower level, and we would agree to a proviso
limiting us to CMX1 uses. I mean, this is a CMX1 property, and we're asking for two
family dwelling above. Because we're next to an RSA 5 property, we're only limited to one unit
above, residential unit above, and that's what our variance is about. And then we have a de
minimis variance in terms of occupied area. And then the correspondence, it's a long letter,
but ultimately, we laid our cards on the table. We're like, yes, we want to limit ourselves to
CMX1 zoning, or the uses for CMX1 zoning, and if we seek something above and beyond
that, we're going to have to come back here and get a variance, and that's basically what
their letter states, too, and then they put out, like, what is the maybe applicable CMX1
zonings that they're going to, you know, potentially see for this property, and then these are
revised plans and again notation that we added the egress well in the basement for for the basement
uh that was at the request of the community and then we'll confirm it if we have the latest
installment of those plans obviously we don't want to have to come here for a third time
uh property history again as you can see here we met with the zba um on october 26 2022 and was
again for multifamily two-family dwelling with a commercial on the ground floor and in the lower
level and there were two provisos which we would also ask that would be part of this matter as well
commercial trash pickup as well as trash stored in the rear and then you can look at the history
of this property this was a two plus one even before we got the approval a few years ago and
there's nearby uh properties 2302 north 12th north 18th street is two family dwelling uh 22
uh 55 north 18th street is a two-family dwelling 2248 north bouvet street two family dwelling and
goes on and on um we're at the corner of dolphin and 18th street here photographs of the property
from North 18th Street, from Dolphin Street, proof of posting for today's hearing on both sides of
the street. This property has been a vacant lot for the longest period of time as far back as
Google Street View goes here in September of 2009. This is North 18th Street to the right of the
property, to the left of the property, Dolphin Street to the right of the property, to the left
of the property our plants and drawings again pretty straightforward simple architecture
nice brick facade uh the commercial unit has a lot a lot of nice light and air to it
and then as you can see because we're a corner property we can take advantage
of everyone having access to their rear yard which we're hoping to store the trash