Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in and is the panelist.
Thank you.
Thank you for your patience.
Not quite sure what happened there.
So, Vern, before you move on, just for a point of information,
you showed that piece of paper that 65, the city approved a triplex.
That's correct.
Our notes, maybe our notes are wrong, but we have the ZBA denied a variance for a triplex at 65.
And I just wanted to jump in here.
So I think that card, it doesn't indicate approval.
It just indicates that the open area requirements are met, but there was still a refusal issued on that application and a variance that was denied in July of 65 for a triplex.
So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, that that card does not indicate that that a variance was approved.
No, but it does indicate that that's that's I think akin to a certificate of occupancy, that particular document from 1960.
I don't think so, because it was submitted at the same time as the application.
And it just indicates that the open area requirements are met for that many units at a property.
Very good.
It says in 1942, ZVA granted a variance for a duplex.
For a duplex, right.
Somewhere between 1942, and why page 96 is important, and page 94 as well, is that between 1946 and 1965, someone turned this legal duplex into a triplex.
because uh in the 1965 application it clearly states that the existing condition is a three
family dwelling mind you this is all prior to my client even being born uh and that's why that's
why it's important a part of evidence uh is that this property sometime between 1946 and 1965
was converted without the benefit, I believe, of proper permits.
was converted without the benefit, I believe, of proper permits, although that's difficult to
ascertain. It was, in fact, presented itself as a three-family dwelling. And that's the
importance and that's the significance of us having that. It's a triplex now, right?
Yes, as it has been since between 46 and 65.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Church, this is Hillary.
I can just confirm on the refusal from 1965.
It says this use, the three-family use, is existing on the premises in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Right.
So it had been converted at some point.
Thank you.
Somewhere between 46 and 65, this was converted.
Again, prior to my client's birth.
But in addition to those documents that we've been discussing, of the 108 documents, we have a zoning refusal, our floor plan and layout, photos of the property, interior, exterior, side, and rear, our notification letter and proof of mailing, the poster and proof of posting, the archives that we talked briefly about, the deed and tax clearance.
We have a zoning map. We have a signed petition of all seven immediate neighbors on the block in support. And we also have a very long history, pages 97 to 104, then 105 to 107, of all legal three families right there, right there within 300 feet of the property.
So what we are asking for is to legalize the pre-existing non-conforming use.
Again, this conversion happened before the current zoning code ever existed, or even the current building code that we go by currently exists.
We got two individual refusals, the parking requirement, which we have actually satisfied.
There is a driveway with ample parking.
uh and of course again the three family dwelling i want to show you the
layouts of the property first floor is almost a thousand square feet
second floor is over 800 square feet these are large units it's a very large property
and um i'm sorry and there's the third floor at 732 square feet
we have a comprehensive trash plan everyone in attendance of the actual rco meeting
agreed that this had been at pre-existing use long before my client ever assumed the property
there's the driveway in question dedicated trash area
here's some interior photos
my client occupies one of the three units she is an owner occupant
you have three separate electric meters
here's the two-page letter that went out to all the neighbors all the addresses that were mailed
in total about 44 households again those that showed up were not immediate neighbors
but we do have the petition of support from all seven folks in the immediate area
Again, we also have the history of the property in question and the deed showing that my client purchased the property long after it had been converted and not by her.
Also, you can see the property is quite large.
And again, all of the properties adjacent and across the street, all those owners are in full support of the appeal.
and here they are all seven households
and again we have uh proof that the property's right around it all legal three family dwellings
there's a property caddy corner
property across the street
property right down the street six on sixth another property on sixth another three family
Another property on 6th, another three-family dwelling.
dwelling so at some
So at some point, this was a regular sort of conversion on this block.
As you can see, here's 6709, three-family dwelling, 6719, and two additional.
mr chair again this property was converted sometime between 1946 and 1965 as a three
family dwelling there's documented use of that in the city records
you know did you attend the rco meeting mike of course my office did yes it did
And what was the tenor that RCO made? Because we don't have anything from them.
You know, the tenor was that everyone was in agreement and understood that this was a pre-existing, non-conforming use going back 65 years.
Okay, thank you. You want to bring your client on?
Yep. Kristen Pfeiffer, if you could please raise your virtual hand.
They've been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Kristen Pfeiffer. It's K-R-I-S-T-E-N, and the last name Pfeiffer, P-I-P-H-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Pfeiffer, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
Do you believe it to be true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further on this witness.
I do have another witness to call, if you don't mind.
I'm sorry, Geshe Bohar.
Please raise your virtual hand.
they have been allowed to speak
could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer
it's Gishi or Gishi
G-E-E-T-I
B-O-R-A-H
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
I'm a near neighbor.
Ms. Getty, I'm going to ask you some questions, okay?
Thank you.
Are you an immediate neighbor of this particular property?
Yes, I live across from.
Okay, thank you.
And do you support the appeal as it's submitted today to legalize the pre-existing three-family dwelling?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to call Tia Graves.
They've been about to speak.
Yes, greetings.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Tia Graves, T-I-A, Graves, G-R-A-V-E-S.
Right.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel thank you mr chair miss graves do you live at 604 66th avenue
the adjacent property to 606 yes i do okay and do you understand the appeal today to legalize
the pre-existing non-conforming use as a three-family dwelling yes i do and do you support
the appeal yes i do thank you miss graves nothing further mr chair because the property has a unique
physical condition presenting as a three-family dwelling for over 60 years because the conversion
would be to a single family residential would be impracticable because my client did not create
the unique physical condition because the use pre-exists the and predates both the
current zoning code and the building code, because we have a driveway with off-street parking
to deal with the parking requirement, because immediate neighbors unanimously support the
legalization of the condition, and because the long documented history of a three-family
dwelling is apparent and obvious, we respectfully request the granting of the variance. Thank you.
We respectfully request the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Mr. Anastasia, just in relation to the refusal for the parking, there are some accessory parking spaces at the property.
Is that correct?
The driveway can hold two.
And if my client decided to extend it more, which she could buy right, it could even take more.
I just wanted to note that because it did appear once I saw the pictures of the property that the refusal was incorrect.
You may be short one space, but you do have some parking.
Thank you.
That's correct.
Just a comment from the virtual audience.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I have a hand up from a Frida Williams.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Rita Williams, please unmute and wait to be sworn in.
Oh, hello.
Okay, can you hear me?
Hi, how are you?
Yes, could you please...
I am so sorry.
No, that's okay.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Frida, F-R-E-I-D-A Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Technically, I am actually, I'm the chair of the RCO.
Oh, good, good, good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Okay, I offer apologies.
I am reading from the I can read from the report that was sent.
I did receive a confirmation of receipt from the city planner, because when I mailed that, when I emailed the report, it went to all parties, the city planner, district council office, the attorney, also the zoning, the zoning board.
So I'm very sorry that it was may not have been received.
So what's the RCO's position?
The RCO was in opposition to the request for variance, and so that I could, if I could.
Sure, go ahead.
Yeah, I'm here.
Okay, if I can.
Okay, so the points that were made were that unless we are misreading the documents that were submitted to us, there was indeed not one, but two applications.
So this isn't I don't know how formal the zoning process was, but there was one that was in existence.
And each time that the applicant, not this particular applicant, but whoever the owner was applied to make this a three, a two family or three family, they were refused.
With the exception that it appears in 1942, there was a proviso that said it could be a two family.
They came back in 1963 and it was noted that the home was in violation because by that time there were three doorbells, there were three doorbells, there were separate meters, etc.
And it said this property is subject to prosecution.
So what I'm saying is that this was indeed on record.
The position that we are taking has to do with a couple of things.
One, and there were neighbors at the RCO meeting.
Everyone was not a near neighbor as in terms of on the same street, but they're all neighbors.
And what happens in one area impacts other areas of the community.
And so the position was that this is single family.
At the very least, we would not be in support of changing it from, which is now an owner-occupied with what it was, I'm sorry, let me say what it was approved for, an owner-occupied with one additional unit for rental.
So we're not in favor of it at all, but at the very least, we do not think that it should be all three units.