unfortunate situation i just have to defend myself a little bit when everybody says
christopher spade did this christopher spade did this i personally take responsibility
but i personally didn't do that directly mr spade did you see the photographs that uh mr
spritzer uh yes provided us is that the condition of the property now with with the wood with the
wood with the uh brick wall or that sitting on the cinder that existing that existing brick wall
is 150 years old what i would be doing is fixing it i'm asking you that's a condition now how far
along in the project is this i the the roof is built and the wall is not finished the exterior
is not what about the interiors not not complete yet no it's it's studs studs flooring uh basic uh
basic plywood all right all right thank you anyone else
oh chair you can continue okay planning commission thank you tanya planning commission
good evening david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan. This proposal
would result in the complete loss of open space on the lot, which is contrary to the city's health
and public safety standards. Accordingly, we oppose granting this variance. Okay, thank you.
MI 2020-002482-1916 Delancey, please. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Thank you. Thank you. MI 2020-002497, 2202 North Marshall Street.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Richard DeMarco has been promoted to panelist.
Good afternoon, or good evening, Mr. DeMarco. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
There is the board, Richard DeMarco, here for the applicant in this matter.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, and I can wave and stip.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos of the property and or plans within five days of this hearing?
We did email a packet.
It was not five days in advance.
I appreciate your indulgence on that with the holidays and COVID and my office being closed.
It was done on Monday.
But we also have testimony as to our tax clearance situation.
The applicant's been working on that.
He believes he has paid everything.
We have some proof of that.
So we are going to ask you to vote the case, but we don't have the actual certificate.
Have you met with the RCO?
Yes, we have unanimous support from the RCO.
You'll be happy to know.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll share my screen.
I believe I've corrected an issue
where I was unable to rotate things, but let me.
Tanya, I'm sorry, I meant to say, Sharon, do you have exhibits?
Tanya, I'm sorry, I meant to say,
Sharon, do you have exhibits?
I do, yes.
Okay, thank you.
And I'm sorry, can I just ask a quick question and make sure I'm clear?
Did Mr. DeMarco say he does not have a tax?
We don't have.
Yes, Tanya.
No documentation regarding your tax?
We have documentation.
We don't have the actual tax clearance certificate.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
I'm checking that now.
Perfect. Thank you, Sharon. Sharon, it's not in the packet, but let me address it right now,
and hopefully you'll be able to- No, I'm actually checking with the Department of Revenue to see if
there's a tax balance. Oh, that's good. Well, here's what my client found out when he worked
on this the last few days. He does have a zero balance, and he will testify to that,
but the payment was somewhat recent so we are unable to actually get they do not update the
computers and he's unable to actually produce the actual certificate but we've got copies of the
canceled checks and i do have an email from grb who is the enforcement uh law firm for the city
and they confirmed that they did get the checks but we don't have the actual clearance certificate
And if worse comes to worse luck, if you feel more comfortable, go ahead.
You actually don't need the certificate.
If you can send any information, the canceled checks, that's fine.
I have that.
Let me put it up on my screen now.
I'll show you the canceled checks.
Can you see my screen okay?
Yeah, we got it.
Thank you.
So that's the one check.
And then there's a $4,000 check here.
And my client will put on – my client, by the way,
is Irvin Daughty, and he can verify all this when I present him to verify all the, and I do have,
I actually have an email from GRB. Let's see if this works. Can you see the email from Jane
Schlechter at GLB? On my screen? Actually, Mr. DeMarco, I just pulled this up and you have a
zero tax balance, so you're fine. I'm glad to hear that. That makes things much easier. Thank you,
Sharon. Also, Mr. Chairman, I do want to put on the record right away, there was a small
revision to the site plan after the application was filed. There is an amended plan form that
was not in the packet. I did submit it to Sharon today, or actually the architect, I think, sent
directly. The only one I could find was an older revised proviso form. We just changed the size of
the court within the building. This is a multifamily dwelling proposal. And there's a slight change to
the footprint and a rear stair. Let me show you the site plan. How many pages? One page.
One page.
Yes, it is one page.
Anthony Sarantanoptis is our architect who can verify that.
But I believe what I have up is, I know, I don't believe.
That is the revised plan that you see on your screen right now.
So if you can summarize, go through it.
I can be very brief.
And I'll summarize my client's testimony and he can just adopt it so you understand.
We have full support from the RCO on this matter, Mr. Chairman.
Let me go to my – of course, now I can't get to the – the application is blocking my – all right.
Let me give you a testimony.
I'll get to – I don't know why it does that.
That is weird.
The app is – I'm going to stop.
The app thing is blocking the – I can't click.
Oh, here we go.
I know what to do.
All right.
So this is a vacant lot. It's surrounded by vacant lots. It's a very unusual development situation. Our refusal is for not having commercial space on the first floor. This is the refusal.
my client would testify that he actually has another property nearby that he is required to
have commercial use he cannot get a tenant the the lot is off of the beaten path and is a very
difficult location to attract a commercial tenant the other variance is we are asking for an
additional unit this is a cmx2 property in order to develop the property feasibly he's asking for
an additional unit. And that's the extent of the variance relief. My client actually met with some
of the near neighbors. He spoke to the woman across the street who runs the children's mission.
He agreed to partner with her. They're concerned about some of the vacant lots in the area.
He's going to shed, put some light on those lots. And he really can
He's going to shed, put some light on those lots, and he really cannot develop this vacant lot
And...
without some of this variance relief that we're asking for.
So he would testify that he really cannot develop this feasibly without variances.
The other issue, Mr. Chairman, that he will verify momentarily is, this is the old site plan, by the way,
I'm scrolling through, not the new one.
The other thing he will verify is that if he were to build to code, he would have abnormally large units for this neighborhood, which would be unrentable, unsellable, or would be at a price point that would be too high.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Tanya to enable Irvin Daughty to be part of the discussion, and Anthony Sorontanakis.
But one other thing, Mr. Chairman, there is a trash storage room accessible to all tenants
through the common area. And there is one basement bedroom. It's a split level unit.
I'll show it to you in a moment. It's here. You can see here and here are the by level. This is
the first and basement. This is a walkout second means of egress. So there is a bedroom or two
in the basement. But you see here, this is a walkout into the rear yard. And that would be
most of it. I'll ask Mr. Daugherty to be authorized and to accept my testimony.
We did meet with the RCO. I'll scroll to that. Full support. We actually had a unanimous vote,
which, as the board knows, is not too common. Oh, this is the site, Mr. Chairman.
And these are the lots.
Only one of, you can see here, is the width of the lot.
And all of the other, these are all vacant lots here.
So it's a lot of vacant lots in this area.
I'll show you the RCO letter.
Is Irvin Dottie with us?
Irvin, can you hear me?
Mr. Dottie, if you're here, please raise your hands.
Can they be allowed to speak?
Irvin, raise your hand.
and uh anthony sarantanakis as well anthony is the architect yes we don't we don't need anthony
yet i don't think okay fine that's fine unless the board needs him but always no no
ervin you with us
mr demarco as an officer will stipulate that your client would have done very well
thank you he may have he might have had to go because of the all right i'm here oh there you
go please identify yourself sir spell your name for the record my name is ervin e-r-v-i-n last
name is Dowdy, D-A-U-T-I. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? I do. Mr. DeMarco? Irvin, did you hear all of my factual statements and testimony before the
board today? I did. Do you adopt it as your own and as true and accurate testimony? It is. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, you've had a long day, so I'll wrap it up there. Thank you. I could have Mr.
dottie explain why i don't think it's needed uh questions from the board no no no planning commission
uh good afternoon uh or good evening uh mr chairman members of the board david effecto city
planning commission this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the city's comprehensive
plan we're going to go with the rco's position and not oppose this proposal thank you very
you very much. MI 2020-002497. 2202 North Marshall Street. My vote is yes. Revised plans.
I'm sorry, with revised plan, one page approved today. Thank you. Yes, with proviso. Yes, with proviso.
Thank you. MI 2020-00. I'm sorry, I have a continuance request for the 330 list. Should
hang around or can that be granted? Tonya, we can do that now? No. No, we gotta hang around.
We have more time. That's all right. Okay, that's all right. Frank, you're muted.
Sorry about that. MI 2020-003296, 332 West Wildey Street.
Chair, if you remember, this is a hearing on reconsideration. You initially denied this
um this application you then granted reconsideration and rehearing so that's what you're doing today
application. You then granted reconsideration.
thank you
chair mr whalen has had his hand up he has just now been promoted to panelist
whalen please identify yourself with the records by your name
yes good evening uh chair members sean whalen vintage law here on behalf of the owner and
applicant for 332 West Wildey Street. Can you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth? I do. I don't need to read off the other stuff. This is a reconsideration
correct? Yes it is. Okay so please proceed. And I know you guys are used to me bringing long
confused cases in front of you but I think I can do this in three minutes for you to get
get you guys out of here. This is a relatively straightforward case. I'm going to share my screen
just to give a quick reminder. I'll only show like two slides. So this is hopefully you're seeing
an atlas aerial view. The darkened area right here is right at the intersection of West Wildey
and North Oriana Street in Northern Liberties. The blackened area is three small
properties that we are proposing to consolidate into two larger properties to build two single
family homes. We had, you've already heard all of the arguments and all of the refusals and the
reasons for the granting of a variance. So I won't go into that unless you ask for it. So I will just
jump to the basis for today's reconsideration, which I appreciate the board granting.
So at the last hearing you heard, we had an approval from NLNA and from Mr. Matt Rubin,
who not only is he part of the RCO, but he lives right across the street. So we reached out to him
as well as other neighbors. And we had agreement, we lowered the height by two feet,
two and three quarters feet. We reduced the curb cuts, we made the deck railing 75% opaque.
And most importantly, Mr. Rubin wanted the roof deck and the RCO wanted the roof deck set back eight feet from the street frontage.
We presented revised proviso plans at the hearing that had been confirmed and approved by Larry Friedman at the RCO.
And when Mr. Rubin saw them at the hearing, he felt that they did not meet the eight foot setback agreement that we had met.
Unfortunately, this is solely a matter of doing things via Zoom as opposed to doing things via in-person. In-person, we could have dealt with this probably within a five-minute sidebar and not delayed anything, but unfortunately, we had to move forward and press the board for a decision because, as you know, there was the end of the year tax abatement deadline pending.
What we've done now, and what I just showed very briefly, is we've submitted very, very slightly revised plans that the RCO and Mr. Rubin both confirm do meet the eight-foot setback agreement.
Essentially, all we had to do was we flipped the stairs going up to the roof deck so that we had people walking up the stairs within the eight feet and then circling back to the setback roof deck.
and now the stairs go directly to the eight foot setback roof deck and therefore nobody is within
eight feet at any point in time. So I believe that's all I have for you today. I'm happy to
answer any questions and Mr. I understand that Mr. Matt Rubin and Larry Friedman on behalf of
the RCO are both here to simply confirm that we're all in agreement and this was just a miscommunication.
I can't hear you, Chairman.
Okay, he's going to probably go out and come back in.
We can pause for a minute.
No problem, Ms. Sunket.
If we want to speed up the process, like I said, I believe Mr. Friedman and Mr. Rubin are both there.
And I did forget to mention one item.