twin structure on the left side of this photograph. This next photograph again just shows the general
relationship of this property to the park across the street. The next two photographs show the
adjoining structures to the northwest as well as to the southeast. And really, again, you can see
this is a really beautiful, quite uniform block. This block has had historic protection by way of
a historic district since 2009. And I did include evidence of that historic district in the exhibit
packet at Exhibit 13. Now, to give you a better view of the property itself, I've also included
Now to give you a better view of the property itself, I've also included photographs of the
photographs of the
side 12-foot alley that leads to the rear of this structure. You can also see this is where trash is
stored for this property away from public view. Additional views of the alley are provided in
this next photograph where you can also see the six electric meters with labels on them
that are on the side of this building.
Moving along, photos here are shown from the rear of the structure,
and this is the entrance to the rear first floor unit.
This also, of course, shows the rear yard for the structure.
And again, just another image of the rear and the alley looking towards the back.
We did also include photographs of the timely posting,
which was made on September 18th, 2024.
Before I turn to interior photographs and floor plans, what I'd like to do first is
just walk you through the somewhat bizarre history of this property. At Exhibit 11,
which I have up on the screen, I've included some marked up snapshots of relevant history
of this property. In June of 1942, over here on the right, you can see that the property
was granted a variance for use as a three-family dwelling. In 1952, in the middle, it was then
requested to be increased to a six-family dwelling, which was seemingly from the history denied
solely because the applicant back in the 1950s did not present the board with a floor plan.
Seeking to avoid the 1950s version of the one-year rule, records show that the owner followed staff
advice to reapply for a five-unit building, which was approved despite the fact that six units
seemingly already existed in the property by that time, which is how it has remained ever since.
And again, you can see that 1965 approval here on the left-hand side. As you will see in the
photographs that I'll show momentarily, these units are all historically sensitive, with only
small cosmetic updates having been made over the years. There is no evidence from a structural
sense or a layout sense to indicate that this sixth unit was added any time after 1952
when that request for legalization was first made.
Now, originally, this applicant was seeking to add two extra units to bring the total to eight.
However, after extensive discussion with the community, as you can see from the fact that this is probably one of your last remaining applications with a 2022 in it, that request was abandoned, and the applicant is now only seeking to reconfirm the longstanding existence of that sixth unit.
We did secure an amended refusal, which is shown at Exhibit 1. So, if the board is inclined to grant the request today, which we certainly hope, it would be based on an amended refusal issued June 6, 2024.
So, with some of this history in mind, let me walk you through the floor plans, which you can see here up on the screen.
In looking at the floor plans, you can quickly gather that the property has likely had six units since its last major renovation in the 1950s.
There are two units per floor.
The front units, which you can see here, are all 665 square feet, and the rear units are all 785 square feet.
There is a central staircase in the middle that provides a natural separation from the front and the rear units.
Each of these units is a one-bedroom, one-bathroom unit that have ample windows.
And the first floor units, as you'll see in the photographs, even have some historic fireplaces that are really neat looking.
The first floor unit, the rear first floor unit, has a private entrance from the rear, which I did show you in the earlier photographs.
And that is access from the large 12-foot wide alley that is on the left-hand side of the property if you're looking at it from Parkside Avenue.
We've included some interior photographs at Exhibit 9.
And again, you can see one of the many fireplaces that still remain in these units.
So I'll scroll through to give you a sense of what the units look like.
These first couple of photographs here are of a first floor unit.
And again, this is just looking towards the front and then flipping the view towards the back.
And one of the things that you'll notice here is that the floors are the original condition, but obviously have been restored.
And you can see these units are really quite large and nicely laid out and are also occupied.
quite large and nicely laid out, and are also occupied.
And again, this is another one of the first floor units,
and you can see again that entrance from the rear for this particular unit.
Next, there's some images of some of the second floor units,
and again, you'll see some of those historic characters that trim around the windows
and the long-standing existing floors that have remained here.
And again, you can see these are really nicely laid out units that have, you know, longstanding tenants that live in them.
And again, this is now moving on to the third floor.
And again, you'll notice here that these units really benefit from a lot of natural light and are quite large and nicely laid out living spaces.
And again, another one of the third floor units and the kitchen and living areas.
Because the property is zoned RSA 3, the application to legalize the six units was denied.
However, as this board has seen and will see throughout the rest of the presentation, these six dwelling units have continued to exist since the 1950s.
The hardship here is apparent on several grounds.
First, the evidence presented to the board has shown that these six units have been in continuous occupied existence for over 70 years.
Seemingly, it was a pure error or discrepancy that has followed this property ever since the 1960s.
Second, the evidence and the pure logic from the layout here shows that it would be an extreme hardship to convert this property to a five-unit dwelling, which is the last approved use from the 1960s.
The board has heard and seen that the physical characteristics of the interior of this property would render it extremely challenging to combine two units to create one, given the central staircase that acts as a natural separation between all of the upper level units.
And you can see that on the floor plans here, that the staircase really separates the front and the back units.
In addition, you can also see that there is a structural wall down the middle that would jeopardize the historical integrity of the structure to remove it.
And of course, that would be quite, quite expensive.
Furthermore, even if you could get past some of these challenges and combine two units, you would be left with a unit of nearly 1,500 square feet that would be entirely out of character with nearly every dwelling surrounding this property.
Putting aside the history of the property and the unique physical constraints, the applicant submits this board may also grant a variance on the basis that this property is located in an area with unique characteristics that make multifamily use of this structure with six units entirely appropriate.
If I flip back again here to Exhibit 6, which is the zoning map, I marked off to show the board the use of all surrounding properties in the RSA 5 zoning area.
I did not continue the markups much into the RM1 area since multifamily is permitted there.
As you can very clearly see here, and this is pulled directly from city records at Atlas, nearly every single property along this stretch of Parkside Avenue is not only used as a multifamily dwelling, but the vast majority have six units.
This makes perfect sense, given that these structures are nearly identical, physically speaking,
and were likely converted around the same time period in the 1950s. And again, this really
represents the historic character of these original conversions of these structures.
In the absence of the property history, this particular property would still be uniquely
situated to accommodate multifamily use with six dwelling units, given the physical layout and the
consistency of surrounding multifamily uses. The applicant submits that the variance requested is
the least minimum, given its use as a six dwelling unit for over half a century. It is the least
minimum variance here to legalize the current six residential apartment units versus the physical
and monetary hardships that would result from converting it back to a five-family use,
particularly in light of the consistent use of all the surrounding structures
and the very long history of the current condition. The applicant further submits that the request
will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or harm the neighbors. The applicant
application merely seeks to maintain the status quo and remediate a decades-long permit problem
and remediate a decades-long permit problem that poses more risk to safety than does granting the
that poses more risk to
instant application, as the city only has on record right now that there are five units,
even though there are six. Ensuring that the city has complete records for every unit is critically
important. The property sits on the dominant Parkside Avenue corridor, which has ample access
to significant public transportation. Before I conclude, just a brief note on some relevant case
law. Case law that I have referenced in the Memorandum of Law at Exhibit 14 confirms it
would be unreasonable and by no means the least minimum variance to ask a property owner under
these circumstances and based on this evidence to convert a structure back to its last documented
use after a long history of six-unit multifamily use. It also goes without saying that this is not
a self-imposed hardship as my client purchased the property in this condition and is undertaking
the process to ensure it has all necessary permits in place. Based on this significant
evidence before the board today, the applicant submits it has met each element entitling it
to variance relief provided at Section 143038E of the code, and as I mentioned, full analysis
is in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 14.
At this point, if the administrator could look for Eugene Nadevich to adopt my testimony.
Eugene Nadevich has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Eugene Nidovich, E-U-G-E-N-E, last name N as in Nancy, A-Y-D-O-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Eugene, when you purchased this property, were there five or six units in the building at the time?
Yes. And just in terms of property management, do you manage this property?
I do. Have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board
today? I did. And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as
if it were your own? I would. Thank you. We would ask the board to enter our exhibits into evidence
and we're very happy to take any questions that you have. Thank you. Questions from the board?
yes when did you purchase this property
purchased it in 2015 2015 and you've gotten rental licenses since then for six units when it's no
board member gaston rental licenses have only been issued for five units and that's why this
is important to remediate so that the rental license can reflect the actual number of units
that's in the building okay and i guess maybe i missed in the history you uh back in the day
there was an application for the six units and that was denied because there wasn't a floor plan
even though that isn't a zoning issue okay but then there was an application then for five units
and that was approved and that was approved and it's been that way since even though there are
six units there that's exactly correct okay from what from what the history it looks like in the
history that in 1952 uh whoever the gentleman was that owned it at the time sought to uh convert it
to six units and best we can tell from you know the limited history l and i has he probably went
and converted it and then sought to legalize it and and this is ultimately the history that came
up you can see it was the same applicant andrew bowen okay and then he never tried to just get
one more proofed in all this time there's there's no history to show that he took any other steps
after 1965. all right okay other questions thank you yeah i i do i just uh uh it is a very unique uh
structure in a unique location. I don't know that I agree
necessarily that it would be difficult to convert that first
floor back into a single unit. I'm not
confident that that really is a structural wall
that separates the front unit and the back unit. It's actually pretty
horrible to have to walk to the back of the building to get to your unit.
I don't see that necessarily as a difficulty
to achieve with just punching a three-foot opening
into that wall there and creating a larger unit,
uh creating a larger unit very nice large unit as a matter of fact uh that being said i i do
very nice large unit, as a matter of fact.
That being said,
agree that the majority of those large historic buildings have been converted to smaller one and
two bedroom units so it is fairly uh consistent and and board member johns um i eugene will
correct me if i'm wrong but i actually think that that rear unit has one of the longest term
tenants in the entire building eugene is that right uh yes i believe she lived there for
definitely before covid well okay okay the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um only to note that there is an amended refusal mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time too planning commission thank you chairman and board
members david effecto with the city planning commission uh chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa3 single family residential zoning at this
location. The single-family zoning dates to 2014. However, the zoning archive shows that this is a
long-standing multifamily building with six dwelling units. The City Planning Commission
recommends the board grant a proposed use variance for a sixth dwelling unit.
MI 2022-005-219-4212 Parks Avenue. I vote yes with proviso per amended refusal dated 6-6-24.
michael johns my vote is yes with um proviso
cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso
sonata graham my vote is yes with proviso
hiya win my vote is yes with proviso
ishmael shahi my vote is yes with proviso
thank you thank you see you momentarily
number two mi 2023 002787 90 red lion road
Sean Ward is the attorney. This is a reconsideration hearing.
Sean Ward is coming in as a penalist.
Mr. Ward
Mr. Ward
It took a little bit longer
to get logged in
but I am here with
my clients are in my office
with me
Why don't we start off with you stating
your name and spelling it for the court stenographer, even though everybody knows your name.
Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N, last name Ward, W-A-R-D, Attorney for Applicants, Owners.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
So the evidence and testimony from the February 22nd, 23 hearing in this matter is incorporated
into the record for today's hearing.
The scope of this hearing is limited to presenting information that was not presented at the original hearing.
So why don't you start and just give us additional information that we need.
Let me.
Trying to find my packet here.
bear with me this is unusual
coming up
no that's
no that's not the one i want to share sorry hang on a second let me let me close that
okay try this again mr chair
how's that that's uh you're up that looks
that looks more like normal right okay it does thank you
More like normal, right? Okay.
It does.