overlooking the additions on the on the upper two floors have decks that look sideways into
the adjacent property so the property is principally being developed within the rear of seven feet
principally being developed within the rear seven feet um and there was the concern that was the
general concern for that okay um any questions no i just commentary um and i know that this
variance would run with the land uh but my client's parents don't have a car uh so i and i know that
doesn't stop you know future occupants but you know the intention here is to put as light a use
as possible um and you know we talk about aging in place um and you know this is something that
allows them to age in place you know again mr hernandez did state to me that there was a
possibility of him living there but i didn't want to put that in there because it's a possibility
but it's a hundred percent that they're they want to live there but the only way he can afford to
keep this house the way or do this is to have that second unit um didn't he say didn't he say
he may live there he may he may but i wanted to make sure i didn't want to represent that to the
board because okay may is may is different than they they will and i will say this is that given
the history of this property having non rsa5 use should come into the equation of for this property
and having uses that are multi-unit in nature nearby,
having a diversity of housing.
How many issues?
Does his parents live in there now?
I believe they do.
Well, Mr. Ivan, do your parents live there now?
Okay, but you can't afford to keep them in this property
if this was a single family property, right?
Yeah, it wouldn't make too much sense.
And I mean, ideally we would move there,
but we can't because there's no separation so that's why we want to separate the two units so
if I move there with my wife we can have some privacy. All right so any other questions? Yeah
well I have a follow-up question based on the neighbors. It looks like in one of their letters
they wrote about the garage and the driveway being sold away recently and I guess my question
is did that happen before or after your client obtained the property and if after why?
Given that that's like the main comment that we've gotten from all the papers.
So the only way he can sell it separately, if it was subdivided or if it was a separate lot.
So, Ivan, were you a part of that process where a lot was sold, where there was a garage on it?
No, when I bought the house, the house already came without any garage.
Other people in the audience to testify?
Sure. I have a Daniel Ryman with the hand raised. I will come up to him and let him speak.
Hello. Can you hear me?
Yeah, I can. Daniel, just for the record, state your name and spell for the stenographer.
And if you would, please turn to your video on.
Oh, of course. There we go. Is video on?
Okay. I'm Daniel Riemann, D-A-N-I-E-L-R-I-E-M-A-N. I am the owner and resident of the adjoining
property at 4463 Silverwood Street. Okay. Oh, sorry. Do you swear we're firm to tell the truth,
told truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Why don't you please testify? Sure. I'm the owner and
occupant of the adjoining property at 4463 Silverwood Street. Two primary concerns around
parking as well as uh the the variance so um i have a bit of a statement um so um i respectfully
oppose the rezoning of 4461 silverwood street the neighborhood already faces severe parking
shortages and i have documented on-street conditions over the past two months to illustrate the strain
i did share those photographs earlier today you may or may not have that document
these photographs demonstrate frequent instances of vehicles parked illegally and no parking zones
are on sidewalks. And converting this property to multifamily use will add more cars to an area
that cannot accommodate them, exacerbating safety and access concerns. For the three properties that
were referenced as multifamily in the area, the one that's directly across the street is four
units and has four parking spaces with it. The one down the street is, I believe, two units does not
have parking. And then the one on Fleming Street is actually not very close. It's about a six
minute walk and you have to go up roughly 100 stairs to get there so that one's not very much
relevant. I also oppose the variance request to add to the rear of the building without maintaining
a required setback. As the adjacent neighbor I'll be the most affected by any addition above the
existing one-story extension because 4461 Silverwood Street sits southeast of my home
raising the structure will significantly reduce sunlight in my yard and living spaces
And for these reasons, I urge you to deny both of the requests.
Just some other questions to bring up.
Just some other questions to bring up. You see this fence in the current picture that's up here
that wasn't there until probably summer or fall. Until that point, even though the driveway was
sold off, it very much appeared as if this house still had parking. It's unclear when those
signatures were collected since there are no dates on there. And it's unclear if those people were
aware that this parking lot, this driveway is no longer part of this residence. Prior to that,
I wouldn't have concerns. The people who lived here before frequently parked three cars in there,
so obviously that could have supported the multi-family request here. Unfortunately,
that's no longer the case. Another issue with all of the parking in the neighborhood
is that it's going to get worse. The closest intersection to us is Carson Street. There's a
southern part and a northern part. The northern part does not have any parking on it, and there
are currently three new single-family dwellings that are probably three to four bedrooms. Each
has a one-car garage, but presumably there's going to be more than one car for each of those,
and those are going to have to get parked on the street. The St. Mary's development was also brought
up. The parking lots for those structures are not public, and if any of the people who move there
decide to park on the street, that's also going to increase competition for the parking. And then
And also, I believe there are developments there for those townhomes, I believe, are planned, which is going to bring in more to the neighborhood.
The document that I shared shows lots of parking on the sidewalks over there, as well as frequent illegal parking.
I'd say about 50 to 80 percent of the evenings there's someone illegally parked.
This often leads to delivery trucks going on to the curb and running over our fire hydrant.
Most recently, this happened this month, and usually it takes about a week for them to get there and fix it.
But I believe that's most of the things I wanted to say.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Nockamson, do you have any questions of Mr.
No, I do have a comment that if the board feels so inclined to grant the use variance for two units, we would have a proviso to meet the minimum rear yard setback.
I think that could be accommodated.
We're talking about a foot and a half.
All right. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience or the audience here?
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Wood with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location for the existing single-family residential RSA 5.
There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in strict conformity with the zoning code.
while there is previous evidence of commercial use on the ground floor and single family above
there is evidence that since that time the property has been used in conformance with
the single family zoning the planning commission recommends the board deny
the requested variance for multi-family and rear yard setback thank you mi 2025
000321 4461 silverwood street i vote no um michael johnson my vote is yes
Cheryl guessed, and my vote is no.
Tayo Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
We're going to take a quick break, and then we're going to go back to number one.
We're going to go back to number one.
MI-2023-004-267-900 East Shelton Avenue, Moomin Islam.
Do we see his hand?
Okay, great.
it looks like my videos they won't let me show my video i'm moving how are you sir you've already
been sworn just for the record state your name again and please go on to your video
It would not let me go into my video.
It keeps saying it's disabled by the host.
Could we?
There it goes.
Okay, good.
Can you just read the record?
State your name.
Yes, my name is Mukmin Islam.
I know your attorney, Ms. Emerson,
wrote up that the issue was with our zoning poster.
I apologize.
That was a previous one.
We've been here for at least three or four times.
My apology, I'm not in my office and I'm out of the country, so I do not have access to the current one.
My apologies.
I'm not in my office and out of the country,
so I do not have access to the
I will say, if I could be here very briefly, this petition has been before the board several times.
None of the continues was our request.
The community was not ready a couple of times.
We did not have any meetings.
We eventually did have the meeting, and we met with the board, and we had their approval.
I am asking if I can still present because there is a notice that has been produced I can provide later or we can come back in 30 days and have them produce the community if they want to have it and say so in the matter.
But we are fully prepared to present. That is my mistake. I don't have the proof of posting.
Hillary, where do we stand with this?
I mean, typically, unfortunately, Mr. Chair, if we don't have proof of posting, we cannot proceed.
I mean, if it's the board's call, we can hear and hold it, but typically, we do not proceed
unless we have proof of posting.
All right.
So I would only ask, and Ms. Emerson, you can confirm or not.
Like I said, this has been listed.
I have three or four posts.
I have the most recent one when we came back in January.
I just do not have the most recent one that was just at this time.
That's my apologies.
I did not pull the right one in my file.
If we continue this, is there a better date than what I see here?
If possible.
All right, so here's what we're going to do.
I mean, the date's kind of far out.
So what we're going to do is we'll see what we can do.
We're going to get a hold of you.
We're going to continue it, but we're going to try to get you back as quick as possible.
And Mr. Chair, Mr. Richardson from the council office, I believe he had a comment he wanted to make about the RCO meeting process.
in this case. He has his hand raised. Sure. Mr. Richardson?
Mr. Chair, can you hear me? Yeah, I can, Mr. Richardson. Very good.
You won't have been sworn just for the record. State your name and please help us with this
conversation. The unfortunate thing is that we were never notified that there was going to be
a meeting, so it's very questionable whether
or not any mailing was done and things along those lines.
We were actually trying to reassign this case
to another RCO because of the fact that there
were some issues last year. This has been going on, as he did state,
it's been going on for a minute, but then nothing has ever been done in the correct fashion.
So, you know, we're going to leave it up to you to
get a continuance, but then we'll contact the
applicant and make sure that they do everything that they're supposed to do
and that we have a meeting that we're supposed to have.
I have at least three notices that we sent out
and we didn't meet with the RCO. We've had at least four meetings.
Sir, you've never contacted the council office.
I'm talking
we're going to continue this. We will
be in touch when this will be scheduled again.
I'm sorry, but we just can't do anything with it. Mr. Richardson, thank you for taking the time to call us. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So.
Alan, I think, is this your last one?
I'm glad about that.
uh what do you mean i thought we were doing three and then we were coming back and doing
the other three so didn't we only do the first two no we no he did first two
he's he's had quite a few cases yes as usual okay all right um um so mi 2025 000 384
50 52 50 52 to 56 city at city lineup um mr notton said could you identify your client
the relationship with the property uh yes uh my client is leonard uh pavisky uh he is the
equitable owner of the property by way of an agreement of sale okay so i i just for a point
i i noticed that there's a letter of opposition from winfield community neighbors association
what was 34 in opposition to and support there's a letter from council member Jones in opposition
a letter from council member Gil Gilmore Richardson um and we also have the applicant
has provided a petition in support with 10 signatures three from the block our vice
chair has a few questions thank you good afternoon council do you agree the way to
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to exact?
reason of the refusal, we'll stipulate
to his act.
I do in the sense of, I believe, yes, I do. I think there's a newer refusal that we just got
like a day or two ago. So I have no objection to the newer one.
No, I, I, the only thing I would say is that these are, this is an existing lot
or a parking lot. So I object in the sense of we're not making any changes, but to the lot
itself but okay have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed