Chair, excuse me, Chair.
We have Alice Udovich with her hand up.
She has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, Alice.
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board.
Just for the record, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Alice, A-L-I-C-E, Udovich, U-D-O-V-I-C-H, on behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Sure. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed.
Chairman and members of the board, the councilman has no objection to the granting of this variance as long as this property remains as a two family dwelling and that a garage space not be converted to a third unit.
Alice, thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
Thank you.
So, Miss Siegel, we're going to hold the vote on this and we'll get back to her.
we'll get back to you when we're ready to move, okay?
Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, before we move on, I just need to
correct the record on number 12
MI-2025-002-666-9313
Old Busselton Avenue. That case was actually
rescheduled to, sorry, one second,
was rescheduled to november 18th at 9 30 a.m so i'm sorry we had that was that was a miscommunication
on our part that had been already rescheduled as i said is that okay yeah so so not it's not
going to be scheduled for february it's november 18th all right good at 9 30 thank you and sorry
one board one more administrative item can we please let miss siegel note the date of the vote
um i well i don't we don't know yet because um i we have to get an amended refusal from l and i
get an amended refusal from l and i oh my mistake thank you yeah no problem we'll get it we'll get
oh my mistake thank you yeah no problem
her back as soon as possible so so mr knockamson not i don't want you to come up yet but we're
waiting for a leonard all right so as soon as leonard gets here we'll hear your three cases in a row
sure uh let's see here
all right um number nine and ten we're going to hear together number nine is mi 2025 002 585
and number 10 is mi 2025 002 592 6103 cal hill street to make it mccoy is the attorney for both
There's a recommendation of support from HMC Squared RCO.
The vote was seven in support.
Five abstained for both.
Chair Tameka McCoy is coming back and is a panelist now.
Good afternoon.
Hi, counsel. You've already been this form, but just for the record, could you please state your name?
We're going to hear both of these at the same time.
Sure. Tameka McCoy, T-A-M-I-K-A. Last name is M-C, capital K-O-Y.
Counsel, could you please identify your client and the relationship to these two properties?
Sure. My client is Ms. Eloise Jones of Booker Investment Group, LLC.
see. Ms. Jones actually is not attending today. She just had the passing of her grandson and she's
mourning that. I did share my screen. Yeah. So Tanetta Graham has a few questions before you
start. Okay. Yes. Good afternoon. Have you submitted documents for both cases
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And do you stipulate to the reading of the refusals
for both cases?
And I mean, the reading and their accuracy.
Okay, thank you.
Let me begin your presentation.
So I'm showing now the refusal
and it basically shows that a hearing
addressing the multi-unit was had
on January 17th of 2024, it was approved each of the units for six dwelling units within
The matter before the board today is essentially to address an addition that would be required
on the third floor of each unit for the previously approved six dwelling units.
I'm going to go to the pictures so that it will make a little bit more sense.
So these are the two adjoining properties that we are addressing on Callan Hill Street, 6101 and 6103.
Ellen and I specifically requested that we present to the board the approval of this portion of the third floor.
they specifically wanted a approval separate from the one that had already been presented to show
that the board was in agreement with allowing for this third floor to be built out completely rather
than have it be a partial third floor as the existing structure is these plans were the
original plans that had been submitted when it was previously presented in 2004, it's just to
address that one particular area for you to address today for both buildings. I'm going to go to 120.
to make it to make was that 2004 you said 2024 okay oh okay yeah i think it
everybody was thought it was 2004 we thought wow
no so as it currently exists it's a partial third floor and the plans require for the third floor to
be one full length. But as I said, the request from LNI was to just have the addition to that
third floor approved.
Do you have plans for that today?
Why don't you show the plans?
This is for 6101.
These are the proposed elevations.
Can you enlarge your screen and maybe reduce the sidebar?
the sidebar helps me kind of move through
can you go back to the
you're saying the units were approved
yes but what l and i
saying the addition wasn't approved
Yes, they specifically wanted the board to address the addition.
So the addition is the third floor addition?
Yes, that's correct.
This rear part.
Right, and so go back to the third floor plan.
It's like the third floor and the second floor has an addition too.
Correct.
Right, so can you go back to the plan again?
it's just kind of hard to tell on the plan what's the addition
right it's not kind of designated i guess the lighter gray is the addition on the third floor
that is correct the lighter gray is the addition on the on the second floor okay correct all right
we're gonna just zoom in once more so that that makes it easier for you soon okay
so there are two there are two units on the third floor and one is an efficiency in the back and the
other is an efficiency in the front right okay all right and then the same thing on the second
floor is two efficiencies all right okay and what was approved where were the where the four units
is a total of four units in the building it's a total of six units in the building that was what
was previously approved um ellen i just wanted a specific approval for for the addition okay
okay and i guess that makes sense because they don't work unless you have the addition
you can't get six units in there right all right thank you um can we walk through i know this is
before I was on the zoning board can we walk through the history of this property trying to
so there's six units in 6101 and in 6103 that is correct okay and but 60 they both had a former
commercial space on the first floor correct the owner actually grew up in the building so it used
to be a bar and it had residential living at the top and the owner had lived there pretty much all
of her life and so the prior presentation was for the actual multi-unit living and when L&I
reviewed it they just wanted for the board to specifically go over whether there would be an
approval for the addition in the back to allow for the units
to be erected. That part I understand. I'm just trying to understand
how we got to 12 units and two row houses on the corner
in a neighborhood. So how many
units were in the building when there was a
commercial space on the first floor of both? So this
is the existing and I believe
I could just have a moment.
I'm looking for the
previous plan. I'm not sure that it's depicted what the existing was it has just the proposed
was it has just the proposed
you don't know the property zoning
was it already a multi-family with a commercial space?
do you know how many units there were before the commercial space was converted?
let me see if I can go back
And then can you know I just have a sense of me that it was reducing from seven to six units in each building.
This was back when it was originally presented.
Were they units or was it a rooming house?
Because I see there's a change of use that was filed.
Because it was a tavern before.
It was a bar tavern before.
And do you know, when was the last day that the tavern was in operation?
Oh, it was quite some time because it had been dilapidated for many years.
I want to say more than 20 years.
More than 20? Okay.
And then walk us through, because you, I mean, you've already had an approval to move forward.
Walk us through the decision-making around the addition.
So in order for the plan as it was presented to be effectuated, that third floor has to be extended.
So I understand that as you presented it to us, but walk us through your client's plan, like what led to them making the decision to do the extension.
So essentially, the intention was to have for additional living quarters to be available in this particular community at the 6100 block of Callahan.
and their plan essentially was to essentially make a dilapidated property habitable and so
that's what the intention was for why they presented what they presented. I understand that
but this could have been habitable as a single family home so I'm trying to understand
how we got to six units with an extension in the structure.
okay but what just what but i guess what i'm trying to understand right is that
this the six units have already been approved so we're not really is am i right correct six
units were approved but they now need the extension so i'm trying to understand
the plan around the extension like what drove the decision for this extension oh there's no way
i can tell you there's no way you can get i don't mike i'm asking i'm asking i know what you can see
at the time this plan was originally presented for the units it contemplated for the third
floor to have the addition l and i wanted it to be specifically addressed so there was no way that
the six units could have been accommodated without having the extension on the third floor and the
plan that you see now was the plan that originally was contemplated when six units were presented
you say contemplated you mean that this plan had been presented to the zba yes prior yes so i can
actually um ms mccoy if you don't mind i can i can jump in and explain a little bit here so
So when the six-unit proposal came before the board for both of these properties, it was presented to L&I as a change of use.
The addition was planned at that time.
Unfortunately, it wasn't included in the application, so all the board could consider was the six dwelling units.
And now that you are expanding a use that was granted by variance, you need to extend the variance essentially into the new portion of the building that you're proposing.
So the addition was previously proposed, but it could not be considered by the board because it was only a change of use application.
So now it is under consideration by the board.
Okay, other questions?
Can I ask a controversial question?
If you are not granted the extension, what is your client's plan with these properties?
um it would essentially create a detrimental hardship to her and the property will probably
It would essentially create a detrimental hardship to her.
remain dilapidated I you know I don't know that she would be able to continue without
um the units you know as they were so as as the argument is that the hardship is that without
putting 12 units in these properties that they're not financially viable
well in terms of the cost in in in doing the project yes okay so tamika let me ask you this
why don't you explain what happened when you went to the rco sure the rco voted what seven
nothing for it in favor yes how do you talk about that so a part of the um
development of the community was to have people who are vested in the area actually improve the
properties that are there. That's why the overwhelming support with the RCO, as it was
documented in the letter that they had submitted, is also there. There are multiple other buildings
on that block that have a similar extension.
And so it will essentially reflect the
design of
pretty much what's already there. So it will be a continuation of what's
developing on this particular block.
Other questions? Questions or comments
from our attorney, Hillary Emerson? Not at this time,
Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I've seen
no hands, Chair. Planning
Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
This testimony is for
6101 and 6103
Callow Hill Street.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
in zoning to the current RSA
5 residential single