Thank you.
And Mr. Thomas, if you're in the audience, can you press the star six to raise your hand?
uh good morning can you hear me perfect tom yeah i'm okay thank you perfect
And Chair, we can begin as you wish.
We're ready to go. Thank you.
Are we recording, Lakeisha?
Yes, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
President, Mr. Chairman, and Emily Persico, our alternate board member from Development
Services.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised that proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify
themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit.
Let's look at the schedule for today.
Do we have any requests for containments?
Good morning, Chair, this is Nadia.
We have two hands.
Is Mr. Orphanides here?
Yes, that is correct.
We have Leonard Ruder and Orphanides.
Okay, thank you.
Bring them both in.
They have been allowed to talk.
Good morning, Mr. Orphanides.
Can you hear me?
I can, Mr. Orphanides.
Could you state your name, please, and spell the court's an article?
Certainly.
David Orphanides, O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Is Mr. Reuter on?
Can you hear me? Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Sure. Leonard F. Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R, Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Orphanides. Yes. Mr. Chairman, this case involves an appeal of two violations that
were issued against my client's property at 1711 to 17 Brittenhouse Square. Mr. Reuter and I
have been in communications over the last week or two to see about addressing and resolving the
underlying violations. And I don't know if Mr. Reuter has, I know he's been working hard at it,
working around the schedules of people at LNI as far as their availability with the summer and all,
but I don't know if he has an update regarding the status of those violations as of this morning.
I know as of yesterday, last evening, he did not get out of the office.
Mr. Reuter.
Yeah, I mean, it's it's really the discussions that I had with Mr. Orphanides and also Leslie Gerstein, who represents a neighbor who's not a party, but has been involved in the case.
Yeah, I mean, it's really...
we're trying to reach a resolution of the underlying violations but it's just one of
these things you know we had just a few days notice last week of you know how we were going
to try to approach this and it's the middle of august pretty much everybody is either on vacation
or at least was out on monday so i'm going to keep trying but i think we previously had reached out
to board's council about most likely continuing today.
And I'm pretty certain we will have a resolution.
So, okay, good.
So MI 2022 004 555 1711 to 17 Rittenhouse Square
cases continued.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuance?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
I'd be excused.
Thank you, please.
Any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands.
So case number one, MI 2021, 004 -660, 1233 East Luzerne Street.
This case has been withdrawn.
And we're going to start today with case number four.
MI -2022 -003 -308 -5774 North 20th Street.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
Letter of non -opposition from the Oak Lane Worcester RCO.
Councilwoman Bass has taken a position of non -opposition.
Sean Whalen has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Whalen.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman. How are you this morning? Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court somnographer?
Of course. Sean Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is the owner, North, spelled out, 20th LLC.
All right, and our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Council. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
I hope that you see in front of you now a Google aerial view just to give you an outline.
This is a corner lot right here where you see the red dot, 5774 North 20th Street, right off of Kimball.
We have a very simple request today for you.
This is just an aerial that you can see, kind of the layout, fully built out neighborhood.
hood. And again, this kind of gives you a better view of this is North 20th and this is Collin.
This is an existing duplex that has been in its current state for as long as anyone can recollect.
And we are seeking to legalize the duplex. My client bought the property at a time when the
property was RM1 and thought and understood from the purchase that he had all necessary approvals
for the duplex. The duplex was by right back then, so no one really, you know, considered it too
closely. It was later remapped to RSA 5. And so my client, upon learning that, has held off renting
the first floor unit and is seeking to legalize this duplex to make sure that he can get all
rental licenses and everything in place. And interestingly, even actually had a duplex rental
license in place through earlier this year to let you know that the city even thought this was
illegal. So we have a letter of non -opposition from the RCO. The RCO meeting was actually held
and chaired by Mr. Charles Richardson from Councilwoman Bass's office, and Councilwoman
also took a position of non -opposition to granting the variance. Essentially, the determination
was since this has been in place as is for again as long as anyone can remember without any real
without any real issues there are a number of other multi -family units in the neighborhood
issues there are a number of other multi -family units in the neighborhood
and this is only a duplex not see we are not seeking additional units or anything like that
that it would be granted so we did receive we filed the application received one refusal
simply that since this is an rsa 5 district uh two family dwellings are not allowed again you
can see the whole area has been remapped. Basically, everything that you can see used
to be RM1, and I think in 2016 -17 was entirely remapped to RSA 5.
Here's the unit right here, or the building, I should say. Here's the large corner unit.
There is an entryway. This is the second floor of the property, and the third floor,
There is a four -bedroom existing unit on the second and third floors.
And then as you come around the corner, you can see there is actually a separate unit here.
It has its own entrance and its separate second exit.
There is no basement.
There is no basement living space.
This is entirely on the first floor.
there's just a change in grade from the street frontage to the side street. And so there is an
existing two -bedroom unit on this first floor. Like I said, we did actually even have from the
city an issued two -unit rental license that my client was operating under. Again, at the time,
thought that he had everything in place that needed to be in place. And then what you can see
here is again there's a full rear driveway access this bottom unit is all on the first floor one
floor unit has access to the rear space and one again there is no basement or basement access in
this or basement living space i should say in this property the second level you walk up those stairs
off of south of north 20th street and there's a two bedroom a four bedroom unit that's already
in existence on the fourth floor.
Here are just some current pictures of the vacant unit
showing you kind of the high status
that the client keeps and operates the property.
So that's it.
The relatively simple application before you this morning
that everyone was in port of.
Mr. Whalen, do you want to bring your client on?
Yes, of course.
David Hess, H -E -S -S, should have his hand raised.
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Hess.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
David Hess.
I spell your name, please.
David, D -A -V -I -D -H -E -S -S.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Hess, you're here on behalf of North 20th Street, LLC, the owner of the property, correct?
And did you hear all of the testimony that's already been provided in this case?
And do you believe that my testimony was true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
and would you adopt that testimony as your own yes thank you questions from the board
no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning david effecto
So F -E -C -T -E -A -U with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Chair and board members, in 2019, the zoning map was amended from residential multifamily to residential single family at this location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
This property received a rental license for two dwelling units in 2016.
The proposed use is consistent with prior documented use as two dwelling units.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance for two dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022 -003 -308 -5774 North 20th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, Chairman. Have a great day.
Number 10, MI -2022 -004 -229 -3301 Emerald Street.
Brandon Sabrin is the attorney.
There was an RCO meeting.
We do not have a letter.
This was in Councilman Squill's office
and is being moved to Councilman Driscoll's area.
And we do not have a letter.
And apparently, we don't have anyone at this point
that's in opposition, I should say.
Council, could you identify your client
and the relationship to the property?
sir my client is 3301 emerald corner llc who purchased the property in 2021 okay um
our vice chair has just a few questions for you sir mr chair excuse me this is
john kelly was mr severance sworn in i thought he did but i'll do no i was not all right do you
swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr kelly as
usual good morning council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do mr vice chairman have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes with the
exception of the rco letter because the rco didn't issue one and i'll talk about that in a moment
Understood. Please proceed to shade screen.
Thank you.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board.
We are here on a variance application today for 3301 Emerald Street.
We are proposing to erect a new construction duplex on what is a long, long time vacant lot.
We believe that the property has been vacant for at least about three decades, and we'll show you some aerial photos related to that in a second.
What's on your screen right now is a portion of Exhibit 17 in our exhibit binder.
These are elevations, a front elevation, a side elevation, showing you what we're proposing to build.
And it is basically a three -story building where the third story is set back 11 feet from the street.
So, you know, from the street, it would almost appear as a two -story building.
It has a nice covered front porch and two dwelling units and a rear yard that is to code.
There are no dimensional variances being sought here, purely the use variance for two -family use.
So I'll go to Exhibit 2, which is our refusal. We actually got the refusal amended way back in June of 2022 to include that front porch.
So you can see that the description of work mentions that front porch. That's the only difference between this and the original refusal.
and you also see that it mentions three dwelling units and our only refusal is for proposing three
dwelling units but at exhibit 15 I have our proviso zoning plan if you are inclined to approve
our application today we would ask you to do so subject to a proviso specifying that we have a
one -page proviso plan. And this proviso plan reduces the proposal to two units. And it also
introduces that third floor setback that I mentioned. So I'll zoom out a little bit. Here
is our one -page proviso plan. And then we also have the proviso form explaining the differences
between this plan and our original plan um so uh i will uh show you at exhibit five
the parcel map on atlas .phila .gov of this property um and what you'll see here is the
property is a vacant lot on the corner of emerald street and westmoreland street
This is in the Harrogate neighborhood and I will go to Exhibit 7.
So these are older aerial images on Atlas. You'll see here this one's from 2018 showing that the property.
You'll see here, this one's from 2018 showing that the property is vacant before my client purchased it.
Here's another aerial photo from 2008 showing that the property is vacant.
Here's another aerial photo from 1996 showing that the property is vacant and the property remains vacant today.
So there are several reasons why my client believes that it is impossible and has been impossible to develop a single family home at this location.
While I talk about that, I'll just show you some photos at Exhibit 8 of our notice posters for this hearing right here.
So the property has never been used as far as we're aware as a single family home.
The permits and permit applications that are in the zoning permit archive date back to the 50s and the 70s, and they are all for and reflect use of the property as a four unit building.
So all we know that has ever been on this property is a four -unit building, and then at some point, at least in the mid -90s or prior, that four -unit building was demolished, and there's been nothing there since.
I will quickly just walk you through some of that historical permitting at Exhibit 10.
And so here is a permit from 1957 to legalize a four -unit building that was already there by that time.
And then, as I mentioned, if you look through the remainder of the archive, and I'm not going to sort of waste your time walking it through every piece of paper here,
but this is all from atlas .phila .gov, and all of these various applications reflect continued four -unit use of the building.
So as far as we're aware, there's never been a single family home here.
I want to talk for a moment about what are the other uses on our corner since we're on a corner.
So at Exhibit 11, I have the current zoning permits held by the other three properties at our intersection.
So this one is for 2000 East West Moreland Street.
This is a warehouse across the street from our property that per its zoning permit and per its rental license has 54 dwelling units.
So that's stated right there. The next permit is for another corner, 1946 East West Moreland Street.
That is a lower level building that is used for vehicle repair, automobile repair.
And then finally, at 1939 East Westmoreland Street is the Caledonian Dye Works, which is actually a longstanding company that dyes or colors textiles, and that's directly across the street.
So the point I'm trying to make here is that if you look at our intersection, there's no other single family homes on the other corners and someone that would be living on this property is going to be in an environment which consists at least in the immediate vicinity of active industrial uses and multifamily housing.
So between that and the duration of the land vacancy and the complete absence of any prior single family use, we believe there is a hardship that prevents the development of a single family home on this property.
My client does not believe it can recover the cost of developing a single family home in a reasonable amount of time.
And as such, we're proposing the minimum necessary relief here, which is a building that conforms to the single family home dimensional requirements, but has two dwelling units.
We don't believe this would pose any significant harm to the public.
I'll show you real quickly a couple other photos of our location.
and exhibit six um just another photo this one's from atlas of our lot um this to the left right
here is a wall that belongs to that dye works facility across the street and then here is that
warehouse that was converted to 54 um apartment units across the street so again this you know
someone that's going to live in this building and look across the street it's not really going to
feel like a single family neighborhood outside of their windows. I will talk about the RCO process
and what we believe is the support from the public for our project to wrap up. So that exhibit 12
So at Exhibit 12 is the mailer that we provided for our in -person RCO meeting, which the owner and our law firm attended.
is the mailer that we provided for our in -person RCO.
This was in September of last year. So here on your screen right now is a copy of the mailer that we sent out.
And then right after that is a certificate of mailing from the USPS that shows we sent that mailing to 114 households.
There was a decent attendance at that meeting. Our takeaway was that there were mixed reactions, but the reactions were overwhelmingly positive from people who actually lived anywhere near this property.
The negative reactions tended to come from folks who didn't live near this property. And at this RCO meeting, there were other matters discussed, development and otherwise. There's a big discussion about some locations facing open air drug markets.
So a lot of sort of general negative sentiment. But what we did in light of the fact that the RCO never provided a decision letter or a vote tally, and we've continued this case a couple times now to seek that letter, we still don't have one.
My client went out at various points and gathered signatures to evidence the fact that folks in the immediate facility support the development of this lot, which otherwise, particularly before my client's ownership, was a dumping ground and a place for unauthorized cars to park on.
So what you have here is a petition that my client gathered recently within the last couple of months.
And then after that petition, you have, oh, excuse me, going the wrong way here.
There we go. After that petition are some letters that were gathered mostly earlier in this process.
And if you combine the petition and the letters, what you'd count is there are 20 unique properties, all within one block of our property.
So we're not watering this down with signatures from folks that aren't really affected by this project.
These are all folks that live in the immediate one block vicinity of this property.
And there are 20 properties with residents or owners who want to see this developed.
So between the petition and these letters, that's how you get your 20 supporters.
That's my case. I'm happy to take any questions.
I believe that my client is here to adopt my testimony under the name Justin Kaplan.
So before we go on, Hillary, do we want to talk about the maximum occupied area first?
Yeah, I just had a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Saverin, on the plans, it noted that a variance was needed for maximum occupied area, but it's not on the refusal.
Are you able to comment on that?
Because based on what I saw in the plans, it looked like there may be one needed, but again, it wasn't on the refusal.
Okay, give me one moment, solicitor.
I'm going to pull up the zoning plan.
Yeah, I'm not familiar with the fact that there was a need.
What I could do, because I do show a seven foot rear yard and then I can do a little math here.
I can try and bring on the architect to answer that question, who I believe is with us.
That may have been an errant notation of variance needed.
Do you mind if I try and ask him?
Oh, that would be fine.
Bring the architect on, please.
I think the architect would either be James Hare or Scott Murphy.
Either one.
Okay, there's James.
James has been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name's James Hare, H -A -R -R -E.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Jimmy, is the open area on this project compliant with the zoning code to your knowledge?
So what happened is originally designed without the porch, the building did not require a refusal for open area.
But during that first meeting that Brandon mentioned, an inclusion of the porch was something that the community felt very strongly about.
and we told them that this would require the additional refusal of the open area requirements
since the porch counts towards that and they seemed okay with it at that point so in order
to show good faith with the community we did move forward and add the porch so that's where
the refusal for open area comes in okay that that is not reflected on the amended refusal
Okay. That is not reflected on the amended refusal though, Jimmy. Is that right? I'm going to try and pull it up on my screen right now.
I don't know about the refusal itself, Brandon. I believe your team handled that one. We just provided the drawings. It should be reflected on the revised proviso drawings though.
Okay, it is. So, Solicitor Emerson, you know, this is really in your hands. If you feel that, I'm always of the position that, particularly when you're dealing with a stamped plan, that a proviso plan is sufficient to deal with this after the fact with L &I.
um so i'm more than comfortable moving forward but if you if you need us to pause and obtain
you know documentation um from l and i they they you know reviewed this plan we're doing this
through um that change that jimmy is speaking about was put through the amended refusal process
so l and i has already looked at this um you know they didn't choose to issue a refusal for it
but we can always take the stamped plan back to them since we're stamping it because of the unit
reduction and, you know, make sure that they're able to process our permit. I believe that they
will be able to, but. Yeah, Mr. Severn, I think I did speak with the chair about this and thank
you for calling your architect to clarify. So in these cases where it appears that there may
have been a missed refusal. We can just add a proviso if the application is granted, the appeal
is granted, just indicating that we recognize a variance is also being issued for that missing
refusal. That'd be wonderful. Okay. Yeah, and that's all we need to do. And yeah, and then that
way that nothing should get tied up later on because that refusal was not listed on the
the refusal document. Okay. Thank you. And I just wanted to mention, Mr. Chairman, before we bring
on my client to adopt my testimony. Why don't you bring him on? Yep. Okay. Sure. And again,
if the staff wants to bring him on, it's, I believe Justin Kaplan should be the name.
We, you know, presented the entire situation, including the lack of an RCO letter and the
letters of support to both, just to be safe, Councilman Swilla's office and Councilman
Driscoll's office, since this property is going to change districts in January of next year.
Neither of them had any issue with us presenting this case. They, perhaps because of the change
of district, weren't interested in pending a letter, but they don't oppose the application
as far as I'm aware. I'm happy to take any questions about that too.
why don't we bring your client on bring your sure so uh uh justin are you there or is that phil
i'm here it's justin okay could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
justin kaplan j -u -s -t -i -n kaplan k -a -p -l -a -n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you mr chairman um justin um are
you authorized to speak on behalf of 3301 Emerald Corner, LLC? Yes. Okay. Did you hear my testimony
in the LLC zoning case this morning? Yes. Was my testimony true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge, information, and belief? Yes. And would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own
testimony? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Chair. No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have one hand ending at the number 5481.
They haven't been allowed to talk.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning.
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, it's Christine, C -H -R -I -S -T -I -N -E, M -C -F -A -L -L, Christine McFall, and I live at 3303 Emerald Street, and nobody came around.
Hold on. Wait, ma 'am. Wait one minute. Wait one minute. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
Proceed.
Okay. I was at the meeting last year at the Harrogate Civic Center. It was at St. Jennifer's Church, and it was shot down. Nobody was in favor of it. They didn't come around and get signatures from anybody on Emerald Street, Westmoreland Street.
They didn't come around and get signatures from anybody on Emerald Street, Westmoreland Street.
Nobody wants it there.
They are a slumlord.
They own the building across the street where they have the units that used to be Jomar.
There's dog waste all the time.
There are garbage, trash, rat traps out front.
There's no parking around here.
There's arguments all the time.
I don't know where they're going to park.
and they are going to put as many families as they want in this building because i asked that
and then they can erect a roof over top of that a roof deck we don't have no stories
of that height to hear and nobody they're lying if they said they got signatures they nobody came
to my house we didn't get letters we all went to the meeting and i like to know how the owner got
a hold of this property because when it was up for sale the neighbors next to me all went down
and they said it was over.
Somebody sold it already.
They didn't even have a chance to bid on it.
Well, ma 'am, my understanding,
listen to me, hold on a minute.
The request here is not for multiple units.
It's a request for two units
and that's all we're looking at.
Right, with four bedrooms in the second,
they were going to have people in the basement,
in the third floor, on the side.
Well, I think they,
i'm not i'm not saying i'm just saying they requested three units they dropped it to two
all right this guy has a history of violations in different properties he had one in juniata
you know he's from l .a he owns a lot so let's let's stay let's stay focused on this property
here okay all right mr chairman i what i would like to do is actually have justin respond to that
himself. But do you want me to wait to do so until we get the rest? Why don't we see if there's
anybody else? Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your call and your input. Thank you. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? Yes. Nigel Richards has been allowed to speak. Yes. Hi, could you
state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer? Yes. My name is Nigel Richards. That's
n -i -g -e -l richards r -i -c -h -a -r -d -s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do proceed yes hello thank you are you a neighbor by the way
i am yes i own several properties uh in the close proximity including three six one nine
Helen Street and 3500 Frankfurt Avenue. Okay. And 2337 East Clearfield Street. Okay.
Let's talk about M. Let's talk about 3301 M. Okay. Right. I am actually very excited to see it no
longer become a parking lot and a place for debris and litter and who knows what goes on
on the parcel. I would much rather see it developed as a building. And I do appreciate
the fact that their density, they're only seeking two units and not six units, as sometimes people
do on a corner parcel. So, I am in full support, as is my partner in these properties.
Thank you for taking the time, Nicole, and we appreciate your input. Is there anyone else in
the virtual audience? Yes, Brian Zubek has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
firm. Hi, yes, my name is Brian Zubak, B -R -I -A -N, last name is Zubak, Z as in zebra, O -U -B as in boy,
E -K. Do you swear from tell the truth to hold truth, nothing but the truth? I do.
Are you a neighbor? Yes, I own the property at 2024 East Westmoreland, right across the street.
Okay, proceed, sir. Yeah, so we own the property right across the street, and every single time I
go there. We have a serious problem with illegal dumping in the area. And the open lots in this
area contribute to that. I get stuff dumped in front of my property almost every day. And they
dump it on the corner lot as well. So it's a real problem and an eyesore and is really frustrating.
So we're excited to see something built there. This neighborhood is obviously in transition.
You know, it's very difficult, I'd say, to build a single family home and make it make sense from a new construction perspective at this point.
So understand the need to at least get a couple of units there and appreciate that while this is a very large lot, they're only doing two units.
But it would be nice to see some sort of catalyst for some new construction in this area, which, you know, it has not seen.
Okay. Thank you for taking the time, Colin. We appreciate your input.
is there anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no hands. Planning Commission. Thank you,
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman. Hold on, hold on. Brandon, do you want to? Yeah, I just if it's
Brandon, do you want to?
I just, if it's okay, I don't know if he is.
I'd ask Justin to raise his hand again.
I would like him to have the opportunity to talk about his company's efforts to gather
those petitions, which are from this block.
Bring them on.
Brandon, if you're going to bring them on, please.
Yeah, Justin, go ahead.
And I'll just add real fast.
I don't think there's a roof deck proposed. And, you know, we wanted to have another RCO meeting showing the revised plans.
And that opportunity was denied. Anyway, Justin, can you speak to the petitions, please?
Justin, just state your name. You've already been sworn.
Sure. Justin Kaplan, thank you for the opportunity to respond.
We did make several attempts to knock on doors on multiple occasions.
and every time we went out, we knocked on every single door on each block.
Obviously, we were only able to speak to those who answered the door.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anything else, Mr. Samarin?
No, no, that's it.
That's it.
Thank you.
All right.
Questions from the board.
We all did that.
All right.
Questions for the planning commission, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. David Fechter with the City Planning Commission.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended from residential multifamily to residential single
family at this location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this lot to prevent it from
being used in conformance with the zoning code. The City Planning Commission recommends the board
deny the proposed use variance for two dwelling units. Okay, thank you. MI 2022 004 -229 -3301
Emerald Street. I vote yes with provisors. Her amended refusal dated 6 -13 -22. Revised plans
one page stamped by ZBA August 15th, 2023. Maximum two dwelling units and a variance for
maximum
open space?
It's maximum occupied area.
Maximum occupied.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hillary.
Thomas Holloman,
my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed,
my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you very much.
All right, we're going to go now to Mr. O 'Brien, please.
And Hillary, I'm going to read all the one in before he makes his opening statements, okay?
Yes, thank you, Mr.
This will be for six cases we're going to look at here with opening comments.
And number two, MI 2023, 001 -953 -553 DuPont Street.
Number three, MI 2023, 001 -946 -555 -551 DuPont.
Number five, MI 2023, 001 -949 -564 Green Lane.
Number six, MI 2023 -001 -951 -566 Green Lane.
Number eight, MI 2023 -001 -948 -562 Green Lane.
And number nine, MI 2023 -001 -952 -568 Green Lane.
Mr. O 'Brien, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. William O 'Brien, O -B -R -I -E -N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is DuPont Street Developers Incorporated. I have with us today an officer
of the corporation, Charles Whitlock. Okay. And the way we're going to do this is you're
going to make opening comments relative to the six request. And then we're going to break it
down and I hear two on DuPont and then the four on Green Lane. Okay. Thank you. So our vice chair
just has a few questions for you before we start. Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed then all the
Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that are needed for all the cases to proceed five days in advance of this hearing?
required documents and exhibits that are needed for all the cases.
Yes, I did receive the RCO letter late, but I do have it as part of the package today.
Understood. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
So we're going to start with opening comments, right?
Okay. Yes, you're up. Let me just find my...
You're coming up.
Bear with me one second.
There we go. Yes, so this is a bit unusual, this case, these six cases.
In mid -2012, zoning permits were granted for an eight -lot subdivision.
Later in 2015, building permits were issued for those eight houses.
They were configured as four duplex, semi -detached structures.
um the first two on dupont street which were not part of this were completed and sold that
was 555 and 557 dupont street uh and then in mid uh 2021 uh licenses and inspections determined
that the permit the building permits had expired and revoked all the permits uh at that point
construction had progressed on the two Dupont Street properties, 551 and 553. They were
enclosed structures. And then the Green Lane, the four lots on Green Lane, all the site work and
foundation work was done. And that is how it's continued to today. So addressing now the two
on dupont street uh we do have refusals uh and we're prepared to go forward and
hillary do we want to just take the two on dupont street right now should i read into the record
what he's doing now um sure yeah why don't you go ahead and put those on what we're going to do
right now we're going to hear the two on dupont street mi 2023 001 953 553 dupont street
And number three, MI 2023 -001 -946 -551, DuPont Street.
So you'll present these two now, Mr. O 'Brien.
Thank you.
So let me go to the page.
So this is the development plan that was approved in 2012 and building permits
were issued in 2015. This is the DuPont Street at the top and Green Lane at the bottom.
These two houses have been completed and sold, and these are the two that were subject in this
hearing, 551 and 553. When the permits were granted, they were zoned R10A. Since then,
they've been rezoned RSA3, and there's also been a neighborhood conservation overlay,
which has rendered several elements of this formally approved development no longer code
compliant because of the status of the development of these two properties being under roof the curbs
and curb cuts are already in the civic group central roxburgh civic association has agreed
to support a variance to allow the completion of these two as originally proposed
I can show you what that looks like now.
So that is the image, that's the building that was again,
that's where it stands today.
It was under roof and enclosed,
but so that we were asking the zoning board
to grant the variances to allow this these two homes to be completed as originally proposed.
This is what they will look like when they're finished. This is 555 -557,
which was completed and sold back in 2021.
which was completed and sold back in 2021.
The civic group did support this, as I said,
and they did provide a letter.
I think it was issued on Saturday,
and that is part of the package.
I'm sorry.
I have a new Adobe program, and it's not as familiar to me as I wish it was.
But anyway, here is the letter of support.
And the refusals reflect the fact that the zoning has changed and the NCO has changed.
Those refusals are substantially dimensional because of the change to RSA3.
uh and uh under the nco uh which now prohibits front -loaded parking and front -loaded garages
but the civic supports a variance to allow that to continue continue because of the status of
these two uh homes um i have nothing further i can ask mr o 'brien why don't we why don't you
bring your client on adopt your testimony for these two cases okay mr whitlock did you hear
my testimony yes i did let's let's get in the status name first your name hi my name is charles
whitlock and could you spell please for the court stenographer sure uh charles last name whitlock
w -h -i -t -l -o -c -k right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do proceed mr chairman mr whitlock did you hear my testimony uh yes i did and is it true
and accurate it is true and accurate and do you adopt it as your own yes i do okay questions from
the board no chair no mr chairman thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have one hannah from a dennis okay they have been allowed to speak hi could you
state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer? Dennis Carlisle, D -E -N -N -I -S -C -A -R -L -I -S -L -E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Are you a neighbor? Yes. Okay, proceed, sir. So I just live right nearby. I pass these homes a
lot, and I pass the Lawson Green Lane a lot, and I fully support the variances, and just want to
say that it's a it's a shame that a neighborhood conservation overlay was made so restrictive that
these homes that were approval in the past are not approval now by right and so that overlay
really did create a blight in our neighborhood uh therefore these are our answers should go through
thank you thank you for taking the time to call in we appreciate your input is there anyone else
in the virtual audience i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair bergman and good morning david effecto with the city planning commission
chair i'll give my testimony for both 551 and 553 dupont street okay uh the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location the proposed
variances reflect an as -built condition built with the benefit of permits the city planning
commission recommends the board grant the proposed dimensional variances and the proposed
variance for parking access from dupont street thank you thank you i'm going to read both so it's
mi2023 001 953 553 dupont and number three mi2023 001 946 551 dupont i vote yes to both
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you.
Mr. O 'Brien, now I'm going to read in the record the other four on Green Lane.
MI 2023 -001 -949 -546 Green Lane.
MI 2023 -001 -951 -566 Green Lane
number eight MI 2023 -001 -948 -562 Green Lane and MI 2023 -001 -952 -568 Green Lane
Mr. O 'Brien, you've already identified
Mr. O 'Brien, you've already identified your client and all your paperwork and everything's in, so we don't need the vice chair to ask you any questions. Why don't you start your presentation on these four cases?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The image on the screen right now are the four lots on Green Lane, 562, 564, 566, and 568.
You can see some of the foundation here, and you see the evidence of some of the site work and water work that's been done, EWD work.
um the this building on the right in the in the background is 555 557 those are the two homes
that were completed and sold uh on the left is 551 and 553 which was just the subject of the
previous hearing um the uh neighborhood was uh sensitive to the fact that there had been a
substantial amount of investment in these four lots. However, they were still concerned with
the introduction of front -loaded parking and garages. They asked the developer to eliminate
the garages, the curb cuts, and the driveways, introduce a porch on the four homes,
a front yard, and first floor living space. The developer adopted that recommendation and was
allowed to amend the zoning plan. That zoning plan is now under review. The amended zoning
permit has not been issued, but I'd like to just show what that zoning plan looks like.
That's the old one. Here we go.
So, as you can see, these are the four green lane houses.
There are no longer any curb cuts.
There's no driveways.
There's a porch on each of the houses, a walkway.
And the floor plans show first floor living where the garage would have been.
um here's the uh first floor there's the porch uh and then first floor living where the garage
would have been um and again the neighborhood has supported this uh and their letter is now
part of the record um it's the same letter that was introduced in the previous hearing
their letter addressed all six properties. The status of these is not really ready for a vote.
There are three things required before this could be presented for a vote. That is one,
the amended refusal needs to be issued and received by the board. Number two, a earth moving
plan needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and submitted. And then third,
there are some outstanding taxes on these four lots. Ironically, the DuPont Street lots have
a surplus and the green lane lots are in the negative. They have an outstanding balance. So
this is going to be paid or reconciled. When we come back to the board, we'll have
uh clean uh tax clearance certificates uh i have nothing further uh if i may just have your
client adopt your testimony and just state your name for the record you're already sworn sir
uh charles whitlock that's w -h -i -t -l -o -c -k right proceed mr o 'brien uh mr whitlock did you hear
my testimony on the green lane properties i did and was it truthful and correct yes it was and
you adopt it as your own. Yes, I do. Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience?
Say no hands. Hillary, do we want planning commission or do we want to wait for it to
come back? The planning commission has requested to give their recommendation once they've reviewed
the earth moving plans. Okay. All right. So let me list them again. Number five, MI 2023 -001 -949 -564
Green Lane. MI 2023 -001 -951 -566 Green Lane. MI 2023 -001 -951 -566 Green Lane.
MI 2023 -001 -951 -566 Green Lane.
MI -2023 -001 -948 -562 Green Lane, and MI -2023 -001 -952 -568 Green Lane.
For all four cases, the hearing in this matter will be resumed after receipt of an amended refusal,
proof of tax compliance and an earth moving plan the purpose of the resumptive hearing will be for
the planning mission to give their recommendation following review of the earth moving plan with
response by counsel for the applicant no other testimony will be taken the record is otherwise
closed thank you mr o 'brien thank you mr chairman okay uh is there anyone in the audience
the their 930 case has not been called in the virtual audience
i see no hands thanks everyone
thank you have a good day thank you have a good one thanks everyone thank you thank you see you
tomorrow