lewis maglio l-o-u-i-s maglio m-a-g-l-i-o do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel oh yes mr maglio you heard everything i had to
say today with respect to your i have and is it true correct it is and do you adopt into your
testimony i do thank you all right questions from the board and mr chair questions or comments from
the virtual audience i see no issue uh planning commission thank you mr chairman members of the
board david facto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
residential multi-family zoning at this location this 690 square foot lot creates a clear hardship
which supports the proposed dimensional variances these variances are in keeping with the intent
of the rm1 zoning district the city planning commission recommends the board grant the
variances thank you mi2022-004-109 1948 south 16th street i vote yes carol tanari my vote is yes
thank you council thank you could we go back to number four please michael malloy is the attorney
MI-2022-004-046-533 East Hunting Park Avenue.
Michael Malloy.
Mr. Malloy is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Malloy, I think you've already been sworn, and I think our Vice Chair already spoke with you.
Am I right?
That is correct.
Yes, thank you very much.
So why don't you start your presentation?
Yep, cut right to the chase and share my screen.
So up in front of you, you see the plan that shows the sign detail that we're talking about today.
We're only talking about building B and signs 3 and 4.
Building A, the signs are already in existence.
So I'm going to scroll down and show you signs 3 and 4.
You'll see that the signage is on these two elevations of the building shown on three and four.
This in front of us is the west elevation.
It's the life storage sign.
These signs are not, we're not asking for any relief with respect to the area of the signs.
uh to what we uh let's see was under uh exhibit d in your packet and let me reduce the size a
little bit here hold on one second yep okay we'll start at the top um let me see the various uh
sites of the building. This is along building A. You see the existing signage which is very
similar to the signage we're proposing. Another shot of building A along East Hunting Park.
And then we also have included two shots of some similar uses along the area where we see the condition where the signage has been placed above the second floor sill and roof line.
We said we attended the meeting of the new 42nd Ward.
We received unanimous support for the application. The community holds the use in high regard,
and they like the development and the improvement that the use is provided along the roadway there.
I have with me Daniel Lyman from the applicant, and if you
don't have any questions for me, I could have him sworn in and confirm or give you more detail.
Why don't we have him adopt your testimony? Okay, great. Mr. Lyman, are you there? You could raise
your hand. Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Could you state your name, please, and spell it for
the court reporter? My name is Daniel Lyman, D-A-N-I-E-L-L-Y-M-A-N. Right. Do you swear or
a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Proceed,
Councilman. Mr. Lyman, were you, oh, sorry, thank you. Mr. Lyman, were you present for
my statements on the record today? Yes, I was. And do you adopt those statements as your own?
Yes, I do. Great. Did you have anything to add?
Nope. I think it was great. Pretty straightforward. Thank you. That's all I have.
Mr. Mollet, what you're doing is quite similar to what's in the area.
That is correct. And quite similar to what's in the area. It is because of the, as you see, the elevations along the road on Hunting Park and the size of the building at three stories versus, you know, the two stories. It's to make the signs more visible.
Thank you, Mr. Malloy. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no handshare.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from heavy industrial I-3 to medium industrial I-2.
The placement of the proposed signs matches the character of the other buildings in the Hunting Park East Industrial Protection Area and will not adversely impact the use of adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the proposed variances.
Thank you. MI 2022, 004046, 533 East Hunting Park Avenue, I vote yes.
Carol Tannery, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Council.
Council, number 10, MI 2022-004-094-2413R, Tulip Street, letter of opposition from Council
member Skwula with a petition.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. We also received from
council member Skwula's office the letter of opposition that was prepared
by the Old Richmond Civic Association. I've forwarded that to Mr.
Anastasio on his request. We also have all of the deed and tax
clearance information that we need. Perfect. All right. Thank you.
Counsel? Good afternoon,
Mr. Chair, Vern Anastasio, on behalf of Old Richmond Ventures, LLC, and Carlos Massif.
and Carlos Massip, the owner. You've already been sworn.
You've already been sworn.
Our vice chair has a few questions. Thank you. Hi, Mr. Anastasio. Do you agree to wave the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and or plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a
ladder? Yes. Okay, you may proceed and begin to share your screen, which you've already done.
Yes, thank you. Thank you. 2413 R Tulip Street, Mr. Chairman, I just want to take you down here.
This is zoned RSA 5. It's actually three separate lots with four separate OPA accounts,
Which already tells us that there's a history of multifamily use, although difficult to find, because for the past 30 years, these lots have been vacant, at least by 1996, if not beyond.
And I want to show you the vacant lots for now.
This is Boston Street. You see the two-story homes across the street.
There's proof of posting.
We have proof of mailing. 161 individual households were mailed.
And the flyer that went out to ORCA.
And we met with them on 1122 at 730 in the evening.
What we have here is, as I said, three lots with four OPA accounts.
My client was here before with prior counsel and had proposed two three-story structures with a four-family dwelling.
That did not get approved.
We're here today just for a three-family dwelling.
As Mr. Avellino, the architect, will testify, we've reduced the height of the home facing Boston Street so it reflects the other homes on the block.
Now, to build compliant here because of the unusual shape of the property, and here we are.
This is our site.
As you can see, it's twice the width of any other home on Boston Street.
It's completely irregular.
To build compliant, we'd have to have a hodgepodge of sorts of three single family homes on each of the lots, not fitting with the block facing.
It would be incongruent in size and massing to the adjacent homes and incongruent with the Boston Street streetscape.
So we'd also need easements, cross easements, and large dimensional variances to make this work with three separate lots that are all zoned for single family development.
It's the strange site layout of the unique physical condition that has prevented by right development for nearly 30 years on the site.
What we are proposing is three units, which would be by right if each parcel was developed independently as three tiny homes.
It's also, I also submitted a legal brief in part of my evidence today to be included in the record.
It details our hardship faced per Valley View Civic Association and as it relates to the dimensional variances Hertzberg.
So we do have case law on each.
What I'd like to do, by the way, we met with the RCO.
It was very poorly attended.
Only nine people showed up. Eight of the nine opposed it because they said they didn't think the units would be affordable and would be rentals.
But a by right single family home, though not marketable at all, given its shape and size, would exceed the price point of the neighborhood and would be cost prohibitive.
And it could practically house as many people as the three units.
But the Napers also rejected a single family proposal or idea.
And you'll hear evidence, testimony today that each and every person, each and every one of the eight people in attendance that opposed it wanted the lots to remain undeveloped.
They also offered the idea of a park or a place to put fire pits.
Now, this is a site just steps from mass transit. We've got York Street steps away,
Frankfurt Avenue steps away, both commercial corridors that rely on residential development
and density like this one. It's a transit-oriented development from someone who lives in the
It's a transit-oriented development from someone who lives in the community. My client, Mr. Massip, is not a developer. He lives in the neighborhood. He's had these lots, and he'd like to be able to use them so they don't just stay fallow. They are, in fact, zoned for residential.
community, my client, Mr.
we also have because it was so poorly attended we decided to go door to door with the list of
the addresses that the planning commission provided us uh and discuss the plans as such
we've got 40 signatures of support from immediate neighbors on boston on tulip on york
um so we have that as well i also want to make sure that you understand that the letter that
was sent by the civic association is not a letter of opposition they framed it as a letter of
non-support they also affirmed our hardship sentence three apparently this lot has gone
undeveloped for some time. We suspect this is due to its irregular shape and situation.
So the RCO itself is confirming that we have a hardship here, and that's why it has gone
fallow for so long. These are buildable lots. When combined, we're able to offer a quality product
that fits the streetscape and the massing of Boston Street without any adverse impact.
But with that, I'd like to have my client raise his virtual hand so he can adopt my presentation as his own.
Carlos Massip.
Hi, Carlos. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon. Carlos Massip, M-A-S-I-P.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Massif, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would like to call Mr. Jeremy Avellino, who's the architect.
Mr. Avellino, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
My name is Jeremy Avellino, J-E-R-E-M-Y.
A-V-E-L-L-I-N-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
There you go. He's out.
Okay. While we wait for Mr. Avalino to rejoin us, I'm going to call attorney Harry Cook as a fact witness who attended the RCO meeting.
Mr. Cook, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y-C-O-O-K, Anastasio Law.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cook, did you attend the RCO in representation of the particular project at Barr today?
Yes, I attended with Mr. Masseth and Mr. Avellino.
Okay. And can you give us some context as to the RCO's position based on those eight individuals?
Sure. So the presentation lasted about an hour. There were about eight or nine folk in attendance for this particular project.
We presented all the hardship argument that you're referring to as it relates to the irregular-shaped parcels, the amount of dimensional variance that would be required to develop each individually, and that this was essentially a like-for-like transfer of the three units from the three parcels to a larger single parcel that diminished the needs for many of the dimensional variances and how it fit within the streetscape, et cetera, so on and so forth.
Mr. Avellino presented. And, you know, towards the end of the presentation, it was clear that everyone except for one person was not supporting the project.
So we brought up in contrast, you know, on grounds of density, rentals, et cetera, and brought up the idea of something similar, but single family by right also having the same, you know, mass, larger massing or even same massing.
And the folks in attendance were not supportive of that either. And Mr. Avellino asked point blank, well, what would you like there? To which everyone to a person essentially responded, nothing, a park or a place for fire pits.
So, you know, it was not as if there was a good faith exchange of what could or could not be built and, you know, as a project there that evening.
So I think the vote is more a vote of Nindyism than any principled disagreement about hardship, et cetera.
Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Albolino?
I wonder if he's back, Mr. Chair.
So, Vern, could you explain it to us?
Is that possible?
Of course.
What we have here is three units.
The first unit is 1,597 square feet, which consists of the basement, first and second floor.
The second unit is the basement and first floor with 1,116 square feet.
Again, nice, sizable, livable quality products, not not tiny little 400 and 500 square foot units.
And then finally, unit three is fourteen hundred and fifty one square feet with a mezzanine, very, you know, very well designed, all high end finishes.
is again still more affordable than if we just built one large monster house and affordability
wasn't at least a talking point in you know in the community meeting but nevertheless
because if developed separately we could build three small homes instead of a more reasonable
plan here today because we're we've met the burden in testimony evidence and legal grief
all that I'm entering into evidence today that is affirmed by the RCO letter itself of hardship
under Valley View and Hertzberg and because the RCO at least the eight folks that showed up
will oppose anything that's not a park or a place to put fire pits and finally because we do have
the signatures of 40 immediate neighbors all in support of our appeal I respectfully request
that this board grant the appeal. Thank you. And I've moved everything into evidence, including
my exhibit and the brief that was sent under separate cover, as well as the tax compliance
documents. All right. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? Chair, we have Michael Lang. Okay. Hi, Mr. Lang. Could you state your name
David, spell for the court reporter?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
lang l-a-n-g uh i live on the 2200 block of boston okay okay so one hold on one minute
yep do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i don't proceed mr lang i live on the 2200 block of boston street about a half a block away from
the proposed project um there's so many different variances that he needs on there it's just
i don't see how this can be pushed through at all i mean it says strictly expressly prohibited
it for multifamily household living.
End of story.
I oppose it, but there's no
hardship being met. He's just trying to bend the rule.