But it's built within the actual building itself.
It's not outside the confines of the actual building.
They're in the side walls.
So a building coming up next to, based on the renderings they showed in the meeting, a building coming up next to-
Noah, I can barely hear you.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Well, my mind is on.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
That's okay.
So based on the renderings, the, I mean, maybe I'm crazy.
The side, those are party walls.
So in essence, we're either creating, what do they call them, easements or breezeways automatically without any mapping, without any way of really responsibly designing homes or properties in blocks.
This is a block of lots, and I'm assuming once one go up, you'll have a whole bunch of other owners who own the properties next door to that lot wanting to build.
But they can't build to the to the lot line of that property because that property has sidewall light wells that will then change the light into that building of those families if they're in there, because now another 38 foot building is next door.
so that's it's not responsible and it injures families that would already be in it and um in
in uh this property this um 2225 uh property so that's a design flaw maybe if they change this
so this time no okay yeah so i can just tell you from experience i own a home in philadelphia that
has breezeway it's not uncommon to have breezeways there and this breezeway is going like again
straight up. It's not affecting anyone's ability to build onto the party lines or the adjoining
lines. It's just providing additional light in there. As you can see, we're providing additional
windows by taking advantage of that area with the light well. It's just a design feature which
It's just a design feature which we think will provide more light and air into each of the units on every single floor.
we think will provide more light in there.
And it will in no way intrude on anyone else's ability to build on their properties.
I will say this, that while Ms. Cummings definitely hears a lot of presentations, she does not have the aptitude to make determinations of whether it affects other people's ability to build.
that would have to be through expert testimony which she she does not have a license in
architecture or anything like other questions from the board um yes um question uh did we
discuss before the um household living in the basement i cannot remember but i know that that's
that is a you know obviously always a concern of the board and and i again if this board feels so
inclined to make restrictions on the lower level might you know we would defer to the board we
would appreciate to have that additional living i think it makes it better experience for those
for that unit on the first floor in the lower level um but we are capable of having this project
not as good by having only use of the first floor other questions was a light study done
of the design by the architecture firm in what way to understand in elevation what the light
quality is like through those light wells into that second floor and third floor bedroom i i do
not believe there was a light study done but it was an opportunity to add additional windows
you know for those units so it's not just front and back there's some interior windows as well
so it was an added feature it wasn't to you know but it's we could do it without the light well
we thought it was a positive. You would lose a bedroom. Yeah. So I think that's the question I
have. It's like right now on the second and third floor, you have two bedroom, I think one and one
bath, one and a half baths. And the light well is what is allowing you to legally have light into
the second bedroom. And so I think my question is just assuming we're got to assume something's
going to get built on the party line. Eventually it's not a corner property. Do you know how much
light attenuation they're getting into the second and third floor because all the other windows are
going into either bathroom or laundry room. We did not do a life study in that respect.
Other questions on the board?
Safe to say it'll be dim. They'll be light, but it'll be dim.
I mean, you know, this light and air, that's just what it is, but that's
pretty much it. All right. Questions from our attorney?
Hillary Emerson? Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience here?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Sorry, just a second.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
While the district plan had recommended RM1 residential multifamily,
the property was remapped to RSA 5 residential single family in 2014.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board deny their requested variance for multifamily, max-occupied area, and rear yard depth.
Thank you.
Mr. Nockman, we're going to vote on this next Wednesday.
We'll vote at 2 p.m.
We're going to go over it in the morning at the 9 o'clock executive session, and both of you will hear where we are next week at 2.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Mrs. Cummings.
Alan, you have one more here, right?
Or you have a couple more.
Yeah, well, I think you should do.
You have one, then we'll take a little break for you, okay?
All right.
Am I still here?
Am I still staying here?
MI 2020.
Oh, hold on.
Oh, here it is here.
No, there's two more in a row.
You're right.
MI 2025, 001-142, 4814 Howell Street.
just for the record state your name alan knockamson right could you identify your client
relationship to the property yeah my client are the owners of the property uh carlos uh baka
cardona and uh diana uh ma brevet or garcia do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree
with its accuracy i do um why don't you start your presentation all right
all right so we're at 4814 howell street uh there are 12 exhibits in my packet 81 nearby neighbors
were uh given notice of the community meeting and in addition to having unanimous support from the
coordinating rco we actually have a petition of 36 nearby neighbors uh so let's go straight to
So let's go straight to the notice of refusal. So this is an RSA 3 property. What happened here is my client hired someone to build a detached garage towards the end of their property. And we have one variance request. We're supposed to be three feet from the party line. On one side, we're a foot and a half. Another side, we're two feet, four and a half inches. And another side, we're a half a foot from the party line.
notice of refusal. So this is an RSA 3 property. What happened here?
We're not affecting anyone's light in there,
and we have support for many of those neighbors
who would be directly impacted.
So I was having problems with this.
Hold on.
There's like an X in the one in the notice,
not the notice, but the letter of support
or non-opposition, so it's messing my presentation up.
But you can see there's a letter of non-opposition.
There were seven voting members,
and they were unanimously in non-opposition to this matter.
Let me go down a little further, get away from that X,
go back to full screen mode.
So we did a map of the, and my client did this themselves,
like not the map, but like the petition.
And they got all their nearby neighbors basically in support of this.
This is just residents who hired someone who didn't get the right permits.
They understand that this is the first step of the process.
They have to now hopefully, assuming we get support for the variance request, to go get a building permit, get this thing inspected, and making sure it's compliant to get a CO.
But their nearby neighbors are in support of this.
They've lived in this neighborhood for over four years.
So aerial view of the property.
This is pre the garage being built, but the garage is being built right here.
Um, there's, you know, the, really the only people would be directly impacted are these people
on, uh, Hagerman street. This is an apartment building right here. So I don't think they're
going to care too much. There's this resident right here, kind of enclosed, not really seeing
it as well. And then this property right here, which also has, it looks like potentially issues
with a rear structure like ours,
which is on Van Kirk Street,
we actually got support from them.
And we got support from this person as well.
So maps to the area.
Again, we're not increasing density or doing anything else.
We're just trying to legalize, basically, this detached garage.
And you can see here,
uh not uncommon for people to be very close to their property lines here
and then photographs of the property is solid single family home this is from the back of the
property uh this is our hearing notice poster uh this is our howl street from the right of the
property till left of the property this is our garage this is kind of you see the apartment
building there i mean we're hoping that this was done well and we'll have obviously l and i bless
it after this, assuming the board grants
our variance request, but it's
just meant for a garage and for
additional storage in the rear.
They are extending out their driveway as well
from front to back because there's legal parking.
He just wants to push the cars
all the way at the back of his property.
That's where the storage is.
Then these are just our plans and drawings.
This is the driveway.
extending it further on the property and trying to legalize this building structure here.
And then we met with the community on May 27th at 6 p.m.
Again, we notified 81 addresses of the community meeting.
These are the addresses, proof of mailing of those addresses,
our application for appeal, loaned a notice of refusal,
the project information form,
our deed to the property,
showing that my clients own it,
and a certificate of tax clearance.
I will stop sharing my screen.
I would ask that either Carlos or Diana
virtually raise their hands and be sworn in,
and I have a few questions for them.
Oh, come on.
good afternoon sir
could you state your name is spelled
to this stenographer
I can't hear you
can't hear you
is that mic on
he doesn't speak English
He doesn't speak English.
Al, let me ask you this.
Have you interviewed him?
Yes, we have.
Our office have.
With the family and understand it.
Understood.
And somebody went also to the RCO meeting?
That is correct.
All right.
So why don't we, as an officer of the court, we'll take your time.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Questions from the board.
What is he doing in terms of storm water on the site?
with all the all the new concrete going in and all that so i'm not his design professional
um i it looks like it was handled by a design professional um i would say that he would
obviously have to deal with those issues as part of the building code uh building permit process
and he'll handle it appropriately.
So what street alley does this garage run on?
Does it run on a back street?
No, it's just a rather large lot.
Let me just share my screen again.
And there's an existing driveway to the left of the building structure,
of the front building structure, the house.
so if you see here this is our single family home right here can you see my screen
and then this is the existing driveway to left of it he's expanding that driveway to over here
and then he has the actual secondary building structure which is his garage structure in the
rear and the refusal is because he built too close to the property line but as you can see
from this site plan so did this person and so did this person not saying they're illegal or not i