there are no hands here planning commission
thank you chairman and good morning david vecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential
single family zoning at this location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 1980
and a council supported map change at that time these properties had been zoned single family since the original zoning maps were produced in 1933 there appears to be a long-standing unlicensed contract or storage business at this location the city planning commission recommends the board deny all proposed variances
Mr. chair I appreciate the planning commission's input but their own testimony is that these properties have never been a single family home
for quite some time thank you uh how long do we need to for him to do what i can get amended
refusal only within two weeks so why don't we give a two week date sorry let me get my calendar out
sorry oops yeah uh the 28th okay mr chairman october 28th correct october 28th and 9 30
will do. Okay, Vern, you'll have it all. Thank you. But otherwise, the record is closed. Is that
correct? Except for the reamended refusal. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Let's go back to number
seven and eight. So, John Hunter, Mr. Hunter. John Hunter is rejoining as a panelist.
uh good morning again there you go there you go okay yeah just just to make every one clear this
is for 41 4401 silverwood street and also 4403 silverwood street um mr hunter just for the record
again. You've already been sworn, if I remember correctly. Am I correct?
William Moore- No. I don't think so. William Moore- You haven't been sworn.
William Moore- I don't think so. William Moore- Okay. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? William Moore- I do.
William Moore- All right. So we're going to hear both cases together, and then we'll probably vote
separately. But our Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
William Moore- Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits
14 days in advance of this hearing? William Moore- I did.
Okay. And for both cases, it's your understanding that you're looking to—you had expired building
permits and you're looking to renew some zoning permits for work that was previously approved?
That's correct, too.
Okay. All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with your case.
okay um i'll just go through all the sort of procedural exhibits first um the description
is correct um the building permit i was informed about a year ago now by l and i by letter that
they considered that the building permits for these two houses had expired and that i would
have to renew new building permits, not renew, sorry, apply for new building permits for both
properties. Subsequently, during discussions and after making a submission for building permits on
the basis that the properties were already externally 85% complete, that it would be a
partial submission of a building permit. That was clarified that that was not the case by
L&I and that it would have to be two new building permits as if the buildings
didn't exist and they also told me that because of the cancellation of the
building permits the zoning permits had also been cancelled so that's why we're
reapplying for the two variances that were originally granted by the zoning
Board in 2018 and there's one additional variance, sorry, refusal that was identified by the L&I
Examiner which has come about because of a clarification of a part of the zoning code
that affects 4403 and that triggered another refusal. So just quickly I'll go through the
various property here's the the deed and load the subdivision of the property
the subdivision of the property
the transfer tax the um clarification on the tax real estate taxes john we have all your paperwork
so why don't you try okay all right yeah okay we understand it okay i'll zip forward um including
the certificates and everything else the listings all right um i appreciate this new system so here
Here is a photograph of the existing building, and you can see the zoning notices that are attached to the existing building.
And this is the extent of the property as it already exists.
I'll go back. This is the summary of the meeting on the September the 2nd of MNC.
I, a zoning chair, recused myself and just presented the scheme.
And this is the vote that was taken, which was unanimous, but in support.
Here is the, just briefly go back and treat it as LNI instructed me to, as if it's a new proposal.
This is the building as I purchased it over a decade ago now.
And it used to be used as the principal Masonic Lodge.
And then they decided to relocate because most of their members were in Germantown and they sold the property.
You can see that the property originally was two buildings.
The one on this, on the top left-hand corner, that was the original building.
It was an 1860s cottage, three-story, and adjacent to it was a later addition of a house in about 1900.
As you can see, the building is set back from the front boundary.
And when I say the front boundary, when I bought the property, the OPA address was for 200 Levering Street.
So it was 200 and 202 Levering Street.
The existing house beyond, which is not part of this application, is 204.
Levering Street. Because when the property was proposed and developed, the front door was moved
onto Silverwood Street, the OPA address was changed to Silverwood Street. So just to sort
of clarify that, here is the state of the property was in bad condition. They'd used it as a sort of
meeting room on the middle floor and a kitchen and dining area and toilet rooms on the lower floor
and storage on the top floor. My proposal for the original application was to add to the front of
the Levering Street side the six-foot difference between where the building is and where the
property line is on both Levering Street and on Silverwood Street, and to replace most of
the the internal walls and floors and add another floor on the top of the on the top floor
um this is the floor plan for the first floor and this really explains the original two
refusals one for 4401 and one for 4403 this area that i'm sort of enclosing here
is 4401. And you can see that with a new entrance door on Silverwood Street, even though the title
of the drawings, the original drawings were still Levering Street, that because this became the
front of the building for the OPA address, LNI therefore considered what was previously a side
yard to be a rear yard. And the proposal was to put a parking space on that side yard.
So now that became parking in the rear yard, and that created a refusal.
The curb cut, which has been installed, really was in the area that was where there is no parking because of its proximity to the junction with Silverwood and Leverie.
The other refusal, 4403, was because the original walls, and as you can see them in shade and gray here, extended all the way back to what was originally the side yard.
But again, because this became an OPA address of 4403 Silverwood, this became the rear of the property, and there should be, because it's an RSA 5 district, there should be a rear yard of a minimum of 7 feet.
So the proposal here is, in the subdivision, to create a side yard of the property, which is this area, which is 14 feet by 10 feet, larger than was required, and that was to be attached to 4403.
So those are the two original variances which were granted, and building permits were secured.
and building permits were secured. What then happened was a local developer had seen
What then happened was a local developer
the presentation at the MNC meeting and approached me and asked me as an architect to design
the vacant lots adjacent to this property. And there were originally two lots that
he purchased and then he added another lot. So there were three lots and there were three houses
that were designed.
And the reason that's relative to this variance application
is because if I go to the next,
I hope it was the next one.
Oh, first of all, these are just the drawings
of the original variance appeal.
This is the Leverington Elevation,
Levering, sorry, Elevation,
and then Silverwood Elevation.
and this is just the refusal for the latest refusals.
And you can see that on 4401, that's the original refusal just for the side yard
that became a rear yard and the parking space in the rear yard created a refusal.
On 4403, the lack of a rear yard was one of the refusals, and the other refusal was because of a parking arrangement that was agreed with the developer for the adjacent property, which I'll now show you.
So, just as an explanation, this gray area here is 4401 and 4403.
The adjacent plan shows 4405, 7 and 9. And because of the steep slopes associated with this property, at the rear of the property, the whole property was part of a significant rock outcrop.
So the design developed so that the lowest floor that was related to the sidewalk would be used for parking, shared parking between the three houses, and the living spaces and bedrooms would be on the floor above.
What that also gave was the opportunity for three parking spaces for those houses, but also one parking space for 4403 in this shared diagram arrangement.
And that proposal was carried through and went for variances for steep slopes and for this arrangement and was approved.
What that triggered on my, going back to my 4403 approval, was that there needed to be an administrative review with L&I for this change in this area of the plan for 4403.
And also, I then had to go to the Board of Building Standards because the separating wall was penetrated and required a granting of an appeal from them.
So, because of that later change, that is the additional refusal that was identified by the plan examiner.
sometime in 2020. David Fecto might know more than I do. I didn't quite understand it.
What was in the code before, which was a shared driveway, was acceptable to have a front access.
It was pretty efficient because it only took one parking space from the Silverwood Street
and granted four parking spaces within the site. That was no longer compliant with the zoning code
because this parking space straddled the property line
and it was no longer considered a driveway
because it was underneath the deck of the houses above.
So those are the two refusals for 4403.
And this is just the zoning plan that went through at the time,
again showing there's 4401, 4403,
the shared parking space that triggered the second refusal for 4403.
That pretty much, just so that it just clarifies it,
that is the existing house construction as it stands at the moment. It's been like this for a
year now while this process has gone on. You can see in the distance 4405, 7 of 9, which were
completed and occupied and the parking arrangement works fine and so that pretty much is the
scheme. This is just the interior photographs which I don't think are really
of interest. So I'm happy to answer any questions.
So I'm happy to answer any questions.
Okay. Questions from the board.
So if granted, and so are they saying that now you will have to get new building permits
and will you be required to be under the latest building code?
Oh, yes. Yeah. Thank you for that question.
The building permits process I've already gone through, and it's been approved subject to these appeals being granted.
But yes, what it means is that it's now triggered a whole host of – I've had to go through getting a structural engineer to reassess the original calculations, et cetera, for lateral bracing, which has changed.
The sprinkler system has been upgraded because of a PWD change to a backflow preventer and many other things like that.
Yes, it's been pretty much an enormous upheaval.
And frankly, I don't understand why, but that's a separate issue.
How close are you to finishing the project?
When the work was stopped, I mean, as you can see, the exterior is finished.
And the idea was to complete the exterior and that you just saw a brief glimpse of the photographs.
The interior of the is ready for drywall internally and then just the fitting out of bathrooms and kitchens.
Other questions?
questions for our attorney um has this been reviewed by streets because you made a change
with regard to 4403 yes it was reviewed as part of the 440579 application okay and streets already
looked at could you have a curb cut for 4401 correct yeah yeah that was not only the curb cut
but um obviously you can see the uh handicap uh depressed ramps on the corners that was all
gone through with streets sight lines and everything else yeah it was just a normal
uh application previously okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands or any commission
thank you chairman and good morning david pecto with the city planning commission
chair will give the same testimony for 4401 and 4403 thank you so the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the rsa5 residential single-family zoning at this location the city
rezoned this neighborhood in 1979 a council supported map change this appeal appears to be
a resumption of a previously approved project which is substantially complete the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variances for both 4401 and 4403
silverwood street so i'm going to do uh them separately so number seven mi 2026 002 514
4401 silverwood street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my body shots
tenetta graham my vote is yes i win my vote is yes layla bb my vote is yes and number eight
mi 2026 002 534 4403 silverwood street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
gerald gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes i win my vote is yes layla bb my vote
yes thank you john thank you very much okay sure i'm going to move on to number 11. mi 2026 001
087 1634 1635 church lane alan knockamson is the attorney
mr knockamson could you please state and spell your name for this thermometer good morning mr
chair members of the board alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could
you identify your client a relationship to the property so my client is germantown acquisition
llc uh the owner of the property and to my left is alan borovitch uh its member okay and just
so you know we received the letter earlier this morning about four o'clock this morning
like we we received it for something this morning too and been dissecting it okay all right all right
our vice chair has a few questions oh we also got uh i think uh letters of opposition or
petitions of opposition also yeah we yeah and we received those too and we would like to address
those as well good morning um have you submitted your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of
um have you submitted your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of this hearing yes other than
hearing? Yes, other than
the letter of opposition that was delivered at four something this morning we did deliver
everything 14 days in events thank you and do you weigh the reading on your refusals and stipulate to
the accuracy i do okay thank you see your screen and proceed with your case just make sure i get to
the right screen so i will say for a project this large we only have one refusal dimensionally we
have met all the requirements of rsa 5 on a 22 000 square foot loss um we're set back to the left
we're set back to the right we meet the height requirements we're 50 feet set back uh in the rear
we met with the community in the strangest way possible where we had a community meeting started
at six o'clock where the community organizer took our poster boards told us to leave the room and
she made a presentation for an hour in front of that community group we and where the it was hosted
at a church and the the reverend is looking at me saying well what i need to leave soon like why
you know when are you going to be done i'm like we haven't even started and i was told not to
enter the room eventually he's like let's go in and we did and i was rushed in a presentation
of a 48 unit project uh which is impactful for the community and a good thing for the community
um and you know i was you know basically i was given to the wolves and you know basically you
know we had someone present an hour um and then people were like i'm done i just want to vote
which is not fair now there's a james nelson who's behind us where we've met at the main community
meeting and he's come to both of these hearings we haven't spoken to him other than those three
times and you know i'd want to mr nelson to understand that he's behind us and there's a
retaining wall which he has had issues over the years that behind us at when we initially met
with him we told him we're going to take care of that right we'll work collaboratively on that
he came to the original hearing which we postponed at the request of the rco we told him that again
we assumed we were going to meet with him on this additional community meeting that never happened
what i heard from mr nelson today which is completely shocking there's been three other
community meetings we haven't been invited to which is nuts like you can't have that there's
a process here so whether what you think of the project as a community organizer is one thing
rcos are supposed to provide a forum that's it they're not supposed to have an agenda
and to have three other community meetings where we're not attending them i'll go on the merits
i will sit there all night long and talk to you and you may disagree with me and that's fine