the multifamily use in the residential district. The second refusal that was issued related to
the parking. So the parking that we're proposing is underneath of the building.
Let me just pull up the parking. One second.
So, again, we're proposing that the parking be underneath the property, if you can, if I can pull up the map, just one second.
I was trying to find the zoning map, my apologies.
Here it is.
So the property, as you can see, there's no way for us to provide any kind of alley parking
because it is kind of landlocked.
The other refusal that was generated was for the setback.
So the refusal indicates that the front setback shall not be any deeper than the adjoining, than the front setback of the principal building on the immediately adjacent lot.
So if you look at the rendering of the building, what that's saying is that we're not completely flush with the buildings, with both of the buildings next door.
We are flush with the building that's to the north, but the building that's to the south, you can see it juts out a little bit.
So that was the reason for that refusal that was issued.
So, again, we did meet with the 12th Ward Democratic RCO twice.
They are the coordinating RCO on this application.
Following both meetings, we did receive their letter of support,
which was provided to the board, I believe, on Monday.
And I just want to note a few of the highlights of the letter that was provided.
The letter commended the applicant for working with the community.
Again, we did have two meetings.
In fact, we continued our initial ZBA hearing in order to provide more time
continued our initial ZBA hearing in order to provide more time to work with the community
to work with the kids.
and be sensitive to their concerns. The RCO noted that we're going to be storing trash
in the rear of the property, having it picked up by a commercial trash company. My client is also
going to have a management company out of the property, and they've committed themselves to
being available to the neighborhood should any concerns come up related to the application.
And again, they noted that we've demonstrated a willingness, and I'll quote, to improve the neighborhood and invest in it not only by building properties, but also in other ways for the betterment of the community.
Just briefly to go over the criteria for a variance, the denial of the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship because the existing building that's there has been vacant for several years.
It has a unique location size, which makes it particularly suited to this proposed use.
And again, if you look at the zoning map, you can see how large this lot is in comparison to the neighboring lots.
We are 5,471 square feet, according to OPA records.
And just for context, the sizes of the neighboring lots are between 900 to about 1,500 square feet, which means that we're, in some cases, more than five times the size of our neighboring properties.
It's also unusually shaped. You can see it's kind of almost a keystone shape.
So that's the reason for the hardship for this application.
The variance that we're proposing represents the minimum variance that will afford relief
and is the least modification of the use regulation and issue.
It will not be substantially increasing congestion in the streets.
Again, we are providing parking.
It won't increase the danger of fire.
This building will be fully sprinklered.
And it will not otherwise endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare.
My client has made great efforts to ensure that.
The variance is not going to substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjoining properties.
Again, my client did meet with the adjoining properties, the owners of those properties, and address the concerns that they've raised in response to the initial application.
The grant of the variance, lastly, will not create any significant environmental damage, pollution, and will not significantly increase the danger of flooding.
The applicant is going to take measures to minimize any environmental damage during construction.
And with that being said, I would like my client to be sworn in, and I will just have a few questions for him.
Sarah, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Lenard Gay.
L-I-N-A-R-D.
Last name Gay, G-A-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Chair.
Lenard, could you tell us a little bit about the development projects that you perform in this neighborhood?
I've done a number of rehabs in this neighborhood.
I grew up in the neighborhood. I'm from that. I'm from Pulaski Avenue. So one of my goals is, of course, to if I can turn a shell into a beautiful home.
And that's what I tend to do with. Man on street.
Okay. And could you tell us a little bit about the meetings that you had with neighbors following our initial application, initial meeting with the RCO?
uh the first initial meeting um i i i definitely understood their concerns we addressed them and
again the second meeting was very very it went very well it went very well um we didn't not
no voice went unheard we're complying with everything they were like and again with this
project we tried our best to conform with the neighborhood we didn't try to go with any cookie
cutter style house we wanted to we i'm from germantown so i know the nostalgic of the area
we try to keep it to to that liking okay and did you hear the rest of my testimony this afternoon
i did and was it true and accurate very okay and would you like to adopt it as your own yes i would
Thank you. And Mr. Chair, Zemir Garcia, who's our project architect, he is in the audience. Should the board have any questions for him?
Sure. So we're going to get some questions from the board. So the first question is, so when you started, you were at four floors and you went to three?
That's correct.
And you were at 12 units and you went to eight?
That's correct.
Okay. Questions from the board?
Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes. Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Richardson, you've testified several times today. Just state your name and proceed.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 508 City Hall.
The Councilwoman is not opposed to granting the variance without any provisions.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Cheryl Smith.
Ms. Smith, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ms. Smith, state your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Cheryl Smith, C-H-E-R-Y-L-S-M-I-T-H.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed.
I represent the 12th Ward RCO. That's our letter.
We had actually we had two good meetings with the the applicant and his attorney.
The first one, they were absolutely willing to go back to the table and rework their drawings and their plans.
It's a unique building, as they stated. There's some difficulty with trash being stored inside, but the way that they set it up, the neighbors seemed to be okay with how they were going to have trash collected.
and and they actually met with several of the neighbors personally and when they came back to
the table the second time the neighbors were they had questions they had concerns but they voted to
support it because they felt like it was going to be an absolute improvement to their area
with the additions that I mentioned in the letter the quiet doors or the garage and things like that
But they all supported it at the end of it. And Solo was the only opposition that we had for this project.
Thank you very much for calling and thanks for your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no handshare.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plans. Recommends no change to the existing zoning of this location. The
applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of the physical circumstances or
condition of the property that we're preventing from being used and conforming with the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request for ranch not be granted. Thank you, sir. MI 2022-003-674-44
to 48 Mannheim Street. I vote yes.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. There are revised plans.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA on April 5th,
Thomas?
Thomas?
Thomas?
I vote yes with proviso.
Thomas?
My vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you so much, and apologies again for the tech issues.
Sure, sure, that's fine, that's fine.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called on the 2 o'clock list?
I see no handshare.
We're going to take a five-minute break, and then we're going to come back and do the remaining 3.30 list.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the CBA hearings for the 3.30 list.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
and our board member James Snell. Present Mr. Chairman. Also here is Hillary Emerson our attorney
and Tanya Sunkett our executive director. Here's our format. Be advised proceedings are being
recorded. The video will be available by contacting Tanya Sunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our
court synagoguers we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by a phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
200 appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
2-7-0-5-5-4-8. Leave your email and the address of the property in question. And finally, the
Leave your email and the address of the.
question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony, and any comments should
be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumkin. Let's look at our continuations that we
have for the 330 list. Number one, MI 2022-001-395-341 North 52nd Street. That case is
continued. Mark must be tried. And number eight, MI 2022-001-391-5221 Haverford Avenue. That case
is continued. Mark must be tried. Is there anyone has comments relative to the cases that have been
continue. I see no hands at this time, Chair. Do we have any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair. And then we have a few cases that we do not have
Exhibits. Number two, MI-2022-001-710-1615 Elaine Street. No exhibits, third listing.
Equities Group, LLC.
I see no hands, Chair.
M-I-2022-001-710-1615 Elaine Street. This is the third listing. I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number five, MI 2021-003-955-407-West Cayuga Street. We have no exhibits. This is
the fourth listing. Joel Santos is the listed owner. I see no handshare. MI 2021-003-955-407-West
Cayuga Street, I vote to dismiss. Thomas Tolman, I vote to dismiss. James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Shemel Shahi, my vote is to dismiss. Thank you. Number six, MI 2021-003-821-6811
Oxford Avenue. James Abreu is the owner. We have our lawyer, Ryan McSherry, filling in on this.
Hillary Emerson has a conflict from having worked in the area before.
No exhibits, fourth listing. We do have an interpreter here. Could the interpreter come
forward? Here we have Stephen Albain, the Spanish interpreter. Mr. Albain, please unmute yourself.
hello this is steven albain the spanish interpreter hi mr albain um could you spell
your name for the court reporter please yes sir my name is spelled s-t-e-v-e-n my last name is
spelled a-u-b-a-i-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do could you call for us james obray he's the owner we'd like him to appear
No one has put their hand up as of yet, Chair.
Let's try for Nicole one more time for us, James Abreu.
Así que James Albre, si puede levantar la mano o hacer clic en este para levantar la mano.
Any hands?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
So, Interpreter, this is MI 2021-003-821-6811 Oxford Avenue.
This is the fourth listing.
I vote to dismiss.
could you say that so he hears that's coming and this is the interpreter speak i'm sorry
i hate to interrupt chair but do you mind if i ask a quick question
sure of the audience this is tanya um but these are you on the line and is this your client
But Disa, are you on the line? And is this your client?
Because I just got an email, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you, interpreter.
Anytime, anytime.
So could you let him know we're going to dismiss his case, okay?
We just have a hand raised from a Juna Rosa.
tanya this is betita that's not my case okay thank you thank you all right so mi 2021
003 821 68 11 oxford avenue fourth listing i vote to dismiss tom
thank you interpreter
Thomas. Thomas Holloman, I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number three on our list, MI2022. Interpreter, thank you very much, by the way. We appreciate your help.
No problem. Thank you for using our service, Interpreter.
Sure. Number three, MI 2022-006-889-2817 West Style Street. Megan Stevens is the owner. It's a
pro se. This is for the erection of an addition to an attached structure for use as a single
family household living, size and location as shown on the action plan.
Chair, Ms. Stevens is coming back in as a panelist now.
Right. And a letter of support from Brevytown Chargedwood Community Civic Association. And also the applicant provided a petition in support signed by approximately 24 people, 13 of which live in the 2800 West of West Stile Street.