ZBA Hearing - June 1, 2022

questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman

questions or comments from the virtual audience

i see no hands chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning while this property

is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical condition of the site

and its documented use history,

we recommend the request for Vanish for Granted.

Thank you.

MI 2022-000-5450-5100 Chester Avenue.

I vote yes.

Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.

James Snell, my vote is yes.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

number six is mi 2020 000 175 59 65 chester avenue that case has been withdrawn number seven

mi 2021 00 3108 6147 asala street henry clinton is the attorney

letter of support from chew and bellfield neighbors club incorporated

mr clinton good evening mr chairman members of the board

all right could you state your name and spell please mr clinton for the court reporter

clinton clinton right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but

the truth? I do. Could you identify your client, your relationship to the property? Sure. The owner

of the property is DD Investments, LLC. And the principal of that LLC is Anat, A-N-A-T, Madar,

M-A-D-A-R, who is on the call. All right. Our vice chair has a few questions. Hi, Mr. Clinton.

Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you

email the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral

photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the

rco and do you have a letter yes to all the above okay great you may proceed and share your screen

is that visible enough it is okay good evening mr chairman members of the board henry clinton

for DED Investments. Anat Madar is the principal. She is on the call. This is my presentation this

evening, and my presentation package contains a table of contents with exhibits AA to A10,

which I ask to be admitted into evidence this evening. This is the appearance statement,

and this is the refusal, the key document we're dealing with. So just a little bit of background.

I actually have two refusals. There was an original refusal from June of 2021. We only had one

We only had one refusal, which was we were proposing a two-family dwelling in this RSA-5

refusal, which was we were proposing a two-family dwelling in the

lot. The lot is huge. It's 25 by 120, and that's why we requested a two-family dwelling.

When we went before the community group, they had a number of issues with the project,

not necessarily the way it looked, but the layout of it, and asked us, well, why don't you have

parking because a lot is so big. So in response to the community's concerns, we amended the refusal

and went back and asked for the things that the community group asked for. And when we did that,

it resulted in a second notice of refusal, which then contained three refusals. One refusal was

what we got originally, was the two-family dwelling is not permitted in an RSA 5 zone.

And then the second refusal and third refusal are the results of what the community group

asks us to do. We install parking and the refusal indicates you cannot have family,

excuse me, parking in an attached or semi-attached building unless it can be accessed from a shared

driveway, alley, or rear street. And as you'll see from the photographs, our parking is accessed

from the front of the building because it's an extremely wide lot 25 feet wide and the second

the third refusal was that the parking spaces should be 20 feet in depth and ours are 18 feet

respectively so that's the background that we come to the uh before the board with

uh we do have a letter of support from the rco and you'll see that that's dated way back in

November, because again, our first refusal was in 2021. And at that meeting, there was support

for the project, but only if we provide off-street parking for two cars and a rear exit and a ladder

for safety on the second floor deck for emergency exits. And we have complied with all these

request. This is a photo of the lot. The lot is, as I say, 25 wide and it runs all the way back

actually along the rear of six homes adjacent on this main street here. And then there's an

alleyway at the back that then runs to the rear street. Another aerial view just showing the

overgrown nature of the lot. Based on my look at the historical records, the lot has been vacant

since it sits at least somewhere between 2004 and 2008.

This is looking west, excuse me, east of Osceola Street.

And you can see the overgrown nature of this lot

before my client bought it.

And she now has cleaned it up.

The plans are attached.

We mark them as revised plans.

We don't need a proviso form where we don't have any plans to be stamped because when we apply for the second application and got that revised refusal, it's based on these plans, even though I'm calling them revised.

So what we did from the original plan is the building used to be somewhat centered.

We've now moved the building over closer to the property line and have a drive aisle through to the back of the property to accommodate two parking spaces in the rear.

This is the layout of the property.

The community group also asked for a rear exit, and we provided that.

There's a rear exit from the basement to get out into the rear yard.

And then the community group also asked that on the second floor deck here that we install a ladder.

This proposal came in shortly after the fire in Fairmount,

and it was real concern about getting access from the property onto the street below.

And our plans do reference that ladder.

first floor basement is family room master in the back again a set of walkout steps to the rear

first floor living room dining room and a bedroom and then the third excuse me second and third

floor we have three bedrooms and two baths there's no rooftop deck there's no issue with regard to

open space rear yard or height and I just point out to the board here's a reference to

emergency escape ladder to be provided as part of the building plans for this particular property.

So in conclusion, we have no impact on adjacent properties with regard to light and air.

We have no impact on adjacent properties with regard to light and air.

I believe we have a unique circumstance with an oversized lot.

I believe we have

The project is in harmony with the code.

It's in harmony with the wants of the community.

As I said, we did not ask for parking when we approached the community.

At their bequest, we reinvented the project and resubmitted a new plan with two parking spots,

which then resulted in the two refusals beyond the use refusal.

Also for the board, just wanted to show we do have streets approval for the curb cut.

And then the remainder of the documents, these are the original plans.

I don't know if the board wants to see those plans,

but you can see we don't have any walkout from the basement,

nor do we have any parking spaces on the property.

The rest of the documents are pro forma tax, excuse me, are pro forma documents you can typically see in an application, our tax certification, our notice to the community, the BIP form, the zoning map.

And again, not to belabor the point, but you can see this is an extremely wide lot, wider than any lot on Topohockin Street or Osceola Street, and deeper than most other than the two narrow lots to the east.

And this is the deed and all the other pro forma documents, as I said, that one typically would see in a ZBA presentation.

so in conclusion because i think it's a unique circumstance and we're trying to

actually please what the community wants and desires

we ask that the board look kindly upon this application

mr clinton is your client here yes miss madar can you raise your hand and unmute yourself

good evening i could you could you state your name please and spell it for the court reporter

anax madal a-n-a-t madal m-a-d-a-r do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and

nothing but the truth yes sir proceed uh be you miss madora were you on the call when i presented

this project yes and if you had the opportunity to testify would you testify as if i did and would

you adopt my testimony as true yes sir thank you questions from the board no mr chairman

no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience or comments

i see no hands chair planning commission ron bednar city planning property is indicated for

residential use on the city plan given the physical circumstances of the site

recommended the quest for parents be granted provided no accessory parking spaces

mi 2021-003-108-6147 oselai street i vote yes proviso per amended refusal dated 3-2-23

carol cenary my vote is yes proviso thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso

James Snell, my vote is yes with provisor.

Mr. Snell, my vote is yes with provisor.

Thank you, Mr. Clinton.

Thank you, Mr. Burbank. Good evening, everyone.

Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called?

I see no handshare.

Thanks, everybody. Sorry it went so late today,

but sometimes these cases are just a little more complicated.

although I guess

compared to the old days, this might be an early

you're doing good

you're doing good Bill

we're ready to get breakfast

now

stop it Carol

see you guys

goodnight all

bye everybody

thanks Pauline