is 186 feet wide so you could only fit three lots or three homes into this site um the uh the
applicant is seeking to take two lots into one and then using that combined lot and the overall size
of it to justify what it purports to be a hardship here um if i that if that is a hardship it is in
fact self-created by the applicant's own plan but you know for the reasons previously stated at length
before and in the interest of time um we do not believe that there's a hardship here there's
significant neighborhood opposition um and i believe that the councilman has also delivered
a letter to the board where he is in opposition to this plan as well thank you mr whalen yes thank
thank you mr chairman i i will again be brief um aside unfortunately aside from the recitations of
the code and the marshall standard for what is required in the city for a variance a unique
hardship no adverse impact on health safety and welfare and the least minimum variance test
Ms. Alderfer has wholly misstated the legal standard before you, and that would be before
the court, which we understand, regardless, is going to get appealed. The party is, both under
Hertzberg and Marshall, not required at any point in time to show a by-right plan or to show that a
by-right plan doesn't work, or that any permitted use doesn't work or is financially unviable.
I could, you know, go into most of the factual recitations that Ms. Alderfer made were refuted
by our experts, and obviously we can go into those if you want them. Now, a lot has been
made about hardship. The hardship is, excuse me, a hardship by law under the Wilson case from
2007 from the Supreme Court is not self-created where a developer obtains a lot intending to use
it for an unpermitted process. So here there's no issue of self-creating a hardship. And while
the consolidated lots would be 44,000 square feet, each individual lot is 22,000 square feet
almost exactly. It's almost a precise even split. And same dimensionally,
a precise even split. And same dimensionally, there are no second row of homes elsewhere in
the neighborhood because there are no properties that could have a second row of homes.
All of the other properties that have depth to them are from Fountain Street going up the steep
slope and you can't build on that steep slope. This property is extremely unique in that sense
that we have about 180 feet before you or 185 feet before you get to a steep slope that you're
not allowed to build in and therefore that that size that sheer size of 44,000 square feet when
you're talking about rsd3 and only a 5,000 square foot lot size it is not contextual and does not
fit you also heard from that the large lots are not an appropriate land use for the land planner
you also did hear with regard to the least minimum variance test both from the applicant
the architect and the land planner in the original instance that this that 15 was the
least minimum variance necessary and was an appropriate use for this project in order to
be contextual with the project. Context of this neighborhood does not constitute just the
immediately adjacent parcels as Ms. Alderfer would have you rely upon. It indeed includes the
entire block and albeit the entire near neighborhood. And specific to that, the primary
hardship here, which this zoning board has upheld numerous times and the Commonwealth Court has
upheld numerous times is that a change in neighborhood in and of itself constitutes
a hardship on the property. So here, regardless of the 2017 ordinance, which does equate to
reverse spot zoning, there were approximately 40 homes all twins and row houses built within
the last 10 years up and down this block. You know, just because these properties at
end of the block are the last ones to the party doesn't mean that they get shut out. That is
basically why the court has found when you have a neighborhood that is changing over,
you are allowed residential in an industrial neighborhood if industrial use is no longer
viable. Here you heard extensive testimony that the RSD3 large lot homes do not have a market,
they are not appropriate land uses in this neighborhood and therefore you have a significant
change in the neighborhood and that testimony was actually seconded by the RCO the original RCO
letter it was clear that there was no adverse impact these are single family for sale residences
there's limited traffic that traffic report was provided in advance all deliveries and
what not are going to be off street. This has already been reviewed and meets all of the streets
requirements. It's a 24 foot wide dry vial. So therefore, there will be no issues with the
private trash collection. We are actually required by code to have private trash collection. So all
of these issues that were raised are really red herrings. There will be an implementation of a
huge stormwater management system. There is none that exists there now and when we went door-to-door
we found a mixed bag about whether or not the Fountain Street homes had issues. I'm going to
object to that as hearsay. We had numerous, you know, we are not disturbing the steep slope in
any way, shape, or form. The earth moving plan must be provided under the code only before the
issuance of a zoning permit. We obviously know that, and we have to provide it. It is not in
any way required before the issuance or the granting of a variance. If the board deems it
pertinent, we are happy to take your vote and leave open the record just for the submission of
that, you know, to the board. We are actually meeting the, even though we are attempting to
meet the character and context of an RSA 5 neighborhood, we are, the revised plans meet
the open space and the keeping of the green area that would be required in the RSD 3 neighborhood,
so we get rid of that refusal. And across the board, the revised plans make, you know, have
been presented to everybody with full knowledge and become far more code compliant in every
respect, including the side yard setback that Ms. Alder for reference.
alder for reference um so you know with regard to that there's there's clear hardship here
So, you know, with regard to that, there's, there's
uh on numerous grounds um it is not self-created we have no burden to show that the property is
valueless unless we uh you know as um permitted by right um you know we can and you know may in
the future build eight homes by right in accordance with the rsd3 but unfortunately you heard from our
land planner. We heard it at CDR and you've heard it from our the applicant that that simply is not
an appropriate use at this time because the neighborhood has changed and from the site
photos we showed up and down the street everything else including right across the street are
twins and new row homes. So I don't want to belabor anything else and I very much appreciate
board's time and consideration here thank you any questions for the board no
uh planning commission on bednar city planning this property is indicated for residential use
on the city plan i believe the applicant is not the applicant has completed a civic design review
committee process since that meeting the plan was revised reducing the application to 15 units
we'd like to point out that there is no hardship for having a single family detached lot that is
too large and thus justifying the variance for to overbuild the lots the proposal presented
to you today would permit three units and it is five times that of the 15 units. We
feel that the amount of vehicles associated with this project would have a negative impact to a
16-foot wide Delmar Avenue and does not even have sidewalks nor was utility infrastructure
design for such density. We have concerns about the impact the project will have as it cuts a fair
amount of trees, vegetation down, and will have potential for increased erosion, siltation, storm
water, and runoff. On the design, we feel that creating a second row of housing behind the row
facing the street is out of character with the surrounding area as proposed as shown on the
aerial provided by the applicant lastly this area of del mar was down so down zoned according to the
lower northwest district plan in 2018 in an effort to reduce the negative impacts from
development upon infrastructure and environment. We feel that 15 units isn't appropriate at this
location and recommends that the board not approve this application as applied or as amended.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-001-250, 209 Delmar Street. My vote is no.
my vote is no
my vote is no
my vote is no
everyone
this concludes the
3.30 list
yes that's it
any unfinished business
have a good night
I will send you
a zoom invitation
Have a good night.