ZBA Hearing - February 11, 2025

the board that lehigh itself and as i showed in in the zoning map is and especially these two blocks

does have uh commercial presence there are a number of businesses there while some of them are

you know either closed or abandoned these these types of steps and allowing um out-of-towners or

not out-of-towners people to to visit different neighborhoods that are that have families that

that's what I brought up as the first point that this could be intended to

allow for people in the neighborhood to have their family members stay and

have places to be with their family while also being near a commercial

district that little by little needs to be revitalized with different kinds of

uses. So thank you. All right. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the votes for audience?

I see no hands.

Planning commission.

Thank you, chair Bergman. And good morning, David Vecto.

with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends

no change to the rsa5 residential single family zoning at this location this property was rezoned

in 2014 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan at that time this block face

was zoned rm1 residential multifamily a 2020 zoning ordinance passed by city council which

regulated short-term rentals did not change the basic rule prohibiting full-time use of a dwelling

unit as a short-term rental. This type of absentee management, where the owner does not live in the

unit, has been illegal since the first short-term rental zoning regulations became effective in

2015. What's changed since the passage of the 2020 ordinance is that there is now a licensing and

enforcement mechanism. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use

variance for visitor accommodations thank you mi 2024 004 351 2420 wesley high avenue i vote no

cheryl gaston my vote is no tennetta graham my vote is no i win my vote is no

thank you council thank you members of the board that concludes my business with the

board might be excused thank you um number seven and eight please mi 2024 006 055 1832 north van

pelt street and hillary okay to do both together um let me just excuse mr knockamson is your client

the same for both cases i i see they're owned by two different llcs

i'm sorry i can't hear okay so can you put your mic on and just respond again mr noggamson yes

uh so the principal member is the same for both companies but they are separate companies one

owns one property and one owns the other for presentation materials i do have separate

presentations i filed for to the board but i also for presentation purposes now i was going to do

it in one present okay yes that's what i was verifying i figured it was probably the same

principle for both companies. So that's fine. MI 2024-006-055-1832 North Van Pelt Street and

number eight MI 2024-006-103-1846 North Van Pelt Street. Mr. Nocklinson could, for the record,

could you just state your name? Yes, Alan Nocklinson. You've already been sworn and

And our Tenetta Graham has a few questions for you.

Good morning.

Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?

And do you stipulate to its accuracy?

I do.

Thank you.

You may proceed.

I do not believe I've been promoted to a panelist.

Thank you.

all right we're going to present 1832 and 1846 north band pelt uh these are separate zoning

appeals uh but for presentation purposes and efficiency i put them in the same presentation

1832 reina investment llc owns i mean reina investment llc owns 1832 and grazed property

LLC, owns 1846. So during my presentation, we're going to review the individual knows

owns 1846. so during my presentation we're going to review the individual notices of refusal

we did not get any correspondence from the coordinating rco strawberry managing community

concern we did meet with the community and as stated previously there were three properties

that were presented at that community meeting two with this client to the left of me mr ollie

Dodd, who owns Rayna Investment LLC, as well as Grace Property LLC, and then an unrelated

client who owns another property.

Much of the discussion dealt with the North 24th Street property, which is being continued

tomorrow.

These properties are rather straightforward in nature.

Again, this block, if we'll go through it, has multiple instances of triplexes, and in

actuality 1832 is has a zoning permanent a building permit for five unit dwelling so today we could

build a five unit dwelling we think it's more appropriate to mimic the other properties on that

block which are triplexes in nature and during our presentation we'll also review the history

of not just 1832 but 1846 which has had a history as a seven unit rooming home so again not out of

character for the history of this property, not out of character for the block itself to have

multifamily on this block. We'll look at an aerial view of the property or of the block, which is

exhibit six, which shows that there's a lot of open space here. So encouraging this development

of triplexes makes sense under their circumstances. And that goes to a hardship that is not practical

or realistic to force someone to build a single-family home here.

Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property,

our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notices,

our applications for appeal, our deeds of the property,

showing that we own these properties in different entities,

and our certificates of tax clearance.

Again, at the conclusion of my presentation,

I would ask that Mr. Ali Dodd sit to the left of me.

He'll turn on his mic.

the board will have a swear him in and i'll have a few questions for him

um notice there's a refusal so 1832 uh north van pelt street we have two refusals one uh for the

use although again you know we're asking for a triplex here um this property has a current zoning

and building permit for five unit dwelling when mr ali dodd was looking to develop these properties

He looked at the block itself where there's many, many triplexes with lots of equal size, and again, practically fitting five units in there doesn't really make sense from a comfort standpoint for the tenants.

He thought having a triplex would make more sense.

That's why we have that proposal, but because this is an RSA-5 property, we have a refusal for the use.

The second refusal has to do with the rear yard, where nine feet is required and five feet is proposed. This mimics what has been approved by this board previously by way of variance, so again, not out of character.

And then the same refusals pertain essentially for 1846, which again has a history as a seven-unit rooming house.

This is an RSA-5 property.

We have three refusals, one for the use, where you see here we were originally proposing four-unit dwelling.

Again, talking to the neighborhood, our office doing more research on this matter, we thought it was more appropriate to have a three-unit dwelling.

because of all the other three-unit dwellings that are on this block,

and I have a list of them.

1843, 1859, 1811, 1816, 1814, 1812, North Van Pelt Street,

all are triplexes.

All are of equal or, in many cases, lesser size from a lot standpoint

than our property.

And then in addition to the use variances,

And, again, if the board feels so inclined to grant this variance, we would ask we have a maximum three units for this property.

And I think we have revised plans for that as well.

Two other refusals have to do, again, with the rear yard depth and the occupied area.

Again, not out of character to what you're seeing on this block.

More so, we just want to provide functional floor plans, and we need that extra space to do that.

And we would ask that the board also grant those dimensional variances.

Then, again, we usually have a placeholder when we don't have a letter from the community, as my understanding is Ms. Cummings is online.

I'm sure she can summarize the meeting.

But, again, most of the discussion dealt with the other property, which is not the subject of this appeal on North 24th Street.

um you know that will be for another day um again not much much discussion here there was some

That will be for another day.

Again, not much discussion.

discussion with well well you have five units go build it um you know i think that's cutting off

your nose to spite your face in a way because you know what we hear a lot of times is hey there's

too much density like we can't and we want bigger units that's what we're trying to do here and if

you look at it from a from a practical situation we have five units in one building and we have a

single-family zoning classification one for a total of six units we just want to redistribute

the units three and three again makes sense because there's a half a dozen instances on that

block doing the same thing and then this is our revised plans and this is i believe for 1840 it

is for 1846 north man pelt street if this board approves this variance we would ask that you know

reduce the amount of units to three units which mimics what's you know on that block and then we

We made a small modification, we noticed when the plans were submitted to L&I, there was

minor discrepancy, so it's just a little cleanup, which we're changing the location and the

size of the window wells.

And then these are just the floor plans, again, these are both three-story structures.

The height of these buildings are 35 feet high, both are flat brick facade buildings.

and then this is the history of the property 1832 again is for has approval for five family

dwelling there's also a reference to commercial trash pickup as part of their you know of their

zoning permit and again for both properties you know to be fair about it we would ask that there

would be proviso for commercial trash pickup as well and then this is 1846 again the history

as a seven-unit rooming house for this property.

So neither of them has a history of single-family use at all.

And then these are in addition to the properties I mentioned on Vail Pelt Street,

but there is nearby, 1843 North 22nd Street is multifamily.

That's six units.

1800 North 22nd Street, that would be four units.

1906 north 22nd street five units 1904 north 22nd street four units i think we have a picture

yes and then the aerial view you can see there's a lot of mist there's a lot of vacant land here

um it's very difficult you know to build single family homes here and that's why there's really

only triplexes and multi-family nearby and you know mr holly dodd um you know we know that this

is not enforceable but his business model is completely affordable housing it would be out of

character for actually him to do market rate housing so in order to for the numbers to make

sense because of construction costs and rising interest rates he needs you know three units in

1846 and it makes sense to reduce the amount of units to three units in 1832.

and then maps of the area there is mixed zoning here like again on our block is rsa5 but there

again multiple instances nearby on our block and nearby of multi-family dwellings and then we are

near rm1 as well and you know there is a commercial quarter down here not far from it helps always

good to help to support the commercial quarter by increased density and then from a google maps

perspective you can see as well and then again you can see that there's ample you know public

transportation on ridge avenue as well the commercial quarter photographs of the property

this is the front of 1832 north van pelt street the front of 1846 north van pelt street

these are orange notice posters showing proof of posting for today's hearing 1832 north van pelt

1846 north van pelt and then um this is the proper 1846 north van pelt um as far back as

2014 you can see it's been a vacant lot for at least a decade and then this is north van pelt

street to the uh to the right of the property to the left of the property and then that was for

1832 for 1846 this is the right of 1846 this is the left of 1846 our plans and drawings again

pretty straightforward flat brick facade there is a bi-level for the first floor and lower level

for unit number one and then unit number two and unit number three are both uh you know on each

each floor so those are the three units and the same thing for 1846 it's essentially the same we

just swap the floor plans because they're basically twins of each other just across street

Just across the street.

And now RCO meeting notices.

Our RCO meeting notices, we met with the community on February 3rd.

There's additional requests made by this community group that we willingly provide,

making sure that people know that this is not junk mail.

On there we put public community meetings so people know that if they get this notice,

it's not because someone's trying to sell something to them.

We also emailed a notice to the community group

as well as the coordinating or the community group

and the relevant parties at least two weeks beforehand.

So we showed that proof of mailing.

So we emailed that notice to them

and showed that we mailed it to 137 addresses for 1832.

These are the list of the addresses,

proof of mailing in those addresses.

And then obviously this is a separate zoning matter, 1846.

We did the same thing.

Slightly different addresses, but proof of mailing to those addresses are applications

for appeal that we filed on behalf of both entities, our deeds showing that Reina Investment

LLC is the owner of 1832, while Grace Property LLC is the owner of 1846, and then our Certificates

of Tax Clearance.

While there is a balance shown here for both properties, those amounts are technically not due until March 31st of 2025.

I'm going to stop sharing my screen.

I would ask that Mr. Al-Haddad be sworn in.

Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Michael Al-Haddad, A-L-H-A-D-A-D.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Please proceed, counsel.

I don't want to leave that. I want to get closer. Yes. Mr. Ali Dodd, you heard what I stated about both zoning matters. Yes, I do. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, I do. Thank you. You're okay with just the one person, right? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board.

yes um looking at the project because this is new construction could you explain for the two

zoning use refusals what the hardship is you mean for the dimensional aspects dimensional and the

maximum occupied area uh so and i i believe our architects on architects representative is online

but it really has to go with the functionality of the floor plans you know you want to make sure

that you have enough room for the bedrooms for the living room the kitchen so that's ultimately

what we're seeking we and and you know that's why we went down from five units to three units was to

provide more functionality there and then with the from going to the five to the three

you still have the same yard depth yes i mean again it's you know two of the units are on its

own floor so instead of cutting up those units and making it dysfunctional we just wanted to

have a straight through front to back and we think that would you know be beneficial to the

occupants in the property. Other questions? Yep. Could you tell me can you go back to the basement

plan and I'm trying to see if there's window wells in the rear and the front and also where

is trash going to be stored for the units? So from a building code perspective we're required

to have window wells in the front and the back because of the living in the basement um so i'll

go through that but we'll clarify the quality of the window wells is what she was asking okay well

there there these are code all i can tell you is they're code compliance window wells