you heard the statements I made
to the, this is your parish, correct?
It is. Okay.
And you
heard the statements that I made to the board today?
I did. And are you
true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They are all true as far as I'm aware.
Okay. And would you adopt them as your own?
I do adopt them as my own.
Thank you.
And then I have a representative from Casey Signs who raised his hand.
He signs.
So, Mr. Orfanides, you're an officer of the court and will gladly accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from the existing residential single-family split zoning of RSA 3 and RSD 3 to RSA 3.
The Appellant has shown evidence of unique circumstances and conditions that would require relief from the zoning code.
The proposed use is accessory to the current use and would not injure the use of adjoining properties.
the planning commission recommends that the board grant all requested sign variances with proviso
that the signs comply with the minimum message duration and brightness standards for signs with
illumination thank you uh hillary we're going to hold this till we correct the refusals is that
correct yes i can work with mr orphanetes and l and i and see whether it should be corrected or
amended. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Orphanides, but this will, it's closed except
for that. Am I correct, Hillary? Yes, closed except for a updated refusal to reflect what
was discussed today. Thank you, Mr. Orphanides. Thank you. May I be excused? You can. Thank you.
Okay. Number eight, MI 2024-004-144-2255 North 22nd Street. Michael Matteoni is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young and a letter of support from all in the family CDC.
Michael Maddione has been promoted to panelist.
Good afternoon, council.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Michael Mattioni, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I. Oh, there we go.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly.
It's Mishpaha LLC, and I have its principal.
I have the principal, Ben Beagle and Sam Mandelbaum here as well.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, and yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Is that all?
Yeah, we're good now. We're good now.
You might want to make it just a little larger if you can.
We'll do that, yeah.
I'll just see.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I represent Mishpaha.
They are the owner of three properties, 2255, 57, and 59 North 22nd Street.
And again, we presented the exhibits up on the screen prior to today's hearing, including tax clearance, the refusal, a letter of support from the All in the Family CDC,
the coordinating RCO, a development agreement with All-in-the-Family CDC, revised plans form, revised zoning site plan, a copy of a bill from City Council 210-66701, and photographs.
Our clients are seeking one variance to develop this property into 18 units, where 11 units are presently permitted due to the lot size.
However, when the property was acquired on December 1st, 2021, they could have developed
this property into 18 units.
Right after they acquired the property, with no knowledge on their part, there was an overlay
pass that took away both the green roof bonus and the low-income housing bonus.
So instead of being able to develop two units for the green roof bonus and five units under
the low-income housing bonus, they were only limited to 11 units with no bonuses.
And this happened after they acquired the property.
And under that plan, they would have had to have two affordable units at 50% AMI.
Again, this ordinance was passed just after they acquired the property.
It was introduced on September 17th.
They acquired the property on September 1st, and they had no way to know that this ordinance was going to be introduced.
Again, we do have the letter of support from the All-in-the-Family CDC, the coordinating RCO, and we work with them extensively to come up with an agreement that they were supportive of.
And part of what we did was we agreed to have six affordable units out of the 18 units with two units for households earning no more than 50 percent AMI, one unit for household earning no more than 60 percent AMI, and three units for households earning no more than 80 percent AMI.
And we entered into a development agreement enforceable by the RCO, which is a CDC, and specifically entered into that with them for this reason.
Because, again, overlays are not permitted in this district, so we can't come in with the city and enter into an agreement with, typically enforceable agreement with the Planning Commission on affordable units because we're not allowed to have them under the zoning ordinance.
However, the RCO said they would like us to have the affordable units.
The other thing we did was we originally had height at 42 feet and we reduced it to 38 feet after meeting with the community.
So they wanted us, this is the height of the existing property at 2253.
And this is what we propose and we are, and that's the roof deck.
But basically, we have the same height. We're six inches taller than the existing building.
So when we came down to 38 feet, the RCO said, OK, we have no problem with that.
And that's why we have the revised plans form and the revised zoning site plan.
and that's how we measured the height.
And that's how we measured the height.
And this is the site plan,
just showing that we meet all the dimensional requirements,
height, building coverage, lot coverage, et cetera.
The only issue is the number of units.
And the floor plans show we have nine two-bedroom units,
nine one-bedroom units.
At the ground floor, lower level,
there is a trash room as well for all of the units
and the utility storage space.
And everything else is the same.
You have in the front of the building on each floor,
two bedroom units and two one-bedroom units.
And that goes through to the roof
where there is a rooftop deck for use by all of the occupants.
and again the the affordable units will be dispersed throughout the project to ensure
there is no discrepancy in the unit locations and finishes when looking at this we believe
that there was an unnecessary hardship because city council changed the ordinance took away
the right to develop the property with the bonuses right after the client acquired the
property they had no way to know that that was going to happen and all of a sudden their whole
model for developing the property was not viable because of the change in the ordinance.
We worked with the neighbors and they did agree. And we actually are building six affordable units,
which prior to the change in the ordinance, we only had to build two affordable units. And we've
agreed to build six affordable units by meeting and working with the community. We believe that,
again, that created unnecessary hardship. Our variance is the minimum variance from the
development of the property.
It's in conformity with what would have been permitted
prior to the change in the ordinance.
It permits the development of this property
as a multifamily property.
It's an RM1 zoning class,
so it is a multifamily zoning class.
It will benefit public health, safety, and welfare
by bringing development to this area.
I wanna show the photos.
I mean, it's a large, we only go to about here,
but it's a large open area with no development in the area.
i'm going to go up against this mural will be right same height basically as this existing
structure again just showing the property
and some of the surrounding properties they're all multi-family public school across the street
additional affordable units right down the street
And again, at the other end of the block, there is also some vacant properties.
So, you know, we're doing it in conformity.
It's multifamily.
That's what permitted here.
It will get rid of vacant properties, making environmental damage in the area less likely.
And we just believe that given what's happened in this, the working with the community and the unique nature of the site
and how it changed what was permitted right after the client acquired the property that
this creates the hardship and really we're going to develop in conformity with what
is already in the area. What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is call on Ben Beagle.
Do we see his hand?
Yes, Ben Beagle has been allowed to speak.
Mayor, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Ben Beagle, B-E-N-B-E-I-G-E-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ben, did you hear my statements?
Yes, I did.
And are they true and correct?
Absolutely.
And do you adopt them as your testimony?
Yes, I would.
Nothing further, Mr. Chair?
questions or comments from the board can you go back to the site plan please certainly
we do have our architect available as well okay
all right so to be clear this is a four-story walk-up and the vacant lot at the corner now
is five lots and your property is three of those five so you're consolidating
three of them into a single lot with opa correct
you can you scroll down a little bit i can't see the whole site point
whoops sorry about that
that's
that's the bottom
that's the bottom uh still can't see it it's always gotta scroll over it's cutting off with
still can't see it
the second stairwell for us it might just be how far it's zoomed in on your computer
yeah maybe you have to zoom in a little bit or zoom out a little bit more
too much but yes
like okay so yeah so who so what's the where's the house where's the trash being kept how is
the trash going to be removed on who has access to the yard through the use go ahead trash is
stored in the basement okay phone nine up in the front of the building we have a large trash area
in the basement of the building.
Access is through the back of the house.
It's only for, you know, access to the yard.
It's through the back of the structure,
and it's only for the people that live here.
Can you give me a second?
Hold on.
And then are the mechanicals in the basement
or in unit for each apartment?
Generally in here, but the architect could speak
to any specific questions you might have.
But that's what this large room is for, utilities and mechanicals.
And the trash is in the front.
Trash is in the front.
They're separated.
Laundries in unit?
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
Then laundry is in unit?
Laundries in each unit.
Is that the little square box that's outside of the bedrooms?
It's hard to read.
And my question is, the parallel unit to the utility unit,
Is that two units in the basement?
There's two units in the basement.
In the back, it's a one-bedroom.