that they own the property and the certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion of my presentation,
I would ask that Matt Kahn, the owner's representative, virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Notice of refusal. So this is an RSA3 property. We're asking for three family household living.
It looked like there's two doors there.
My client took the casing of that looks like a door that was a window and put in a door in there.
So there's a direct access for the first floor units from the outside.
And then the second and third floor units, we go through a separate door.
Originally, when my client purchased the property, it was one door, you know, three, one front door, three units.
Now it's two front doors, three units.
But we have two refusals.
One is for the fact that we're seeking multifamily use.
And this is RSA 3, which is not allowed under the code.
Again, this property was three units when we purchased it.
It looks like it has a long history of three units.
It's a picture of three mailboxes that were associated with this property before my client purchased the property.
And there are, I believe, six or seven instances of multifamily structures just on that block, including ones to the left and right of us.
The second refusal has to do with parking.
you know because this is an RSA 3 property we are required to have some type of off-street parking
on the property itself it would be physically impossible for us to have parking here given
that this is an existing building structure and parking wouldn't fit on this property and again
not out of character because you don't see that in this neighborhood anyway even when you have
multiple units, such as the ones I referenced beforehand. Correspondence, we did not have a
second meeting with the community, and I think that's why Solo was upset. Obviously, we are
planning to have one January 7th, 2025. And then this is their explanation about this project.
I feel like it would be more appropriate for me to respond after we have the community meeting.
Petition. Again, you see my client really focused on the properties on Knox Street.
And then here's a letter of support from Knox as well.
And then the 4,900 blocks of Knox Street are nearby multifamily. We have three units on 4,901
Knox Street, four units at 4903 Knox Street, three units for 4905 Knox Street, three units for 4907
Knox Street, three units for 4903 Knox Street. All these properties, including ours, are very
large lots. Our lot is 1,882 square feet. And in addition to those lots I mentioned, again,
And 4,900 and 4,904, which are connected to us to left and right, are also multifamily in nature.
Maps to the area, well, yeah, to the outside world, this looks like a solid single-family neighborhood.
It's not.
There's multiple instances just like us where multifamily has been there.
We're just trying to legalize that use so we can use the property for three-family dwelling.
That's what we thought we were buying.
um again we're not we're off wayne area avenue which you know has you know public transportation
and it's also commercial zoning in nature photographs of the property um can't really
see it here but this is where the three mailboxes are um but you know we didn't really change
anything other than this door this door used to be a window um and again everyone prior to us
purchasing it would go through the front door we'll look at the floor plans but you would make
a right immediate right to the first floor unit and then each floor has its own unit this window
this window that was encased, like you would see it like a door, my client's like, well,
that's was in case like you would see it like a door my clients like
might as well just have the first floor unit have direct access to their unit from the outside. And
that's the only change that he made. Everything else has stayed the same. Here's our orange notice
poster for today's hearing. This is Knox Street to the right of the property, Knox Street to the
left of the property. And then we just decided, you know, here, here are some interior photos of
our property. Again, my client hasn't really made any changes at all.
And then just our plans and drawings, again, existing footprints, but, you know, here's the
two doors, the door to the right, which was added. It was a window before. Before that,
you would go through the door in the front, the left one, and you would just make a right into
unit number one, and again, going up the steps for units two and three each on a separate floor.
Instead, we have this door here, which is unit number one. It's an open floor plan, and it has
a bedroom and a full bath down here. And then there is a lower level, which again, is just
finished, but there's no living, you know, there's no bedrooms in the basement. This is where the hot
order, uh, heaters are for each of the units. Each of the units have washer and dryers in the
units, as well as separate HVAC units in the individual units. Instead of going through the
front door to the right for unit number one, you go through the front door to the left,
you go up a flight, you get in the vestibule area, you go up a flight of steps. Uh, this is
a one-bedroom, one-bath. And then you, instead of, you know, again, open floor plan, kitchen,
living room again the HVAC units here with a washer and dryer bathroom and then a bedroom
you go instead of unit number two you go up to another flight of steps is unit number three
and again you would see an open floor plan kitchen living room area HVAC along with a washer and
dryer and here is the bedroom they actually have two bedrooms here and here's the bath behind that
RCO meeting notice we met on September 19th at 6 p.m.
This is proof of our mailing to the 99 addresses that we're in, that we're required to mail notice of that community meeting.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Warren's Realty Holdings, LLC,
along with the notice of refusal, the project information form, the deed to the property showing that they own the property,
And then filing the Certificate of Tax Clearance. Well, it does say we have a balance here. It's because of 2025 taxes, which are not yet due yet.
I was actually told that another member of the LLC, Siobhan Jackson, is actually in the virtual audience instead. So I would ask that Siobhan virtually raise his hands.
Siobhan Jackson has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stodogar?
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Siobhan Jackson.
Could you spell, please, for the reporter?
C-H-A-B-O-N-E-J-A-C-K-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
hi yes um mr jackson you heard everything i had to state today about jorzoni matter yes is it true
and correct yes do you adopt as your own testimony yes thank you uh one other point um members of
the board and i failed to state that during my presentation is that this this property does not
have a history of single family use if you look at the lni file for this at one point this was a
single-family home with a separate daycare in it. So even though this is an RSA-3 zoning
classification, it's never really been used as single-family. And given the surrounding area
and how similarly situated properties are multifamily in nature, despite its zoning
classification, I respectfully request that the board grant the variance for three-family dwelling.
We'll do that the next time we get together.
questions from the board
I should say we'll vote the next time
I have no question
I have a question just for some clarity
so you're saying that your client purchased
the property as a triplex but he
installed the door the second door
yeah the second door
so what happened is
and let me get to the floor plans and I think
maybe I didn't explain it that well
let's see
so before when this door didn't exist this was just a window but the shape of the window was
it was a door so i mean that's what it looked like and he's and he instead so all he did was
literally put a door in that casing where that where that window used to be before what happened
is before that that door was there this door the front door to the property gave exclusive
of access to unit number one. There used to be a door right here for direct access to unit number
one. And then you would go up a flight of steps for unit number two, go up another flight of
steps for unit number three. Did I answer your question? I guess my question is, was the new
owner, did they do that work? Or when they purchased a property, was that original door
to the first one there? No, that's the only thing that my client did do. After he purchased the
property, he added that second door. Okay. Then found out that it wasn't zoned for triplex
legally? Yeah. So when he tried to get the rental license for three units,
he didn't realize that this wasn't a legal triplex and that's when we were hired.
Thank you. You're welcome.
Any questions for the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Amberson?
not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience yes chair charles richardson has been allowed to
speak i'm mr richardson how are you sir i'm well chair um charles richardson r-i-p-h-a-r-d-s-o-n
office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall you swear or affirm to tell the truth told
truth is nothing but the truth i certainly do please proceed uh i wanted to add this little
clarity to uh you're receiving this um this this letter from solo germantown um it's very confusing
and i sent something in a little earlier today i don't know whether you guys got it or not
uh and and and it seems that solo tends to give wrong numbers and things along those lines
There were individuals there that had been invited by Ms. Weiss, who lived outside of the neighborhood and outside of that territory.
And they only list that nine people were there, including myself, two attorneys, and several other people, but also four solo members, which she called the community.
That was not the case because, again, she had more individuals there who did not live in that neighborhood.
It was agreed by strongly suggested, number one, by me and agreed by by everyone else that there would be a second meeting because there were no near neighbors there.
In fact, Ted Stones, the board leader and chair of the coordinating RCO, had said that he would, when they scheduled the next meeting, he would be going around door to door, you know, and trying to get people to respond and come out to that meeting.
So, you know, I found out this morning that there was another meeting that was scheduled, which Mr. Nuckamson has said will be in early January.
So we are not opposed to having a resumption hearing so that we can actually get the near neighbors out and then get their opinion and see where everything stands from that point.
So just wanted to add that little bit of clarity to that.
There was no vote taken or anything for anybody to make a determination such as what you guys received.
Thank you very much for taking this time to pause.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no more hands at this time, Terry.
Planning Commission, we're going to have a resumptive hearing.
You want to hold your vote until then?
Thank you.
Thank you.
So there'll be a resumptive hearing after there's a second meeting.
We'll update it and then go back to the board and also the virtual audience to see where we stand and then planning and we'll vote.
Okay, Hillary?
That sounds good, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nackamson.
All right. MI 2024, 005-779-6300-18 Stenton Avenue.
Merneth Ferliger is the attorney.
Unanimous support from the Cliveland Hill Association.
Meredith Ferliger will be joining us as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure thing.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client this afternoon is Citizens Bank N.A., which is the lessee of the property at 6300 Staten Avenue.
White Chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I sure do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Already done. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, Meredith Ferliger of
Gilworth Paxson here this afternoon on behalf of Citizens Bank. I should have one of our project
managers with Citizens Bank in the audience today, as well as a representative from the
sign company, Ms. Yoretta Hale. Before the board today is a proposal for the replacement of an
existing freestanding sign that is a part of Citizens Bank rebranding and signage modernization
program at 6300 Stanton Avenue. The sign in question has been in its current location in
some fashion since the early 90s, but the zoning code has since changed, which now requires a
variance even just for the replacement of the existing sign. Given the extraordinarily
straightforward nature of this request, I will keep my presentation short today and will be
very happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Our exhibit packet in front of you
contains 16 exhibits, which we do request be moved into evidence at the conclusion of the presentation.
That exhibit packet includes tax clearance at Exhibit 2, as well as a redacted copy of
Citizens' Lease at Exhibit 3. And just by way of context for board council, the lease was signed
in 1971 by Gerard Trust Bank, who was a predecessor to Citizens Bank. So this lease is still in effect
today. At Exhibit 10, you will see on the zoning map that the property at 6300 Staten Avenue is
Zone CMX2, and sits right at the corner of Stanton Avenue and East Washington Lane.
We've also included aerial views, which are up on your screen at Exhibit 11.
From this image here, you'll notice that there are two freestanding signs here.
You can somewhat see them in this image here, one on Stanton and one on East Washington Lane.
You can see these slightly better here in this view from the west. I'll zoom in a little bit.
And again, you can see those two existing freestanding signs. You'll also take note
in these aerial images that this is a fairly dense commercial area with the bank right at
the corner here. Street perspective photographs are shown here at Exhibit 16. These reflect that
the bank and all the exist these photographs reflect the bank itself and all the existing
signage prior to the modernization efforts commencing and again here you will see those
two existing freestanding signs which exist on each of the property frontages the next view here
is from stanton avenue and as i will show you momentarily all of this signage in this image
is being replaced but was permitted prior to the filing of this application.
The next view for context here is from East Washington Lane where the parking lot sits.
This here, as you'll see in this image, is the freestanding sign at issue before the board today.