Just a close review.
this is the deed indicating ownership of the property
we did send out notices for the meetings
that we've had with the community group this is our proof of mailing
mailed out 68 pieces of mail
to the surrounding neighborhood within 250 feet of the property
Upland Street as well as 68th Street these are some of the zoning
records Mr. Chairman which I will go through I don't want to be I don't want to overdo it
but I guess the tenor of this presentation is over the course of almost 100 years,
this property has had multiple uses.
The chief use has been garages, machine shop, and multifamily.
In 1939, in fact, I can actually show you this sketch.
This is a sketch I got from the zoning files from 1939.
Here it is, 1939 down here, indicating these garages are in existence
and the two-story, three-story brick property in the front is already in existence.
The only thing that's really changed in terms of structure since that time frame is in between
the four-family dwelling and the garages, there's a two-story property that is basically empty.
I was in it myself. There's nothing in it. There's no joists. There's no floors.
It was meant to be storage, but again, we're asking that this be residential because of the size and the enormity of this particular lot.
In 85, it was four family, eight garages.
Somehow it was converted to one family, but when my client purchased it, it was already four family, and he continued that use.
So, Mr. Chairman, I can go through the zoning records if you want me to.
This is from 1985.
1990, again, it's listed as a one-family, but not used as a one-family.
This is a 1996 commercial supplies, garages.
Again, here's a drawing that I found from 1996.
So this two-story structure, which I'll show you again at the end, has been in existence since 1996.
And all the other properties have been in existence since 1930.
All the other, excuse me, buildings have been in existence since 1939.
This is a drawing from 2012.
So sometime between, from 1996 to 2012, that two-story building has remained there.
And you can see parking was just kind of laissez-faire.
There really wasn't any organization to the parking.
There wasn't any landscaping, and it really was an eyesore.
And my client's looking to bring it back into conformity.
Here is the rental license that he's had since 2015, and I do have to point out to the board with candor to the tribunal that this is inactive only because it just ran out June 29th of 2024.
The management company, Nova, is in the process of renewing that license, but it is in effect and has been in effect for almost 10 years.
So just in summary, we do have a hardship, I believe, because this is unique physical circumstances of a large, extremely large, single-family lot.
I'm going to go back to the aerial photograph.
So extremely large, single-family lot.
It's had a commercial use, garage use since 1939.
Also since 1939, it's been used as residential.
It's surrounded by ICMX to the west.
And even though even to the east is RSA5, you can see it's all automobile related.
And the community and the RCOs were really adamant about trying to get rid of the automotive use that historically my client's property.
uh the automotive use that historically uh my client's property was used for
mr clinton did you uh did you show us what the two-story dwelling is going to look like
this is a two-story structure now this is yeah but i'm saying did you like how it's going to
be laid out for a duplex no because they're right now there's nothing inside in terms of what he's
What he's going to do, it's going to be two bedrooms, two baths on one side, two bedrooms, two baths on the other.
This cinder block is going to be stuck out.
There's no rooftop deck.
And this area is going to be windows with a front door, not a garage, because there's ample parking.
You want to bring your client on, please?
Yeah, I just wanted to conclude with we're not altering.
well, we are altering the essential character of the neighborhood because we're changing
this historic use into residential or residential. We're cleaning it up. We're not impairing the
development of any adjacent properties. It's in harmony with the code because it will be
residential and it's in harmony with what the community wants. So with that, I asked Mr. Abdallah,
can you unmute yourself? Yes. Hi, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer?
Abdelmuna Abdullah,
A-B-D-E-L-M-O-N-E-I-M,
last name Abdullah,
A-B-D-A-L-L-A.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Counselor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abdullah,
were you on the call
when I presented your project?
Yes, sir.
If you had the chance to testify,
would you adopt my testimony
as your own
and that's true and correct?
And can you state unequivocally for any of the RCOs or any of the neighbors that are on the block that this land will not be used in any way, shape, or form for automotive-related uses, repairs, or parking?
Yes, I assure that. It will not be used for automotive. It will be residential and storage only.
Thank you, Mr. Abdallah.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.
What shared outdoor space is there for the residents, or is there any?
So, if I can go back to the plans, this area here, which is now really not even, I wouldn't even call it grass, it's going to be a grassy area here for individuals, and also there's a little area, fenced-in area, in front of the building, Ms. Graham.
Thank you.
Question.
I have a question.
Yes, ma'am.
Who's going to, who are the parking spaces for and the storage?
Who's that for?
So the storage there, he rents to individuals in the neighborhood.
There's a police officer who has, he stores, I think this is the garage he has.
He has cars, not cars he works on, but just cars he owns.
The other spaces are, one is rented to a local company in the area that stores equipment in there.
The same thing with the other garage right here.
So it's local people who store items in there, not meant for, again, automobile related.
The parking spaces, to answer your other question, there's four units here.
That would be two per person.
That's eight.
If this gets approved, that would be four more parking spots because it would be two bedrooms in each unit.
That gives us 12.
And then the garages sometimes use parking when they come into the space.
And then to alleviate parking in the neighborhood, my client rents spots to anybody in the neighborhood for $50 a month.
And he has three local residents who live within walking distance who park their cars there.
What's the front of the two-story structure that you're converting into dwelling units?
And how does someone who lives there that's walking get to their front door?
So there's an entrance. I'll go back to the front.
There's an entrance on the front to enter in and walk to the back.
And also there's a gate here that opens for pedestrians.
One side, if a vehicle has to go through, two sides.
And then they would walk down along the fencing that's on the side of the front building to the entrance of the new structure.
So the entrance of the new structure, the main entrance of the new structure is through this door that we could sort of see where that square box is?
Right here?
No, to the right.
Well, you know what?
There's a door.
There's a fence.
Yes. You see that that door behind the white. So that's the door that will be.
Yes, you see that that door behind the white. So that's the door that will be the door and that'll be the entrance into both of the of the unit. It's kind of difficult because we don't have a layout of what that building is going to look like. So it's kind of hard to.
Let me see if I can show you further plan, Mr. Johns. You are right, though. So there's a fence and a walkway here that you can walk down to get into the four-unit building, and then it comes out here, and you can come in this way. So I didn't really explain it very properly, but this is a better rendition of what's happening.
so they'll be so there are two two units that are going to be there that uh i guess uh bi-level
units is that the plan but there's it's it's wide enough where there's going to be one unit
okay and the unit on the second side by side yes sir okay okay because the text though okay so
you'll be adding windows and the like i guess on the second because there are no windows on the
second floor. Correct. It's kind of hard to determine when there's no plan. All right. Thanks.
Questions from the board.
Questions from our attorney. Yeah. I'm sorry. Sure. But question. So then the 17 spaces or they're
not dedicated for use by this proposal. They're just there on the property.
Well, what we're going to do is in the leases, if this gets approved, we're going to assign parking spots to individuals in A and individuals in B.
Right now, we don't have it, Ms. Gasson, but there are going to be amendments to the leases so that there's dedicated spaces for each apartment dweller, so there's no arguing or consternation over who's parking where.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Questions that comes from our attorney.
Just quickly, Mr. Clinton, did you say there were originally proposed 24 parking spaces, but now it's 17?
Correct. I don't know if I can give you the number, but I think I might have said many.
But yes, there was 24.
I think this project has been germinating for about two years and been a lot of revisions on the parking over time.
Okay. I just want to make sure there weren't any like amended plans or amended refusal or revised plans or anything related to that.
Not that I know of, Ms. Emerson.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
And then the other, the one other thing I wanted to mention in terms of the provisos recommended by the RCO, I think probably the one that the zoning board could most readily add if they decide to grant would be having commercial trash pickup two times a week.
So I just want to make that note for the board.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
if any rcos are on the call we will abide by these provisos and we'll put that in writing
and it'll be signed by my client okay thank you mr clinton thank you miss emerson questions
or comments on the virtual audience
Craig has been allowed to speak
Craig Craig could you just state your name
please you've already been sworn
yes Craig Melodosian
please proceed sir
just historically for some of the new members
This ICMX corridor stretches along primarily the Chessie Railroad spur, running from approximately 58th Street to 70th Street.
This applicant came before us in 2012 when this space came back available due to a divorce and liquidation of a plumbing business.
We did approve at that time the automotive-related uses.
He failed to execute on his variances.
And when he came back, and in approximately 2014, there was a comprehensive rezoning along this in an attempt to push out or prevent new automotive-related uses coming in by going to RSA 5.
He came before us again in 2019. We opposed it. And after, as he came in with new counsel, Mr. Clinton, who was far more disposed to negotiating, and this was the compromise plan we came up with because it removed all automotive-related uses.
The two-story building there was originally for garages on the ground floor, offices on the second floor.
So garages on the ground floor, offices on the second floor was built out.
It was built out.
We felt the best thing to do is we need in the area is residential, even though it's RSA 5, we will look for apartments.
The other consideration with the 10 parking spots on what would be the north end of the parcel closest to the railroad tracks would hopefully be available in the future for further build out of an apartment type use.
uh it's a less than perfect plan uh i know that mr johns raised the issue there is a separate gate
approximately three feet wide six and a half feet tall that does lead to that pathway so
pedestrians can get in and out without having to go through the rolling driveway gate
and again it's it's a compromise but since this has been around since 2012 it seems at this point
in time it's it's the best that we've been able to arrive at we did have another parcel next door
20 sorry 6719 that tried to do something similar with automotive related uses uh we were able to
defeat that uh and uh we would ask you uh to to give consideration for this plan uh though less
than perfect uh six of the jurisdictional i'm sorry there are six jurisdictional rcos three
agreed to participate the vote on the rcos was two for one against uh we did have neighbors uh
one in opposition others voted uh for it including a near neighbor the next door neighbor
so in in light of what we have to work with it seems to be the best that we can do at this time
uh and i i leave it at that unless uh well i do want to point out again despite what uh
The council said we did ask for a corralling of the trash.
I know that that's something Mr. Johns looks at at the front of the parcel with actually two pickups per week.
And we'll abide by a memorandum of agreement regarding the other issues.
The landscaping is important.
And that was one of the reasons why the last application was defeated because of a very inferior landscaping plan.
So this landscaping is important to us, and we expect it to be in within full compliance of applicable PCPC parameters for species of trees and shrubs.
Thank you very much for your time.
Does anybody have a question for Mr. Maldosian?
Thank you. Any other people in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I don't have a question, just a brief comment. I wanted to note, Mr. Melodosian
referenced that the next door neighbor was in support. We also received a separate letter from
the neighbor in support of the application. Thank you. And I believe that, and Mr. Clinton
can verify i believe that landscaping plans were submitted um and put and appear to be
have been reviewed by um the planning commission um for for this case so i think that's why there
aren't any mention of uh landscape related refusals on this on this uh refusal you're
You're correct, Ms. Emerson.
Planning Commission.
Jean Labacar, Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 zoning on this site.
The appellant has demonstrated unique physical characteristics of the property and documented prior use of multifamily, multiple principal uses, and off-street parking.
However, the requested variance is not the least minimum.
Therefore, PCPC recommends granting the variance for multiple principal uses and multifamily with the proviso that four units are the maximum.