yard, which was done without the benefit of permits.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances
of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the request of variance for parking
in the required front yard mi 2025 007 335 801 selma street i vote yes michael johns my vote is
yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes tana graham my vote is yes mcadams my vote is yes iowen my vote
is yes thank you mr chairman thank you want to comment one other point i just wanted to thank
the administration for giving everybody a heads up uh when our cases are being called it's very
convenient for the clients as well as the attorney so hats off to uh well that was that was all in
i think in left a couple minutes right a good old baseball game yeah ian i'd love to hear that henry
thank you so much thank you all right number eight mi 2026 007 792 754 north 44 street
Meredith Berliger is the attorney.
Last but not least this evening, Mr. Chairman.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Meredith Berliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do
so this is a reconsideration hearing um the evidence and testimony presented at the january
28 2026 hearing in this matter are incorporated in the record and the hearing on reconsideration
the scope of this hearing is limited to the presentation of supplemental evidence and
testimony only. The way we have this is you're going to give us your presentation. There'll
be questions from the board. There'll be public testimony and then planning.
Absolutely no. Just give us a short overview of what happened and what's different.
No problem. And Mr. Chairman, just to correct, the address is 753 North 44th Street. I think
you said 754. So just wanted to make sure for the record that's clear.
We have 753. All right, we're good. We have seven. Okay, excellent.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, as I mentioned, I'm here this evening, evening on behalf of 42nd Market Associates, LLC, which owns 753 North 44th Street.
With me today, I have Brahimengladen, who's a member of the LLC, and we do also have the
architect on the line, should there be any additional questions. As the Board knows,
this Board granted reconsideration and rehearing concerning its previous denial of this application.
I will give a brief reminder of the case and will then share the updated plans for your consideration.
I did include in the exhibit packet updated tax clearance, as well as zoning poster compliance at both, respectively, Exhibits 2 and 16.
Just to refresh your memory on this case, the bookmarks, the proposed development sits at 753 North 44th Street in West Belmont.
This property sits on North 44th Street, which is between Brown Street to the north and Aspen Street to the south.
which is between Brown Street to the north and Aspen Street to the south.
As included at Exhibit 9, which was before the board the last time, the project was previously
permitted back in 2021, but the entitlements unfortunately expired while my client was at
the same time pursuing relief for the immediately adjacent lot at 755 North 44th Street. There were
of some unfortunate timing issues stemming from an intervening remapping that created an inconsistency
in the permit timeline for these two immediately adjacent lots. Despite the fact that this particular
project had been permitted prior even to my client purchasing the property and while it was
still zoned RM1. And again, those permits are up on the screen for reference. Just as a reminder,
the community was supportive of this zoning relief request, and just by way of reference,
I did add this time around at Exhibit 18, the permits issued for 755 North 44th Street,
which followed the Board granting relief for that project in January of 2024, so not all that long
ago. Here, during the original hearing back in December, the applicant was simply looking to
re-entitle the identical project that does remain approved on the immediately adjoining lot.
Now, during the hearing in December, board members expressed two primary reservations.
Both of those concerns were addressed and included with the reconsideration request
that this board was gracious enough to grant. First, board members expressed
reservation that the project at 753, by association also 755, did not
aesthetically match the newer adjoining properties to the north, bring that up,
which directly adjoin 755. So just by way of reference, 753 that's before the
board is shown with the arrow immediately next door 755 and the properties that were used really
as the aesthetic reference are immediately next door to that at 757 and 759. Although the design
concern in this case was not necessarily raised in 2024 when 755 was before the board, the current
sense was that the proposed new construction should better align with the character of the
other newer structures. Although the applicant would very respectfully have no obligation to
modify 755, which was already previously approved, the applicant did note in its reconsideration
that it has always been the intent and would be most efficient and economical to build two
identical projects. And therefore, the proposed renderings that are included at Exhibit 6 will be
replicated at 755 as well to ensure that there is a uniform facade across both of the new properties.
These new renderings show that a partial front porch and overhang have now been added to better
match the character 757, 759, North 44th Street. And again, these already complement the existing
front setbacks that already exist. Furthermore, just again for better reference, we did render
753, 755, as well as 757, again, just to try and show how this revised design does better harmonize with the character of the existing structures.
As I mentioned, the architect is on the line and can share any additional details on the aesthetic characteristics that are necessary.
The second concern surrounded the interior layout, specifically the second and third floor proposed two bedroom units that the board opined were too small to comfortably fit in that layout.
A revised set of floor plans, let me get rid of that for you, a revised set of floor plans is
shown up on the screen at Exhibit 6, which now provides for one 1400 two-bedroom unit on the
first floor and lower level and two 700 square foot one-bedroom units on each of the second and
third floors. In addition to the removal of the two-bedroom layouts on the second
and third floor, the rear stairs were also relocated to the side to remove
The rear stairs were also relocated to the side to remove intrusion into the rear yard
area, which directly fronts on Palace Street.
As we noted in our request for reconsideration, in addition to the multitude of hardships
that we presented to the Board during the first hearing, which we submitted grant relief
for the three dwelling units. This property is only one of two remaining vacant lots between
Aspen and Brown Street. And I can show on the aerials that condition.
This development in conjunction with 755 next door will further contribute to the revitalization
of this block in accordance with community planning and encourage further investment
into many still existing dilapidated structures further towards Aspen Street.
Now, again, unless the board requires refreshment of all the arguments presented in December,
I will again just summarize the hardships that surrounded the previous zoning authorization
for the project that did unfortunately expire, robust community support for this proposal,
unique physical conditions of the property, such as the intervening rezoning post-purchase,
significant multifamily character of the block, and a uniquely situated property that is ripe
for added density due to residential uses only sitting on the west side of this block
and the fact that the property has dual street frontage, which further accommodates efficient
trash storage light air and open space as always i did include the full reconsideration petition
and the previously submitted memorandum of law as well as all of the originally submitted exhibits
for reference and of course i'm very happy to walk through any specific details if necessary
so at this time i would ask uh if brahim if you could raise your virtual hand so that the chair
can swear you in okay
do we see him i see him a couple times actually raheem
yes i'm here oh state your name and spelled for brahim i gladden b-r-a-h-i-m is my first name
last name is i-g-h-l-a-d-e-n all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do uh brahim just to confirm you are an authorized member of 42nd market
associates llc the owner of the property correct yes i am and just again to to reaffirm what i've
said here today uh if the board is to grant this request you will mimic and copy the aesthetic
changes that are before the board today for the immediately adjacent property at 755 as well is
that correct absolutely and otherwise it is the intent to be building two completely identical
of the board today.
And you've heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today.
Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had provided it yourself.
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, I have a question.
So while I appreciate going back to the drawing board, so to speak, to try to match the continuity of the block, the block has full porches and the renderings that I witnessed did not have full porches.
So I'm not seeing how that is keeping the continuity of the block, which was an issue I think that was raised.
So respectfully, board member, this block does not have a continuous look.
So I think it's a little bit confusing because these are not full porches that are next door.
These are, I guess, what you would refer to as sort of partial porches, and that's the condition that is thought to be replicated.
Full porches are not characteristic of the immediately adjacent.
Go further down the rest of the block and you'll see full porches.
Understood, board member.
But again, during the first hearing, these were the ones that were really the focus of a lot of discussion, especially because of the condition of many of these properties.
So if I want to let potato, you still see full portrait.
So the person that made the comment that is actually not true.
I was talking about the rest of the book.
Yep. And then my other question is, so is there another design for two units that would
Yep. And then my other question is, so is.
be available?
Board member, yes, we do have another floor plan for two units.
But again, as we expressed in our reconsideration petition, there is already a three unit approved
immediately next door.
And so, I don't know, Farheem, if I could ask you, in terms of the constructability of building one three unit and one two unit, if you could try and address sort of the efficiency of that particular option.
I'm sorry, the second part of the question, the sound goes back and forth.
I don't know if it's my computer.
two devices on it's when because when you speak there's an echo so i think you have
two devices on so just make sure one of them is muted
can you still hear us i'm sorry sorry sorry i think i think you have two devices on and so
no i have just one just my laptop on the front of my laptop there's some echo somewhere
yeah and I have just one device okay try to ask the question again
so Brahim the the board member questioned a potential two-unit design and I was hoping
you could just explain the the downside of essentially having a a two-unit uh building
here uh when there is already a three unit approved immediately next door that that's
the question okay so um the way i i'm looking at it if i uh got a three unit since we use the second
and a third uh units to one bedrooms instead of two two like it was before and one of the
board members last time he um he thought that they were very like tiny small um so if i do this
uh as one bedroom each in a second and third floor or i do a duplex if if i end up doing a
duplex it's going to be a bi-level second and a third floor so i'm going to go back again to
to um two bedrooms uh maybe on the third floor and then leave the second floor as a kitchen and
living room so as far as density it's going to be the same income wise probably
will be the same construction cost I just thought maybe it's a great idea to
give an opportunity to a young couple or even a single person to get his own
one-bedroom apartment versus two bedrooms but again board members with
with respect we won't defer to the board's uh you know judgment um you know certainly we're
we're in front of you that is absolutely uh an option but again this did receive full community
support um uh it you know like i said it is approved immediately next door not all that long
ago and and really the conditions for this property are are identical to that one so uh
you know again respectfully we we would request the the approval for three units but we again
would defer to the board's judgment on that so i i think what we'll do is we'll we're going to hold
a vote right we'll vote next week and we'll have a discussion among the board about where we want
to stay with this yeah i do i yep i do just want to make one comment about the porches
and i i understand the board members and i had comments about the porches too
but the fact that you did match the pha redevelopment home ownership units in terms of the
portico porches i think works in my opinion because they're right next to it and i understand
that it doesn't match the rest of the block but unfortunately the pha units that we did didn't
match the rest of the block but they do have press a nod to a nod to the porches so so so i would say
that's because they had a a great foundation of building on design in that place that's what
there was a nod there was a nod to the porches so so with in that regard i think moving in that
direction if you can make the even maybe maybe your portico's bigger maybe could be you know a
bit more significant but but i appreciate the fact that you did begin to match what was the newest
development for home ownership that the authority did so yeah it's it's a challenging block there
Yeah, it's a challenging block. There is not one clear aesthetic to match. So this, you know, again, is sort of good faith effort to try and pick what is the newest and would look the most consistent.
There's not, there's not one clear.
Right, right. Just exactly where you are. So, yes.
Does anybody else have anything you want to add?
Questions from our attorney?
Not at this time.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Hi, Chair.
We have nothing to add.
Pardon me?
Oh, I said we had nothing to add from the previous.
Thank you very much.
We'll vote on this next week, 2 p.m. I'll vote,
and we'll discuss it at the executive session on Wednesday morning.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, and thank you for staying so late.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
anyone left in the audience whose case has not been called
no hands chair thanks everybody uh we we uh i think we got through a lot of work today
not not a bad time either not a bad time here