portion of the property that's correct okay all right um thank you mi 2023 002 414 4900
north 11th street i vote yes thomas hollow my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
Thank you, counsel
We're grateful, thank you
All right, number six
MI 2023-005-131-3325-North17
Brandon Saverin is the attorney
Letter of support from
Nicetown-Tayoga Improvement Team
Mr. Saverin will be rejoining as a panelist
good afternoon members of the board hi just for the record could you state your name and spell
please for the court sonographer yes um brandon saverin it's spelled uh b-r-a-n-d-o-n
and then saverin is s as in sam a v as in victor r-a-n as in nancy do you swear or firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do could you identify your client
the relationship to this property uh my client is ferris realty llc and the llc is the owner of the
property okay our our vice chair has just a few questions for you sir good afternoon council do
you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy uh yes i do mr vice
chairman have you have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed and required
to proceed with this case yes thank you please proceed cheers thank you
okay um well um good afternoon again members of the board and thank you in advance for your time
the property that i'm here to speak on behalf today is 3325 north 17th street
on your screen right now is a rendering of the front of what we are proposing to build
we are proposing to build on the property and the property is a vacant lot, which according to city
on the property and the property is a vacant lot
records has been a vacant lot since at least 2008. As I'll show you some pictures of in a moment,
this block has a tremendous vacancy. As of 2022, which was the last time the city took an aerial
image of the block, 38 of the 48 parcels were vacant land. So this is actually the only
exhibit, if you will, that I did not send among the other exhibits. So the main set of exhibits
I sent were exhibits one through 11. I sent this in separately and would ask that it be
considered Exhibit 12 and that all 12 exhibits are moved into the record following my presentation
today. Okay. Thank you. So moving on, on your screen right now is a part of Exhibit 2. There
we go. And this is our proviso plan. So if you are inclined to grant the variances that we're
requesting today, I would ask that you do so with the proviso approving the variances pursuant to
this one-page proviso plan. And then on this page, that was Exhibit 2E. This is Exhibit 2F,
which is our proviso form. And it talks about the changes that were made since the original plan
that was submitted to L&I versus our proviso plan. Perhaps the most important one on the bottom here
is that we've reduced the proposal from eight to seven units. Also important, if I go back for a
second to our rendering. Originally, this unit in what is really a partially above ground basement
was served by stairs. We're now proposing that it be served by an exterior ramp so that the unit
will be ADA type B accessible when constructed. This is actually the largest unit in the building
and it will be ready to be adapted into a space that can serve a wheelchair-bound disabled tenant.
So that's a new addition, the transformation of that basement unit in that regard,
and then also some very small dimensional changes that do not affect any of the refusals.
I do have floor plans at Exhibit 10, and I will not go through these.
I'll just note that I do have our architect here who can walk you through them after my presentation, if you wish, and that the building is proposed to be composed of five one-bedroom units, one studio, and one two-bedroom unit.
The two-bedroom unit is the ADA type B unit that I mentioned.
As the chairman mentioned earlier, that is way too far zoomed out.
I apologize.
At exhibit, I believe this is 9D, is our letter of support from the coordinating RCO, which notes that the votes taken at the RCO meeting, which I attended, were 11 in favor of the project and one opposed.
Exhibit 2A is our notice of refusal from L&I.
So just to go through this very quickly, there are two used refusals.
refusels, one pertaining to lack of parking and one pertaining to use. It's a single family
district, RSA3, so anything above one unit is not permitted. I'll address that and why we have a
hardship related to that in a second. As far as parking, I'll also show you some images on the
block and you'll see that it would be really out of context to provide off-street parking based on
what does already exist on the block. And I'll discuss the dimensional refusals in a moment as
well. I'll just note that as a prior attorney did in one of their presentations, I have also
authored a memo of law to the board. That's one of my exhibits. And that's where I sort of lay
out in full the arguments for why I believe we're entitled to variances under the code for all these
issues. So I'll keep it brief on that. So you can refer to my memo. Let me talk about the context
of the block for a moment. So Exhibit 6 has all sorts of images and maps from Atlas. This is an
image here from 2008 and the reason i'm showing you that is because from 2008 to 2022
as far as we're aware only one new structure was constructed so as i mentioned 38 of the 48
parcels as of the last aerial image were vacant so this is a block that has had a
as of the last aerial image were vacant. So this is a block that has had a ton of vacancy
and really no economic development activity or very, very little of it.
At exhibit 11, as part of my memo, I created this table and it shows you that of the 10
structures that are on the block, eight of them, including the one newer building, are all
multifamily. 3319 is that the one building, the only building that was built within the past two
decades. That's a six unit building. So all of the buildings are multifamily residential,
which we're proposing as well, except for 3324, on which I could find no records,
meaning no zoning permits or rental licenses. And then there was one additional building that
actually had permits for non-residential use. But sort of summing that all up, there seems to be
strong indication based on the city's records that there are no single family homes currently
on this block. And between that and the fact that the board granted a variance for six units
to the only structure recently constructed on this block, I believe that's all evidence of
a hardship that the market does not support the construction of a new single family home
zone in this vicinity. I will, give me one second, flip the pages here.
I won't walk you through them, but all the sort of line items you see in this chart are backed
up with evidence on the ensuing pages of my packet. So I have the most recent rental license
or the most recent zoning permit for each and every one of those properties. Let me go to real
quickly, the zoning permit for that one new structure, the six unit, you can see six unit
mentioned here in this permit, which was granted in 2020. And this was granted pursuant to a
variance from this board. The reason I bring that up specifically is I also included the refusal
from that project. And what's interesting about this is that this refusal lists the exact same
set of issues as our refusal. So when you look at our refusal and you see five cited code sections,
you think, wow, this project is really sort of shattering all the rules. But it's the same set
of issues that the board-granted variance is on three years ago to a property that is almost next
door to ours, I think a few doors down. Here's our refusal for comparison. And really what the
refusals beyond use come down to is that if you can't build a single family home here, you need
the envelope of the building to sort of exceed some of the dimensional limitations in order to
fit the building and have the units be humanely sized, which I think we're doing by nature of
these variances. But I'd say our project even improves on the one down the street. We are
proposing a side yard on one side that that structure did not um etc um i will just wrap up
um by showing you um some street level photos so here from atlas uh this year which is only taken
a couple months ago is our block looking south and here's our block looking north and what you
can see is that the the buildings are that are there remember only 10 of the 48 lots are occupied
with buildings. But they don't have parking. They're sort of, you know, built with front
porches in a certain architectural style that more or less fits together. And again, to go to
our rendering, we're doing our best to honor that and to match it, to put, say, like the building
on stilts and have a layer of, you know, surface parking. It's just, it's going to stick out like
a sore thumb in the context of this block. No one at the RCO meeting raised a request for us to do
that. And last but not least, I'll just show you our zoning posters to avoid any doubt that they
were put up. And again, just another opportunity to sort of show you the degree of vacancy in the
area. That concludes my presentation. And I am happy to answer questions. Also happy to have
the architect walk through the floor plans if you'd like. Brandon, one quick question. How did
you get to the number? So, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, six was the number that the applicant
in 2020, who is not us, I can promise you, no relation, felt that they had to build in order
to have a financeable project. So, we actually started at eight. What we didn't like about eight
is that there was this really uniform pattern of units. So, we combined two of the units into
the ada unit and um that um and nadal who's one of the project partners
And that and Nadal, who's one of the project partners, can testify to this if you'd like.
But that was sort of like the bare minimum that he believes will work to get financing to build something here.
OK. All right. Thank you. Why don't you bring your client on?
OK, so that's Nadal Hassan, who I just mentioned.
They have been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court's sonographer?
Nantie, I-D-A-L, last name Hassan, H-A-S-S-E-N as a Nantie.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you. Nadal, are you authorized to speak on behalf of Ferris Realty, LLC?
Did you hear my testimony in your zoning case this afternoon?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own on behalf of the LLC?
And just one more question since the chairman raised it, or maybe I'll make it a two-parter.
As far as you're aware, my representation about there only being multifamily residential uses on this block, was that accurate?
And was my representation about your need to construct this number of units to get construction financing, was that accurate?
Absolutely.
I did my research before I even purchased a lot.
Thank you.
All right.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
mr chair i have charles richardson again with the hand raised i have allowed them to speak
hi mr richardson could you please uh just state your name and and um present your testimony you've
already been sworn certainly mr chair charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n office of
councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall councilwoman has no objection to granting the
variance okay thank you very much i appreciate it um anyone else in a virtual audience
i do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning to rm1 residential multifamily at this
location under the recommended residential multifamily one zoning the appellant would
be allowed four dwelling units by right and staff are aware of several three dwelling unit
buildings currently on the block as such we feel the eight units proposed represents an overuse
and that the dimensional variances stem from the proposed unit count accordingly the planning
commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variance for multi-family use in a
single-family zone but with a maximum of four dwelling units um mr chairman if i could just
quickly let me just let thank you sir thank you thank you planning commission proceed go ahead
OK, I'm sorry. That's OK. Mr. Bernard is absolutely right in that there are a handful of three unit buildings, but they're very old, at least 20 years, if not much more.
Again, the only recent construction is one single building that has six units.
And that project received basically the same dimensional variances that we are requesting today.
So, you know, just to keep in mind, I think there's past evidence of all sorts that we're sticking to the minimum necessary relief that we need to build something here.
Okay. MI 2023
005 131
3325 North 17th Street. I vote yes
with proviso. Maximum six dwelling units
revised plans one page stamped by ZBA
December 13th 2023.
Thomas Holloman
yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Counsel, could you stay on, please?
Okay. Sure. All right. So MI 2020, number seven, MI 2023, 005, 036, 54 East Brighthurst Street.
Okay, sure.
All right.
So MI 2020, number seven.
Brandon is the attorney. Hold on a minute. Letter of support from Wakefield 49ers Community
Development and Approvement Association. Letter of non-opposition from Solo Germantown
with the following provisos. Mr. Saverin, you've already been sworn to state your name for the
record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Brandon Saverin. And could you identify your client
relationship to the property? Yes, my client is Red Brick Builders, LLC. That is the owner
of the property. And our vice chair has a few questions for you. Good afternoon, counsel. Do
agreed to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you
emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed to share.
Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Vice Chairman, for full truth. The tax clearance information and the RCU
letter did not uh get sent to the board until yesterday uh but but it's in now just just to be
okay i trust you brandon it's good okay thanks uh let's see
one moment i'm sorry i'm just having a little trouble getting my screen sharing started
there we go okay um good afternoon again members of the board um so the property i'm
uh here to speak about uh in this hearing is 54 east bringhurst street um in the uh really the
center of the germantown uh neighborhood um on your screen right now is um exhibit 2b uh from
our exhibit binder. This is the notice of refusal, and I would move that the 10 exhibits that I
submitted in addition to the RCO letters and the tax clearance information be moved into the record
following the hearing. Okay. Yes, sir. So I'll do this case in a little bit more of a traditional
manner. Let's start with the refusal. So what we're proposing to do as the refusal says is to
demolish the existing structure, which I'll show you in a moment, and replace it with at least in
the front what's going to look like an identical structure. And you might think I'm exaggerating