Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case that we have submitted as exhibits.
I want to point out that, yes, the RCO letter is in opposition. However, we have a Councilwoman Cindy Bass's office letter in support explaining some of the things that happened with the meetings, which I will discuss briefly as well.
But first, this application is refused based on two items, one of which is a required front
setback to meet and match a next door neighbor which has a setback. And secondly, the use of a
a next door neighbor which has a setback and secondly the use of a duplex. The
setback we have removed from the overall project and is in fact now redesigning to meet the setback
and again I will address that with the board specifically on the plans. So the letter from
the RCO indicated opposition because of two meetings where neighbors voted against that.
However, what had actually happened is that I believe, and the council office believes as well,
that there's some confusion here with regard to the two meetings. We've had two total meetings
with the community. The first meeting was in February and the second one later in July.
During the July meeting, we made multiple changes to the proposal, including lowering the height,
removing the roof deck, changing the complete facade to brick,
as well as giving a setback with the porch design,
all which came up as part of the reasons that people had issues with the
property in the first meeting. As a result,
our memory at the meeting was that we actually,
based on what the feedback was after the meeting is that we had support.
Mr. Charles Richardson from Ms.
Because the Councilwoman Bassett's office had the same understanding, and so did Ted Stone's chair of the affected 12th Ward Democratic Ward RCO, who was also at the meeting.
They all recall that it was actually voted by the neighbors to support the second time, not opposed.
So although we did get the letter from Ms. Inez Love that is ultimately still saying opposition, everyone at the meeting thought it should have been support.
In addition, we also, prior to the second meeting, went out and also got a petition as a preparation for the meeting.
And as you can see, some of the neighbors couldn't show up, but we did get many of the neighbors sign the petition of support as well.
So I just want to put that up as a piece of information regarding the opposition versus support in this case.
it's my belief that ultimately majority of the neighbors including close neighbors ultimately
supported after we made the changes now specific to the actual application itself with regard to
the changes first of all this is a corner property in this area many of the corner properties are
in fact used in a similar manner as what we're proposing either a duplex or a commercial unit
on the first floor with the residential above. We're proposing a duplex plan at this location
for a three-story structure. The initial application had the height at 38 feet.
As a result of feedback from the community, we actually lowered the building to 35 feet.
And also, in addition, we added both the front sit back, which was part of the refusal,
as well as per the community's request to be consistent with the neighbors we added a front
porch to the design as well there was initially a rooftop deck that is completely removed from
the design at this point which was not part of the refusal however it was a concern for the
neighbors but in order to leave a small open space for both trash management and other reasons
On the upper floor, we have a small balcony now designed, as you can see, it's essentially above the second floor, and it's accessible by the upper floor unit to have a slight bit of outdoor space available to them, especially for temporarily putting some trash outside as well prior to any formal pickup.
up. The first floor, of course, has access to the rear yard. There are no dimensional variances for
open space or rear yard because we are leaving both a substantial rear yard and open space for
the property. It is a relatively large lot that is on the corner. So ultimately, what we have here
is a refusal for the duplex use itself. From the design standpoint of the duplex, it is basically
designed as a the third floor and second floor is one larger unit with two bedrooms above and the
living room and kitchen on the second floor and then the first floor and basement is also a two
bedroom unit with the kitchen and living room designed in the basement plant. The total number
of bedrooms is four here so from a density standpoint the duplex is more to reduce the cost
of individual units to potential renters rather than anything else. A single-family house of this
size would necessarily also have the same number of four bedrooms. So from a purely living density
standpoint, this is trying to be minimized as much as possible so that it is not putting a burden
so that it is not putting a burden on density to the community.
on density to the community.
Based on these changes to the design, we have generally received support,
Based on...
and therefore, we did have support at the second meeting from the neighbors.
And based on the support from the neighbors and the city council office,
we would ask for favorable review of this case by the board.
Again, I'm going to show the photographs.
This is currently, again, a large vacant corner lot.
um i'm going to uh in case the board needs to read the letter i'm going to go back to the
letter from the councilman's office councilwoman's office my apologies
so that it can be reviewed more clearly
i'm happy to try to answer any questions i'm sorry the uh i want to clarify that it's a
non-opposition from um councilwoman bassett's office not support letter
Is your client here?
Do you want to adopt a testimony?
Annette, if you may please raise your hand virtually so you can be identified.
What do you need?
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Hold on one second, Annette.
Vice Chair, could you swear hi, please?
Which one is it?
Can you put your name on the record? Is this one of your witnesses, Zen?
Yes, this is the owner.
No, I know you see. I mean, do we have this one here today?
Can you, okay, can you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Anat Madal, A-N-A-T, Madal, M-A-D-A-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, Mr. Chen.
Thank you.
Anad, have you heard my testimony and saw the presentation I made to the zoning board?
Can you verify that what I've presented and testified to are true and correct and adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Thank you.
is mr questions from the board no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
chair we have allison weiss okay
yes hello good afternoon allison a double l i s o n weiss w e i s s solo germantown civic
association do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes proceed yes uh i just wanted to uh share uh our opposition uh solo and the community
uh this is a residential area uh and it has no changes in the comprehensive plan of 2035 to
change it to anything other. This area is largely single family and home ownership owned by the
individuals and the applicant provided no physical hardship that would necessitate a variance at
this location. This location would be perfectly fine for a single-family home. And like I said,
the applicant did not show that there was any need for a variance.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Is there anybody else in the
in the uh virtual audience chair we have samuel edis excuse me samuel ellison thank you
hello hi mr ellison could you state your name and spell it for our court reporter
yes it's uh samuel ellison that's e-l-l-i-s-o-n right did you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth sir yes sir proceed well being a member of this
community in Germantown for the past, I don't know, I was born here. And I see properties go
up every day. And I like progression. I like to see progression. I like to see progression
I like to see progression happens and for this property to go up, that's a sign of progression
happens. And for this
because there are already single homes in the area and they are inhabited by
families or they are renovated to be apartment complexes.
But for a building to be built, there will be families in it.
Germantown is a family community.
And it's on the upside of progression.
And I believe that we all need to be in support of progression.
Because it's all we have.
So I am in full support of this.
okay thank you for calling is there anyone else chair we have robin smith okay
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
robin are you there
there are no other hands besides robin smith we can move on to her hands up now robin can you
hear us okay i'll mute yourself can you hear us now
she's unmuted i don't know what's going on okay
all right let's go to the planning commission please planning commission uh ron bednar city
planning okay the property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
adopted city plan our recommendations uh recommended they recommended no changes to
the existing single-family zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship is not
supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property
that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code. Therefore, our recommendation is
is to deny the requested variance.
MI 2020-003-261-5120 Marion Street, I vote no.
Harold Tanari, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
um we have i i have the the case you're talking about the case tanya uh no chair we have had
multiple questions um for the case that was dismissed sure sure be able to entertain a
discussion i most certainly can okay could we present mr lamont rogers um to discuss the case
He's saying he sent the exhibits timely and that he is prepared to be heard.
Thank you, Tony.
As you watch the discussion.
Lamont Rogers?
He's been allowed to speak.
Mr. Rogers, I think I, did I swear you in before you were here?
so first let our vice chair has a few questions for you are you prepared to go on today yes i am
okay vice chair i'm mr rogers my question is um an exhibit packet with required documents
should be in our hands they consist of proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal
or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing a meeting
with the rco and a letter from that rco have you sent all of that in yes twice
okay where i guess we have to ask where are you sending it tanya is that correct yes i had actually
I had the architect sent it in, but we had a zoning meeting.
Well, I need to know, one thing I need to know is where were they sent in?
Because we have no record of exhibits.
So I would ask Chair and Vice Chair, if the ZBA staff can check for those exhibits, what was the date sent?
If the ZBA staff can check for those exhibits, what was the date sent?
My architect is on, and he has all the information.
Is there any way he can help us with this?
Because he can say exactly when they were sent and who they were sent to.
Chair, that was Adi Mahid.
Yeah, let's bring him back on, and I'll swear on that, and we'll talk to him.
Okay, could you allow Adi to speak?
Thank you, staff.
And if you could, Jason, if you're there, look for the exhibit package.
I don't write it down, Masanka. Thank you.
Mr. Mahdi, please unmute yourself.
I just did.
Okay. Do me a favor. State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Adib Mahdi. A-D-I-B-M-A-H-D-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
okay could could you help us with when were the packages sent in okay uh we sent again
on the 23rd that was sunday uh now that's not five days but we sent it in then but
the package was originally sent in uh when we had our hearing in uh august uh we sent
the entire package it was essentially the same thing um we also sent in again the letter that
was issued by the rco and they should have sent it to the board also uh the letter indicates that
it was sent in to uh if i could read it i'm i don't have it before me but i believe his name
was William, something or other, but it was sent directly to him. And it was on the standard form
that the RCOs are required to use and send into the board. We received almost unanimous
support from them. So I just sent the documents again to Sharon, but that's who I sent the last
package to. And it's in six consecutive emails, which contains the plans, all of the documents
required. The notice of refusal, the photo array. Okay. Mr. Rogers, are you prepared to give this
presentation on the screen? Yes. Okay. Do you know how to do that, Lamont? No, I'm not an attorney and
No, I'm just saying that what she's asking you is that are you prepared to show them the documents?
Now, you have them in your email because we copied it to you also.
But is your nephew there?
Can he illustrate them on the screen?
Can you see me?
Can you pull them off the screen?
Yeah, give me one sec.
I can put them on the screen.
Okay, good.
Excellent.
He has copies of everything that was sent to the board.
Okay, fine.