Correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Clinton, could you state your name
please and spell for the court stenographer? Sure. My name is Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y
Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Joseph Gitterman, G-I-T-E-R-M-A-N, and he's the principal of both LLCs,
which are the owners of the property. Mr. Holliman has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy? I do. Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance
to this hearing? We have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you, Mr.
Holloman. Mr. Chairman, is that the cover sheet visible? We can, yes, sir. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, members of the board. I'm here on behalf of both LLCs, which own the property,
and Joseph Gitterman, G-I-T-E-R-M-A-N, is on the call with me.
This is a presentation for a three-family dwelling in an RM1 zoning district
where there are already eight triplexes on the block.
In fact, the community group that we met with, the 37th Ward,
actually meets on this particular block,
so they're very familiar with what's going on on the block.
This is my table of contents containing exhibits A1 through A11.
And at the bottom, you can see the zoning records.
I pulled out three of the zoning records that were recently approved.
I also have photographs of five additional multifamily, three-unit properties that have been in existence for over a decade on this block.
The refusal is all-dimensional and one-use.
The size of the lot would give us by right in this RM1 zoning district two units because the lot is undersized by about 39 feet.
We're arguing that this particular variance, as I did on the other three that I've had approved by the board on this block, it's a de minimis variance request,
as is the occupied space, which we're off by 10%, and the rear yard, which we're off by 2%, excuse me, by 2 feet in depth.
We do have an RCO letter of support, as the chairman mentioned at the outset, overwhelming support, 22 to 1.
This has been a long, vacant lot.
The community group acknowledges that it is RM1.
We're not that far off on getting three units by right.
And like they did with the three others that we had approved on this block by different owners, the community group is in full support of the three family dwelling.
of the three three family dwelling so an aerial photograph to give the board some perspective
So an aerial photograph to give the board some perspective.
where my cursor is is the hope partnership for education building that's where the 37th ward
meets and directly across the street there's five already existing three family dwellings
and i'll show you a photograph of the facade so you can actually see the meters on the front of
the building uh to the left of the existing five is another three family dwelling that has been
approved. I had those zoning records at the end of the presentation. To the right of the five
three-family dwellings, another three-family dwelling has been approved. And then down
towards the northern part of the block on the east side is another three-family dwelling.
Our particular lot, again, a long vacant lot, which is adjacent to the Hope Partnership for
Education, is right here where my cursor is. And that's what we're asking the board to approve
today. These are the triplexes directly across the street that I just showed you an aerial
photograph of. Again, they've been in place for at least a decade and possibly more. This
is proof that our zoning notice has been posted in front of the property. Again, here's the
vacant lot. And this is Hope Partnership for Education down at the southern end of the
block. These are the plans.
Let me just reduce that a little bit. I think it's too large to see. So basically, we have a brick facade, which is consistent with the neighborhood. We have bays at the second and third floor. We have a seven foot rear yard.
Our floor plan is basically three two-bedroom units.
First unit, basement of first floor.
Second unit, third floor.
Third unit on the third floor, and there is access to a rooftop deck.
Trash, there'll be trash storage within each unit, as well as in the rear yard will be trash containers that will be able to be taken out once a week.
This is an elevation of the rear of the property.
Again, just to show the board, we're actually within the height limitation.
We're about 35 feet.
As the board knows, we're permitted to go up to 38 feet, but we're staying well below that.
The remaining documents are the application, our tax clearance.
Zoning map, again, indicating that it is an RM1 block.
And as I say, the requests that we're asking for variances are what we consider the minimus.
This is the deed indicating ownership.
Notice mailing to all the surrounding neighbors.
We sent out 121 pieces of mail.
The community group, it was well-attended meeting, as you can see from the vote.
And these are the multifamily that are already existing on the property beyond the five that have been in place for at least a decade.
This zoning permit was issued March of 2022, the 2616 for three family dwelling.
Right here.
Issued March of 2021.
New construction.
Three family dwelling.
And finally, the one at the far end of the block on the west side on the north end is 2638, approved February of 2023 for the three-family dwelling.
Let me find out where that is.
It is multifamily.
I mean, for whatever reason, it doesn't say three, but as an officer of the Corps, I represent that I actually was involved in this, and it is a three-family dwelling.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to conclude that, you know, the request is for use on the block that is consistent with what's already there.
There's at least eight other three-family dwellings on this RM1 area.
It's on the same block where the community group meets.
They're well familiar that these vacant lots need to be filled in, and they are over time.
We're not asking for any relief with regard to height.
Our open space relief requests are de minimis, and we're a mere 39 feet from getting this project by right.
And we're asking for the board to look kindly upon this application.
With that, I would ask my client to unmute himself.
Mr. Gitterman, can you unmute yourself, and we'll have you adopt my testimony.
Good morning, Mr. Gitterman.
Yeah, good morning. How are you?
Hi. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
state your name and spell please for the court stenographer yes my name is joseph j-o-s-e-p-h
Yes, my name is Joseph, J-O-S-O.
and the last name is gitterman g-i-t-e-r-m-a-n you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed counsel mr gitterman uh were you on the call the
zoom call when i presented your project yes and if you had the opportunity to testify would you
adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct yes thank you mr gitterman
Questions or comments from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
LeBaron?
Hold on one minute, Henry.
LeBaron?
Jim Snell?
Phil, what was the question?
I'm having trouble here with my audio.
Do you have any questions?
Oh, no.
No, I don't.
I'm able to hear, but I'm just having trouble.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emberson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning.
David Vecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from residential multifamily to residential single-family.
The appellant seeks three dwelling units on a vacant 1,140-square-foot lot.
because of the zoning overlay the appellant is allowed two dwelling units without the overlay
the appellant would be allowed three dwelling units this unit count would match the character
of this block face the city planning commission recommends the board grant a proposed use
variance for a third dwelling unit and the associated dimensional variances thank you
MI 2023 006 522 2617 North 11th Street I vote yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes
Thank you counsel
Thank you Mr. Chairman
So number 12
MI 2023
006 538
6658 Keystone Street
Dangle McElhatton is the attorney
Letter of non-opposition
from the TAC
Coney Civic Association
Daniel McElhatton is in as a
panelist. Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer?
Unmute.
Thank you. Good morning. Could you state your name and spell
for the court stenographer? Daniel P. McElhatton, D-A-N-I-E-L-P, as in Patrick,
M-C, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Vlad Brodsky, B-R-O-D-S-K-Y.
He is the principal of 6658 Keystone, LLC, which is the title owner to the property on Keystone Street.
Mr. Holloman has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I agree to the waiving the reading of the refusal, but not the accuracy of it.
Counsel for the board advised me last night that for some reason,
there was no action by L&I on the issue of the eight parking spots that were requested.
So we discussed it last night and then this morning,
And we are asking to proceed with the anticipation that the L&I would revise the refusal to address the issue of the eight parking spots.
So, Ms. Emerson, is that an accurate reflection of what we've discussed?
Yes, and I'm sorry I did not get to respond to your last email.
But yes, I will. Once the once the hearing has concluded, I will reach out to the supervisor for the particular examiner and ask them to issue a corrected refusal based on what they reviewed, which from what I see and based on my conversation with Ellen, I was just the change in use to multifamily.
But they will make the ultimate call.
And would we need to come back for an official vote from the board if they're inclined to favorably consider?
um need to come back for an official vote from the board if they're inclined to favorably consider
our variance or could we do it on the condition that that be obtained we we will just hold for
an amended refusal and the board can just vote on it once we get it back there's no need for
you know further further hearing or anything like that okay and that should be issued fairly quickly
because it will be a corrected refusal, I will request it this week.
Fine. So that is the objection to the refusal.
Okay. Okay. Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, we did, Mr. Holloman.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
all of the documents
and I'm not going to go through all of the documents
is my screen up showing
the aerial
this property circled on the screen
is on the site of the old St. Leo's Roman Catholic Church
the church was decommissioned
as a place of worship in 2013
And in 2019, Mr. Rodsky purchased an adjacent parcel here and took the convent, which was part of it, and converted that to housing.
Subsequent to that, there was a fire at the church, which was on this big lot here, and the church was destroyed.
And what remains on the lot here, circled, is the rectory building.
And that's the building that we are seeking to try to have zoned for residential use.
And, you know, you can see that it sits, it's actually around the corner from Mr.
Nockmson's project up in this area here, but it's across from Distant Park.
And on Keystone Street, there's all this street parking.
This is the old school.
And there are parking spots along the side of the building there.
And that's really where the parking would be. So we'll address that, you know, and Mr. Brodsky can confirm that there are eight spots at that location.
The proposal for 10 dwelling units, there would be five one-bedroom units, three studio apartments, and two two-bedroom units.
The Coney Civic Association not only gave a letter of approval, but their transmission to the zoning board indicated that they have no opposition to the request.
And the project manager and architect have worked on projects in this immediate area with great success.
Now, I've been doing this a long time. You don't get letters from RCOs like that very often.
And that refers to the convent that Mr. Brodsky developed.
so that, you know, ample off-street parking here at this location.
There will be eight spots for the 10 units that are in there.
And, you know, this conversion to residential is consistent with a legal, a proper use of this building.
To convert it to a single family as a rectory, it just is not feasible.
It would create a tremendous hardship and it's not feasible at all.
So I'd like to show another photograph if I might.
Counsel, is the convent on the same location?
It is. It's around the other side.
This is actually the rectory, and I'll reduce it a little bit.
So you can see that there's parking along this whole side there.