It would throw a curb cut in the middle of Springer Street, which is here, and it's not a very big street to begin with, and it would be double wide, twice the width and far greater in height than anything on Springer Street is right now.
And that's why we do believe our proposal for two modest twins not only makes sense for the community, but it's just proper urban planning.
To be forced to build a single family home on this monster lot is just bad planning, as far as we're concerned.
relocating these lot lines, creating two modest-sized townhomes that are far more
in scale and scope with the rest of the block makes perfect sense. And we respectfully request
the granting of this variance. And now I'd like to have Sarah come on so that she can
discuss the design changes that she made as a result of talking with the RCO.
Good morning. As you know, Vern did walk us through the floor plans. We did reduce the scale of the house. Most obviously is removing the garage from the first floor, and then using that as living space for the new design.
As we look here at the plans, we still have kept our second floor plan is now our first floor plan with living, kitchen, and dining.
So it's still an open format, but much smaller in scale than the previous design.
And yes, we've kept three bedrooms, but they have now been split between the two upper floors, and they're smaller in scale than the previous design had.
And one nice design change that we did add is on the master suite floor, which is now the third floor, a small exterior patio in order to reduce the possibility of a roof deck and still give the new occupancy opportunity to have some outside space on the property.
and and sarah is it correct to say that as a result of the redesign we've increased the size
of the yard increased open space and increased pervious uh pervious uh surfaces yes that is
all correct okay there was an issue of the watershed issue that the rco brought up that
watershed issue that is in fact for lots that are greater than 15 000 square feet is that correct
That is correct.
And our lot is, in fact, only 3,600 square feet.
Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
And in fact, if we were a lot that was 15,000 square feet, we wouldn't even be needing a variance.
Is that right?
That is correct.
Thank you.
How wide is each structure?
um i do not have the exact dimension here but we are a i would say approximately
let me see um 27 minus 10 so 17 feet approximately okay thank you which is um you know in line
OK, thank you. Which is, you know, in line with the standard 16 foot townhome and as an RSA three, the code contemplates a twin.
And that's exactly what we're providing as a product. Certainly does not contemplate a single family monstrosity.
With that, I want to call attorney Harry Cook, who was present at the RCO meetings and dealt with the negotiation throughout the process. Mr. Cook.
Good morning, Mr. Cook. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, sir. Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y-C-O-O-K, Anastasia Law.
All right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cook, as a member of our firm, Anastasia Law, you did, in fact,
engaged with the RCO and the back and forth to come up with the final product here today. Is that
right? That is correct. Okay. And could you explain to the board the process and how you
thought you had in fact settled on a product that the RCO wanted? Sure. You know, Vern,
Mr. Anastasio and Sir Pandaki really kind of went through the particulars, but as it related to the
actual meetings, the first meeting were very concerned about impervious surface. They were
concerned about some neighbors expressed concern about potential roof decks and privacy issues.
There were concerns about height. There were concerns about yard space. And through the redesign process and the negotiation with the RCO, we believe that we had demonstrated both hardship under the Hertzberg standard, as Vern has indicated.
In fact, at the RCO meeting, we showed the other contiguous twin properties on the block that range from, you know, 770 square feet to 1300 square feet to 1600 square feet.
So, you know, we were essentially under the Hertzberg standard. While this seems like a larger dimensional variance, when put into context of the block itself, it's rather de minimis compared to the other like situated properties on the block.
um there were concerns about parking uh and access to remove the parking uh there were concerns
about um overbuild uh again we dealt with that um and again we also showed i believe that this
was the least modification possible as it's bifurcation of the property um permits the
use of the property is contemplated in this RSA 3 district for a twin. There would be no material
difference between a large single-family home and what we're proposing in terms of increasing
congestion, especially without the parking, increase the danger of fire, new construction,
or otherwise endanger public health, safety, or general welfare.
You know, as to the watershed issue that you brought up, there was concern.
And we tried to, even though the specific code that they referenced in pointing to their letter,
they actually indicate that this property is 8,196 square feet.
That is not correct.
It is the smaller that you just referenced before.
that even though it is not applicable to this property, we made great strides to increase the,
to diminish the lot coverage and increase the pervious amount of property. And,
you know, if there had been a very large single family home, you know, only, only
50% coverage would be required for open area. We're at 64 and change and 64 and change on the
other. So I think in light of the fact that there are no other refusals generated by this as to
open area, front yard, side yard, rear yard, height, you know, this request for the dimensional
variance, we were under the assumption that we had kind of come to a meeting of the minds.
And as it turns out, at each meeting, it seems that the goal line
At each meeting, it seems that the goal line was moved further and further.
Thank you.
So that is really the sum and substance of what was discussed at the sequence of RCO meetings.
Thank you, Mr. Cook.
At this time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to have the administrator bring in Elad Bella, who is my client.
Thank you.
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please yes it's elad bella
e-l-a-d-b-e-l-a right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes sir proceed counsel thank you mr chair elad did you hear our presentation today my
presentation today before the board yes i do is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you mr chair i have nothing else
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chair mr chairman mr chairman questions
from the virtual audience or comments mr chair this is hillary i just have um two brief comments
um one by removing the parking on the rsa3 on rsa3 zoned lot that is actually creating
since it's two lots two additional um refusals um if the board grants in this case those refusals
would or those variances would automatically be granted as part of the court of the board's
decision um i just secondly wanted to to note and to clarify mr anastasio um that there is
one one page of revised plans in this case that's correct dated june 15th 2021 z1 with
attached proviso form dated 19th July 2022. Okay thank you. Thank you. Chair we have Bernessa
Wigham. Okay. Hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please? Yes my name
My name is Vanessa Wiggum, V as in Victoria, E-A-R-N-E-S-S-A, last name Wiggum, W-H-I-G-H-A-M.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
I'm a nearby neighbor.
I live directly across the street.
Proceed.
Okay, thank you.
All of what he said was true.
However, it was brought to my attention as of last night, the last rendering that was shown with the one house.
That was just brought to my attention last night.
At any of the meetings, did we ever or did I ever see that rendering?
Now, with regard to the second rendering where everything was removed, let me back up, I'm sorry.
On the last rendering that was shown last night to me, which was not by the developers, included a roof deck, included a garage.
The second rendering that was shown, which was at our last RCO meeting, showed the two houses with the removed garages, no roof deck, and trees.
Well, I'd like to say that me living right across the street, I have a legal handicap space.
So for them to be able to put in a garage, that means that that would interfere with my handicapped parking space.
The street is so small, there's no way that a car could turn into a driveway or to a garage driveway, enclosed garage.
garage. Um, I also have, um, a functioning driveway, which is connected to my house,
to my yard. So with those two things alone, and particularly my, um, my handicap, my legal
handicap space, there's no way that they would be able to turn a vehicle into a garage, um,
with the least amount of space that we have parking on one side of the street.
So there would be no way for a car to turn into.
So, ma'am, my understanding is we're not voting on the garages.
Am I right, Vern?
That's right.
We're not proposing the single-family home with the roof deck and garage,
with smaller open space and less yard,
although we could just do that as a matter of right.
What we're proposing is exactly what the RCO and the neighbors asked us for, which is two twins.
and the neighbors asked us for, which is two twins.
Two twins, okay, ma'am.
Two twins, okay, ma'am.
I understand what was being proposed.
What I didn't like was the fact of the last rendering that was showed
was not shown at the RCO as an option.
So that's why.
Okay, but I mean, I just want you to be clear.
What we're looking at today does not have a parking garage, and it's two twins.
And by the way, thank you for calling it.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Is there any other comments or questions from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir.
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
proceed councilwoman is opposed to granting the variance for this property the 200 block of east
springer street is a narrow dead-end street with one travel lane and one parking lane and existing
parking issues as it stands the density is too high uh for this property and uh in addition
another developer across the street uh is proposing a very similar project that the community has
opposed as well. As the community is opposed to these types of properties on this small street,
the Councilwoman is opposed to granting the variance. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Any other
comments? Chair, we have Nina Carlett. Mr. Chair, can I question Mr. Richardson?
just for the record. Sure, you can. Mr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson?
He may have logged off.
All right. I'm back. I'm here.
Oh, good. He's here. Thank you. Mr. Richardson, I just want to make sure
we understand that you understand that we are not proposing any garage
on Springer Street. Is that correct? I do understand that.
Okay. And you understand that our proposal versus what we could do as a matter of right increases.
Which we don't like as a nuclear option. You know, you didn't have any intention on doing that.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
I just need to ask the question.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Okay, good. Continue, Vern.
You do understand, as a matter of right, this option versus as a matter of right, this option actually has more pervious surfaces, larger rear yard, more open space, and no front-loading garage.
That has no standing with regard to this.
This is a street with one travel lane and one parking lane.
It's very narrow.
Understood.
And they already have parking issues on that block as it stands.
And there's another project which has nothing to do with yours, but it is another project that has been been rejected already with regard to trying to build a twin across the street from there.
So it's just not it's just not a good, good project that the councilwoman feels would be good for this where this street specific street.
Understand. All right. Thank you. Any any other comments from the virtual audience?
Here we have another call, another caller.
Please unmute yourself.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, my name is Natalia Cerrico.
It's N-A-T-A-L-I-A.
Last name is S-E-R-E-J-K-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I'm the executive director of East Mount Airy Neighbors, and I just wanted to read the letter that we sent
to the zba and i just wanted to clarify a couple of things first e-man as an rco we represent the
neighbors so when we send in the letters it is with all the information that the neighbors provide
e-man does not have a stance other than supporting the near neighbors and the neighbors um so on march
15 2022 we had a meeting with the community and the property owners um after the presentation
and discussion of it was taken the community voted in opposition to granting the variance
the community did not find that the applicant met all of the following criteria
the applicant did not demonstrate unnecessary hardship as by right the applicant could build
a single family home the applicant does not identify any specific size shape contours or
physical dimensions of the property that causes an unnecessary hardship the applicant
could build a single family home by right, which would not require any dimensional
variance. And under code section 14303AE.2, for the board,
I stipulate to the letter, Mr. Chairman, by the way, thank you so we stipulate to that or anything else, man, I stipulate to the whole letter.