Questions from the board?
No care.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
Most certainly.
I have some concern about two means of egress to get out of that third apartment.
Oh, I don't. Sorry, Mr. Snell. I didn't hear. Sorry. That's Mr. Holloman. Oh, sorry.
Could you mention again, Tom? I don't think she heard. How do you. Is there two ways of getting out of the garage?
this is what we are going to do yes the architect already has that in plan and
the plans you have you have plans to show yes he shows the plans
Yo, Ryan, show me.
Stop share.
What's right here?
Can you blow it up some for me, please?
Are you seeing it?
I see it.
He wants you to make it bigger so he can see it better.
Can you enlarge the photo?
You want to go back, Ryan?
Let me just, you know what, let me just, I'm going to stop sharing, yeah, yeah, oh, I don't
think this one we had put in the email, oh, voila, it's him.
can i suggest can i suggest mr chairman that we hold this for executive session
mr hallman we we have to hold this for executive session because we need an amended refusal and
also we have to add the rsc free parking is being eliminated so we'll uh we are definitely not going
to vote on this today thank you but if you want she she has it up can you can you see the egress
is that on the side shows where the extra egress is going to be on the side yard um it's going to
be um on the side actually the back the back and the side yes okay thank you thank you thank you
Additional questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chair.
Ms. St. Jean, we are going to have to hold this for an amended refusal.
There are two problems with your refusal, which you would not have known looking at the refusal.
One is it doesn't list how many dwelling units you are requesting.
It must. It just says multifamily. The other problem is this is an RSA three zoning district, which means parking is required.
You currently have, from what I can tell, two garage parking spaces that you're proposing to eliminate and you want to add an additional unit.
So there should have been a refusal on here as well for not having three parking spaces, which are required.
So I will be requesting that Ellen and I issue a corrected refusal for that.
And then we'll notify you the next hearing.
It'll be closed other than that, but you'll know where we're going to vote.
Okay, so it should have been three parking spaces, you said?
So parking in the RSA 3 zoning district, the requirement is one per dwelling unit.
So right now you have two spots and two dwelling units, but you're eliminating the two spots and adding a dwelling unit.
So you would need three. You're supposed to have three parking spaces.
but it is it is uh we do have the driveway we do have there's a driveway oh yes absolutely but is
that a shared driveway no this is it's the driveway of the property yeah but i mean there's
other people come down that driveway right no no no nobody comes on that driveway it's it's
your house your house is in could you show us the back again yeah let me see yes i thought this was
an attached or semi-detached structure it is a semi-detached yes it is a semi-detached but
a corner property i have my own driveway and the other property next to me also has the owner also
has and matt may i um tell you i'm not the only one seeking this uh we have plenty plenty of okay
So we'll concentrate on you.
We don't.
There are like eight or ten homes.
Right.
Do you have a picture of the rear of your property showing the driveway?
Let me see.
Probably not the one that I had loaded, but hang on.
I'm going to stop sharing.
Even if you do have the parking, it should be noted on the refusal because it's required.
Right.
and you're also eliminating
existing parking spaces
existing parking
Existing parking spaces that no one is really using.
spaces that no one is really using
nobody uses
Nobody uses it.
I understand that.
You're eliminating a garage that has three spots.
Okay, so you're going to have to have this amended refusal, okay?
So is there anyone in the virtual audience who has comments relative to this case?
I see no hands.
Planning commission.
Good afternoon, Board. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 3 single-family residential
zoning at this location. We feel the applicant has a demonstrated hardship given the long
history of the property being used as a duplex. However, we do not feel there is any hardship
for a third unit. Additionally, the proposed level of variance is better handled through
rezoning than through the variance process accordingly the planning commission recommends
the board grant the variance for use but limit it to two units
Ms. St. Jeans we're going to hold the vote on this until we have the amended refusal
other than that it case is closed you will be notified when we're going to vote okay
and just to be clear I will be requesting the amended refusal there's nothing that you need
You don't have to do anything.
She's going to take care of it, okay?
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 2 p.m. case has not been called?
I see no hands.
Okay, so I understand.
We'll take a break now.
We'll come back at 3.30.
Am I correct?
Yes, Chair.
Thank you kindly.
Hey, we'll be back at 3.30. Thank you. Not used to having this time here.
It's the quickest 2 o'clock call I've ever had. Ever. Ever.
And I'm sure Iz is going to be on shortly.
Sounds good.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
Our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid should be on shortly.
Our Board Member Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, James Snell.
Sorry, present, Chair.
Okay, and also present here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunket at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand, star 6 to unmute.
On an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunk.
Let's look at this afternoon's schedule.
Are there any requests for continuances?
Good afternoon, Chair.
This is Nadia, and I'll be our co-host this afternoon.
And I see no hands.
So also number three, MI 2023, 002-915-1813 North Van Pelt Street.
This is the second listing.
The first listing, no one appeared.
Jose Bernardino is the applicant in family-first development.
Chair, we have somebody by the hands.
I'm sorry, they put their hands down.
There are no hands.
Okay, so this was the second listing.
No one appeared the first time.
So MI 2023-002-915-1813 North End Pelt Street, I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
We're going to go to our regular list now.
So MI 2023-007-052, 955 Tree Street.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from Lower Moimension Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Now, he has received a position of opposition.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note that Mr. Shahid has arrived.
Mr. Shahid, could you just confirm your audio is on?
Yes, I'm here.
Can you hear me?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco, could you state your name for the record spelled for the stenographer?
Mr. DeMarco, could you state your name for the record spelled for the sonographer?
I sure can.
I sure can. Richard DeMarco, last name spelled D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes. It's Amarildo Capuni and his wife, Elda. Amarildo is with us today.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the read and other refuse or stipulate
to his accuracy? Yes, I can waive and stipulate. Have you emailed in all the required documents?
I have. That is needed and required to proceed with this, please. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board. Richard DeMarco here for the applicant.
I'll share my screen. As you indicated, we met with the neighborhood group. We have,
Hold on a second here. There we go. We have no opposition, overwhelmingly so. The reason I think why that was the case is the RCO reasonably realized that the board actually heard this case about 10 years ago, voted it favorably.
The issue was that the applicant was not provided with good advice and never followed up to obtain the zoning permit, and therefore the one-year decision period on the original decision lapsed, and he had to go back and do the process all over again.
That is noted on the refusal correctly. And you can see here, Mr. Chairman, permit was never issued. You see the calendar number here, 18735. Obviously, the facts have not changed since this board's decision back then. It is the same property. This is a legalization matter.
There's no changes to the property. Let me jump, if I may, ahead to the zoning archive documents, which show you that this property was a, oh, by the way, before I forget, Mr. Capuni did circulate a petition, did get a number of near neighbors to sign off on non-opposition, as well as the position of the RCO.
this is the RCO letter. You can see overwhelmingly non-opposition to one person opposed. Looks like
it was 30 to one. Let me just show you before I have Amarillo confirm my statements. I do want
to show you the archive. Just bear with me one minute. I skipped it. Sorry.
Oh, here's also the ZBA's decision back. Here's the prior attorney. And as you can see here,
granted, I'm circling my cursor. This was the Zoning Bird's original decision back in 2013,
basically to legalize the two-family dwelling that exists at the property. And then here's
what I wanted to show you. As you can see, this property was actually a commercial way back in
the 50s, it was a two-unit with a commercial storefront and one dwelling above. And then you
could see in the 80s, it became a different type of commercial use, a dry cleaning store, and then
the one unit above. What actually happened was the owners then converted the only commercial
space into residential use. So this was always a commercially situated property, always had two
units. So I believe that is why the zoning board was willing to grant the variances back in 2013.
Nothing has changed the property. My clients did believe that they had done everything properly,
thought they were valid for the zoning. They've paid trash fees. I'll show you the floor plan.
There's plenty of storage in the basement for trash for both tenants. Here's some photos.
property is well maintained with that i will ask amirildo we posted the property as well
i'll ask amirildo caponi to virtually raise his hand so he can adopt my statement so obviously
to sum up mr chairman obviously we believe that the board found that there was a hardship to this
property owing to the long-standing use as two units dating back to the 60s um there's been no
change since the board's decision back in 2013 so obviously we feel the variances are warranted
Go ahead if Mr. Capuni can be permitted to speak.
Hi, Mr. Capuni, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Mr. Capuni, you have been allowed to speak. Please unmute yourself.
Yes. Can you hear me?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, could you please state your name and spell for the court?
Yes. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. My name is Amarildo Capone, A-M-A-R-I-L-D-O, last name Capone, C-A-P-U-N-I.