that there are no open violations on the property um then there was a couple of main issues that
came up and i'm sure that the neighbors who are here today will bring them up again
uh the biggest issue that came up and was in the first meeting of this are the garages
um that are existing on the property um this is an existing condition of the property um
and the issue is is that there is a building that was built on the property
uh hold on we'll go we'll go here uh it was built on 1548 that's this property here with
the garages in the back at some point this was combined with 1546 which is now the vacant parcel
next door and as part of this application we're looking to subdivide it the subdivision is by
right the lots are big enough however when you subdivide the uh lni has said that you lose the
grandfathering of these garages that have existed we have documentation for at least 60 years with
reference further back um so the community wanted these garages torn down but they are an existing
condition of the property um that has been there for a long time and we're looking to preserve this
property so uh that was really the thing we got the most pushback on was about the garages
We talked about this before, that they said they're too small.
They are small.
We don't negate that.
They are big enough to fit some small cars, scooters, motorcycles.
I believe in our previous meeting, I listed cars.
We're not going to do that again.
But so that remained an issue.
But again, I think that this is a legitimate hardship because we're looking to maintain
the existing building and do an overbuild on this property.
And it's an existing condition on the property.
If we can't get the variance, we can't proceed with the subdivision.
And it's nothing that my client did to create the condition.
He bought a property in this condition, and we're just looking to continue to use it, those garages, the way that they've existed for over 60 years.
Another big issue that came up was the tenant of the upstairs unit in the building right now was there along with some of her neighbors.
and I assume that she's probably here today too but the concern and it was
Um, but the concern, and it was brought up in the letter, if we, if we go to the second letter, um, there was an issue about displacement of the tenants of the property.
brought up in the letter if we if we go to
Uh, and while I understand their concern and I am, um, empathetic to having to move, I was a renter for a very long time and had to move several times because my property was sold or whatever.
um the reality is is that you know we have a property that does need renovation and
rehabilitation um there's no kind of dissent on that um proper notice will be given if
everything's approved and the project moves forward um and you know there will be notice
given in terms of the lease um so that was like three of the people that were there opposing it
We're mostly concerned about the tenants that are there, and we are looking to have a duplex in here as it is now.
There's two units there now, and so there will still be two units at the end of the project.
We're not reducing housing.
And then the other big thing was that I wanted to address, and that was brought up, was that the property 1548 is zone CMX1.
So as we know, CMX1 can have commercial space, but doesn't have to have commercial space.
And some of the neighbors were looking to have a commercial space in this property.
I just wanted to say that at this meeting, there was also an applicant for a coffee and prepare food shop two blocks away at 22nd and Tasker, where we're at 20th and Tasker.
and the same members of the community who were demanding that there be a commercial space here
were opposing his project because there was too many commercial businesses and they didn't need
another business that would go either by right or by special exception in the area in a CMX1
property. I also wanted to say that that presentation for the 1600 South 20th that day
uh it was agreed that that that commercial property had been vacant for about 10 years
um ours has also not had um a commercial use for over 10 years um so we have an area where we have
lots of vacant commercial space that's not being rented that's not being used and we could be using
it for much needed housing as as shown in uh you know the other comments about needing tenant spaces
and places for people to live um i just want to say also this is the same owner as the case i had
this morning at 1815 south 20th who did try to rent renovated rent his commercial space three
blocks to the south and has unsuccessful been unsuccessful at renting it for the past four
years there's no reason to believe that uh it's the same street a few blocks away that it would
be any different for this property if we were to create a commercial unit here um and so that's
you know i went over a lot of the hardships about not having commercial there there is two units the
last approved was two residential and one commercial so we're actually asking for something
less intensive than the previous use there were some concerns about density um but it really
seemed like that was a lower concern um and we know that there's other multi-families on the
block and the surrounding blocks the adjacent building at 1544 is a duplex we're building the
same thing at 1546 um and 1548 already has two units in so we're just looking to do that over
build and have two residential units uh which was there prior uh the two residential units plus the
commercial so it's not really anything of creating an intense amount of density where density didn't
already exist um there was continued to be miscommunications about why we're there but
i don't think we need to get into the weeds we had the meeting and those were the topics discussed so
i'll let the neighbors talk and then we can if i need to follow up i will
questions or comments oh i'm sorry are you going to the board mr sheriff
pardon me are you going to the board or going to the audience i'm sorry i'm just going to go to the
audience okay can i just jump in quickly um jennifer we did not receive the letter from the
rco with the vote count all of this so if you could yeah so if you could please forward that
to us um that would be great thank you sure i'm sorry i didn't realize you there was a lot of
people on the email i didn't realize you were not copied no problem no problem thank you i'm
going to do it right now. All right. So, questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Excuse me, Cher. We have Taylor Phillips. Excuse me.
Taylor Phillips?
taylor phillips
hi taylor
she's unmuted we can go taylor could you state your name please and spell for the
court stenographer
you want to move on to the next hand chair
Wait, how many hands do you have?
I have two more.
Okay, thank you.
Move on to the next hand.
Do you have a call-in user?
Good evening.
Good evening.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Tiffany Green.
Tiffany, spell your name for the court.
I-N-Y-G-R-E-E-N.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
First, I want to say, I did receive an email from Mr. Littlepage.
Currently, right now, he's unable to attend.
He's doing a church activity, which is directly across the street.
First, I want to say that this property is located at 20th and Tasker, and directly across
of it is the Rockbrook's top lot, and then across the street from it is the Tasker Street
Baptist Church, and then they just opened up a new health clinic.
So, this is a very congested area, as well as residential area.
I just want to say that this has been a very disingenuous operation by this particular lawyer.
I say that because of the fact that, first of all, there was a concern about the resumption hearing where someone can testify.
Nobody's here because everyone's under the impression that she's coming back to the community meeting for a follow-up.
So nobody actually heard her testimony, and I don't see where that's fair to the community to not really be able to hear her testimony in front of the CBA because people can say different things in front of different people.
To get down to the point, which is, and the second thing was it was a concern that the tenant that lives on the second floor said she was never even notified of the project.
She found out from another, maybe she's on, I'm not sure, but maybe she said she found out from another neighbor.
So the fact that they didn't even notify the tenant that was living on the second floor at 1548 I felt was a real concern to the point where she was asking would she be able to stay and would there be relocation fees.
So I'm saying that as a point of how they've been operating.
First of all, the South 20th Street, 1500 block, is majority two-story.
The one in 1544 came about after the new zoning code where the residents were no longer,
I would say, stripped of their rights to have a say about the height.
So that was built in, that was a by-right height, okay, the same as these two are being by-right height,
and the community does not have a say about the height.
So, therefore, but there was, they opposed, initially she came, we talked about four apartments.
When we started talking about affordable housing, affordable units to keep a balance,
they came back and said they're not going to do affordable housing, they're going to do condominiums.
At that point, that was one of the concerns until people felt that we should just keep a single family homes,
single family homes in the community.
And so for 1546, we were like for the planning, I mean, I'm getting confused,
Zoning ZBA to keep this according to the character, which is single-family homes, RS5.
We do have some across the street at 1946 and 1948 Tasker,
and we have some on Ferdinand Street that did sell, and they are three-story with single-family homes.
As far as 1548, this is like overuse of the property and a lot of density.
Again, the CA1, I mean CMX1 commercial, we would like to keep that.
That is an area that could be very good for a commercial piece.
The business she was talking about has five other food takeouts on one block, the 1500 block of 22nd Street,
and that's why the community was not really trying to support that fifth business there.
Here at 21st and Tasker, there is no other business on that area.
There's no other CA commercial department at 21st and Tasker.
And so the community felt that would be really good with the church being there
and the playground, which is very active during the summer.
And just let me make the statement.
We hear that the barbers always talk that way.
If you have a place that's run down, a lot of people will not move into that.
What we find is that once they remodel it and make it look very nice and pleasing,
people who may be riding through might say, hey, I can put a business in there,
whether it's an office, whether it's, you know, after school or whatever.
So it's about fixing up the property and then trying to rent it out,
property and then trying to rent it out, not trying to rent out a property that's sitting
not trying to rent out a property.
there looking run down and no one wants their business to be associated with that kind of
image.
With that, let me just get to the zoning piece, which is we support keeping the project, I
mean, keeping the CMX1 in place and asking that the owner build a code.
We think it still could be nice and built up nice on that corner, but just build a code
and that we do not support the garages at this particular point
because it's not accessed by alleyway, it's not accessed by a driveway.
This is a very crowded area, especially on Sundays where there's church and everything,
and that we feel if you're going to have a garage,
you should be able to accommodate small as well as large vehicles.
This is very small, and so therefore at this point, no, we do not support the garage.
We think that she can build or they can build a nice building or, you know, regular CMX one with one unit on top.
Thank you for calling in. We appreciate it.
Who else is in the audience?
We have Madison Rodwell.
OK. Madison, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Madison Rodwell, M-A-D-I-S-O-N-R-O-D-W-E-L-L.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I actually live across the street from the property of 2004.
Please proceed.
Yes, absolutely.
I believe the woman ahead of me referred to the garage already.
I would just like to, again, reaffirm that statement.
I've been in that garage myself.
For one, the roof is leaking and spalling. If this garage has been intact for 60 plus years, I imagine that just my cursory visual inspection, I'm not a building engineer. That's not what I do.
But I do know a little bit about structures and a spalling roof is a collapse hazard. And if their plan is to simply renovate the building and not actually re-address the structural issues that are causing this spalling and this leakage, then there shouldn't be a garage there.
They should just take it down. If their stated purpose is to create more housing in the area, then why exactly do they need to keep this garage, not even getting into the size of the garage, which let's be – again, having been in there myself, it's kind of laughable to think that you could put cars, plural, in there.
As for the density argument, I know the tenant, Taylor, on the second floor. They're a very good friend of mine. I don't think that displacement for the sake of more density is the right answer.
I know that the zoning board doesn't really directly concern itself with displacement.
However, I did want to make sure that that was read into the record since Taylor seems to be having some technical difficulties.
And for the in terms of notification, again, I live across the street.
I never received a piece of mail.
I didn't even realize that there was going to be a renovation done on that property until one of my neighbors alerted me to it.
So, you know, I think that there is, there are several issues, which I stated in the community meeting on Monday, that would, that would that, you know, again, that may give me pause about this, you know, I would love to see more residential housing, you know, I would personally love to have a, you know, some, a proper, a proper, you know, more proper housing on our block.
But at the same time, I don't think that, I don't think that the way that this has been done is, as a neighbor, I can't, I can't, you know, I can't support this.
I appreciate you calling.
Chairman Bergman, may I just respond to some of those comments?
Could we wait till we get through the audience?
And then you do it one time?
Is there anyone else in the audience?
Yes, we have two.
Erin Kelly.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello?
Can you hear me?
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Erin Kelly.