Oh, Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2024, 005-790-3625 North 16th Street.
I vote yes.
I'm not on this one either.
show guessing my vote is yes
Tanetta Graham my vote is yes
I win my vote is yes
number three
MI 2024
005 262
1311 to 13
North 27th Street
that case has been rescheduled to Wednesday
April 23rd at 2pm
number four
MI 2024
867 1112
Roy Street
I vote yes with proviso.
I vote yes with proviso.
Per refusal, dated 2-18-25, revised plans, one-page, stamped by ZBA on April 9th, 2025, and use limited to a personal fitness, health, and wellness.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes. Can you confirm that address again?
The provisos?
No, no, the address.
Oh, sure.
11-12, correct?
11-12 Roy Street.
Okay, yes. My vote is yes with Michael
Jones. My vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston. My vote is yes
with Proviso. Tanetta Graham.
My vote is yes with Proviso.
My vote is yes with Proviso.
Number five is
number five, 2024-003-335-621-25
Reed Street. This is a re-vote
with the adding of
a proviso. I vote no with proviso. Her refusal dated 1-2-25. Michael Johns, my vote is no with
proviso. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is no with proviso.
Iowan, my vote is no with proviso. Number six, MI 2024-004-239-900 North 41st Street,
My vote is no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaster, my vote is no.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is no.
Tywin, my vote is no.
Number seven, MI2024, 005-849-4800 Bingham Street.
This vote, this matter, has been rescheduled
until April 23rd, 2025 at 2 p.m.
number eight mi2024-004-310-4122 comley street i vote no michael johns my vote is no
cheryl gaster my vote is no tenetta graham my vote is no
Ty, I win.
My vote is no.
MI 2024-005-574-1510 North 25th Street.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ty, I win.
My vote is yes.
We're going to go to our regular list.
We're going to start with number 11.
MI 2025, 000306, 2313 Green Street. Rachel Pritzker is the attorney. I understand that
Richard DeMarco is also maybe involved in this case. Good afternoon.
My counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, it's Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Laura and Anil Nanda. They are the owners of the property.
Do you waive the reading of refusal and agree with its accuracy?
Mr. DeMarco.
Good morning. Excuse me. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Richard DeMarco, last name spelled D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
I represent Thomas Leonard, the next door neighbor,
but we have an understanding with the applicant in this case.
Okay, do you swear or agree or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, yes.
Okay, so, Counsel Pritzker, could you please start your presentation?
You see my screen?
We can.
I'm going to go to the refusal. So, as I mentioned, I represent the homeowners of the property, Lauren and Neil Nanda. This property is at 2313 Green Street. It is zoned RM1, and we are proposing the removal of an existing one-story garage on the rear of the lot to erect an attached three-story structure on the rear, which you'll see in the plans, for use as a multifamily household living,
three dwelling units with an already existing six dwelling units on the site and the only refusal
that we have is just a de minimis refusal for minimum rear yard depth where the code requires
nine and we're proposing two feet three inches which i'll go into a minute
It's also worth noting that on the refusal under notes to the ZBA that the Zoning Board back in 1961 had granted a variance for five units on the property with an existing building with a de minimis variance for the courtyard space.
it's also worth noting that on the refusal under notes to the zba that
So similar refusal to this, just de minimis, dimensional refusal here.
The application for appeal.
um this is the um letter from the historical commission so it's worth noting that this
project is a historical uh structure the front of the property um so then any additions to the
site did include both a review by the architectural committee and the historical commission and
in collaboration with uh rich's client the neighbor um at 2315 and the coordinating rco
Spring Garden Civic, we worked on a number of revisions to this project that were supported
by the near neighbor and the community, but end up a little bit causing, not a little bit,
causing the de minimis refusal that we're here for today. And when the architects present,
you'll see just that what we're providing is actually more in line and is with the neighboring
property and leaves open the amount of light and air needed to keep the courtyard green and not
infringe upon the neighbor's courtyard and aligns with their structure as well. Just going to go
D to the property. The aerial, as you can see, it's a pretty large and long property. It's zone
RM1, as is the majority of the block and surrounding blocks. So the use that we're
proposing is permitted by right. And the multiple principal buildings are also permitted by right
on the structure as you can see and especially given the adjacent neighbor as you can see on
2315 they also have sort of this setup with an additional structure in the rear and what we're
trying to do is provide our structure in line with theirs so that it doesn't infringe upon
any of the additional open space and light and air which was really important to the neighbor
and also it keeps in context with the surrounding area so that's what is generating a little bit of
the issue here. This is just the zoning posters on the front of the property.
Some exterior photos.
So you can kind of see that courtyard space that we're trying to preserve.
And this is the existing carriage house. So part of the project requires the demolition
and removal of that and a new structure that's more in line with the neighborhood and the
newer architecture over there.
Before I bring the architects on that can kind of explain the proposal as far as the
plans are concerned, I just want to kind of go through the hardship argument, which is
again, this de minimis refusal for dimensional variance here.
What's required is nine feet.
However, the nuance here is that the deed has this portion of road that kind of nears between Wallace Place and 2315 Green Street listed as an alleyway.
And so per the code, the rear yard depth has to be measured from the closest point of the property boundary.
but because this is designated as an alleyway instead of a driveware or rear street the code
requires that the rear yard has to be measured from the boundary of the alleyway not any point
within the alleyway so literal enforcement would require that this new structure sit about six feet
further forward into the courtyard which would encroach upon the light and air of the directly
adjacent property right here on the screen. So what we're asking for is this de-minimal variance
that we can actually be in line with the adjacent structure and not sit six feet forward, which not
only is out of whack with the neighboring property, but just is not in line with sort of any other
additions of this sort and would be more out of character. So we worked with the neighbors on this
and we actually prefer where we had it proposed and that was supported and approved by the
historical commission, this nuance in the code related to this, the measurement needing to be
from this alleyway, because the term on the deed is alleyway, is what is triggering our need for,
I guess, three feet, six feet additional space setback. Literal enforcement, again, would require
this to be out of whack and encroach upon the light and air of the adjacent structure and also
be out of whack with the approval that was already given by the architectural committee
and the Historical Commission.
That's the only refusal that we're asking for.
And as mentioned, we worked really nicely
And as mentioned, we worked really nicely in collaboration with the neighbor and the RCO.
in collaboration with the neighbor and the RCO.
And I know this isn't really the purview of zoning, but I want to make sure I mention this.
We will be working on a written agreement with the neighbor and the community on the construction component because there was a lot of sensitivity around making sure that we are as thoughtful as possible as we work through the construction of this because there are a lot of other surrounding properties, small alleyways.
on it and it's you know going to be a little bit uh of a challenging construction perspective just
given the access needed for a lot of these properties just the way that they're situated
in the community so we are working on that but given the amount of detail involved with that
it's taking a little bit more time but we are committed to that and i've been working with rich
on that um for a little bit now so i just want to make sure that that that's mentioned on the record
because i know that there's some sensitivity to that other than that everything with this project
the lines dimensionally and use-wise it's permitted by the code and again it's just the the minimal
dimensional variance that we're asking for we did have a public meeting with the community
and we have a letter of non-opposition from the spring garden civic association who again has
been a sort of a very collaborative with us and the neighbor on on getting this project
moved forward and also as we handle the construction components of this so just so you have this as
well um other than that i would like to bring on our architects briefly um evan lipin from low
design just to go through the proposal um on the plans and then um be be done from there
what's your architect's name evan lipin evan yep
evan yes here
i'm right here do i need to be sworn in no that's fine evan could you please state your
name and spell for the court's stenographer sure it's evan litvin l-i-t-v-i-n you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed
council evan could you share your screen and go through the plans please absolutely second okay
here we go uh thank you uh thanks rachel um 23 13 green street as rachel mentioned uh fronts
onto both green street as well as as well as wallace place in the rear would you get closer
to your mic, you're fading off. Oh, I'm sorry. The proposed project includes three modest units
with a total of roughly 2,600 square feet, a height of roughly 30 feet, and sits on the
footprint of the existing garage structure, which will be demolished. We are here to discuss,
as Rachel mentioned, the relatively straightforward dimensional hardship refusal,
which is a direct result of the extensive collaboration with both near neighbors and the
RCO. Much of this dialogue took place during the historical commission process and we ultimately did
receive approval from the historical commission. I'll move quickly through the site photos.
It's also important to note that the site is pretty well tucked away from the main
right-of-ways. As you can see here, it's back down Wallace Place. This is probably the most
prominent view looking down that small street. This gives you a sense of what the new project
will look like from that view. A little bit farther down Wallace Street, and you can just
barely see the roof. I'll go quickly through these. Down from 24th Street, you can sort of
see the roof line again. We work very closely with the neighbors on the material pallet and the
massing for the project. And this is the existing site plan. As you can see, the existing one-story
garage in the rear and the 13-foot alley that Rachel mentioned. And here's the proposed site
plan. And note that the new structure sits on the existing garage footprint. To focus specifically
on the refusal, you'll notice that there is the 13-foot deeded alley. This is the existing
footprint, again, zoomed in on the garage. The alley runs through our property. The proposed
footprint extends the open space at the rear by two feet, three inches. The rear yard dimensions
is calculated from the point where the alley stops.
This means that the code would require a full nine-foot setback
from the structure to the beginning of the alley.
And if we were to move the structure as shown here, which would be a by right version of this project, it would be an additional six feet, nine inches, and we would be fully by right.
And if we were to move the structure, as shown here,
which would be a by-right version of the structure,
However, another concern that came out of the historical commission process and dialogue with the neighbors had to do with exposing the currently covered masonry stable wall to the east and the masonry party walls on the carriage house to the west.
these were very very specific concerns that we wanted to address which is why we we pushed the
project back forward we also as rachel mentioned we think it's just visually appropriate and i'll
just give you a brief run through on some rendering so you can have a better sense of
the project this is the main elevation the view from wallace view down the walkway connecting to