Like I said, I have Mr. DeLeon who's sitting next to me.
I asked the board to accept my testimony as an officer of the court since he doesn't speak English, but I've explained everything to him in detail.
With that, I asked the board if there are any questions or concerns.
Question is from the board.
Yes. Are you planning to have a sign of some sort?
And what about this sign that was left there on the building from your former floors?
Well, there's no sign included on this application. Obviously, he is going to need a sign. At this point, this application is for the use permit. He obviously does intend to put up a sign in conformity with the code.
If any proposed sign would not be in conformity with the code, then he'll certainly put up an appropriate application for any non-conforming sign.
So does he have any connection with the sign that is there already?
No, no, no.
Other than it being on the property that he's currently leasing.
So it is part of the leased premises?
Yes, yes.
It's part of the leased premises.
But he's obviously not going to be advertising flowers because that's not his business.
Right.
Questions for the board.
Thank you.
So they'll have to apply for a separate zoning for signage?
Yep. If it's non-conforming, yeah.
And it's not conforming. The other thing I noticed in the other site that they have is the number of individual signs on the windows. That tends to be an issue, and I know that that's not the code to code, and we want to just make sure that
that doesn't happen okay understood signs get these signs get plastered all over the cigarette
signs and the other signs get plastered all over the windows which is which is not to code and i
see that all over the city and i don't know who regulates it or who um who's supposed to uh
police that but it's not happening
the questions for the board
questions or comments from our attorney
Hillary Emerson
not at this time Mr. Chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands
planning commission
and we vote with the planning commission
the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single
family RSA 5 zoning at this location
the proposed use is
consistent with documented prior use for
commercial, and the appellant has demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or
circumstances that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning
code. The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variances
for two principal uses and retail sales of food, beverages, and groceries.
MI 2024-000750-1343 East Lycoming, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Thyat Wendt, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Vaccaro.
Thank you. Have a good day.
All right. All right. Number eight, MI 2024-002519-1232 South Broad Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
A letter of unanimous non-opposition from South Broad Street neighbors.
Mr. Consul, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Mr. Consul?
Got me now?
I got you.
Could you please state your name?
Go ahead.
Last name, C-O-N-S-O-L-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes. I believe we have Michael or Steve, the owner of the property, one of which is with me here today.
I believe we have Michael.
I have Michael and Angeline Young.
Yes. That's all right. Hold on one second.
One second.
Michael Young or Steve Young?
All right.
Thank you.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and do you agree with the accuracy?
Why don't you start your presentation?
I'm going to share my screen.
Hey, everyone.
We're here on 1232 South Broad Street.
This property is zoned RSA 5. We're here seeking approval for a six dwelling unit. This property, going back to 1985, was approved for four dwelling units and an office space on the first floor.
After that, it was converted by my clients to a dental lab on the first floor with four rental units above.
In 2005, by way of the permit that I'm showing on the screen, it was approved for six dwelling units, and it was converted with the appropriate permits at that time to six dwelling units.
Unfortunately, my clients never pulled rental licenses, and when the property was rezoned as single-family residential, it lost its approvals.
Nothing has changed internally since the conversion occurred approximately 19 years ago, and my clients are seeking approval of this variance to re-approve the use so they can operate legally.
we went in front of uh the south broad street neighborhood association uh we seems like everyone
um you know is in non-opposition again i don't think they do support but it was all non-opposition
everyone understood that this has been operating that way forever it's not a problematic property
and in fact i'll show you the pictures it's a really nice uh there's really nice in the interior
They sent a letter. Here's a proof of mailing, exterior photos, just one of those big properties on Broad Street, and tax clearance certificate.
We also submitted plans showing the layout of the property. Each of the three floors has two one-bedroom units.
Actually, I believe there's a couple of two-bedroom units that exist here as well.
The basement itself is not occupied. It's utilities only.
But obviously, we submitted this because we'll have to get this all legalized and get the CO.
And there's a complete layout that's included in our packet.
We include an affidavit of continuous use.
Again, this is the record showing that it was approved in 2005 for the use that we're seeking.
And then we included some interior photos just showing some of the work that exists in the property.
There was a lot more that we had shown during the RCO meeting.
I believe that the chair is an architect and he seemed pleased with the state of the property
and there's no complaints in that direction as far as we can tell from anyone.
It seems to be a nicely preserved property on South Broad Street.
With that, I'll conclude my presentation and ask my client to raise their virtual hand.
Mr. Young.
Stephen Young has been allowed to speak.
Hello, sir. My name is Stephen Young, son of the owner, Michael and Angeline Young.
They unfortunately could not make it here today. They are abroad.
So I am sitting in for that.
Hillary, we're okay with this, right?
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, say that again.
We're okay with the son testifying, not the owners.
um generally we do request that the owners testify um is this is the son on the deed to
the property exactly okay it typically we would we would like to hear from the the owner of the
property um mr council have you talked to the owners yeah yeah they're at the rco meeting they
Mr. Consul, have you talked to the owners?
Yeah, they're at the RCO meeting.
They were messaging me yesterday.
That's why I was confused, because there was messages back and forth yesterday about them being unable to appear on Zoom.
And as an officer of the court, I'd be happy to testify.
As an officer of the court, we'll let Mr. Consul say that he's explained this to his clients and said numerous conversations with them.
Am I right, Mr. Consul?
yes absolutely questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any hands mr chair planning commission
with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this
location from residential single family rsa5 to commercial mixed use cmx3 proposed unit count
would be allowed by right under the recommended designation additionally the proposed use is
consistent with documented prior use the planning commission recommends that the board grant the
for multifamily household dwelling. Thank you. MI 2024-002-519-1232 South Broad Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes. Carl Gaston, my vote is yes. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes. Thank you, Mr. Consul. Thank you. Number 10, MI 2024-002-539-2101
101 South 28th Street. Mark Danik is the attorney.
There will be rejoining as a panel, sir.
There we go.
Morning, Mr. Danik. Morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the course
personographer? Sure. Mark Danek, M-A-R-K-D-A-N-E-K. And I'm with a law firm of Obermeyer,
Redmond, Maxwell, and Hipple. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yeah. My client is Ms. Tanya Krawchuk of Krawkena Architects. She is a church trustee,
as well as a registered architect who will provide some testimony related to the relief
we're seeking today. You stipulate to the reading of the refusal and you agree with its accuracy?
Yeah, we stipulate to the revised refusal dated August 29th, 2024.
And one other question, do you have an RCO letter?
Yes, I do. It's a letter.
Did it just come in?
Yeah, just last night we had the RCO meeting.
Could you make sure that we received a copy of it? And what was what is the what is the are they in favor?
So they voted not in support. They did not provide an explanation. But I can represent to Mr. Chair that during the meeting, there seemed to be a lot of confusion related to an injection site overlay zoning district designation on the revised refusal, where the neighbors seemed to believe that we were trying to put an injection site on the church property.
One other gentleman thought that the city was moving all the, say, the drug users from Kensington into the neighborhood.
And then one or two of the neighbors represented concerns regarding if a property was sold, what would somebody else build on it?
Why don't you start your presentation and try to explain all this to us?
I will share my screen.
you should be seeing an overhead photo of the property this is the church these are the two
residential homes of 2109 and 2111 south 28th this is the church hall property at 27302734
Snyder. This is the vacant lot at 2726 to 2728 Snyder Avenue. The requested relief, now this is
the revised refusal. There are, and I'll show you on the plan and my client will testify to it
further. All we're trying to do is realign the lot lines of the various properties to get rid of all
the encroachments and make sure that the property lines are actually in line with how the properties
the property lines are actually in line with how the properties were built so as a result of those
were built so as a result
changes uh we are running into issues with the percentage of coverage of the building
and also the lot sizes for the two residences um they are existing um become too small and then
the side yards uh for the church hall property which are already existing are under the required
12 foot. And then this is, as I go through these, I also had to seek an amendment of the zoning
application because the city records do not identify 2726 to 2728 Snyder as a piece of
property within the city. We do have deeds showing that it is a proper piece. And for L&I's purposes,
to make sure that everybody had notice that all five pieces of property were part of this zoning
notice, we did an amendment to make sure that everything was done correctly. And as you can see
here on the revised notice, for some reason, the zoning overlay district notice was placed
on the revised notice. And I'll touch on that more when I discuss the neighbors. Here are the
tax clearance certificates. These are the initial ones that expired in May. I do have updated ones
further in the packet. This is our appeal application. This is the addendum letter.
And then this is the letter seeking the correction. Here are my client's deeds. This is a letter from
LNI, which during the review process, they did recognize all five parcels. It's just
on the original notice of refusal, he only listed four parcels because of the computer system.
Now, this is my client's color-coded map.
And as you can see at the bottom here, these are the existing parcels.
So this is the church.
These are the two residences.
This is the church hall, and this is the bacon lot.
What they're seeking to do is realign the lot lines so that more of this property is
part of the church and also this one-story garage is no longer straddling three pieces of property.
They're all existing structures that have been there for decades, I'm guessing, and so they're
not seeking to build anything. We're just seeking to correct problems. The two residences down here,
the big issue with these, if I could scroll over, is that the buildings themselves were actually
built over the property line. I believe it's two foot six inches. So what we're seeking to do is
just basically realign the lot line so that they fall within the party walls. What that means is
the person down here who initially, I guess, built over the property line, they're going to be
picking up two foot six, and then the other parcels will get smaller. And then the, let's see if I
can scroll back. When we make this change here, that's how this results in the two residential
homes being occupying or lot D here occupies 79% of the lot area instead of 75. For the church
hall here, there's existing side yards of 6.9 feet and 5.1 where 12 foot is required. And then
the third variance request that we're seeking is for these two lots. The city code requires a
minimum of 1,440 square feet. However, what we're proposing is 1,049.4 square feet and 965.1 square
of feet and let me go here uh this is the um i downloaded the uh electronic uh neighbor mailing
lists off of the opa website since there were several properties uh what we did is i combined
everything i got rid of all the duplicates and we had one master list that was approximately 138