They've been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Hi, can you hear me?
I can. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Bonita Cummings, B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S, Strawberry Mansion Community Concern and R-O-C-O.
my name is bonita cummings b-o-n-i-t-a c-u-m-m-i
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and the board.
I just wanted to indicate that we did not receive the amended plans until 5 or 6 p.m. yesterday, which was Monday, 3-17-2025, and as a committee have therefore not been able to assess the four, we asked for it.
We asked for this amendment back in January, but was not given the amendment, and we didn't get it until we asked again, and that came yesterday.
So we do have some concerns, and those concerns were around, we were not in agreement with Wendell Wells.
They create trash pits that we're seeing in and around those blocks and the community.
So we didn't get any opportunity to really assess, again, this four, coming down to four units.
And primarily, the lot is a small size of 1,728 square feet, and 100% of it is occupied, leaving no breathing room.
Also, just for my quick review, a walk-up design can be challenging with this three-story.
even with three-story walk-up design for four units can be challenging for elderly residents,
disabled individuals, or families with young children. Even this idea of shared versus
private stairs, noise, congestion. So even this four units, what we're saying is really
you for it's too many for for the lot size and um there was uh we thought being removed was no
basement living and or no window wells which in most cases is promoting basement living and then
it also flips stairs around um disorienting the block as to what the rest of the um design of the
block um actually looks like so we weren't given an opportunity to actually get um more assessment
of the four units but from what we could do in a quick turnaround um we do still have concerns
that four units is too many for us for a small lot of that size all right thank you very much
mr knockamson do you have any questions uh yes um i just want to indicate for record keeping
purposes that we are not taking 100 the lot size i believe miss cumming stated that uh i'm i don't
have the computer in front of me uh so i do believe we do have a lot coverage refusal uh but
it's the minimus in nature uh mr goldberg how much of the lot coverage are we taking
78.7 that's right so i think miss cumming says we're taking 100 lot coverage which we're not
in terms of you know providing the drawings we did provide it along with our materials five days
beforehand and no point did Ms. Cummings stated any indication that she wanted to have a community
meeting to review these materials again we stated at the previous hearing that we would go down to
four units the board wanted to see how those were laid out again we defer to the boards regarding
the basement use. We do believe that the additional room in the basement for the first level for the
unit that's on the first level in the lower level provides a roomier atmosphere, but we would make
accommodations if the board feels so inclined to put a proviso, no bedrooms in the basement
or living in the basement. Thank you. Additional comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing single-family residential RSA 5.
We note for the board that absent participation in city, state, or federal, or a city zoning initiative affordability mentioned in the appellant's testimony cannot be enforced by any city agency.
There are a number of two- and three-family homes on this block face with similar lot sizes.
The proposed four units is not the least minimum.
The proposed four units is not the least minimum.
However, the requested occupied area variance is not the least minimum.
However, the requested occupied area variance is de minimis.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance for occupied area
and grant the variance for multifamily with proviso three units.
Thank you.
MI 2024-006-108-1827 North 22nd Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
maximum three units, revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA March 18th, 2025, no household
living in the basement, commercial trash pickup, and trash stored inside.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Taya Wynn, my vote is yes with provisos.
Mr. Reuter, have we heard?
Is he ready to go?
All right, we're going to hear this one case, then we'll.
Daniel Auerbach for MI 2024-007-119-1323 South Hancock Street.
Mr. Reuter has already been sworn.
Chair, I'm sorry, I have a Ross Gilson with their handrakes.
Could he be with the...
He may be, yes.
Why don't you bring him on, please?
I'm here.
Ross Gilson is my client.
I'm sorry for the delay.
Sure, sure.
Hi, Mr. Auerbach, could you please state your name
and spell it for the court stenographer.
Daniel Auerbach, and my last name is A-U-E-R-B-A-C-H.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right.
Mr. Auerbach, would you, I think you've talked with our attorney.
Are you aware where we stand with this?
Yes, I understand that the board intends to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Right.
That's right.
Mr. Reuter?
Yes, I'm aware that that's the board's position.
Thank you.
So MI 2024-007-119-1333 South Hancock Street, I vote to dismiss proviso, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Bye, Michael Johns, my vote is to dismiss with proviso.
Charles Gaston, my vote is to dismiss with proviso.
Tenetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is to dismiss with proviso.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Porter.
Thank you. That concludes my business.
Thank you.
You may be excused.
Thank you.
Right.
Number seven, MI 2024-006-308-1310 Marlboro Street.
Mr. Nackamson.
Mr. Nackamson.
Mr. Nocklinson, you've already been sworn.
Mr. Goldberg's here.
He's already been sworn.
Could you both please state your name for the record?
Alex Goldberg, A-L-E-X-G-O-L-V-B-E-R-G.
Mr. Nocklinson, did he answer?
Mr. Nockamson, can you unmute yourself?
Mr. Nockamson?
I can do it.
I'm sorry.
He might have to go out and run back in.
It's fine.
I'll do it.
Can you do it?
Yeah, I am just having trouble rejoining the virtual meeting.
Can we get Mr. Goldberg in, please?
Are you in, Mr. Goldberg?
wow okay
mr goldberg can you raise your hand i'm still i'm getting over the screen i haven't joined
the virtual we're trying to get a screen in do you want to put somebody one in front of me and
i'll come back okay why don't you do that
Okay, why don't you do that?
Number two, MI 2024-004-189-8244 Somerdale Avenue.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
Hi, Chair.
Meredith Berliger is in attendance. She's been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Council.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am not able to turn my camera on. I was not promoted as a
panelist. There we go. Hold on. All right. Sure. We're fine.
good morning good morning council could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do so council this is a a resumptive hearing and
this is or how we're going to lay this out you're going to give us an update and information about
an amended refusal. The board and council will have comments. We'll go to the public testimony
and the planning commission will make a recommendation. So, council, would you please start?
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, just to briefly remind you where we last left this case back in
September, the board heard the case, and as you know, a resumption hearing was scheduled for the
purpose of receiving an amended refusal from L&I to reflect the fact that expected landscaping
refusals were missing. I will very briefly remind you why we are here, and then I'll address the
new refusals. As a reminder, the property at 8244 Somerdale Avenue is located at the corner of
Huffnagle Street and Somerdale Avenue in the Ronhurst neighborhood. And again, you'll remember
this was a former long time. So Meredith, I think, you know, why don't you go into your
presentation about the update? Because I think we remember this for very well. Okay, wonderful.
All right. So
So since the board recalls this proposal, I will skip through my summary of what the request was.
All right.
So in terms of the amended refusal, let me bring that up here because there were a couple refusals that were added.
First, a new refusal was added here for a gravel surface of the parking lot.
I would submit to the board that this refusal is not accurate and that L&I has improperly interpreted an ambiguity in the code against this particular property owner's interest.
And again, just to remind you here, the surface of the lot here is already gravel.
As you can see on the amended refusal, the code requires a parking lot to be covered with either cement concrete, bituminous concrete, asphalt, or pervious pavement.
I challenged the L&I examiner that the code provides no definition of pervious pavement and that based on its very nature, gravel is in fact pervious pavement.
However, because there is no definition in the code, it is an ambiguity that the code would dictate be weighed in favor of the property owner, which was not done here and an amended refusal was issued.
Now, most importantly, the curb cut itself will be constructed to streets department standard while still allowing the flexibility of the gravel lot that, of course, has a much lower cost than full paving.
Now, in regards to the landscaping, and I would also add that my client is not opposed to paving if that is something that the board would issue via proviso.
The gravel is preferred. Certainly, it is less expensive and it is already there, but they are not opposed to the paving either.
Now, in regards to the landscaping, three landscaping refusals were issued.
First, a landscape buffer is required along the portion of the lot that abuts a residential district.
If you look at the zoning map, you'll note that everything surrounding this lot is residential, but in practicality, this buffer requirement would only apply along that southern border of the lot.
If you look at the zoning map, you'll note that everything surrounding this lot is residential.
Let me remind you what this area looks like currently.
As the board can see, there is already a full fence that separates the congregation and the parking area from the adjoining residences.
Providing a buffer here would not only not serve the purpose of the code, but it would
quite likely be dead fairly quickly as it would end up trapped between this fence, which
is in very good condition, and the parking.
We did ask for a waiver from this particular requirement, but it was not granted.
Second, based on the code, the planting of seven trees would be required just in the
required buffer areas along the Hofnagel and Somerdale frontages. This is not viable for two
reasons. First, if the board accepts the hardship presented that would prevent the inclusion of an
eight-foot setback of the parking from the property line, and again I'll show you roughly where that
line is so you can visualize it, then it follows that it would also be impossible to plant seven
trees in the buffer area that cannot feasibly exist given the site conditions. Furthermore,
as a reminder, there's already a roughly eight-foot grass buffer between my client's property line and
the sidewalk that will be restored with this application. Furthermore, although the code
contemplates a waiver for a payment of a fee in lieu, that in this case would mean a payment of
$7,000 to waive this requirement. That is a prohibitive amount given the nature of the
proposed construction and the fact that this is a small religious congregation with no source of
funding other than its members. That said, my client did also express a willingness to plant
a couple of trees surrounding the property, but that was not accepted as an acceptable waiver here.
Finally, the code would also require 10% of this interior parking area to be landscaped.
Again, if you refer to this plan that I have up on the screen, which is the zoning site plan with my
markups, you'll quickly glean why this is not possible. This is a very small parking area,
and any interior landscaping would merely serve to complicate the efficiency of the very limited
parking operations that would occur here. I would also highlight what I believe to be the most
compelling argument of all of this, that all of these landscaping requirements that are being
imposed on this particular application are only triggered because the lot itself is over 5,000
square feet. As you can see, the lot itself is quite large. The code only requires landscaping
when the lot is over 5,000 square feet. However, in this case, the parking area is significantly
less than 5,000 square feet, but the code does not contemplate an exemption in this type of
circumstance where only a very limited portion of the lot is subject to the application.
Of course, I'm very happy to go back through any of the evidence that was presented in September