There's egress well on the front.
There's a light well in the middle and the egress on the back.
As to refresh the board's memory, the proposal for the seller use is to be essentially the.
Let me jump to that portion of the plan.
to be the living space and additional, essentially, living space for the first unit.
We have the bedrooms on the first floor, and we moved the family room into the cellar
as a way to give additional living space.
So it's not a space that's going to be used for sleeping.
It's just space for activities.
and I think that's what raised the concern about how much the seller was below grade versus above
grade. The use, just to kind of refresh the memories of the board, is again, it's three units.
This is a large lot and a deep lot, which also has on its, if you're facing the property to its
left is an existing four-unit building. To its right is a single family. Across the street is
actually a very dense multifamily zone district, and there are some proposed orders. There may be
actually at this point, actual constructed building that has very high density, over 10 units
each. So we're actually surrounded by multifamily use, except for to our right. The block also
consists of various multifamily uses, not just single-family. So as a result of that, with the
size of the lot being considered as well, our proposal was for a three-family dwelling. From
a rendering side, it's easy to see that the property... I'm sorry, I'm going to try to get
zoomed in properly here. So the property is here. It's kind of a gap filler in this situation.
So the property is here. It's kind of a gap filler in this situation. This is the existing
multifamily on the left side. This is a single family on the right. And this is also a multifamily
further to the left. Our building will be the same height as the building to the left.
So the overall height of the building actually is consistent with what's already on the block.
we have posted, and again, this is a different angle where you can better see the left and right
side properties. So I'm happy to try to answer the specific questions about
the design itself. Again, we have one unit on each floor. There's three total units being proposed.
There's access to the rear through an existing easement alleyway.
We also, as part of the process of making this lot through a subdivision,
made sure there was an easement access way added in the back of the property
linking up with the existing easement to make sure that there's exit
from the rear of the property out to the street in case of emergency.
So, given that, I'm happy to try to answer any questions from the board or redirect the board to any part of our presentation.
Counsel, do you want to just have your testimony adopted, please?
Sure. Mr. Bader, if you are there, please raise your hand virtually to be identified.
Mr. Bader, you're allowed to speak.
Mr. Bader, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, my name is Chagai Bader, C-H-A-G-A-I, my last name is Bader, B-A-D-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Bader, did you hear my testimony and see my presentation before the zoning board?
Can you verify what I have represented is true and correct
and adopt it as your own testimony?
Correct.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Yeah, question.
Can you go back to the floor plans again, please?
I'm going to zoom in again to make it easier.
you can go so so the basement so yeah you you want me to focus on the basement portion
i just if you no go back i want to see all four short together just so
okay so there's direct access to the yard out of the first floor
and there you said there's a there's a space there's a space between our building um and the
next building to our left that this is a breezeway that's going to be left open to allow access to
the rear yard by actually all the units is that where that fence is currently in the picture
um in the photo it would be i mean to the right to the left of the building facing the building
there's a there's a fence is that enclosed area is that the area you're talking about
uh this area this area yes that's actually our um part of our lot that's part of so that fence
is part of your lot yes this will be become a shared um it's a shared breezeway in essence
i'm sorry no no it's not shared it's on our lot um it is our property so so the so so that
whole space is on your property
so the building next door has
windows on the property line?
Shagai,
can you kind of
clarify that situation?
Actually, I believe
the architect is here as well.
The architect needs to answer, yes.
Mr. Mark Wallace, are you
here? Can you raise your hand virtually?
Mr. Wallace
has been allowed. Hello everybody.
can you hear me according to your site plan it shows that your property line is on your
line of your building line so i'm trying to figure out yeah i'm sorry yeah that's why i
wanted the architect to clarify yeah architect please state your name mark wallace that's
for the stenographer m-a-r-k w-a-l-l-a-c-e right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Counsel, ask your questions, please.
Yes. Mr. Wallace, a question has been raised about the space between our building and the building next door.
Can you kind of clarify to the board how that is going to affect the ability for the rest of the building to access?
Yes, absolutely. So that portion is actually on the neighbor's property, and we have no rights to use that.
So this project was originally subdivided off a property that fronts on Stillman Street.
In designing the multifamily building that is as a right on the Stillman side, we specifically created this easement so that we can discharge from the rear yard into that space and discharge out to Stillman Street.
So while we do have this alley next to us, and in an emergency, I'm sure someone could use it, we don't technically have the legal rights to use it.
So we wanted to make sure that we created a means of egress from the rear of this property.
So I'm sorry, to clarify, when you're talking about the rear of the property, you're talking about this easement on the site plan in the back?
Okay. So would the upper units have access to the rear yard outside of the direct access from the first floor?
No, no. They just have windows that front out that way.
All right.
And their windows meet the egress requirements for a three-story multifamily building.
So thank you. So when you say you created an easement out of that rear, so there's a rear alley, right? There's a rear alley and you've got a rear yard. And so you just have access from your rear yard to the alley.
That is correct.
Okay. For that first floor unit that has the first floor and basement, because you've got the window well, and then the first floor unit that has access out to that yard. Okay.
Correct. Yes. We wanted to make sure that we had an egress well in the right of way in the front and an egress well in the rear to make that basement as safe as we possibly could.
Right. And what's the depth of the basement below? Great.
Just under six feet.
Okay. And there's a gate on the fence designed in the rear yard to allow access to that easement, correct?
That is correct. Yes.
Thank you.
How tall is the building?
35 feet.
So essentially, with the overlay here, that is the max height.
So we try to push it out of grade as far as we could to make this basement, again, a viable space to use.
Isn't the maximum 38 feet?
No, with the overlay in this area, it's 35.
It's 35, okay.
Typically, yes, an RSA 5 would be 38 feet.
Yeah, question.
um so you're not going to have any windows on either side of this property that is correct
so um where we have a zero lot line we are proposing zero windows um zen can you go to
the floor plans the windows will be in the rear and in the front is that what you're saying
correct and that's why we took a bite out of the middle of this floor plan to make sure that we
provided light and air to the middle portion of this building. And also because you have the
windows on the property line of the adjacent property, correct? The windows on the adjacent
property line did not affect our decision. When we have our walls against our property line,
we were proposing no windows. So we decided to create a space to create windows for light and
we did position the building in a way to take advantage of the neighboring parcel and its setback
so that our light well is feel will feel a little bit larger since their building is five feet off
the property line okay thank you other questions yes okay i have a few questions about windows and
doorwells so in the basement specifically i'm looking at the window well at the bottom of the
plan yep um i'm looking at the window that's currently shown in the light well behind the
sofa and no other light well the middle one yeah there's a window right behind the sofa on the plan
and then doorway at the front and i'm wondering can you tell me the dimensions of those three
openings um offhand i don't have those but they will be egress compliant and the one in the right
of way um the one back to the light well is looks about five ish feet wide um we typically set our
around three feet and our heads are around eight okay and then um about the utility storage area
One, understanding that like now this is an enclosed space that has an egress.
Well, what are you all going to do to ensure that that does not get used as a livable space in the future?
as a livable space in the future our plan was just not to finish it okay
Our plan was just not to finish it.
questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr chair um questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience
not at this time too planning commission
um thank you amy boy with the planning commission
um i believe we have already stated our testimony and we have no updates and you're staying with
your testimony yes okay thank you so mi 2024 005 574 1510 north 20 fish tree
i vote yes with proviso no household living in basement
michael johns my vote is
yes i don't without the proviso i don't know how to say that
but so yes
okay my vote is yes with proviso it's not a gram my vote is no i own my vote is yes without the
proviso okay um that's a tough one i don't know yeah okay um yeah we'll need to re-vote this
we'll take we'll take an additional member yeah okay we'll go to an additional member we'll get
back to you at council and we'll announce next wednesday we'll vote next wednesday next wednesday
at 9 38 we'll vote okay thank you number one mi 2022 006 705 2000 larry street
alan knockamson is the attorney it's a resumptive hearing
Mr. Nockamson has been promoted
you're allowed to speak
Mr. Nockamson
leave me mr chairman you you're gonna yes i'm gonna do it oh okay mr goldberg yeah and i was
i apologize i was having some tech just state your name you've already been sworn uh alex goldberg
a-l-e-x-g-o-l-d-b-e-r-g all right okay so there's a resumptive uh hearing you're going to provide
updated information about amended refusal and the member community meeting um our board and
council will have questions there'll be public testimony and planning commission will make
recommendations that's correct please proceed let's see slide over here okay um what's that okay um
thank you for your time mr chairman and members of the board um we're here back
presenting 2000 larry street this is an mi 2022 number so that should tell you how long this
has been going on we had a supplemental rco meeting we've made a large number of modifications
at the request of the community we still have a letter of opposition from that community group but
i'll spell out what those changes are i'll have my client and the owner of their property sylvia
Acaba and the owner of the business that operates out of the office here, adopt my testimony. And
I believe there are some members in the audience who'd like to testify as well. So at our RCO
meeting in November, we responded to a number of changes and we presented the revised refusal
that I'm scrolling to now. We have three refusals. The first refusal is regarding the proposed
business and professional office use this is an rsa5 property but it's the end of a row of rsa5
properties and it faces multiple industrial and commercial zone properties this property also
has a history of a one commercial plus one residential which was one of the changes that
we made that addition of a residential unit on the second floor was at the request of
um craig melodosian of the coordinating rco and i'm sure he's on and i don't think he would
dispute that that point um and that's the reason why we have the second refusal um you know adding
that residential unit we understood that would create another refusal item um but the most
important thing to miss cabo was legalizing the use for her business um because
Ms. Cabo was legalizing the use for her business because that business is an office that's
accessory to a home care business.
She's registered, and I'm sorry if I butcher this explanation, you can correct me at the
end, she's registered to operate in a specific zip code, which is the zip code and maybe
a couple surrounding zip codes.
She's not able to operate out of here.
It's going to put her business in jeopardy.
um it's also a convenient location for a handful of her employees who don't have uh don't aren't
paid electronically who um twice a week for a couple hours a day pick their i think we had
that testimony of our case and then that third that third refusal is regarding sign area so
some of the feedback we received were was regarding some temporary signage essentially
there were four signs at the property and i'm going to scroll down here so that you have a visual aid
um go back to the beginning
so there were four signs here there were two on each facade you have you see two in the image
there um the flat wall sign that's the sign that's facing the cmx one and industrially zoned
properties there was a temporary sign below that as well as a temporary sign on the railing
on the larry street side below the awning sign the awning sign as you'll see in our plans is
proposed to be removed not only are we removing that we also lowered the wattage of the backlight