we can occupy it
the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um yes mr chair i i just need a little bit of clarification because when i look at
when i look at the what was approved in 2016 um and then the building permit um
um so so what was approved in 2016 i'm sorry let me just prove my
sheet what was approved in 2016 was two units in building a only parking in building b
two units in c and seven units in d but the building permit that has the correction
indicates there's two units in building b so there there is an inconsistency
between the building permit and the zoning permit um and that i think that's what's creating why
the map is probably not adding up um for for some individuals who are interested in this case because
um for for some individuals who are interested in this case because the there is an inconsistency
that there isn't.
between which structures have how many units between the building permit and the zoning
approval uh hillary i would agree with you 100 percent um you know it i think it's a classic
case of too many chefs in the kitchen um you know number one i didn't even file
the application. In 2016, I handled the appeal. And you're right. The permit issued pursuant to
the previous case in 2016 called for building A, two-family dwelling. Building B, six interior
parking spaces, right?
Building C, two family dwelling, and four parking spaces.
So I think there was a lot of confusion.
When you look at the, let me find that revised site plan.
all right so building a is out front it's it's not even shown on this part of the plan
yeah we all know what building a is that's the the attached or semi-detached uh structure out
front um so when you have let me go back up one all right so
So clearly we can see this is building C, right?
Does that?
Clearly looks like a C to me.
So, and you can make out somewhat on this plan, building B, right?
so originally building b was going to be parking spaces which required people to drive in
headlights shining into the residential dwellings and then they're going to either back in or
you know make their turn to go in building c under the original permit had two dwelling units
and four parking spaces so again with the reconfiguration parking was relocated back here
so we eliminated headlights coming into dwelling units so
and brewer correct me if i'm wrong we still have
parking units here with two dwelling units in building c correct okay so in building d we have
one two three four units on the first floor plus the two units on the second floor but
reconfigured the parking so that not everybody's getting headlights shined into their units
as the cars come in.
So now they come in.
There's parking on this side, two units.
Dwelling units here, direct access parking here,
and then at the second floor, two units above.
Right?
And then the other thing we did by one of these permit modifications
was they eliminated the partitions within the garages uh that way you know everybody knows you
know you know a two-car garage with a partition down the middle is not really a two-car garage
it's it's two single-car garages so so uh this way it's an open parking field you know with
several but i think sean you've covered that before about that okay all right talk the walls
down i mean i i think at some point hillary we we have to move on or if not we'll do a resumptive
hearing i mean we just can't that's fine we can't keep going in circles here all right okay that is
fine mr chair i'm just i'm just trying to make sure i'm just trying to make sure the board is
um you know questions what we're presenting and where we are questions or comments from
the virtual audience yes chair i have a hand up by the name of robert mccloud
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Robert McLeod.
Evening, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
All right. It's Robert McLeod, M-C-L-E-O-D, just like it does not sound.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. McLeod, are you a neighbor?
i am yes the main the main house of 55 24 is half of a twin right i own 55 26 which is the other
half of that twin okay why don't you why don't you start your presentation i uh
um okay so you you guys already have i think our letter of opposition
and the RCO letter
and Councilwoman Bass's letter
from 2016 should also be attached
to that so you can have those
anyway I'm going to
what I don't understand like Sean keeps telling me
that the intention from the beginning
was to build 12
units and if
that is the case
it is mind boggling
that a request for a variance
was submitted, that was for 11. I mean, we can have this either way. We can't have it like
both ways at the same time. Was it always the intention to do 12, or did it later become the
intention to do 12? Because these have different implications to them. Now, just reviewing the
earlier stuff. I mean, Mr. Ward is correct in mentioning that there was no proviso attached
to the zoning board's ruling in 2016. But he does not dispute that the RCO letter made specific
reference to the owners having agreed to maintain the main house there as a single family unit.
And I didn't hear him dispute that Councilwoman Bass's letter of non-opposition at that time made reference to those items.
And I guess the lack of a formal proviso from the board itself is probably just what happens when one side is represented by the council and the other side is not.
And in any case, that is what they got. So they eventually began building it.
I hate to mention to Mr. Ward, but one of his before pictures is actually a during picture.
The part of how bad it looked back there, because that was after their first group of contractors ripped all the windows and doors out and left the place open to the elements for the next two and a half years before the second contractor came in and started work.
But in any case, if if it was always the plan to do 12 units, then it must have always been the plan to do this, because white in God's name steps weren't taken to legalize that.
Well, I got Mr.
Mr. McLeod, here's the question. Are you against him having this 12th unit?
That's that's what we're here for, about whether or not to add the unit or not.
are you against that yes as as a matter of principle i'm opposed to like after the fact
legalizations because i think it's very a very bad thing for the city
it encourages people to proceed in this fashion okay um thank you thank you for your input we
appreciate one last thing because i don't know if this was mentioned anywhere or if this is
mention to us that there would be a letter of opposition from the
councilwoman's office. Okay. So if you don't have that yet, I would suggest
that somebody contact her and see what's up. Okay. Thank you very much
for your time. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair.
I have four hands up. Robert Mandeville has been allowed
to speak. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Robert Mandeville, R-O-B-E-R-T
M-A-N-D-E-V-I-L-L-E
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I'm about 30 feet away.
You heard this request is for one more unit, right?
Are you in favor of that or against that?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, could we have Mr. Vanderville's for the record, his address?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, could we have Mr. Vanderbilt for the record, his address?
5532 Bulaski Avenue.
Thank you.
Sir, are you against this project or in favor?
I am against.
You're against adding one more unit. Is that what you're saying?
Okay. Thank you.
I think this should be denied. I have things to say because he's accused me of calling him a liar.
Well, I'm not, I want testimony about this.
I don't want testimony whether who called who a liar.
Well, I can give you a testimony about it.
I don't need your testimony about who's a liar or not.
I know for a fact that you're against this extra project, and I thank you for your time and call.
Next hand, please.
Charles Richardson has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Richardson, I don't think I've seen you today.
Have I, Mr. Richardson?
No, I actually didn't have to testify earlier because the case was withdrawn.
Okay, well, you stayed around anyway, so could you just state your name, please?
I know for a fact he's been listening all day.
He told me.
Could you please state your name, please?
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 508 City Hall.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
at this late day or time of day?
Yes, I do, sir.
Please proceed, Mr. Richardson.
What hasn't been said is that the building in the front
was originally a single-family home
that they were renting out to a family.
And, you know, when considering the permit process,
Sean has said that somehow it got shifted
from their desired 12 to 11 total.
But they built 10 apartments in the back
Although they were only really allowed to have 11 units, which I believe actually probably included the front single family home at the time, you know, whenever the permitting process took place.
And as Hillary has said, there was something that went on with regard to that situation.
But, you know, it's hard to figure out what it is.
During the RCO meeting, the attendees were asking Mr. Kirshner about that process, and his explanations weren't believed by anybody that was in the meeting.
And I actually even asked the same question about three different times, and I was unconvinced as well.
And so at the end of the day, it sounded like they decided that they would be it would be good to convert that front into a two family building, making 12.
So they had to actually keep one of the units vacant in the back in order to match the allowed number that they had.
The councilwoman is going to stand with the community and the two RCOs in requesting that this variance request be denied.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Do you have any questions, Mr. Ward?
No, just a brief comment.
Well, why don't you hold your comments to get the other hand to interrupt, okay?
All right. Other hand, please. Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Yes, Chair. A. Weiss has been allowed to speak.
Yes, hello.
Good evening, Alice. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Allison, A-double-L-I-S-O-N, Weiss, W-E-I-S-S, Solo Germantown Civic Association.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
You've heard a lot of this testimony.
Are you for this project or against it?
Yes, we stand by our letter of opposition.
And I just wanted to put on the record that we did send copies of all of our documents to everyone,
including Mr. Ward. So all of the documents were sent to everyone. Thank you for staying around,
and we appreciate your comments. Thank you. Another hand, please. There are no more hands
at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good
evening, David Fecto with the City Planning Commission. Chairman and board members, the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this
location the appellant wishes to add a dwelling unit to a previously approved multi-family use
the appellant has not shown that the additional dwelling unit is required to afford the appellant
relief the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variants
for multi-family use and multiple principal uses in buildings on the lot thank you david
mr ward do you want to respond uh yeah uh with regard to uh you know what happened in 2016 and
And what we're pursuing now, I could, you know, as a.
pursuing now, I could, you know, as a simile, I could indicate that in 2016, I did not like
Brussels sprouts. This is 2024. I've changed my, you know, dietary, you know, preferences,
and I might now eat Brussels sprouts. With regard to this application, it's been the
intention and desire of the property owner since 2012 when he purchased it for an adaptive reuse
to to create what they thought was affordable and uh reasonable 12 unit uh uh you know development
um in 2016 there may have been a a single family occupying um the front dwelling
But the intention all along was to turn that into two affordable and well-appointed apartments, in addition to 10 in the rear in what were formerly, you know, stables and barns and carriage houses.
So the board has already granted variance for multifamily use.
I disagree with the planning commission's contention that it's unreasonable or unfounded.
And I would ask the board that we recognize what is in front of us.
And what we have is 10 nicely appointed units in the rear, two beautifully appointed units in the front,
um all of which but one uh can be occupied and one can't um and we're asking for a a minor
modification of the existing variance uh to minute you know permit us to get our co for that
final unit so that way we can you know finally get it on the tax rolls rent it out and
you know, use it. Mr. Ward, thank you for your comments. We've had a great deal of testimony
today about this. Understood. I'm going to hold this till next Wednesday. We will vote on this
at 2 p.m. And I'm going to make sure that each and every board member has a chance to weigh on
where we stand with this. Okay. Understood. And again, I reserve my rights to seek redress under