david are you go ahead okay yeah really the pattern of development here doesn't support
developing these separately uh as two separate uh a commercial and multi-family building and
separate row houses in the back on set by the street that would be inconsistent really with
everything that's been been going on uh and so we as i said we took a look at the block we found
that 26 of the 31 properties on on the block are mixed use and 21 of them include two or more
residences so it's really a mixed-use block with a multi-family on the upper floors and
commercial underground again care has been taken to design this building so that set by the street
facade it really relates to the row houses on the on the east side of the block um and you know with
the setbacks from most most locations on the street this is going to read as a two-story building
so just want to emphasize that um so i think having said all of that uh we believe that developing this
with a viable commercial use and desirable residential space is entirely possible
and will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because of the items that I've
been enumerating here. But the RSA 5 zone would prohibit that, both the commercial use and the
multifamily and prevents us from really developing this as an as I said a an
overall unified plan of development the split zone would require us to really
piecemeal this so moving on to the dimensional variances we're as I
mentioned these buildings are almost identical we require two variances for
each of the buildings. There's a height limitation in both the RSA 5 and CMX 2 of 38 feet. That
doesn't really reflect what's been going on in the neighborhood. Almost all of the new
buildings exceed that. And it really doesn't allow for a desirable ceiling height in the
in the residential spaces and an adequate ceiling height in the commercial space so we really have
a modest height ceiling height 10 feet 8 inches in the commercial space so that really is is not
excessive so but we do need the relief in order to get that in with eight foot ceiling heights in
the residences. The medical use on the ground floor, of course, has a robust mechanical
requirement, so we do need some height there. Our requirement is 44 feet, so that I think
is a modest de minimis variance, exceeding the 38-foot limitation only by 6 feet.
uh we did take a look at the other the other properties in the neighborhood
um and we found that uh most of the buildings are are taller than 38 feet uh and i think we found
taller than 38 feet uh and i think we found nine buildings on the lot on the 11 buildings i'm
sorry on the block that exceed the cmx2 height requirement and two of those just at either end
of the block um the palm flats and the yellow jacket they both went to 53 feet so i think that
the 44 feet is modest and fits in with the with pattern of development the second dimensional
variance that we require is the occupied area limit and again this is consistent with what's
been uh happening in the in the neighborhood for the last 15 years most of the new buildings are
at or close to 100% coverage.
We have a 75% limitation for a mid-block building
in both the RSA 5 and the CMX 2 district.
Unfortunately, with the narrow depth of this lot,
of the block, providing the 75% coverage,
having 25% a quarter of the lot open to the sky would require us to have an interior courtyard.
And again, that really would severely compromise both the residential unit on the ground floor
and the depth and configuration of the commercial unit on the fronts on Frankfurt Avenue
and would make the internal circulation quite difficult.
So we we again took a look at what else is is happening, and we found 14 of the 31 properties on this particular block.
So just around half to be at or very near 100 percent coverage.
So, in conclusion, we really determined that this property cannot be successfully developed
in strict conformance with current zoning and that the denial of the variances would
create an unnecessary hardship and make this really quite difficult to develop.
Each variance that we've looked at is the minimum that's required to successfully develop the site.
And as I've mentioned quite a few times, I think that the grant of the variance would allow this building to be constructed in harmony with the surrounding sites in the neighborhood.
Granted, the variance will not increase congestion, as I mentioned, with the fairly light commercial use.
Granted, the variance will not impair adjoining properties.
As I've mentioned, we've set the building back from set by the street at the upper levels.
Granted, the variance will not adversely affect transportation or other utilities.
We touched on that with, again, fairly light commercial use.
uh this will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive plan in fact it's very much
in support of the comprehensive plan promoting walkable neighborhood and local services and the
grant of the variance will not create any significant environmental damage again this
is a small site and there's no no extraordinary construction that would create any type of
pollution or flooding so uh for all of those reasons uh in my professional opinion i believe
the board can grant these variances and meet the uh intent of the code and uh and meet the intent
of the comprehensive plan david did you get a chance to review the t the new toc uh overlay
as well? I have not reviewed that, no. Okay. I just think for the board, it's worth mentioning
this bill is 260517. It was enacted in June of 2026, which predates the, the refusal predates
this bill. So we weren't going to start this whole process over, but the TOC overlay for the Burke
station which is less than I guess it's about a thousand feet from this property basically
Basically, council has now decided that 45 feet and 50% more units are appropriate for CMX2 lots near Burke Station.
council has now decided that 45 feet and 50
So just comparatively, we're asking for 44 feet and no density bonus.
So the request in front of the board is also less than the code now contemplates here.
So just worth mentioning and just in order to kind of not have this project span over a year of going through this process,
we didn't want to we and we would still need the uh dimensional variance for law coverage um but
it's worth noting that the legislation does now support additional height and density um for
locations that are um inside the 1320 foot radius from the identified transit uh community stations
are you through rachel yeah i think we can cross examine and mr chairman i would first make a
motion to strike mr plant's report and all of his testimony on the grounds that it wasn't submitted
21 days before the hearing it's dated october 4th so the earliest it could have been submitted was
two days ago and i saw it for the first time 25 minutes ago okay um rachel um so we submitted our
hearing packet um it's actually within 14 days of the hearing it's not 21 days the zoning posters
have to be posted within 21 days not the um hearing packets and we also have the ability
to supplement, given your testimony or given your, it's really argument, not testimony.
We were providing a report, given you're not providing any reports or expert testimony,
you're just providing your own argument for questions that you have for this matter.
The only reason, Chairman, this has been continued, especially given we have council support and
RCO support, and we've made significant revisions to this project, and Mr. Rand and his client have
identified in my 15 emails of outreach, no identifiable issues that they have with this
project. I don't know what else we should do besides issue a report that addresses the argument
that Mr. Rand has given. So we would ask that we'd be permitted to include this report and also
acknowledge that we have submitted the packet within the 14-day rule and are permitted to
supplement. You're not required to supplement within the 14 days or nobody would ever be able
to have these hearings given a lot of the documentation we get whether it's from the RCO
or the city or whomever is usually not within that 14-day period every single time so okay so
we're going to accept the report then I would next make a motion for continuance because I don't
think it's fair to present me with an expert report 25 minutes ago and have me cross-examine
the expert right now chairman respectfully um this is would now be the second continuance
mr rand is not offering any expert testimony he has no interest in doing that he's not offering
his client is also not an expert she's just a near neighbor they've identified no actual harm or
issues they have with this project they attended every single rco meeting and were able to voice
those sentiments on the record and this is just being delayed i'm not sure for for what reason
given again we have we went to two rco meetings we've made substantial revisions to this project
we have community support we have council support and i have submitted within the record 15 plus
emails to mr rand and his colleague asking if they want to meet what issues they have so that
we could address them and none have been identified so i don't know that a continuance is going to be
fruitful and it's just delaying um this project another couple of months to do this same thing
and i assume mr rand will not be providing an expert test an expert um and it's just seeking
to delay this matter so i would ask that so let him respond to you go ahead so first the notion
that there is no harm no big deal in erecting a 10-unit four-story building next to dorothy
correll's single-family home where she's lived for the past six decades is well so i mean so no
i want you to there's not enough listening i want you to respond to whether or not you need a
continuance. I do need a continuance. I may present rebuttal expert report. Certainly, I
should be allowed to not have to cross examine the expert by looking on my phone at tiny print and
hoping I can scroll through it fast enough. Okay. Chairman, he could have provided an expert at the
first hearing, he could have brought an expert to this hearing. And again, there's been many
opportunities. The hearing was in August. There's been many opportunities to ask questions or
discuss this project with us. Every solution we've offered, we've implemented, and we're
And we're just delaying this case.
just delaying this case. You've had the opportunity, George.
You've had the opportunity, Jordan, to bring an expert.
You've had the opportunity to speak with us about this project.
You've ignored emails or said you're not willing to meet on it.
So I don't know what a further delay is going to help.
So here's where I am.
I understand his position about a continuance.
What I want to do is work with Mr. Haggerty and see if we can have a date that be quicker than what we normally have.
I mean, I think Rachel's point, this has been going on for a while, and I understand what you've just said,
but what I'll do is I'm going to try to get this moved as quick as we can.
And Ian, is it possible that we not give a date right now and we figure it out later?
Yes, Chair, we're going to have to look at.
All right, so here's what we're going to do.
We're going to hear what you said, what you said.
And I heard what Rachel said.
This has been going on for a while,
so I'm going to try to get this back as soon as we can.
Okay, I appreciate that.
And you'll have to be ready to go, whatever.
I will be ready.
Rachel, we'll do our best to get this back in here as quick as we can.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can I also make a comment?
If either side is going to present any more expert testimony,
I'm not saying you need to, can you please exchange it beforehand?
of course also i'll just note that rachel we got this late yesterday also so um we were able to
review it but if it wasn't sent to council so if you can please make sure that both sides exchange
anything before so we won't have another continuance yeah right okay understood thank you
Okay. Yeah. Number 7. Number 7. MI 2026-000-228-610-40 High Street. Allen Nockamson is the attorney.
They're being promoted to panelists, Sheriff.
good morning mr knockamson good morning before i swear you in i we're a little we we're moving
time or i'd have you give us an update on the phillies last week i mean because i it's been
that uh you would have been very good with that so but we're going to skip that today so just
state your name and spell for this alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
do 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 this property yes my client is high street associates
llc and then um to the left of me uh is alan borovich uh the representative from the llc okay
and um there's a letter of non-opposition from the 59th uh board that's a letter of support from
councilwoman bass and there's a petition of support and then there's a petition for opposition
okay and i i i understand from talking to our accounts that we're probably not going to vote
on this today i did not know that well then hopefully she will do you're going to need to
get an amended refusal because of the change in the parking we're going to need to get amended
refusal okay you changed the parking both the parking spaces and then the interior i think
there were two different parking but you changed the parking but okay we changed the parking but
there's no parking requirement for this matter because it's an rsa5 property so i'm why would
we need an amended i got i got two attorneys okay okay two people that's fine back through planning
and amended refusal because of what you changed so anytime we change the parking configuration
even with the zoning classification that doesn't require parking we still have to go through
streets and planning just so i understand for future reference and you know if you're taking
things out it could affect things that planning needs to review correct gotcha okay secretary
all right call for you uh good morning council did you submit your documents and exhibits 21
Yeah, 14 days ahead of this hearing.
Yes, we have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
Then you can share your screen and begin your presentation.
All right.
Thank you.
So, this is a CDR matter as well.
The lot size is 41,718 square feet, and we're here to present now.
And we're here to present now a 34-unit community with 36 parking spaces.
26 of those parking spaces are within the common parking lot, and 10 of those parking spaces are within garage structures.
So I have 11 exhibits here. We'll review those.
And then at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Alan be sworn in, and I'll have a couple questions for him.
I also have Scott Woodruff of the architecture team, Design Blends, who can answer any technical questions you may have.
So right now we have three building structures, right?
The building structure that faces High Street has eight single-family homes.
There's a building structure to our left, which has eight duplexes.
and then there's a building structure if you look forward on high street which has 10 single family
homes with a garage with garage structures and then there's a common parking lot like i said
of 26 parking spaces uh our refusals are twofold uh whereas no more than one principal building
is allowed per lot in rsd rsd rsa and rta zoning districts again we're here because of the large
configuration of that lot instead of having one large multi-family building we think it's more
appropriate to have a mix between duplexes and single-family homes and you know that's that
refusal and also to provide some significant parking in the middle as well and have a nice
flow within that community the second refusal has to deal with the fact that we're rsa5
I would say in name only because this is a rather large lot of over almost 42,000 square feet, and we're proposing multifamily living to a degree because we're providing, again, eight duplexes, but we're also providing 18 single family homes as part of this community.
uh we made significant changes both because of community input as well as cdr input we reduced
the amount of surface uh parking spaces from 35 to 26. you're like wait a minute you're reducing
parking well there was there was a dichotomy here between what the community wanted and what cdr
wanted cdr wanted more landscaping right so in order to not have as much um you know uh
of what's it called paving we increased the landscaping but increased decrease the amount