when we were moving into our home. So I know there are some homes that if you look a little
further down 300 Delmar, they have been there longer and before this, this change. But the
ones that Mr. DeMarco showed in the photos that are not my next door neighbor, but the next
neighbor in this photo here, they were all built after my home. And I pulled up the zoning notices
and when their permits were issued, it was after mine. So if I'm at fault, then all those six
plus cars who will also have to move and have basically slabs of concrete in front of their
house would also be displaced the way I am currently. Anyone else wish to testify? If so,
please raise your hand and there has to be something new and different.
Mr. Chairman, can I make one more point? Can you see my courser?
yes so that you could see that Melissa there's a clearly a depressed curb there and so Melissa
Buckley would have been justified in believing that she was purchasing the property with a single
surface parking space you could see right here you could see how the the curb is slightly depressed
secondly about the War Department I have no knowledge and I've never seen any letter from
anyone. It should have been shared with me if that was going to be submitted. I've never seen
a letter from the Water Department regarding this property. I'd like to see it. Thank you.
Okay. Anyone else who hasn't been heard yet, please raise your hand.
We have Marlene. You can unmute yourself and speak.
Marlene do you wish to testify I don't think she can come I just unmuted myself I'm sorry
my name is Marlene Schleifer it's M-A-R-L-E-N-E the last name is Schleifer it's S-C-H-L-E-I-F as in
Frank E-R I reside at 4876 Smith Street which is a couple blocks away from this particular property
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, ma'am?
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth?
Absolutely.
The whole truth and nothing.
I haven't finished.
Go ahead.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
We participated in the RCO hearing, and I submitted the vote as I was required to do.
Our executive board as individuals does not agree with this undertaking.
The property has had a million violations from the time renovation started, and the
curb may be lowered, but that doesn't mean it was done legally.
They also should have abided by our Neighborhood Conservation Ordinance when they did not,
and the neighborhood conservation ordinance which was enacted at the end of 2015 before the
renovations to this property began indicated that no more than 30 percent of the front yard
was to be impermeable surface and what this contractor did was pave the entire darn thing
We do have the listing, which specifically says that parking is on the street, and we sent it to Sharon Saleta, and she should certainly have it.
Ashley Carroll does also have it and can pull it up on her screen if you ask her to do so.
Joanne Dahm, who had a 38-year career at the Water Department and is a member of our Civic, wrote a letter, which was also submitted.
I'm going to object, Mr. Chairman, at this point.
Hearsay, the person who she's claiming wrote a letter is a member of the neighborhood.
That's a disgrace.
And that person could probably be reprimanded for taking an official position, even though she's retired.
and violated oh she's retired he is retired oh all right so the water department
oh she's retired he is retired oh all right so the water department
all right richard everyone everybody everyone take a deep breath
i know joanne she's retired she's retired about a year and a half maybe two years already
all right now oh i am concerned about this issue with the conservation
from what i can see from third 341 down more looking down that street to the newer constructed
homes that have parking in front i don't see any uh conservation uh protecting of land or stormwater
runoff maybe because if they were built prior to 2015 when our let me let me this sounds to me and
i could be wrong is the real issue the parking issue is there an issue that goes back to when
this property was being constructed and certain so-called i'm going by what someone said there
were numerous violations it almost sounds like it's more a personal issue than a parking issue
that is that is in our part no it's a parking issue she doesn't have any right to park there
it should never have been paved over and what she did was read the first paragraph of the listing
the listing, the Coldwell Banker listing, where it says parking right out front, which is rather
ambiguous. And further along in the listing, it says parking on street. And my feeling is if she
has a beef with the person who sold her the property or the person who renovated it, that
That is between them. We do not permit people to park in their front yard, period.
If this was a new case, I would certainly, with all due respect, I would agree with you.
But I just see numerous parking on the sidewalk in front of houses up and down that block.
That does not make it right.
I didn't say it makes it right, but I see that. And we have to make a decision.
If this was the only one, I think it would certainly be out of hand.
I would personally reject it.
I don't know what the rest of the board wants to do,
but I just don't see why this property is going to be treated any different
than the other properties on the block.
Why should it be treated any differently than the properties across the street
where people do not park on the side?
Because there's on-street parking on that side of the street.
That's right.
All right, I'm not going to argue with you, ma'am.
I'm just trying to make a point.
Now, on the other side of the street, there's on-street parking, which would prohibit anyone
from parking on the side.
I shouldn't say prohibit.
It would make it difficult.
And apparent from what I can see in the photographs, there's no off-street parking on the other
side of the street either.
It's this side of the street, the 3141 Del Mar side of the street, where there are numerous
off-street parking in front of the other row houses on that block.
That's all I'm trying to make the point.
it's not unique is my my point is it's not unique to the rest of the block on the odd side of
dalmore street so chair everyone has been muted if you wish for someone to speak
i i if there's any new testimony yes if not i'd like to i'd like to ask uh miss schleifer if she's
if she's taking may i speak mr chairman i just don't want this to get into an argument between
two people, please? I don't. I want to make it clear that she's speaking as an individual who
does not live on the block, not on behalf of her RCO, because her RCO voted in favor of this
application. So she better tell you that she's speaking for herself only. And I object to her
standing because she does not live near this property. She lives a few blocks away.
Understood. Understood. All right. We're not going to belabor that point. Thank you.
And we just respect Ms. Carroll, Ms. Lee Schlaffler.
I respect your opinions.
I just wanted to make note that obviously we,
I have a difference of opinion as to what should be allowed on that block.
So any other questions from the board?
No. Planning commission.
The property is indicated for a single family residential use on a city
plan. I believe the applicant has not demonstrated necessary hardship regarding the requirements
of the code. Standing policy of the city planning commission is not to support illegal front yard
parking impacting negatively on sidewalk and pedestrian safety. We recommend the request
for variance not for granted. Thank you, Ron. Calendar number 39452341 Delmar Street. My vote
is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is no good luck thank you
My vote is yes.
My vote is no.
Good luck.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time, members of the board.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to make a correction into the record, Frank.
Earlier with the continuance, just clarification here.
Calendar number 39916, 1909 North 5th Street,
and calendar number 39919, 1915 North 4th Street.
They are being continued.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
I think, is that it for the 2 o'clock list?
Any other business, Tanya or Sharon?
No, that's it until 3.30.
See you all at 3.30.
You got it.
Take care.
Continued.
I'll just read them into the record, and then we'll come back for the 4 o'clock.
Is it 4 or 4.30?
I think that's the 4.30, right?
I believe so.
4.30, yeah.
I misspoke.
I said 4.00.
No problem.
So once we get the list.
Do you have the list of the 3.30 cases that are being continued?
I can read them if not yeah no I need to open it up officially or no no I don't think that you do
as long as you read that there are no cases going forward and that these three are being continued
so if you don't if you would please read them into the record
Sarah, are you there?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, I misunderstood who you were saying.
Yeah, we don't have the list, so if you can read the, read them into the record.
I'm sorry.
No, no problem.
I have them if you don't share. Okay. I apologize.
No worries. I got you guys.
Okay. I have them now actually if you'd like. Okay.
Calendar 38882, 1330 Vernon Street.
Calendar 39353, 1431 North 25th Street.
and calendar 3922
3001 Kensington Avenue.
Those cases are being continued.
And therefore we have no other cases at 3.30, correct?
That's correct.
We'll meet all back here at 4.30.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
See ya.
Yes, I'm here. Are we ready? I know, Tom, you, I'm sorry, Sharon, you were trying to reach me. I was on another call.
Do you need me to call you? I'm here. I talked with confessor. I think you're ready.
Okay, thank you. Thanks, confessor. Abby, are we ready?
Yep, you're good to go. Thank you again. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
we have a quorum. I'm officially calling this session to order. In attendance is our board
secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, our board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman, and Mr. James Snell.
Along with, we are also joined by Sharon Saleta, our city solicitor, and our board administrator,
Ms. Tanya Sunken. As you're probably aware, today is our sixth day of holding virtual hearings.
While we may have to make some adjustments along the way, our plan is to call each case
and basically proceed as we would have in a live hearing.
We ask that attorneys for applicants or other interested parties
identify themselves for the record when the case you'll be participating in is
identify themselves for the record when the case you'll be participating in
is called. We will then hear the applicant's presentation,
followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public, not represented by counsel,
will then be given an opportunity to testify. We will finally hear the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's conclusion, the board
will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session. Any case
held for discussion will be voted on the record at the next, excuse me, at the August 5th, 9.30
a.m. hearing. A couple of changes related to the virtual format. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony, rather than to the room as a whole,
since we do not have a room. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking and testifying.
I will then issue, I will then put you under oath. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that
this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to
be recorded. We will ask everyone who wishes to participate when your case is called please raise
your hand so that you could be notified and Ms. Sunkit will explain a little further
and the process if you're calling in by phone. I respectfully ask all attorneys to please limit
your testimony to those facts that are necessary for the record and to limit the hearing to one