ZBA Hearing - August 21, 2024

a virtual meeting, but the people who showed up to the community meeting voted in favor of this.

Apparently, the representative from the coordinating RCO, Oso, reached out to the neighbors behind us on Warnock Street, independent of the community meeting.

And again, I guess some of those neighbors were against it, but did not show up to the community meeting.

And because they were against it, you know, he indicated that in the letter.

So I'm not 100 percent sure of the position of the coordinating RCO, but we had a certified meeting where a majority of the members of the community who attended that meeting were in support of this project.

In addition, my clients independently canvassed the neighborhood and we have a petition in support of this project.

Again, my client has had this congregation in this neighborhood for over a generation.

So the people in this community are very excited about the fact that the church is going to be rebuilt and even better than it was before.

So we do have a petition to support.

We have the property history shows that this was a church before.

We have an aerial view of the neighborhood in this particular vicinity.

We have maps of the area, both Zoni and Google Maps.

We have photographs of the property in the surrounding area.

We have our plans and drawings, which we'll go through. Chris Johnson of 24-7 Design designed this beautiful building. And I'm hoping that he's still in the virtual audience and can answer any architectural questions here that I cannot.

We have the RCO meeting notice, along with proof of mailing that notice, our application for appeal, our deed to the property, showing that the church owns the property, and the certificate of tax clearance.

Again, I would ask that at the conclusion of my presentation, Teresa Lundy, the representative of the church, virtually raise her hand.

I have a few questions for her, and then obviously we'll be more than happy to answer any questions the board or the community may have of us.

Notice the refusal.

So this is a CMX2 property, you know, and what we're looking to do is just, you know, put a church on the building and on the property.

And we have two refusals.

The occupied area where 75% is allowed.

We're proposing 94.4%.

And there's a reason.

Well, first, the history of the property or the previous property, you know, what we're offering or proposing mimics what was previously there.

And there's other rationale behind it, too, including putting an elevator in there, an ADA-compliant bathroom, which requires us to push the property back a little bit.

And given the size of our congregation, given that the surrounding properties also run afoul of this zoning provision, we don't think it's out of character.

And we hope that the board finds similarly.

The second refusal has to deal with the rear yard depth where nine feet is required and five feet is proposed. Again, given the history of the property and the former building structures configuration, which also ran afoul of this requirement and the surrounding neighboring properties, also many of them ran afoul of this requirement.

We're asking that the board allow us to do the same.

Here's our correspondence from the 12th and Cambria Advisory Board.

So in the letter, it does say that five people supported this project, three people did not, and two people abstained.

They did separately canvas the neighborhood in the rear on Warnock Street.

And again, in verbal discussions, Alex Goldberg had with the

And again, in verbal discussions Alex Goldberg had with the coordinating ERCO's representative, and even in this email, they don't state that they're against the project because of the actual variance requests.

Here we go.

What they're saying is, well, why can't you just use one of the other church, empty church buildings on Germantown Avenue, essentially?

And our thing is this, we own this building.

It was previously a church in this building.

on this property, why should we be forced then to either purchase another property

or lease another property that has a church building already in there?

It's not like we're creating this from scratch, essentially.

What we're trying to do is replace a church building that had to be demolished.

And then so we did, you know, to canvas, or my client did canvas the neighborhood,

and there's a petition, well, you know, well-written petition with the amount of people

that signed this in support of this project and then the property history again shows that this

has been a church previously and then the aerial view of the property i don't think this really

does a good enough job although you see both sides you can see the building structures

kind of almost taking full uh full the full lot i think there's another thing that i have on atlas

which shows the shadow effect of the buildings and how far

back they actually go. Maps of the area, this is a commercial

corridor, CMX2. You know, behind us is RM1,

not out of character, and by rights to allow for a church.

But I think this is the better photograph

from Atlas. You can see that, you know, the city hasn't even replaced

like the church building on here. You know, it's not considered

of the vacant lot yet. But you can see that the previous building almost had full lot coverage.

And there's many buildings on here that almost have full lot coverage. So it's not out of character.

And there is an Islamic child care center here. There's a lot of religious institutions nearby.

It kind of goes with the flow of what you would expect on the 2700 block or nearby

on Germantown Avenue. And then you can see here, again, just from a Google Maps perspective where

we are, we're between, you know, we're just between Somerset and Silver on Germantown Avenue.

And then photographs of the property. This is what the building structure looked like previously

before it was demolished.

And then this is our proof of posting for today's hearing,

but you can see we're just a vacant lot now.

And then this is Germantown Avenue to the right of the property,

to the left of the property.

And then our plans and drawings.

You can see, like, again, we're matching the scale of the building to the right of us.

We have a more modern look with three stories now,

Now, as opposed to what it was previously, that's a nice view of the property as well.

And then you can see that, you know, our open area is limited, but not out of character to what, you know, surrounding properties are.

And then what we would say is this. We have an elevator now in the building and we have ADA bathrooms.

The elevator in itself has added square footage or has taken away from square footage, which we would have, but for the fact that this elevator, and there's no necessity for the elevator, but our congregation is elderly, or there's some members that are elderly, and we thought it was important, especially if we're going to build this church back up from scratch, to respect them, the elders of the community.

So we put an elevator here and then the ADA toilet as well, which is a requirement.

It takes a lot of space, which pushes the sanctuary back further.

So we're trying to have it as roomy as possible.

The sanctuary is only for 46 people, so it's not a huge amount of people.

But we're trying to accommodate as much as possible as they rebuild the church.

And here's the basement level.

There's a baptism pole and then a multipurpose room as well.

Again, community-oriented room, you know, for activities at a church.

And then if you look at the second floor, again, more activities for the church for overflow.

And then even the third floor is more for reception area and things like that.

Again, for overflow, for community activities that the church may have.

In our RCO meeting notice, we met with the community on July 18th at 7 p.m.

We emailed that notice two weeks beforehand as well to the coordinating RCO, as well as the relevant other relevant parties to this matter. 137 addresses were mailed the notice. These are the addresses that were mailed the notice, along with proof of mailing that notice. And that was all emailed to those individuals on that email on July 3rd.

We emailed that notice two weeks beforehand as well to the coordinating RCO.

And then this is our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of the church.

The deed to the property.

Again, my client has owned this property for some time.

And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance.

So with that being said, I would ask that Ms. Lundy virtually raise her hand to be sworn in.

I have been allowed to speak I'm Miss Lundy could you please state your name and spell

for the stenographer good morning Teresa Lundy t-e-r-e good morning hi could you spell

your name please absolutely t-e-r-e-s-a last name lundi l-u-n-d-y do you swear or affirm to tell

the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth always please proceed counsel yes uh miss

lundi you heard everything i had to state today yes uh and is it true and correct yes it is and

do you adopt it as your own testimony? No. Do you adopt it as your own testimony?

Yes. Thank you. So I just have a couple of pointed questions. Like, again, the demolition

of the property was because of structural issues that would not default to the church, right?

Correct. And the previous building structure that was on the property is basically the same

dimensions as to what is being proposed today, other than the height, but the depth of the

building is basically the same. Is that correct? Absolutely. To the T, it actually went a little

further. I know, and it's important to your congregation to have a church building

in the neighborhood. Is that right? It is. Long term, probably over 16 years,

we was actually renting. Um, and so, uh, I'm actually the church administrator and my mother's

the overseer. So she's been a pastor for over 24 years. And so she, um, you know, we had got a 30

day notice that where we were for the past 15 years, um, they decided that they were selling

the building. Um, they actually, the whole corridor. So, um, this is kind of how this came

about. And I never wanted to make sure we go through this place again, where we are not in

the space of actually owning the building where we have, you know, determination when we close our

doors. And, you know, the one change is the interior change is the, you're investing money

in an elevator to help the older congregants, you know, go up and down the floors. That's right.

Absolutely.

We have a small ministry, and that's why this works for us so perfectly.

Most of them, so like before, when we were in Northeast, we had about 18 stairs.

They were a bit deep.

And the members that are currently still active and with us are over 65.

And so it just didn't make sense.

And that's kind of what we budgeted for and kind of looking at, you know, what is that minimum investment?

So we'll still have stairs, but we're also going to have an elevator again.

One, it just makes sense.

But then two, it gives more affordability for those in the neighborhood to also, you know,

I don't want to go to the second floor, but we have an elevator.

Oh, well, maybe I'll stop in.

So it does give the opportunity for them to come in.

All right.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

Questions from the board?

What size congregation did you say there was?

I thought I heard 46 in the sanctuary or the seatings,

the seatings, 46 for 46 people in the sanctuary.

Miss Lundy, how big, how large is your congregation?

Ms. Lundy, please unmute

thank you so i will say actively excuse me forgive me my voice actively um those that

Thank you

So I will say actively

Excuse me, I forgive

show up on facebook is probably you know 12 um but in church in person is probably like six to ten

okay thank you you're welcome other questions from the board

questions are kind of from our attorney hillary emerson

Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

Questions or comments from the virtual audience?

I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.

Planning Commission.

Hi, Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.

The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from CMX 2 to CMX 2.5,

both commercial mixed use. Under the recommended zoning, the refusals will remain the same.

The occupied area and rear yard setback are consistent with nearby properties and the

footprint of the former building on this site. Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends

that the board grant the requested variances for occupied area and rear yard setback.

MI 2024-003-723-2736 Germantown Avenue. I vote yes.

Michael Johns, my vote is yes.

Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes

Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes

Daya Wood, my vote is yes

Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes

So number 12, MI 2024

003-725-785 South 3rd Street

It's Mr. Knockamson

There's a letter of support from Queen Village Neighbors

and also a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla

i'm sorry mr notkinson is coming back in as a panelist okay

hi alan notkinson all right uh mr notkinson could you identify your client

in a relationship to their properties oh yes his name is uh chris duraco he is the owner of the

property i mean excuse me joe duraco sorry okay and our vice chair has a few questions

Good afternoon, Council. Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to us that?

I do.

Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Council. Please proceed to share your screen.

Thank you.

so this is a legalization of two parking spots that have existed on this lot since as far back

as my client knows and again this has been in existence my client's owned this property since

1986 and it's not out of character to have off-street parking on this block of Fulton Street

So we'll review, you know, first notice of refusal. We have a letter of support from the Queen Village Neighbors Association.

My understanding from the chairman is that we also have a letter of non-opposition from the district council member, Swilla.

We'll review like photographs of the 200 block of Fulton Street showing that the similar nearby off-street parking.

We're not taking any parking spot off the street. There's no parking allowed on the street.

So this really helps the neighborhood. This is a triplex. It's an R-in-1 property. So by allowing multiple parking spots off the street, it keeps two cars off the street as well.

So we also have maps of the area,

photographs of the property,

our plans and drawings,

our RCO meeting notice,

along with proof of mailing of that notice,

our application for appeal,

our deed to the property,

showing that Mr. Duraco has owned the property

since 1986,

as well as the certificate of tax clearance.

At the conclusion of my presentation,

I would ask that Mr. Duraco

virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.

So first, our notice of refusal.

Again, this is our R-1 property.

it's we have a triplex here we're not seeking you know that's a by right um uh by right outcome

we're not seeking to change the density of this property in any way we're just trying to legalize

the parking which has been in existence for as long as mr draco knows i guess you know he had

an issue where i don't know violation or something came up where you know we're just trying to you