It was an over-the-counter approval, but we appreciate that we've reached, I think, a common-sense solution here in light of the situation.
One note, I have to spend a little – let me just show you.
Here's the councilman's letter and the other RCO, the development corporation, Roxburgh Development.
So there's an issue with the tax clearance.
We were unable to get tax clearance, but there's a history with that.
And by the way, I can have Eric Marshall come on in a moment. Let me show you. So basically what happened is the OPA and the rep, not the OPA, the OPA is on the ball on this, but the revenue department has a up to or more six months delay in implementing the real estate tax abatement, including the developers abatement.
And of course, we have a full abatement on this project for new construction, but they're behind six months.
So what happens is the balance that's shown online does not reflect the abatement.
And we are pushing revenue to update that because when there's currently a tax balance, which looks significant, but once the property is abated, there will be a zero balance.
So let me show you the letter from Deborah Hill, who is terrific over at the OPA, gave us a letter stating that the abatement is in place, and this is the abatement.
As you can see here, Mr. Chairman and the board members, it's a very significant abatement for this property.
So $15 million worth of the property is going to be abated.
But for this tax year, it's showing the full amount as due, and it shows the $95,000 balance.
But we have been paying the unabated amount yearly, but because the city does not offer refunds...
unabated amount yearly. But because the city does not offer refunds, we cannot pay the $95,000
balance because it's going to be a credit. They're not going to have to pay taxes for 10 years. So it
doesn't work for them. They really don't have a tax balance. Let me show you some of the letters
so you can see that. So Deborah Hill, again, has been very helpful. She states here, you're going
going to have a zero balance when we go back and make the adjustment because the full building
assessment will be adjusted to zero. And those are the taxes that we're not paying on. So I know
this is a little involved and I'll bring on Eric in a minute. But there's, you know, you can see
here that OPA has confirmed that there is an abatement, has asked revenue to update their
records, but the OPA records are dependent upon the revenue records, and there is a six-month-
So, Mr. DeMarco, at this point, we're going to have to hold the vote.
Okay, so why don't you continue, but we hear what you're saying, but we need to hold the
Okay, what do you need from us in order to release that?
We need either tax compliance from, proof of tax compliance from the revenue department
or printout from the tax center showing the zero balance.
And I just wanted to note that there's actually,
it's showing that there's taxes owed from 2024
as well as 2025 online.
That's the developer's debate.
So there's actually a lien, it looks like, on 2024.
So that will need to be addressed.
All right.
Well, let me bring on Eric Den.
I mean, that's the presentation here.
you asked for interior photos. Here they are. Let me just make sure I cover everything else.
Okay. Well, there's full support. So, okay. Well, we'll deal with the taxes, I guess,
as soon as possible. But I hope you understand there's a real problem with when revenue
doesn't implement the abatements. With a large building, it results in extreme balances that
cannot really be paid because there's no refunds. So anyway, I'll bring on Eric now,
If Eric can raise his hand virtually.
Chair, Eric Marshall is coming back in as a panelist now.
Hello.
Hi, Eric. Could you please state your name and spell for this sonographer?
Sure. Eric Marshall, M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Marshall, did you hear my opening presentation and factual recitation that I just gave to the board?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
It is.
Can you adopt it as your official testimony in this matter?
Is there anything you want to add on this tax issue that I haven't covered on this, Eric?
I mean, the only thing I'd say is that this has been, I mean, if you look at the emails that are there from Deborah Hill, and Deborah Hill was gracious enough, as Richard already explained, she sent an email today to certify exactly what she's been saying.
So the day that we received, so we have the developer abatement, and then once we had their certificate of occupancy, obviously we pulled in for the full tax abatement to show that it's compliant.
So we've been paying the appropriate amount, but then there was a $90,000 assessment added for the full value of the building, which we've had this every time we finish a building, we have exact same issue.
This is actually very troublesome for us for financing as well.
So we work with Debra and she's always responsive, but I don't know why, but it takes six to nine months on a project we most recently completed.
I think Richard can attest to as well.
It took us a year to have the record reflected, which actually delayed financing for the project.
So for whatever reason, this situation exists and it always happens with the new building and it takes a long time with revenue.
But I hope that seeing Debra's email that it asserts that the abatement is there, it is fully applied.
The overvalue just needs to be reconciled on the back end for revenue.
And it takes a long time for them to get there.
The exhibits show the email history of Debra's responsiveness and then including an email as a letter that she formally submitted today to back up the email trail that we have with her.
So it's just I appreciate that there's a process here, but we could be waiting another four months before this actually gets resolved.
We could be waiting another four months before this actually gets resolved because of how the process, how long the process takes.
Thank you for the information.
And I guess the other question would be the ZBA council raised an issue for 2024.
Did you pay 2024 taxes as well?
But it was the land value, right?
Correct.
And that was, okay.
because you have two abatements for construction and then the abatements for the completed build
right okay questions from the board
so i guess my i'm just trying to zero in here we're just uh approving the use of the uh
uh parking garage entrance uh which is not on a uh rear what is it rear yard yes whatever this is
on the side so that's that's all we're involved in right correct correct but the the the garage
is permitted but the access point is considered a side street and we run afoul of the 14803
1c um side access uh issue okay that's the only variance we're requesting any other questions
thank you council question the street on street parking that's now shown on that access street
is it what is it existing and are you removing a parking space to create the entrance to this new
underground garage rich i'll take that one do not know the answer is this was a street so the
parking that you see that's immediately adjacent to the building going down gorgas lane did not
exist uh when the building was constructed as part of the streets department requirement
the right-of-way like the the right-of-way was never constructed a sidewalk didn't exist there
and streets department requested us to restore what was intended to be a sidewalk and parking
lane so the the in by virtue of the development sidewalk and parking was added to gorgas lane
as part of the construction of the building does that include that lay by lane that you're showing
with the bump so like the bump yeah so that bar that bump represents yeah so that bump represents
actually where the the the the where the original um building was or like structure and like
overgrowth and earth was. So that's how narrow Gorgas Lane was prior to this building being
constructed. So that bump out actually followed all the way up to Ridge Avenue. And then what we
did was for the extent of where our building is, we pushed back and created the right of way
with a parking lane and sidewalk area. So yeah, that kind of shows you how far out was, you know,
non-developed or non-built. And when we built our building, we tucked all that in. So we created
additional parking
on the street
by building the building. And a sidewalk
that didn't exist. And I think
you showed it on another drawing, but this has already
been approved by streets.
Correct. So you have two electric
vehicles, two compact
cars, or you have more than two. I think
you have like five compact cars, and
then two accessible parking
spaces now with the 33
in the structure.
Okay. I have no
further questions. Thank you.
Just one other note, there were revised plans submitted, but all of the things on the revised plans are things that need to be reviewed by the streets department, so it's nothing that the ZBA could adopt as part of a proviso.
It was signage, like directional signage for the street, as well as making part of the street two-way.
um the zba cannot do that i meant to tell you mentioned that in my opening uh hillary i put
that in in all caution but it is external to the building so i hear you i wanted to make sure you
had it just in case because there is one item it's this no right turn sign that technically
is an addition but it's a really just that's the only difference if you're looking at for within
the building that's the only difference between the original plan but then the right turn signs
in the new right-of-way right no it's inside the building it's right here i'm circling hopefully
you can see it i'm circling it it's this i don't know if that means we have to see it inside inside
the building so as your the garage door opens you would see that sign inside the building saying
don't turn right okay i mean l and i governs external signage on on buildings and within
the property lines streets is right away so if it's inside the building i'm i don't know that
it would necessarily need any approvals yeah so
necessarily need any approvals yeah so full disclosure i don't know the answer to that
either but i i like i said i gave you the proviso form in case you needed it so okay obviously we
defer to you and the board on on this yeah i don't i don't see where there's yeah something we could
we could approve there okay all right questions from the audience you come on
i see no hands chair thank you we have someone in the audit chair could you do me a favor pull
that close to you and then turn it on see the green button okay how's that yeah it's great
could you state your name and spell report a stenographer david durianzo last name spelled
d-e-r-i-e-n-z-o you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I did.
Are you a neighbor?
I am a neighbor.
Please proceed.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
I originally came up here to talk about the RCO's process as far as the community benefits
agreement played out and also the substance of the community benefits agreement.
But just hearing you speak right now, it sounds like there's some issues with the CBA.
We don't really govern a CBA.
A community benefits agreement is a private agreement between the RCO and the applicant, and it's not enforced by the city, by the zoning board, anybody.
So I think there were things in the CBA that were incorporated into the revised plans, but those things that were in the revised plans are not something that the board could incorporate.
They have to be done through other city agencies.
Correct.
And so, yeah, that came to light as you guys were talking.
So my work here is done.
All right. Well, thank you very much for coming in anyway. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Amy Wood with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This property was remapped in 2024 from CMX 2.5 commercial mixed use to CMX 2.
The proposal for parking access off Gorgeous Lane is in existing condition,
and the appellant has demonstrated
that there are unique physical conditions
or circumstances of the property
that would prevent it from being used
in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the requested variance
for parking access.
So, Hillary, this is closed
except for the tax information.
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, can I just ask Hillary
to talk with me offline about this?
Well, you're most sure you can talk to her later offline.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
All right, thank you all.
And, Mr. Chair, can we just call up number six quickly?
I believe that case is going to be continued now.
Number six, MI-2025-003-200-2005-070.
Sergeant Street, Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Nockamson.
Not that they don't ask, but just for the record.
Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, 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?
Please proceed.
Yes, Mr. Chair, we are requesting a continuance for this matter.
Here's the first listing.
Right.
Thank you very much.
So MI-2025-003-200-2005-070 Sargent Street, cases continue to 2-11-26 at 2 p.m.