of my exhibits. Tab two shows revised zoning drawings. We listened. My client, I think,
Tab two shows revised zoning drawings.
despite some communications that we've seen over the last day or two, as well as the petition
that was submitted by counsel by Mr. Rosen there, my client has attempted to engage,
has engaged and attempted to engage the immediate neighbors, particularly those neighbors on
Greenwich Street regarding the project for quite some time. And, but based upon the comments that
we heard, the main one being issued by the owner of 1118 to 20, Ms. Elder, regarding a window,
as you can see, and let me go to the survey.
So as you can see, the existing building that's there right now, it's two stories and drops to one in the back, extends almost to the back of her building, which occupies 100% of a lot.
It's a nonconforming structure with a use that's been granted by the zoning board.
Apparently, there are windows or a window in this wall that's on the property line, I think, which most of us know is not permitted under building codes.
so it's in the legal window and there were concerns or windows there were concerns expressed
by miss elder regarding uh air and light going into uh her property um and what we tried to do
and well you can see with the original design let me find the original design um we were
we were we were approximately five feet deeper um we were unable because of the layout and the
configuration of both lots to pull the building back to where it is um past so it didn't exceed
past her building um but we did pull the building back five feet um removed rear decks at the upper
at the third floor reduced the depth of wing walls so we took a building that was already
dimensionally compliant and far below the requirements for the zoning code both in terms of
occupied area and in terms of rear yard depth i mean not oops nine feet is a required rear yard
depth because of the lot being so deep we have a 73 foot rear yard all that open area right now
that's being uh that's located to the rear of the existing building and i'm taking to the aerials at
tab 8. you can see the long open area to the rear uh portions of that are presently being utilized
by miss elder um by lasel williams at 1118 dickinson which is part of miss elder's property
um Mr. Portino at 1124 and Mr. Rose and Mr. and Ms. Rosen at 1122 for gardening at the present time
uh with my with my client's permission but uh we pulled the building back but you know we still
have this issue because of the layout that we're blocking the illegal windows that are on the party
wall or party line right here um we attempted to address reduce the light impact linear and light
to 11.24. Again, even though there are no dimensional variances, my client did what he
could do to reduce the impact. And you can see at the shadow studies that we have at tab seven,
again, this is, you know, I'm talking about dimensional issues here, which was what we heard
a lot of at the community group meeting. And if you look at tab seven, you can see it's really
an arrow back there. You can see with the existing structure, they're shadowing by the
buildings on Cross Street and the buildings on Greenwich Street at different times of the day
into their rear yards. And, you know, we can go through these, you know, a greater length
based upon questions that you may have. But we then showed the difference between this is our
original proposal and you can see that other than the building extending past the rear of 1118 to
20 and blocking those rear windows the building does not extend very deep as it was originally
proposed and then this is as it was revised where we pulled it back it only goes before the original
proposal extended almost completely or three quarters of the way behind 1124 which is mr
Fortino's property right here and we were able to pull it back so it's only about halfway but
the shadowing that happens back there is still as you can see largely I mean there's no shadowing
created here and they're shadowing already created by the buildings on the on cross street on the
backs of their buildings later in the day I wanted to show you this we also did a shadow study and
I wanted to show you this.
We also did a shadow study and provided that.
provided that that shows
That shows this is what a buy rate building looks like at this property.
With the 75% lot coverage, it not only extends past 1118 to 20, 1124, 1122, but extends all the way to 1120 and close to 1118 Greenwich Street.
And then the other properties over here on Cross Street.
That is not what my client had originally proposed anywhere close to that.
But, you know, again, we're not here for dimensional variances, but that seems to be, from what we heard, the lion's share of the concerns that were expressed at the community group meeting, which, again, we attempted to address and provide it to the Passing Square Civic Association.
We do have some letters of support from some parties on Cross Street, 1127 and 1133 to 35.
Here you can see where those properties are in context to our property. Mr. Rosen did provide a petition that was signed by a number of people. I think there were about 27 signatures on them.
I would like to point out that 1127 Cross, even though their note is as somebody who's opposed to the project, signed a letter of support for us with a lot more detail in it.
And my client can speak to his interactions with Mr. Spichowski.
In addition, that petition, and we can go through this when the time comes, I've also provided this to show you that other than Mr. Rosen's clients at 1118 to 20, 1124, 1122,
at 1120, all the other properties, if we go through those addresses, I think there's 27
that have signed. Some of them are at the same property, but they are not properties that
abut. There's only, I think, four properties that abut. I think the other one being 1139 cross,
And then I'm not sure where Teresa DiOrio lives, whether it's 1129 cross or 1124 cross.
I can't tell if that's a nine or a four, but we can go through that.
But you'll see, you can utilize this map that I provided at 4A of my exhibit book to see that the, other than Mr. Rosen's clients and maybe one or two other property owners,
that everybody else either doesn't abut the property or is located across Dickinson Street,
across Greenwich Street, across Cross Street, and aren't impacted at all by this property.
I did include some, you know, as a follow-up to what we heard, some claims regarding lack
of communication by my client, some text messages with him and Mr. Fortino, Ms. Elder,
efforts to try to reach out to them. I can get into those later with my client if need be.
Here's the renderings that we have of this project. Again, it's very much in keeping with
the renderings that were approved previously by the community and the zoning board for 1120.
You can see those here. And again, I'll talk about this in a minute. One of the things that
was discussed. We did mention to the zoning board at the time we came in for 11-22 because we did
have a refusal for not setting back the third floor because at the time we had, or even now,
we have two-story at 11-18 to 20, Ms. Elder's property. And then we had the two-story at the
property we were before you today about. But we did mention we'd be coming back with a three-story
which doesn't generate, wouldn't have generated a setback for the third floor, a requirement for
that because we have three-story buildings to the west of us at 1130 and 1132 and 1134 all the way
down to Cross Street. You're going to see in a couple minutes that in terms of the use,
again, let me just go through the renderings. We've designed this to look, have the look of
two single-family dwellings. You can see, you know, two doors with the curb cut accessing
two-car off-street parking. This door to the right will access the two units that are going
to be over on the upper floors. And then the door here will be accessing the ground floor,
the bi-level unit that goes ground floor and cellar. So our hope is that even though we have
three units here that it's going to read as if it's two units similar to the two properties that were there.
as if it's two units similar to the two properties that were there
part of our revisions you can see the pilot house that's up here the one of the other revisions
you can see in our revised proviso plan form is that we did reduce the size of the pilot
house and then shifted it ever so slightly as a result further away from the front of
the building that pilot house is not going to be visible from the street
uh in terms of the floor plans um these are we had original floor plans here which had the
uh deeper building you can see uh it extended further and deeper oops sorry about that um
showing the deck up at the there was there's an existing deck at the ground floor which will
remain even in the building pulled back a little bit and you can see that here in the revised floor
plans. The second floor will have a deck off the back that will be its outdoor area. We pulled back
the wing walls on either side to reduce the massing that the building, the properties either
side of us see. And then we completely, and you can see on the original plan, the third floor had
a deck off the back. And then we've completely eliminated that with the revised design. And again,
pulling the building back you can see over here it's showing at 30 feet currently and
on the original design it was you know going all the way back what they saw was 35 feet
and the pilot house at the reduced size there you go
again so those floor plans were tab six the renderings for the original design
we used the renderings from the original design because the front facade didn't change
There was no reason to go and redo them because the front facade didn't change.
But all the changes we made were to pull the building back at the rear to, again, to reduce the impact, the dimensional impacts upon nonconforming and other properties to the rear of us, even though we don't have a dimensional variance.
Again, the aerial images showing the two lots together as they would be if this project is approved.
Very erect, both of them, again, as you saw in the survey plan, extremely irregularly shaped, particularly 1124 to 26 being a triangle, but, you know, very bizarrely shaped.
And again, you can see here, here to the left is 1122, which had the variance.
Here's 118, to the left of that is 1118 to 20 Dickinson, which is right at the corner of Dickinson and Greenwich.
And then Mr. Rosen's other clients at 24, 22, and 20 Greenwich are all right here.
Again, running along the side of the lot.
You can see, if I go back to the aerial, Dickinson Street is, you know, a block and a half off of Pass Yonk Avenue, which obviously is a busy commercial corridor.
and different views of the property from north, south, east, and west in three-dimensional
imaging. The property is, again, zoned RSA 5. There's no doubt about that. It does look from
the zoning archive for the subject property, which date back to only back, I think it dates
back to about the 80s, or yeah, back to the 80s, that showed at that time it was mixed residential
and commercial. C2 commercial and R10 residential. R10 allowed for multifamily. I'm guessing 1124
was probably the R10 and the building itself was the C, the commercial. But you can see where
it was permitted for car storage and an office for a contractor, which basically it's remained
until this day. So those zoning archives are tab 13. The Sanborn maps we have for Mr. Holloman.
show the property going back to 1923. You can see back in those days with building codes not being
what they are today, 1124 was utilized for what looks like a single family dwelling
structure possibly, then auto repairing at 1128, 46. And then you can see by sometime,
I can't make out necessarily what was going on in 46. Obviously, 28 was remaining auto,
But then by 51, you can see that the properties were being utilized for non-residential purposes.
And through the years 1986, 1988, you can see here it says office up here, 89, 92, and 96, 2000.
I did include one thing to take note in terms of the use.
Again, we're only about a block and a half off of Dickinson Street.
So the properties, let me go to the zoning map. So here's 1124, here's 11, well, it's 1124 to 26 and to 28. The next two properties to the west of us on Vickinson Street, even though there's zoned RSA 5, you can see at tab 16A that 1130, if you were to read through those, is zoning classified for a three-family,
The properties, let me go to the zoning map.
or it's only classified, permitted for a three-family.
1132, the next property to the west is also a three-family.
The next property to the west, which is at Cross and Dickinson,
is a residential and non-residential animal services.
and then the properties on the opposite corners of cross and uh or south 12th and dickinson at
1501 south 12th and at 1441 south 12th and if i go back to the zoning map those are
that's this property here and this property here are also zoning now there are the one
down here at um 15 one south 12th is zoned for commercial use but the rsa five portion uh
property up here at 1441 uh is not and that obvious and that has a commercial residential
mixed use i did include an ad um to my exhibits uh following uh information i received regarding
the opposition uh after friday uh this week um early part of this week i put included the zoning
archive for 118 to 20 which is one of Mr. Rosen's clients and it's the property with the
window on the property line showing that it was granted a variance back in the 90 back in 90 for
a two-family dwelling. Now again that lot area is about the same as the lot area for
our 1128 and that was obviously granted for two.
you can see that there i've included a copy of the opa's printout for this property
showing that it's lot size 2289 per the opa and the improvement area of 1900 square feet
again if we go back to um and i pulled i didn't include it i have time to include it but in
looking at you know miss elder's property in terms of improvement area reflected by the opa
probably the largest of Mr. Rosen's clients
and those properties that abut us.
The properties that abut us are property from 1124
running all the way down to 1116
or only just over 1,000 square feet
or up to about 1,140 square feet.
And those are on cross street
are just a little bit over 1,000
or just a little bit over 1,100 square feet.
And again, going back, the idea here
is that if we were to build, you know, one large structure on 1128 or even for two residential
dwelling units, the size of them is going to be, they're going to be brand new as compared to
everything else. And they're going to be far larger than anything else in the area. And again,
if I go to the floor plans, you can see that the unit, the ground floor and cellar unit
is going to be 1,930 square feet,
950 plus 880, if my math is correct.
And that the second floor and the third floor unit
are each 1,370.
This little thing's crossing,
but you can see over here on the left.
So even though we have three units on this property,
they're in terms of the square footage,
they're all going to be the same size,
if not larger than the existing single family homes
that abut our property.
uh tab 17 tab 18 i have uh our zoning board appeal and the project information form tab 19
is the deed showing my client owns a subject property tab 20 is the tax compliance certificate
um tab 21 is the zoning board hearing notice for today's hearing that was posted at the subject
property in conformance with the requirements of the zoning code you can see the posting photographs
at tab 22. And then at tab 23 is a copy of our 14303 notice for the January 10th meeting with
Passing Square Civic Association, the addresses to which the notice was sent by first class mail
and the certificate of first class mailing. 191 mailings were made. And I think, again,
as you look back at the letter from Passing Square, looks like there were eight people in
the audience and and then the committee members if you give me one minute
and um and then the committee members uh if you give me one minute let me just take a look
um back to the floor plans real quickly we are only proposing uh two bedrooms per unit
uh it is the same that's a revision that we made following the community group meeting
um it's the same number of bedrooms if you were to develop a single family and they were
unrelated people living in each building or each unit on the two properties as they presently
stand. If you build a single, if you were able to build and sell a single family dwelling on the
489 square foot, 1124 to 26, and they were all unrelated people living there, you know, you can
have more than three of them. So you would have three bedrooms and then 1128, again, in a very
massive oversized lot and building, you could only have up to three unrelated people living. So we
wanted to make the density in terms of occupancy the same as a two family. You could see from the
renderings. We made it look like two single families. When I said two families, two single
families. We were able to utilize the existing curb cut and work it into the design of the
project to get two-car parking off-street. Obviously, without that existing curb cut,
and if it were two separate parcels, you would have one unit with parking and one unit without.
So we are able to get two cars. It is stacked mechanical parking, just to let you know, there are some weird because of the angle of the front of the building.
There's some difficulty getting more than two cars stacked or mechanical lifted parking in.
We tried, ran through a lot of iterations to get side by side parking coming in.
But because of the way that the building and then the interior is laid out, we weren't able to make it work and get the full depth for the parking space.