Yes, we will hold the vote.
And we board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX 2.5 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the proposed group medical, dental, and health practitioner use will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be reasonably expected.
The planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed special exemption for group medical, dental, and health practitioner.
Do we want to put a date for this vote, Hillary?
If you would like to vote in two weeks, Mr. Chair, because we've been out of hearings next week, the next date would be December 4th.
Vote December 4th at 9.30 a.m.
Okay, Mr. Phillips?
Yes, and, you know, I would just in closing, can I just make one of one-minute statements just in closing, just to re-summarize everything.
I think this is your third, but go ahead.
I mean.
It'll be my last one.
I just want to say.
But, Mr. Phillips, we've got to move.
No longer than a minute.
we have other people waiting. I just want to say, in response to some of the opposition in the
community, I want to note that there were no specific detrimental impacts that were raised.
And when there are systemic problems, and it's increasingly harder to find a solution,
oftentimes people look for someone to blame. They look to point a finger at who can we blame here.
And I believe that's happened here with Prevention Point. The blame and complaints have not
been tied to the medical services. And I believe it's somewhat of a, there's a fair amount of
absurdity in the position that any problems are exacerbated by PreventionPoint providing medical
services from two to three individuals instead of one individual. This use has been in existence
since 2019. I believe the proofs speak for themselves and that we have satisfied our burden
and that the community has not satisfied their burden in the shifting scenario. So thank the
board. I think I kept it within a minute. First time I've- You did. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it. Okay. Thank you all. We're going to go back to number one, 3900 Main Street, Adam Laver.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Leonard Palmer has rejoined us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Laver.
Hello. Why don't we bring our RCO REPL? I'm sorry, we're a little bit later than we expected, but quite all right.
Please raise your virtual hand.
Here, can you please repeat the name of the RCO REPL?
John Hunter, sorry, allowed to speak. Thank you. Morning, Mr. Hunter. You've already
been sworn. Why don't we go back to where you were? Yeah, if you could share my screen.
You can. Please let him share a screen and we're sorry we're a little bit later than
we expected okay um i think this is where we stopped previously um i just want to mention
Yeah, I think that's it, sir.
Okay, good.
I just want to mention on the upper drawings, which is the elevations, the materials.
I already mentioned about the shift and the block, but above, all the elevations are indicated in brick.
On the section below, I wanted to point out the relative height.
On the section below, I wanted to...
As has been mentioned in the refusal, the building height is approximately 24 feet higher than would be allowed.
And the calculation for the allowable height is 38 feet above the BFE plus 18 inches.
And that corresponds pretty much to the two upper stories of the building you see on that elevation building, too, relative to the buildings across the street.
Dr. Cohen, in his expert testimony, made the case that height is arbitrary, but it really should relate to context, paraphrasing what he said.
But I think this indicates that the existing building across the street is significantly lower.
And if this building, whatever its use is, and we'll come back to use, were within the by right height, which was 51 feet, it would be more contextually sensitive than as proposed, which is an additional two stories.
I also want to point out, using this section as an example, that Mr. Labour pointed out to other schemes in the vicinity which he thought were of a similar height and were similar in sort of proposed use.
and i want to draw attention to one scheme that's been in existence now for almost 10 years which
is the aisle which is on venice island and the scheme next to it which is which is a buy right
scheme that's gone through cdr and as yet actually to be built but probably will be approved as
proposed and both of them have um parking on grade on venice island and then the residential units
above start above the bfe by 18 inches but they are then evacuated and accessed by a bridge that
goes over the canal and lands on the retail side of main street that allows during a flood event
not only evacuation of all the residential units but also allows residents to go backwards and
forwards it's a sort of bizarre situation but when the aisle was inundated below at the parking level
during hurricane ida residents were allowed to go backwards and forwards and that is the same
solution that 4436 our proposal in the adjacent is also pursuing this scheme of 3900 cannot do that
And that is the crux of why this residential use here is inappropriate, because you can't, there's no way to connect to.
You have to go down to street level and you have to evacuate a quarter mile in either direction towards Shurds Lane or towards Ridge Avenue.
And that puts you in grave danger for evacuating.
But it also means that you can't get back in the building until Main Street has been completely cleared.
the flood water is gone the city comes in and cleans the whole all the whole area and the
entrance to the building is repaired um and i think that is just the fundamental difference
as i mentioned earlier mr al had bought this building well sorry bought the property in 2016
and in december 2016 he appeared before this zoning board with a proposal to subdivide the lot
into 27 units and build 27 houses um that proposal was denied but that appeal was denied by the
zoning board and the planning uh representative at that time drew attention to the fact that even
in 2016 there had been two significant flooding events and the um the planning commission was
opposed to residential development in the flood hazard area anyway but particularly at this spot
because of the danger not only to residents but also to emergency responders because they would
have to try and make some attempt and if they did they'd be fighting floodwaters that could be up to
10 feet high um the um again the section here just want to point out that there are two office
buildings indicated here to office spaces um the um refusal the revised refusal refers to three
we couldn't find the third one but there are two and then the parking is over on the left hand side
it's not clear if it's I'm assuming that the parking is wet flood proofed there's a flood
proof door shown on the elevation but it's I assume it's wet flood proof but again you can
i assume it's wet foot flood proof but again you can see here the extent of the building
see here the extent of the building
on facing main street and how narrow the way through onto uh the riverside of the land on
the site is even if the public were able to access it um the next slide shows and i really want to
address the three refusals here uh the first refusal is for height that and we've sort of i
sort of addressed it um in in looking at with reference to the section and i think that there
is no information given that justified a hardship for going above the 51 feet that is allowed on
on this site, whatever the use of the building is. The second one is for use, which is changing
from ICMX to mixed-use development of commercial and residential.
ICMX is a broad category in the zoning code, not like I1 or I2, and listed in the code,
there are over 40 different uses which are acceptable with ICMX use.
The building next door to this property to the east, Transamerica, is ICMX, and it's a...
Pardon me. Objection for the record.
Is Mr. Hunter testifying as a qualified expert for presenting the position of a coordinating RCO?
Mr. Hunter, could you just move on from that, please?
sure um um the building across the street is also zoned icmx the buildings should i say
and they have a range of different uses there is a motorcycle um
shop that was there that um and there's um a gym a jujitsu place um a firm of architects
with a large office there and also the office of the state representative Tariq Khan is across the
street so the idea that there aren't possibilities of ICMX use is something that we don't consider
correct and we would challenge us that Mr. Al-Hadar has pursued uses on this site that would
reflect the icmx zoning and there is no need to change to residential use the third one
is for the 50 foot setback and this drawing really shows the 50 foot setback and its impact
which we acknowledge but um one thing i just want to make clear is that and these areas and the
diagrams the total property area that's shown here and given at the square footage x the property
extends out into the river, as you can see, and also to the river embankment. So both of those
areas would never be available for use in development. And when Mr. Al-Hadar bought the
property in 2016, the property was owned ICMX. It had a height restriction of 38 feet above the BFE
plus 16 18 inches and it had this 50 foot setback and the 50 foot setback as explained in the code
but also by Elaine Montes who called in with it with her testimony in the July 16th section of
the hearing pointed out that the 50 foot setback is really there to provide strengthening of the
river's edge, pervious resilient opportunities for landscaping. You can't put car parking on it.
And the impact and the reason that it's there on all these river frontages on the Delaware and the
Skilka rivers is the impact that having pervious surfaces helps down river reduction in flooding.
It isn't necessarily for this site, but it's universal around all these frontages.
The pink area that's left is still areas which could be used and could be developed.
And we don't believe that there is a hardship that's been proven for not pursuing the use of this property for those uses.
um this one i think just reflects again the relative scale of the building relative to the
buildings behind it and adjacent to it we don't believe that building that building this height
relates to its context and is obtrusive and also it's revised
relates to its context and is obtrusive and also its revised design really creates a wall
along the river's frontage which the previous design however inappropriate it was didn't do
i just then want to go back and i'm almost finished uh chair building that um
these conceptual renderings which are seductive and sort of reassuring i think
bear very little relationship in detail to the elevations and sections we've seen above.
We found that this was the case with the previous CDR review that came twice,
and it was mentioned and noted by the panel and the committee in their notes that were forwarded to the ZBA.
I've already pointed out that the second floor plan doesn't have the accommodation that the testimony said it did, such as electrical rooms.
There was also a mention that in addition to the office on the ground floor, there would be an office on the second floor to deal with evacuation.
There's no space there, and it's not indicated.
But looking at the exterior, you can see here that all the materials shown are entirely different, except for the ground floor in some areas, than the elevations that were shown that were submitted.
And here you can see that the materials have changed.
The openings on the first floor are significantly different facing the river.
And again, I don't believe that you could engineer windows of that scale that are shown on the first floor, which are different from the other elevations, and make the first floor dry, flood-proof, as was given in the testimony.
You can also see on the left-hand side that there is a sort of a recess in the lower two floors and a sort of covered area, which again isn't on the elevations.
And then coming down to this one, which comes back to my comments about the roof plan, here you see additional structures shown that were also indicated on the roof plan, which would significantly change the height of the building.
On the left is partly where the staircase would be for the pilot house, but it's been enlarged to include an elevated roof terrace and another structure which actually isn't even on the roof plans.
In addition to that, it's higher than the parapet of the building, and there is a similar one indicated on the roof plan at the other end of the site.
they're they're not explained and they don't relate to the elevation shown earlier here again
is one of these seductive renders as conceptual renders as mr. labor called it and again this
view is an impossible view because it's standing in the river the wall on the left-hand side doesn't
exist it's actually below the floor level but it could be constructed but it's actually wider than
shows on the site plan and you can see again it shows these large windows and the recessed
opening further down which makes the the river walkway seem appear accessible and generous
and that is not the case when we and i'll show you in the plan when we get to it this is the
main street elevation again totally different in the appearance and seductively so it has different
materials um the openings at the first floor start off similar there's that loading dock and how
you could have a loading dock door that could sustain um a 10 foot high flood event i i don't
now but further down you can see that um the pacing and the materials changes and there is
also recesses and columns which make the building look more seductive it also has structure which
it raises above the upper floor and you can see on the left hand side um not only the staircase
but some other structure which goes up significantly higher so this is something that
again I want to really draw your attention to because the building looks fantastic and I
applaud SGA's renderings of it but it's not reality. I just then want to go back to the
flood preparedness and resiliency protocols which is a long title. The evacuation of this
the evacuation of this building relies on technology in fact mr labor draw attention
building relies on technology. In fact, Mr. Labour drawer.
to that in the available systems but again that's to get people out of the building it doesn't get
the people to a point of safety other than giving them diagrams and having um sort of
biannual sort of tests and routine sort of explanations but that only would work if it
is maintained and continues for the life of the building and that is a long time and there's no
way that that is legally and legally enforceable for the life of the building that is the
weakness of it. On the temporary parking section, the one below, I've already pointed out that the
number of parking spaces provided is in the order of one to three for the residences rather than
one to one. That'd be one parking space for three residential units. But there are still 78 cars
that probably would be not covered and would be out on the street.
But I just want to point out again,
which is not a problem that I expect this applicant to solve,
is that with all the other schemes that we've mentioned
that have residential parking in the floodplain along Main Street,
they total to about 1,000 cars,
which would have to be evacuated, hopefully successfully.
in the event of a flood event and we have no idea where those cars would go to mr labor gave
some sort of reassurance that they would provide temporary um locations um for the
46 parking spaces only but those parking spaces then when the cars are parked
um they can't come back to this property until all the lower main streets have been cleared
and the overhead doors repaired
and the parking spaces cleaned out of all the debris
and material that will be deposited.
Hurricane Ida was a real instructive and tragic event,
but after the event on Main Street,
when Main Street was reopened after about five or six days, you would drive past Transamerica
next door to this property, and you would see a team of at least 10 people in white hazmat suits
working for about three weeks, pulling out all the material that was trapped inside the Transamerica
site. And that, to me, is horrifying and instructive about the dangers of putting
residential units in this location. On-site management, I'm jumping down to sort of the
on-site management. I don't know who Mr. Alhadad's employees would be who would volunteer to isolate
themselves on the upper floor of the building during a flood event because they would never
be able to get out for for several days if there's an event of something like 10 feet
um all the doors that are down at street level and you'd have to wait until the flood events
subsided but if there are then the that office management might help people out or it might
help people who've decided to stay in the building but it's not really um a resilience of protocol i
would think um the elevated unit utilities uh is a requirement in the code um it's all of those
utilities including large pipes and penetrations can have to be above the bfe plus 18 inches
um so because there isn't an actual physical way a pathway or a bridge to get out of this building
to a point of safety we don't consider that there is a flood preparedness and evacuation system
that will work for the life of this building now the other thing i just want to go back to
and i've almost finished is this plan um again there was much interest understandably from the
board members and there were questions about this um path along the river and that hopefully will
eventually be proposed but you can see from this plan the narrow entrance from Main Street
you can see from this plan the narrow entrance from main street and there are the in this