Now, we had originally applied for a variance for eight units, but having worked with the community organization over the past several months, we have reduced the number of units to six.
we have also made certain considerations and concessions with regard to the community as to
the look of the building. As you know, RSA 5 does not permit multifamily dwellings. In this
particular case, that's one of the reasons why our application was refused. The other reason for the
refusal is the proposed lot coverage. RSA 5 would require a coverage of the lot
at 20 percent, and in this particular case, the proposed coverage or open space would only be
13 percent. Now, prior to today's hearing, we have had several meetings with the RCO.
The most recent on September 28th of 2021, the RCO in this particular case is the Centennial
Parkside. I want to emphasize again that we have worked closely with them to gain their support
and we have also worked closely with them to make various modifications to the exterior of
the building together with the number of the buildings. The letter of support is shown as
Exhibit 3, and we're going to pull that up for you, which have already been submitted as part
of our record. And again, there was more than one meeting in this particular case.
The next exhibit I'd like to pull off is Exhibit 7B.
The area has a number of multifamily dwellings in it.
And we are on 42nd Street is a corridor that separates RM1 from a number of RS5 zoning buildings.
So, as you can see, this property is diagonally across the street from the subject property and has four electric meters out there to show that it was or currently is being used for more than one family unit.
Can you go to the next one, please?
This is a photograph of a building which is located less than one block away on Girard Avenue,
and as you can see, there are, again, four electric meters on multiple buildings in the area.
We took pictures of only one in this particular case, but it is certainly not unusual to have
more than three or four residential family units in a particular building.
I'd also like to point out to the board that there are a number of properties, and I'm going to read off some property addresses, which are of similar size and have at least three units in them.
They are 1223 North 42nd Street, 1236, 1238, 1234, 1232, and 1230.
All of these properties are between 1,300 and 1,800 square feet and have already been granted variances for three units.
Three units. There is another interesting issue here that needs to be presented to the board. Within a two block radius of the subject property, there has there have been a number of RSA five zoned properties which have been granted variances for four.
or I'm sorry, for six units. They are 12, I'm sorry, apologize for that, 1728
and 1728 Memorial and 1728 Marlton Street. Also, 1213 North 42nd Street has been granted a variance,
another RSA 5 property that has been granted a variance for, in this particular case,
six units. I'm going to introduce Eugene Edovich in a second, but I wanted to point out to the
board that the variances sought in this particular case do not overburden the public
facilities. They will not result in any environmental issues when it will reduce the
likelihood of illegal dumping and other, which often occurs on vacant lots. And the variance
that we're seeking for this use of this property is consistent with the proper manner in which
the surrounding areas have already been developed. The open-air variance is necessary in this
particular case because the property has been designed in such a way that it has a front porch
consistent, again, with the properties in the neighborhood. I'd like at this point in time to
introduce Eugene Nevadovich, who will testify. Mr. Nevadovich, can you please enter the hearing?
And Mr. Eugene, you can unmute yourself.
hello hi please spell your full name sir
eugene nadovich e-u-g-e-n-e last name n-a-y-d-o-v-i-c-h you swear if i'm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you mr strompello yes mr nadovich can
you tell us a little bit about your proposed project and and we can pull up either exterior
photographs of the proposed project and the plans the site plans can I do that with you what would
you prefer first uh let's do the exterior exterior photographs so we work closely with the community
to make the building match the surrounding buildings as much as possible given that it's
a historic area um the only reason we're seeking additional lot coverage is only for the porch
which technically counts as lot coverage.
The building itself takes up only 80%,
which is the buy-write amount.
We're using the historic brick all throughout.
We hire members of the community
and we've been in this community for a while,
which is why we have a lot of support.
Our work speaks for itself
and the neighbors know that we stand by our word
as well as also providing,
even though it's not deed restricted,
we do provide affordable units.
And we constantly get calls
And all these factors, it's something that plays a huge role in the community supporting our projects.
This is an example of it.
So the two buildings on the left, the current buildings are there now.
The one on the right is the structure that we're proposing.
Would you like to add?
Were you the developer on the two buildings to the left?
No, those are old buildings.
I believe they were built in the 1920s.
Oh, okay.
All right.
because in this photo this shot little makes it look like they're similar to yours they look new
yeah well it's very hard with the architect the um the designer as well as the community in order
to make the building match the surrounding buildings as much as possible um you have
anything else to add yes i'd like to bring up a number uh exhibit number five please which are
the plans mr nadovich if you can go over those fours please
Yes, even though we went down a number of units from eight to six, we did not decrease
the size of the building or any of the units.
So now we have a mix of larger two-bedroom, two-bath units and one-bedroom units.
What we found, what some of the community wanted are units that are a little bit larger
so that families will be able to live in them and not just necessarily single people.
families will be able to live in them and not just necessarily single people.
And what we found is
And what we found is the larger the units, especially if they're in a very affordable price,
the longer tenants stay and become part of the community themselves instead of just being transient if they're staying only for 12 months or so.
Is there anything else you'd like to add, Mr. Natovich?
No, I believe that's it. Unless anybody has any questions.
okay thank you uh does the board have any questions no mr natovich have you listened
have you listened to the testimony that i've offered to the board yes i have okay and do you
agree that is true and correct yes i do okay and the exhibits that we've shown to the board do you
believe that they are also true and correct i do and do you adopt the testimony that i have
offer the board this afternoon with regard to your project for 1221 North 42nd Street?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This is a 1,360-square-foot lot.
There is no unique characteristic of the lot that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
Whether eight or six units, this is still an overuse of this land and out of character with the block.
We also note that the promised affordability cannot be enforced by the city.
We recommend that the board deny the requested variances.
but i saw a number of other multi-families on this block um in the presentation all right
mi 2021-003484 1220 1221 north 42nd street my vote is yes carol tenere my vote is yes
professor plaza yes james snell yes thomas halliman my vote is yes thank you case number
four mi 2021-003 954 1736-64 masher street steve bertill is uh the attorney of record
i'm not sure if we've received a letter my notes indicate south kensington community partners
had not yet sent a letter of support mr brittell please identify yourself
excuse me this is sharon we did receive the amended refusal so if you were to approve this
it would be as per amended refusal dated today today all right thank you mr brittell please
identify yourself with the record you're still on the roof from earlier
chair hercules griegos has his hand up would you like for me to allow him to speak yes please
mr griegos are you presenting this case he's coming back in as a panelist sir
good afternoon members of the board apologies yes i'll be presenting this case
thank you please spell your full name and i'll swear you in hercules grigos h-e-r-c-u-l-e-s
g-r-i-g-o-s 1835 market street from the tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you vice chair ms tenere has some questions for you good afternoon do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do and as Ms. Saleta
mentioned there is an amended refusal that I believe was submitted to the board today. Okay
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos
and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter we do uh we get yes to everything um i don't believe we received the
letter but we do have an email indicating that the uh at the meeting the uh there was support
seven nothing from the rco um we communicated with the rco last night and i don't know if they
got their letter out or not so okay you may proceed great thanks so much uh this said
Hercules Griegos representing the owner of 1734-64 Masher Street, which is 1736 North Masher LLC.
I'm going to share my screen, if I may.
I'm going to share my screen, if I may.
If you can see that.
So this is actually an interesting one.
This project was approved in 2016 for 20 single-family homes by this board via Variance.
The site was previously zoned, I believe, ICMX.
I think it went through some different ownership.
My client acquired the property at the end of 2019 thinking he had a shovel-ready project.
Turns out the permit expired.
We went to extend the permit.
We had missed the date.
um in looking at that we went back to the site and saw that it had been remapped to rm1
which was exciting by right project will refile it turns out that when they did the remapping and
you can see here there's an existing building on the site and you can see they remapped the
building rm1 but not the entire lot so they actually i believe there was an error and this
portion in the back remained RSA 5. So the 20-year townhome scheme that we had previously
approved by this board was not permitted. At the same time, right around or right before we filed,
the split zoning district was amended, and it created an issue where we were hopeful that it
be by right but the way the language came out it was not so our only avenue was come to come back
to the board to see that this project be uh approved um this is on master street in between
montgomery and palmer in the city south kensington section it's an existing uh industrial warehouse
that covers the site um you can see some photographs of the site here
um there had been some talk before i think the it was previously approved as i2 this is the
previous approval i'm sorry i said icmx was i2 previously 20 single family homes uh this is from
2016 but essentially it was the same plan single family home rear loaded parking here's the previous
zoning approval, previous refusal for multifamily, and then this was the notice of decision from
2016. Fast forward, we basically have a similar application, almost identical. One of the
requests from the community was to add additional glazing to the window openings to the ground
floor we are doing that we've agreed to that um as you can see here and we're gonna add additional
make these window openings even larger um and this is basically the single family homes consistent
with the neighborhood i believe the rm1 calculation is for like 30 or 40 multi-family we're talking i
think it's actually more than that um we're talking 20 single family homes with parking
um this is the original refusal and then we amended the refusal to include the 41 foot height
which was part of our original plan
um we asked for a letter of support here's the email that we got where it was 7-0 in favor
they asked for environmental reports which um i think we're working on the asbestos report which
we will send once we are cleared for demo um uh they asked us to meet with the near neighbors prior
demolition which we're going to do and they asked for increased transparency on the ground floor
um to increase eyes on the street and 30 trans transparency uh uh snez litvonich the project
architect is here and she can confirm that that is in the plans um but this is essentially a
reapproval what was approved uh in 2016 and you can see sort of the character of the neighborhood
is single-family homes, and this is a much less dense plan that would be permitted, even on the
entire site that's RM1, less the strange split zoning that appears to be done in error.
I believe I have with me Deep Gruul is the owner, as well as Snezla Tavonich, the project architect,
and they're here to answer any questions. We believe, as was the case in 2016, this is the
minimum relief necessary. It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. We believe
it is more in line with the single-family nature of this neighborhood. It will not substantially
more in line with the single family nature of this neighborhood will not substantially
increase congestion.
increase congestion as this is a much less dense project that will be allowed in rm by right
and if deep is here he can adopt my testimony otherwise i will turn it over to the board for
questions client's name again deep gruel g-r-e-w-l
available
there's no one listed
and no one has their hand raised
Mr. Grigos you being an officer
of court will stipulate your client would have adopted
your testimony
any questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman
anyone else like to testify
in this case if so please raise your hand
now the client
has their hand raised and so do Sloan
folks folks let's get mr folks on
good afternoon uh chairman de chico and zba board good afternoon spell your name and i'll
swear you in great uh sloan folks s-l-o-a-n-e f as in the fire o-l-k-s representing the office
of council winria canione sanchez 7th district from 508 city hall you swear for him to tell