ZBA Hearing - May 28, 2025

Our vice chair has a few questions.

Counselor, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal

or stipulate to its accuracy?

I do.

Have you emailed in all the required documents

and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case

five days in advance of this year?

I submitted everything except for the tax clearance,

which we uploaded yesterday.

thank you council please proceed certainly may i share my screen yes thank you

okay i just minimize this this over here okay all right again my name is david orphanetes and i'm

here this morning on behalf of eric and catherine who goes by katie johansen who are the owners of

the subject property what you see up in front of you uh is a rendering of what the property will

look like I've clouded around our property. You'll see in the photographs, it's presently

an existing two-story dwelling with a front porch similar to the building that you see to the left

in this rendering. You will also see in the photographs that will provide that there is

a lot next to us that is not built upon, and that is either owned, well, it's definitely used by,

I'm not sure if it's owned by, I have to go back and look again, by the owner of the three-story

building that's on the other side of that to our property. As mentioned by Chairman Bergman,

we met with the Mantua Civic Association, and we have a letter of support from them.

I did reach out to Councilwoman Gauthier's office, and I received an email from them that they are

not going to be taking a position on this matter. Here's an aerial image of the property, which I've

clouded and the surrounding area. You will see at the time of this aerial, there were all vacant

lots located across Wallace Street from us. There was recently a zoning approval, building permits

were issued and construction has been undertaken to construct two multifamily dwelling buildings

at that property, each one being 16 units for a total of 32 units. You'll see there's a PHA

housing development to the east of us off the, I guess that's the northeast corner,

36 and Wallace. As I scroll down, you'll see that there is an existing larger building behind us

and that has 10 apartments in it. The property is zoning classified RSA 5, as you can see here

across the street from us is RM1. That RSA 5 classification also applies to the 10-unit

multifamily apartment building that's located behind us to the north uh so here's some exterior

to the north uh so here are some exterior photographs uh here's the existing property

of my clients the front of my client's house here you can see the front porch the the proposal here

is to not disturb the front facade of the building but to erect a third floor addition

that extends from the front of the building to the back this front wall there will be a mansard

roof it will not be going straight up it'll be built above this cornice line that you see here

So the decorative cornice that you see will remain as long as the other decorative aesthetic elements that you have here at the front.

And then what you'll see on the plans, we've set, there'll be a fourth floor that'll be set back with the roof deck in front of it.

Here is the lot that I mentioned that's to the right of us and then the three-story building.

Here are the other two-story properties that extend to the west.

but going back to the back to the photographs this is the lot that's being utilized by the

three-story building you'll see on our plans there our building is the full width at the front

then there's a side court on the east side and then a large rear yard there's a bump out at the

second floor bump out at the first floor that you'll see on the plans the plan is not to go

any deeper than what we have right now. Just basically build above the portion of the structure

before you get to the one-story and the two-story bump out in the rear.

Here's a three-story building. Now extending to the east, you see a series of two-story dwellings,

and then a three-story at the end. And then on the opposite side, this is the new construction,

three-story RM1. Then extending here, you have a three-story vacant down at the corner of

southwest corner of 36 and Wallace. You have these boarded up buildings and vacant lots a little

further down to the east between us and 36th Street on the opposite side. Again, the project,

the total of the 32 units, two 16-unit buildings, which did go before this board for a dimensional

variance. Vacant lot further down at 37th, and then swinging around, as mentioned, back here

to our property. Presently, typical single-family home, open living room, dining room, kitchen on

the ground floor, and then three bedrooms with a bathroom on the second floor. You can see here.

Um, I did include with my exhibit book, uh, the, uh, let me just go to page display.

Um, the zoning archives for both the property across the street, the 232 unit, uh, I keep

saying 232, it's total 32, 216s, the notice of refusal.

There was a side yard refusal for that.

And then the property behind us at 36, 18 to 28 Mellon Street, the zoning permit for that.

Again, our project involves a third-story addition above the existing two-story.

You can see here, I'm going to zoom in a little bit, as I mentioned, and you will see this in the front elevation in our renderings that I already showed you.

We're not going straight up with the vertical face.

We're setting that third floor back, soften it, maintaining the cornice line of all the abutting buildings that extend to the west of us, extending back.

And then again, the fourth floor you have here with the roof deck in front.

Our only refusal that we have, and I'll show you in a minute, is that the height to the top of the fourth floor is 40 feet, 9 inches.

You can see that we have not been excessive in our floor-to-ceiling heights going up.

We have an eight-foot floor-to-ceiling height at the third floor and only a seven-and-a-half-foot ceiling height, which is the minimum permitted, at the fourth floor, which will just be like a family room for the family.

Sorry about that.

So that's what we're proposing.

Here is a site plan.

I'm going to zoom back out.

and again you can see the here you can see the ones the ones the first floor bump out which goes

out deeper than the second floor bump out that's presently existing we are going to be here's the

side court that i referenced and i showed you a little bit of in the pictures we're going to be

covering that with the third and fourth floor that presently is the from the ground floor all

the way to the top of the second floor we will not be serving the front porch a little bit of

the front yard, the planting, or the front steps. We will not be diminishing the existing rear

yard depth, which at 19 feet 6 in an RSA 5 property, we know is far greater than the minimum

rear yard depth that's required for RSA 5. The open area, existing open area is 37%.

The only reduction in that will be covering this, the side.

The only reduction in that will be covering this, the side court.

So we will still be far, far below the permitted occupied area for RSA 5.

The thing to note, and I included it in my exhibit book, I'll show you in a second,

is that by right, as you know, RSA 5, 38-foot tall building, 42-inch parapet around the

roof, roof deck above, which can be 48 inches above the midpoint and the high point between

the top floor than a 10-foot pilot house above that. Those are options available to my client,

but they like the way the front of the building looks. They feel by sloping it back. You can see

we have a line of sight here, a six-foot tall person, and you see it when I show you the

rendering again. It'll catch a little bit of the railing in front, but actually won't catch the

fourth floor. So somebody walking right in front of our building won't see either, but somebody on

the opposite side of the street at six foot or taller. We'll see a little bit of the railing of

the deck, but won't see the front of the fourth floor. Somebody shorter than six feet wouldn't

even see the front of the fourth floor. But they preferred, and I'll show you what a buy rate would

look like, keeping their two-story, doing the addition above, not bumping it out any deeper,

not maxing out the property. This building could be demolished in a 38-foot-tall building that I

mentioned could be built by Wright, but they've lived in the neighborhood for a while. They like

living in the neighborhood. They want to stay here. Their children go to school in the neighborhood,

and they're looking. I know that personal circumstances aren't the basis for the

granting of the variance, but they want to stay here with their growing family and stay in the

neighborhood, be involved in the neighborhood. And this is, when you take a look at the occupied

area, again, which isn't being increased other than covering the court, the small court,

to the rear, to the side, we're keeping the height as low as possible. And again, going up a little

higher in this portion, it's not a whole fourth floor that is the full extent of the third floor.

And again, it's not going any deeper into the available open area rear yard depth to the rear.

So, David, why don't you bring your client on?

Sure.

I think Eric Johansson is on right now.

If he could raise his hand, he would adopt my statements.

He's one of the owners.

Eric will be coming in as the panelists.

And by the way, Mr. Chairman, while he's coming on, I do have revised plans.

They don't change the nature of the proposal.

They just cleaned up some of the dimensions, some of the calculations in the zoning table.

and it's more just to tighten everything up.

And your only refusal is the height, am I correct?

Yeah, and again, it's 40 feet 9 inches,

which is actually below what we could have with a parapet,

which is 41 feet 6 inches.

Eric?

Yes.

Eric, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Eric Johansson, E-R-I-K-J-O-H-A-N-S-O-N.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,

nothing but the truth?

I do.

Please proceed, counsel.

Eric, you and your wife, Katie, own the property, correct?

Correct.

And did you hear the statements that I made to the zoning board this morning?

I did.

And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

They are.

And would you adopt them as your own?

I would.

Okay.

Thank you, Eric.

That's all the questions I have.

Questions from the board.

The board has any.

And I also have the architect on, I believe, who can also talk to my statements regarding

the architectural drawings that she prepared and the renderings.

Okay.

Let's see if there's questions from the board first.

Okay.

Yep.

Sorry.

Sorry. Do you have the approval from both your neighbors on both sides?

Eric would have to speak about the neighbor to the west, but the neighbor to the right of us who has a three story house, which is taller than our proposed building and then uses the I called it vacant at the community group meeting.

She didn't like that. You know, when we say vacant, we just mean there's not a building on it. She was at the community group meeting.

Yeah, so we have the RCO meeting approval. I don't actually know about the neighbor to our east because it's a lot. And then the neighbor to the west is actually recently deceased. So there's no one in that house right now.

but she was yeah but again the woman to the to the east that uses the lot

next to us and was at the meeting was that was at the community group meeting and real quickly i

just want to also show um we did do a shadow study comparing the by right option to what we're

proposing the yellow is what where the by right shadows more than what we're proposing the green

is where uh what we're proposing shadows more in almost every circumstance you can see a little

bit of green here but it's always the by right that shadow is more than what we're actually

proposing with our uh with our addition other questions so you said that

Other questions?

So you said that the person who uses that vacant lot was at the meeting.

Correct.

Were they in favor, not in favor?

They didn't reveal the question.

She seemed more concerned about construction and whether there would be any disturbance to her property.

And we advised her that everything was going to be coming through the building, staged from the front.

And she didn't have any zoning questions.

Again, we're talking about a height refusal that creates a structure because we have no parapet above the fourth floor that from the outside is clearly smaller than what's permitted under the zoning code.

So in terms of shadowing on her property, again, the shadow studies are much worse by right than what we're doing.

But most of her, again, all of her questions were more on the construction side of things than about the zoning and the massing and the little bit of additional height we're looking for here.

Okay, please continue.

So, again, you've danced around my main question.

Is she in favor of this or not?

I answered the question, Cheryl.

I said, we don't know.

she asked questions and we we weren't told we we would go outside we weren't there for the vote

right so so we you know we we're not we're meant most of these meetings the applicant isn't made

privy to what the vote is they're either handed it in by slips electronically or we're asked to

leave you know as i understand we understand i was i was more just trying to get a sense of whether

you had spoken to her and she had said yes no oh oh i'm sorry no well yeah yeah i mean

And informally, informally, I just told her that we would manage our contractors.

She she has not expressed any concerns about the project, just about like things like construction start time.

OK. All right. Thank you. Other questions?

Yeah, I have a question. At completion, will this be the tallest building on this block?

No, I think, and I'll show you here, the building that's located, we will be lower than the woman who uses the lot next to us.

We will be lower than her building.

We are going to be lower.

I think we're about the same height as the new construction across the street.

There is a tall three-story building down the block.

And again, just to show, this is what a by-right building looks like at this property.

I know.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, but clearly we're going to be lower than the nearest three story building to us, which is just on the other side of the lot to the east of us.

Yeah. That's the one I was trying to compare to that building across the street. So you think you're about at the same height as the building across the street and you're a little bit lower.

I'd have to look again at the zoning archives if you'd like to. I can answer other questions.

No, it's fine. I think this shows me what I mean. And while I understand your point about by right, that does not change the fact that this was a majority two story block. And if we're trying to keep in line with the existing structures, even something that might be legally okay and by right does not mean that it's visually in line with what's already on the block.

Yeah. And I would say on the opposite side, it's all three stories. I think there's one two story, then the vacant lots and three story, including the new construction, the two 16 unit buildings. And then on our side, I would agree that there is this stretch of two stories that were of a similar design, probably built at the same time. And then it goes up to the new construction three story that's to the east of us, drops back down and goes back up.

So in terms of the – on our side, yes, there's more two-stories.

In terms of the whole block, I'd probably have to sit down and do the math.

But I would say right now it's probably pretty close to 50-50.

And as we know, when the new lots get developed, almost certainly they're going to be three-stories, if not four.

So I think three-story will become the norm if it's not already more than 50 – around or 50% or not higher.