Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss
We're going to go to our regular list
Let's see, Vern was Clifford Street
How many did I have to say?
So Vern was Clifford Street
And Seymour, right?
So number three
MI 2023-005-745
245-441 West Roosevelt Boulevard.
Vernon Anastasio.
Coming back in as a panelist soon, sir.
Evening again, Mr. Chair.
You ready to go with this one, Vernon?
Yes, sir.
You already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Yep, it's Vern Anastasio on behalf of my client. Court of Common Police Judge Deborah Canty.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
thank you council please proceed and share your screen
mr chair members of the board 441 west roosevelt boulevard we're here to
uh get approval for the uh construction of a new fence around the property
and that's why we're here uh the application is for the removal of the existing fence
and for the construction of a front and side yard fence that will be eight feet in height
which will include a four feet a four foot retaining wall of a brick and then four feet
fence above that the rear yard fencing includes a six foot side fence and a six foot
sorry six foot rear yard fence facing a street for the use as a single family dwelling
I'm going to come over here to, as you can see, several dimensional variances are required because of the lack of, the height, of course, is not compatible with the code, and there are some issues with opaqueness.
and there are some issues with opaqueness and let me explain to you what's there right now is
is what we're looking at here
i'm gonna pull out to show you the property this is the entire property and the fence will surround
four sides actually three sides of the property in question
And this is what we're dealing with currently.
There have been numerous issues with loitering on the property for quite some time.
A client not only wants to put something in it that's going to be aesthetically pleasing for both her and the neighbors,
but also something that will discourage folks sitting anywhere near the fence.
Also, and here's proof of posting, by the way.
The original wood fence that you could not see through in the past was approved as well.
Now, this fence will allow for passersby and anyone on the sidewalk to see through into the property and also will allow anyone in the front or side yards to be able to see through to the sidewalk.
And that's the difference that the neighbors did appreciate. 130 individual households were in fact mailed. And we have the two page letter of RCO notification and inviting folks to the hearing today.
I also want to share with you, if I can find it, I had it queued up, and now let's see if I can get that.
There it is.
The RCO letter of support, unanimous opposition.
I'm sorry, unanimous support, non-opposition.
And we've got a letter from Shanty Lindsay to Councilmember Bass, letting everyone know that this is fully supported by the RCO.
It was pretty well attended by the community.
And Judge Canty would just like to improve her property in a way that both enhances the neighborhood and also detracts from any loitering from occurring in the future.
And with that, I'd like to have Judge Canty raise her hand.
Hello?
Safe and I'm allowed to speak.
Judge, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Deborah Canty, D-E-B-O-R-A-H, last name C-A-N-T as in Tom Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Your Honor, did you hear my presentation to the board this evening?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if we were to build according to code, it would pose a health and safety risk for the client,
And it just would be inconsistent with the safety measures that the immediate neighbors would like to see on that corner.
So with that, I kindly ask that the board grant the variance. Thank you.
Is there comments from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Two quick questions.
And, Mr. Anastasio, the deed that was provided said the property was owned by Donald and Charlotte Canty.
Is Judge Canty?
They're her parents.
They're her parents.
And you mentioned there was opacity issues.
However, the fence was at least partially see-through.
can you just explain because i didn't see that on the refusal i just saw the refusal for height
um where where it is over 50 opaque yep i'm sorry i didn't i didn't understand your question
ms emerson i think i think vermin what she said is you said you could see in through the fence
and see out through the fence that's correct could you explain what that fence looks like
right well and you mentioned there were some opacity issues but i didn't see those referenced
but I didn't see those referenced on the refusal.
on the refusal. So if that was missed on there.
So if that was missed on the refusal,
I just want to make sure that was noted for the record.
If it was more than 50% opaque.
No, I think I may have misspoke.
What I meant was as opposed to what was previously approved,
which was complete solid fencing,
this new fence will allow passersby to see into the property and folks on
the property to see through to the sidewalk.
got it thank you you're welcome questions or comments from the virtual audience
i have a hand raise from charles richardson i've allowed them to speak
hi mr richardson good evening mr chair yes we started earlier this morning please proceed
we've been together all day uh charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n
room 508 city hall councilwoman has no objection to granting this variance thank you very much is
there anyone else in the virtual audience i see no further answer mr chair planning planning
commission uh ron bednar city planning first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r do you
swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Our adopted district plan recommends no change existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the fence requirements of the code, but we recommend the request of Venice not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2023-005-745-441-West Roosevelt Boulevard, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Stone, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
number seven
MI 2023
001 349
Wayne Avenue
Donald Benedetto
is the attorney
what was the address
we did this morning
it was
i cancel you've already been sworn just state your name for the record
being everyone uh donald benedetto on behalf of the owner b-e-n-e-d-e-t-t-o
all right could you identify your client sure my property the uh client is philly continental
sales llc he is the uh that is the owner of the property and the principal akeem presley is here
joining me okay our vice chair has a few questions council do you agree to weigh the reading of the
refusal or stipulate to its accuracy so waived and stipulated mr vice chair understood have
you emailed in all the uh prior proper documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing they were sent over the weekend mr vice chair which
i believe would make them actually one day late but they are complete and in your possession
thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
and is everyone able to see we can sir great thank you and uh good to see you again mr chairman
uh in the same day i apologize for not getting these listed together i didn't realize they were
split until the notices were out um to be as brief as possible at the time you should have
a complete exhibit package which includes the tax clearances required the plans and specifications
the close-up views and the curve views of the posting the and the um rco recommendation of the
or the the opposition i should say of the um coordinating rco um just to re-familiarize you
with the property this is the neighboring lot to the other lot it is a vacant lot it was not made
vacant by my client. It was demolished long before he owned it. If I could, to address the
refusal, we're seeking to change a single-family zoning to multifamily, specifically four units.
We also are looking for variance for the dimensional standards. We're proposing 54.5%
of the occupied area from 50, which will also impact the required parking in the residential
district. Members of the board, the main issue with this is that because this is a vacant property
and you can see the condition of the vacancy, it does present some uniqueness to the owner of the
lot. Times have substantially changed from the neighboring properties when they were built and
Times have substantially changed from the neighboring properties when they were built and the economic viability of those.
the economic viability of those.
To construct a single family residence in this neighborhood on these type of lots would just be economically not feasible for my client.
They're just frankly not something that could be reached in a price point in that neighborhood that you could ever hope to complete.
You're looking at spending at least $400,000 or $500,000 in construction alone, which would
just put it unattainable when you consider that somebody needs to make a profit and so
forth.
This will not alter the neighborhood in any way.
There are several multifamily units right on this block, specifically 4702, 4700, 4628,
4625 is a 15-unit structure.
4628 is six units, which was just granted on July of 2022.
As I let the board know this morning, directly across the street is this large 90 unit proposed structure that's under construction.
So to say that my client seeking to build four units is somehow going to substantially alter this neighborhood.
Just couldn't be accurate to give you further idea of what this looks like.
This is Wayne Avenue right here at the bottom. My client's building is right here. As I mentioned, 4628 was just recently granted, fairly recently. And considering that Mr. Presley's application is for a vacant lot, I think he's showing uniqueness of his application for what he's trying to do.
um i really can't uh emphasize enough just how not viable it is to do any other project here
one thing i will note which is different from this morning's hearing i was presented
i guess apparently the solo rco uh who spoke at the hearing this morning sent a notice last night
i wasn't aware of that it was forwarded to me this morning was sent to attorney ritala which
I think may have been a substantial factor in the other lot not being approved, I subsequently
conferred with Mr. Ritalo, who was the owner's representative at the meeting, who says that
all the plans were made available.
I also note that that meeting was held on January 16th, 2024, and we never received
any subsequent requests for changes to our plans or anything else of that nature.
So I also think the fact that we only became aware of their opposition this morning is just not something that we could possibly or conceivably address.
Obviously, we're willing to make any type of reasonable accommodation that any of the RCOs have.
And if that necessitates further speaking to them in light of this letter, if their position is they're here today and their position is to be opposition, we're certainly willing to do that if it'll further the project.
but i do think that including it in you know the opposition to the to this project at this point
is something that frankly is prejudicing mr presley and not something that we can adequately
respond to um if i could just go back to the package pointing just again to the same structure
and just to make clear this is not to combine these lots or to make this in any type of single
structure. This is its own standalone building from the neighboring property of 4706, or I'm
sorry, 04. They're separate, they're apart, they're not to be confused as a single entity or a single
project. I would like to, and another note, the large property 4701, or 4700, which is across the
street, while it was done as a right, the most, the prior last zoning entry in the city system
back in, I think that it is 2008, you know, that was changed. So it's like we're applying
one set of circumstance to Mr. Presley, but, you know, we can do 90 units right across the street.
Mr. Presley's from Germantown. He grew up a short way from here. His grandmother lives there. He's
probably done seven or eight of these types of projects in his neighborhood where he grew up.
I'd ask that the board give him this variance.
And with that, I'm ready to call Mr. Presley unless you have direct questions for me.
I want to bring Mr. Presley in to adopt your testimony.
Mr. Presley, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.