immediately into his home. There's no separation between the operational area and the members
from the public. And they have free access to the upstairs of his home. It's just not a well
fought-out setting. The issue of whether or not this intense use, one, we did not
have an opportunity to see those petitions. They were not presented at
the community meeting. We had no one who showed up in support. We did have two
people who identified themselves as near neighbors who were in
opposition, who indicated that there was foot traffic, that there were parking
that there were parking problems, including double parking and parking on the medium out in front of the property.
problems, including double parking and parking
I had indicated to Vern that if there was no public traffic coming in, that this could be construed as somebody writing insurance.
working with another RCO on South Broad Street. We had a situation where we had
adjusters in the automotive business who set up an office, but they had no public coming in.
So there is a concern. There's also a concern that it sets a precedent. And we have a very
large planning district. The Lower Southwest Planning District is one of the largest in the
city. And why wouldn't somebody else not say, well, I'd like to have a dress shop. I'd like to
sell music. It opens up the door to problems in the future with if this is passed and set as a
precedent. We are troubled that Mr. Banto initiated this with no permits and
And concerned that when he first went in to pull his construction permit, he did not indicate to the plans examiner exactly what he was doing inside the facility.
And the fact that it's been going on for two years, unpermitted, with no inspection of the construction, is, I hate to say selfish, but shows a lack of consideration for the residents on it.
in that this is RM1. I don't really see any financial hardship. If money was an
issue, that could have been converted to a ground floor residential
unit. So we find his position somewhat specious in what he's trying to do.
We'd like to, you know, I'd like to see him get an exit strategy out of there,
but the the meeting with the community what was so poorly executed that it was
difficult to get anyone to show him consideration ongoing inability to
communicate and handle questions from the from the neighbors contributed to it
just as he appears to be unable to get on and answer questions now I would leave
it at that. I have sympathy for his position, but we have significant concern for the impact
of the rest of the block. As I said, we had no opportunity to inspect the petitions. I'll assume
that they're accurate, but the fact that he had no one show up at the meeting to support him
is concerning. Thank you very much.
Vern, do you have questions?
I have no questions for Mr. Melodogian, although I do want to have a few counterpoints.
First, as this board knows, there's no precedence in zoning law.
Every property, every parcel is its own unique evaluation.
So there would be none here.
Second, no one showed up at that RCO meeting.
And I do respect Craig's input, but he doesn't live anywhere near.
Three dozen people do, and three dozen people, including both adjacent neighbors, signed a petition in support of this man.
This man has been operating for two years without incident.
He's a beloved neighbor on the block.
And if there is a concern about this office space carrying over to another owner, we have offered the temporary variance as, I think, a good stopgap measure.
And I have nothing else.
my client pulled those permits uh believing he could do the work that he did he did it leave
all that work legally uh and he believed he could have that office there when he found out he could
not he called me immediately and we've started this process thank you is there anyone else in
the audience no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chairman and good morning
good afternoon david fecter with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from rm1 residential multi-family
to rsa5 residential single family the neighborhood still carries its original 1933 zoning if this was
if this was an office that was not serving the public then the appellant would be allowed the
office under the home occupation definition in the zoning code the city planning commission recommends
that the board deny the proposed use variance for an auto tag and insurance center. MI 2024-002-310-7346
MI 2024, 002, 310, 7346, West Pass, Sean Gavineau, I vote no.
Michael Johns, Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanita Graham, my vote is no.
Maya McAdams, my vote is no.
Ty Owen, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
What case is yours, sir?
Okay, Hillary, I'm getting concerned we're going to run late, so I want to get him out of here. Why don't you come up?
So that's 13 and 14, right?
10 and 11?
No, you got that.
13 and 14.
All right.
So MI 2025, 005, 537, 1336 North 16th Street.
The owner is Ram Hoyt, 1 LLC, and 14 is MI 2025, 005, 539, 33, 38 North 16th Street.
And the owner is also Ram Holt, 1 LLC.
The attorney is Michael Agnell.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
My name is Michael Eggnall, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-E-G-N-A-L.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
There's a letter of support from Councilwoman Bass,
unanimous support with provisos from Nicetown Tioga team, right?
That's right.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
good afternoon now um have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of
this hearing we have and do you waive the written of the refusals to stipulate to the accuracy I do
okay thank you you can share your screen and proceed with your case you know I think you
how to do that the virtual in might have gotten logged out okay
how do you make it out you know i i was logged into the zoom and uh i think i logged out so i
Get back in.
You know, you gotta be honest about something.
stay away from it make me laugh
we're it's it's loading oh good good it should come up here any minute I got my hand up
he's being promoted to panelists share oh great great so it's coming up why don't you
why don't you just start and tell us what it is you're doing here because i there's been a little
change right it was eight now seven so i want to give us an overview of where we are sure so i'm
going to share my screen to show you what we have but we have two adjacent lots right 33 36 and 33
38 north 16th street right
that's right behind the hospital there am i right
i i think so it's not far i think it's two blocks yeah right right right uh this is this
is i'm showing an image uh these are vacant parcels right right now and my client is proposing
to fill in with two structures. Previously, we asked for eight unit structures. Currently,
after meeting with the RCO, we've reduced to seven. We received refusals for multifamily
because this is, I believe, RSA 3. And for lot coverage, we're covering 57% of the lot,
and 50 percent is allowed by right and also in that RSA 3 attached properties are not permitted
uh attached properties are not permitted also parking so uh this is the um rendering of what
also parking
we're proposing my client is uh in the zoom and also the architect is uh also here um i'm bringing
up floor plans there's an ada oh i'm sorry this this this is the the old drawing that has eight
units which we're moving away from so i'm shifting over now this is our updated drawing with a two
bedroom unit on the lower level uh a one bedroom and a two bedroom on the first floor a two bedroom
and a one bedroom on the second floor and a two bedroom and a one bedroom on the third floor and
the unit mix was changed in consultation with the community because they thought that the
The space worked better and created more inviting units for people if two bedrooms were reduced to one bedroom in the lower level was combined into a single unit.
The community also had input about the the exterior so there's been an update with the rendering and the materials that will be used, which is shown here.
um uh there's a trash management plan where there's private pickup that will come twice a week
um for uh exterior stored uh waste which um will be out front there and um that's you know
that back and forth led to the unanimous about the back how do you get out of the back there
right so uh the the back actually is is carolina uh on the call i think she she might be the
architect okay sure might be good to tag in now uh carolina raise your hand if you're here yes
could that person raise your hand please
i have a hand raised from a matan smell but no uh carolina carolina right before that
matan is the property owner so he might be appropriate now and carolina is the architect
i saw her raise her hand just before this carolina yep i'm here hi carolina could
you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer sure carolina pena c-a-r-o-l-i-n-a
p-e-n-a all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do could you turn your video on if possible uh yes i'm trying to work out the camera on here
you connect my
there you go you're up okay council questions for her yeah so how do we access the backyard
uh so we have a door at the first floor level uh there's a hallway at least to that door to
the backyard and how do you get out of the basement the back uh there is a light well
that leads to the backyard and then out to an alley
and also the lower uh basement unit has a direct access to the street because of the
the height difference between the back of the lot and the front of the lot so the lower unit
enters at street level so why don't we do this your architects on why don't we open it up to
questions from the board now questions from the board
how many how many units is this seven units it was it was eight the neighbors dropped at the
seven to be clear each lot so we're appealing so yeah and seven yeah so yeah right each bill
so it's four so it's 14 yes so it's 14 14 14 units um and two properties and two properties
right so I guess I'm just kind of looking at the your your layouts it's
great that you have direct access out to the front and get real sort of windows
and direct access out that basement unit seems pretty decent in terms of size
although for three bedrooms may not be a little concerned about the upper units
particularly the two-bedroom units on the third floor and since you don't have
it furnished other than the beds it's you know you can't really see how
somebody's really going to furnish that right so it seems pretty dense to me for
for seven units but that those are my issues I'm always not crazy about trash
seven units but that those are my issues I'm always
in the front but it looks like you tried to do something to to to house them and
sort of you know hide the trash but still always an issue in the front all
the questions from the board yeah is it so what speaking of the trash is there
storage interior and interior units and then they will come and put it outside
So, or there are that that was a topic of extensive discussion with the community. There are handsome lockers which we showed to the community that are large and enclosed, which would be housed out front sort of like garden shed type of things that are large and all enclosed and black to match the aesthetic, which would be out front.
So the storage would be external.
other questions questions and comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um yes so it appeared that there was a revised site plan that was um submitted showing um
showing the reduction from eight to seven units as well as a slight increase in the occupied area
um were there any other changes um to the project on the revised plans because we will need a
a proviso form that lays out these changes but i just wanted to know if there was anything else
that was changed no okay thank you so we'll just need to have that um submitted um but the board
the board can still um if the board wants to vote on this matter today it still can but we'll just
need the proviso form for processing thank you okay um questions or comments from the virtual
oh and mr chair just for the record there's there would be one page of revised plans for
each property if the board were to grant and adopt the advice revised plans
revised plans each property
questions or comments from the virtual audience no hands at this time chair planning commission
thank you chairman and good afternoon David Fecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members I'll testify for both cases at the same time the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the RSA 3 residential single-family zoning at this location the city
rezoned this neighborhood in 2006 and a council requested map change most of the homes on this
block base have between three and five dwelling units so we would argue that four dwelling units
would be the minimum needed to provide relief to the appellant the city planning commission
recommends the board grant the proposed variance for 33 36 and 33 38 north 16th street for
multifamily use but for a maximum of four dwelling units each and grant the proposed parking and
dimensional variances so i'll do both at the same time mi 2025 005 537 33 36 north 16th street
Street and MI 2025 005 339 33 38 16th Street for both properties I vote yes revised plans
and maximum six units per property and that's one page just to clarify for the record
revised plans one page thank you plans one page maximum six units per property
michael johns my vote is yes with proviso sure all gas the my vote is yes with proviso
tenetta graham my vote is yes with proviso my mcadams my vote is yes with proviso thank you
council thank you board okay um yeah i know i just but i didn't want to leave him sitting here
Which one's DeMarco?
I got it.
All right.
Am I, hold on here.
I'll get it for you.
Number seven.
Am I 20, 25, 001, 542, 1317 South 54th Street.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
we're going to get these in they're being promoted to panelists
good afternoon mr chair council how are you could you please state your name and spell for your
stenographer yes richard demarco last name spelled d-e-m-a-r-c-o right um do you swear
referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Could you identify
a client, a relationship to the property? Yeah, my client is Hugh Davis. The owner is called
Cam Daddies. He's still on the call, I believe. And I understand this is going to be here and
hold. Am I correct? We do have an agreement with the RCO on a duplex dwelling, and we did submit
revised plans yesterday for that. I did confirm their support for that via email. Our lawyer is
going to tell you why oh okay okay so the so we did see the um the tax agreement that was submitted
however the agreement expired in january and it wasn't signed by your client until march so the
i don't believe the agreement is actually in effect so we need proof that there is an agreement in