All right, great.
All right, sir, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Ryder, Kallick, R-I-D-E-R-K-A-L-E-C-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Orfanides.
Good afternoon, Ryder.
Did you hear or please tell the board you're involving with this property in 900 and 2nd Street, LLC?
I am the managing member of the entity that owns the property.
And did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
I did.
and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt them as your own
yes all right so um that concludes uh all right thank you hillary before i take this to the board
all right all right thank you hillary before i take this to the board
there's only one zoning refusal on this the 80 as compared to the 89 am i correct
that is correct mr chair thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no chair
no chair other other comments from our attorney hillary emerson
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Eric Carroll with the hand raised.
I have a lot of time to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Bergman.
My name is Eric Carroll.
I am the attorney. I'm sorry, my Eric Carroll, E-R-I-C-C-A-R-R-O-L-L, attorney ID 205959.
Right. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Are you representing someone?
I am, Mr. Bregman. My client is Dennis Sigovich, D-E-N-N-I-S-S-I-G-O-V-I-C-H.
Right. Proceed.
He is the Mr. Sigovich is the owner of the adjoining property to the north 906 North
2nd Street.
Am I able to, I don't see an option to show video or do, is that possible?
Can I share my screen?
You can, do we have video capabilities?
Absolutely.
I just have to promote them.
Please promote them.
He's coming back in as a panelist.
Let me just stop my screen share, please.
Okay, thank you.
Do I have the ability to share screen?
We do.
You do.
Okay, thank you.
Our concern with this project relates to the design of the open area.
I'm showing the plans that were provided by Mr. Orphanides zoomed in on the open area in the rear of their project.
To the right, which is to the north, you can see that the plans call for a six-foot privacy fence between the applicant's open space and the courtyard that Mr. Orphanides discussed that essentially abuts all three properties,
My client's property, applicant's property, and the property 209 Poplar Street to the north.
If this project is built and this fence is put in, that will essentially permanently enclose this courtyard area.
And my client will not have any egress to the street from his building.
209 Poplar Street, if you look at the rear, you can see it's the yellow wall in this photo.
There's no door.
So 209 Poplar Street has no access to the courtyard, even though they own a portion of the courtyard that's depicted in this photo and included in this fence.
At the bottom of this photo on 209's property is a drain, which, when it rains, often floods.
209 has to service that drain by going through the front door of my client's property from 2nd Street, out the side door, into the courtyard.
Now, that has worked in the past, but if there's any kind of an emergency or any kind of maintenance requirement that requires larger equipment, there's going to be no way to get either that equipment on into the courtyard or for anybody in an emergency to get out to the street if that fence is built per the plans.
So we would like to see some sort of a gate put in with some sort of an access agreement, whether it's an agreement or an easement along those lines, provide emergency egress and ingress for maintenance purposes.
209 has to be able to service its rear facade.
It has to be able to service the drain.
My client needs to be able to service the courtyard.
The applicant needs to be able to service the side of its wall that goes into the courtyard.
um so that was mr carol can i ask the question did you raise these issues at the rco meetings
yes mr sygovich appeared in person i was not there but they were raised
um they were raised a little differently than that but okay all right proceed mr carl okay
i was there by the way um so that is our concern again it's not necessarily with respect to the
variants but we do object to the design of the open space and we would request the applicant
that a gate be put in to maintain what has been the status quo.
to maintain what has been the status quo. As Mr. Orfanides pointed out, his property,
As Mr. Orfiniti has pointed out, this.
his client's property has been a vacant lot since at least 1976. Mr. Sigovich purchased his property
in 2000. So for the last 23 years, anytime there's been an issue, as I said, either somebody could
just go out the side door or if there was a larger issue, the fence between the properties has taken
on various shapes and sizes. It's always been removable, fixable, scalable. However, once this
property this project is built that's going to change things and it's not in anyone's interest
to have the courtyard that's depicted locked in and unable to either access or or get out from
so i have in my office mr sigovich i would just ask him to adopt my test his my testimony okay
sir could you state your name please and spell for the course stenographer
My name is Dennis Sigevich, D-E-N-N-I-S-S-I-G-O-V-I-C-H.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Sigevich, I'm the owner of 906 North 2nd Street, is that right?
Yes, I am.
I'm sorry. This is the reporter.
Mr. Carroll, we can't hear you, Mr. Carroll.
Sorry.
Mr. Sigevich, you are the owner of 906 North 2nd Street, is that correct?
Okay. And you were in my office when I just testified, is that right?
Yes, I am.
And did I share your concerns accurately and honestly?
Yes, you did.
If you were to testify this morning, would you adopt my testimony as your own?
Absolutely.
Mr. Bergman, may I respond?
Mr. Arfadidis, do you have any questions?
Sure. I don't have any questions, but I'd like to have a make a response if I could.
um the the the points that have been raised by council we had a telephone discussion yesterday
and as i mentioned to him at that time uh are not zoning related or anyway related to
the variance that is being requested uh as you know open area can be located anywhere on the
property um doesn't have to be to the rear we often have that as the location uh where in a
row homes style center city. But even as you can see with Mr. Carroll's client's property,
it's being provided a little bit at the rear and a little bit at the side. I could have it in the
middle. I could have it in the front. I could have it in the corner. I could have it anywhere.
As long as we're meeting the rear yard depth requirement. And as I've included in tab four,
the dimensional requirements for CMX2, which is talk about the rear yard depth being the greater
of nine feet or 10% of the lot depth. And I have here the original zoning drawings.
where it shows 11 feet, I think it's six inches, is the rear yard depth that we're providing.
So we're providing two feet, six inches more of rear yard depth, and that's required.
So we actually have more area, which Mr. Carroll's talking about, than we're required to have by right.
We can have the additional open area that we're already providing.
It's located someplace else.
And then the additional open area that is required by the zoning code that we're not providing located somewhere else.
So, again, his concern, he has an issue.
His client has an issue with 209.
We're somehow getting pulled into this.
And again, the extent to which we, my client or prior owners have been pulled into this property, have been pulled into it, are only to the extent that they have an area that is open, I would say, not developed with a structure, with fencing around it.
I think as Mr. Carroll stated, nobody, neither his client or the owner of 209 or any of their
agents or representatives have actually crossed our property, my client's property, to deal with
this drain. So we don't even have an adverse possession situation here where they've actually
used our property. It's just that they had the possibility of using it if they needed to.
And the reality is, is that there's still an open area here. They're still fencing to either side to the extent that they would have a right separate and apart from this matter, this proceeding to utilize my client's property with either they being 209 or 90, 209 popular or 906.
They would still have the same ability that they have had all this time. But again, the issues that they raise have nothing, no impact whatsoever on what's before the board today.
and it really relates to we're kind of being pulled into a separate issue involving those
two properties and them resolving or addressing whatever the concerns are between them. This
drain is not located that they're talking about. It's not on our property. The impact is not from
Um, it's the impact is not from our property. Uh, it all has to deal with them. So for those
our property.
reasons, with all due respect to Mr. Carroll and his client, and we did speak to his client
at, uh, at and following the Northern liberties meeting, my client has had conversations with
Mr. Carroll and I believe his client. And, um, and again, I've had a conversation yesterday with
Mr. Carroll about this and shared my thoughts about it. With that being said, my client isn't
at this point in time taking a hard line position on this, on their concerns. He understands he
wants to be a good neighbor and he's willing to, you know, today's outcome is favorable,
is willing to continue discussions for some type of an accommodation by him, by his entity,
the owner of this property, to possibly address the concerns between these two other property
owners. So we're not closing the door on Mr. Carroll's client's concerns, his issues,
and possibly helping them to address it. But there is no obligation to do so in the zoning
context of what we're here for today, or as far as from the facts I've heard and even stated today
to the zoning board legally.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no, excuse me, Chair.
We have Michael Spiker.
Good afternoon, sir.
Could you please state your name
and spell it for the court stenographer?
Excuse me one second.
My name is Michael Spiker.
I'm trying to get my video on here.
yeah i will have to promote him to a panelist in order for him to share his video are you sharing
your video wait for a reason sir um i i could show you some examples of what's happening um
if you'd like to i can explain them as well are you are do you live in error yes do me a favor
state your name and spell for the court stenographer my name is michael spiker m-i-c-h-a-e-l
s-p-i-k-e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes mr spiker are you a neighbor yes okay um proceed with your testimony then we'll determine
whether or not you need to show something okay okay i i'm the former owner of 900 and 904 north
second street okay and you sold to this person who owns it now yes okay and um what i've sort of
come to realize that dennis wants from them is something that uh that he he originally blocked
me away from being able to have access to that to that uh drain so okay basically i want to be
able to clean that drain out when i whenever it needs to be cleaned and um he's been preventing
me from doing so but you by building mr spiker let's be clear you no longer own the property
right no i do not right okay mr spiker correct mr spiker you own 209 though correct yes
that's that's the that's the kicker mr chairman okay i got it okay that's where the drain that's
that's landlocked back there so i have i do have access to this drain from my property
but it it's it's basically via a ladder so if it was an absolute emergency and i couldn't get to it
in any other way um i can still access this drain i actually did it earlier just to to make sure
that i could um and so i mean i really just feel like it has nothing to do with the the owners of
900 and 904 north second street it has everything to do with myself and mr sigovich okay thank you
very much for your testimony we appreciate is there anyone else in the virtual virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission. Chair and board members, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location. The appellant requests a
dimensional variance from the occupied area requirement in the zoning code. The appellant
proposes approximately 90% occupied area where 80% is allowed. According to the Planning Commission
staff's internal policy, this is a minor dimensional variance and is substantially in keeping with the
requirements in the zoning code. So the city planning commission recommends the board grant
post-dimensional variance. Thank you. MI 2023-004-601-900...
MI 2023, 004-601-900-04 North 2nd Street, I vote yes, with provisos.
Per refusal dated 11-15-23, revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, December 6th, 2023.
Thomas Holloman?
Sorry, Mr. Chair, there was a third proviso on their use registration for vacant commercial space required prior to occupancy.
OK. Use registration. Why don't you say it? Why don't you say it? I'll agree.
Yeah. Use registration for vacant commercial space required prior to occupancy.
That's that's part of our proviso. Thank you. You're welcome.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Nell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsels.
Thank you.