torn down three times so i just i'm wondering like the amount of work it's going to take to bring it
up to code is tremendous it does sound like your client has a construction company but like what
is driving the decision to try to like salvage it versus just start over from scratch i can answer
that um all that happened prior to me well some of it came up during my ownership but
before i per before i purchased the property most of them violations were in the inside the wall
all that which i didn't know because they already did some repairs that i didn't know of
so when L&I finally uh well when it came around for them to demo it I had no knowledge of it
that's why I went to bat with L&I not that I wanted to but I I thought I put in too much
already or put in enough already to save it versus starting all over from scratch
and uh it worked out in my favor i guess um because i did uh repair the wall that they
were saying uh was imminently dangerous because everything else was done before me uh fixing it
which ellen i didn't know of because uh some of the pictures they pulled up i'd never seen it before
and when they showed me i mean it was the same property but i never seen it in that condition
so they just said all right well fix this and then we'll see what happens next and i did and then
you know they ruled in my favor that it was okay okay and then i just when you purchase
the property did you run a title report or did you get a certification of any status of the property
at the time of purchase? I did not, which is, you know, bad on my part and is a lesson well
learned. Okay. I have no further questions. And that was what I was going to say.
If you're making an investment in a property, there are different tools available to help you
to know whether this property is zoned as you need for whatever it is that you were planning
to do including getting a city certification and then that at least would tell you it would have
told you uh how this property was last zoned and or used and it would also have put um if there was
a demo order that had been right because they take a little bit of work to uh get lni to do it
to uh get l and i to do it um and uh so you know it's it's just prudent and um title insurance
Um, and, uh, so, you know.
that also helps because then they look into the title and they look into one of the things they
have to look into is the use of the property right okay so these are all things which help you and
then you know you're not surprised uh when you you know go to do what you want to do and you find out
oh now i have to apply for variances and what have you yeah i was definitely surprised yeah well the
other thing is you can do an agreement of sale with a contingency in it right which means you
have to have an attorney and um and it can say you know if i can't do what i want to do with this
property you know then um i don't have to go through with this sale which saves you too i'll
boast that luckily for Mr. Ponzo, he and I are now working together. So I think these issues
will not be issues going forward. Right. Questions for our attorney? Yes, I just wanted to make sure
with regard to posting of the property, it was a little unclear to make sure that the poster was
correct. So I would like if either you or your client could, you know, indicate on the record
that the property was posted for this hearing today i'm happy to it was actually posted uh on
the front and the back i think it was originally not posted the same day on the back because it
does the property does continue all the way to the rear street so it was posted both on the front and
back yes more than 21 days in advance for this hearing for this hearing yes thank you questions
or comments from the virtual audience i see no hands here planning commission
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff. The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from the existing RSA 5 residential single family to RM1 residential multifamily.
This property was rezoned in to RSA 5 in 2014 and a council-supported map change.
Under the comprehensive plan recommended zoning of RM1, based on lot size, they would be allowed three units.
The Planning Commission recommends the board grant the requested variance for three units.
MI 2026-000551-3024 West Dauphin Street. I vote yes with proviso. Certificate of occupancy to be obtained. Inside trash storage. No basement living.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with provisos.
Iowen, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, Councilman.
thank you very much chairman everyone um let's see here number six all right number eight on the list
mi 2026 002 451 896 north 41st street murder ferliger is the attorney
good afternoon counsel could you please state and spell your name for the sonographer meredith
ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes i do um um could you identify your client a relationship to the pro oh wait a
Oh, wow. Thank God she's here.
Yes. My client is 2621 Jefferson Development, LLC.
And that LLC is represented today by Eugene Nadevich and Robert Sherman.
Our vice chair is going to ask you a few questions, but I understand this is going to be here in whole. Am I correct?
not to my understanding no i don't think there's any issues here um it depends on the rco letter
if you want to wait for the rco better all right we have an rco letter it was submitted with my
exhibit okay we're good all right our vice chair has a few questions we'll we'll get we'll get you
to learn we'll get you to learn hi good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits
14 days in advance of this hearing yes i did and do you weigh the veto now that your shoes
on and stipulate to his accuracy yes i do to both all right thank you you can see your screen and
perceived the case thank you I need to be promoted as panelists you have been
and promote it.
No, it just unmuted me.
What should we do?
There we go.
Thank you.
all right there we go
uh mr chairman members of the board the request before you today concerns 896
6, North 41st Street, which was before this board in identical form back in 2022.
You do have an exhibit packet that contains 15 exhibits.
And as conveyed to the board back in 2022, this is a low income housing tax credit project
that unfortunately has not yet secured funding.
So as a result, no project has been built and the zoning permit has expired.
As this board may be familiar, it can take years upon years to secure LIHTC funding, as there is only a certain amount of funding that's given in each cycle every year.
And having an active zoning permit is an absolute threshold requirement to even qualify.
So this development team is quite hopeful that this project should finally receive funding in this next cycle to allow for this 30-unit, 100% affordable project to be built, which is reserved exclusively for seniors.
So with that background in mind, let me first orient you to the location of the property.
As always, the exhibits include the deed at Exhibit 3, as well as tax clearance at Exhibit 2.
flipping forward a little bit to exhibit nine you'll see the aerials this property sits on
north uh 41st street which is right at the corner of westminster avenue just diagonal
from this property is the belmont academy charter school and just flipping through here a portion of
this lot at the corner has been vacant since at least the 1940s and was consolidated with 892-94
for North 41st Street to create this roughly 7500 square foot lot that you'll see a little
bit better in the plans as you can see here on the zoning map at Exhibit 8 you'll note that
the property and most of the surrounding properties here are zoned RM1 and is surrounded by either RM1
CMX 2 and then of course the special purpose for the Belmont Academy Charter School
just to give you a little bit better sense from the photographs here you'll see again the vacant
corner lot that has frontage on both 41st street and Westminster Avenue and then again this is
looking at the vacant lot from Westminster Avenue if you zoom out a little bit further
there is another vacant lot behind this one that is not owned by my clients and is not a part of
this application looking across the street you can see here uh what i believe is an assisted living
facility based on some of the permits i was able to secure you may take note from this photograph
which is relevant to one of the variances that we're requesting that this structure extends
basically to the right-of-way line and has no notable setback on north 41st street
Street and then again looking across Westminster are other multi-family properties some new some
under renovation it seems and then again looking back along North 41st Street the board will see
here the immediately adjacent brick structure that has a significant front setback which is
ultimately the cause of one of the refusals before the board today and then again diagonal here you
can see an image of that charter school and then we did include photographs of the timely posting
in the exhibits as well which were timely posted on both of the frontages
now before i show you the plans i want to briefly show you the plans that the board
last approved so again you can see here that what was what is before you today is absolutely
identical to the 2022 proposal so i have included here at exhibit 10 the zoning permit history
where again you can see here the zoning permit for 30 dwelling units
and then if i scroll down to the plans here uh you'll see again the layout of the proposed
building and just to point out just so you can see it is absolutely identical
You can see that it extends to that front lot line along north of 41st Street and then has a slight rear yard in the back and around the perimeter of the building.
And then again on the refusal that was issued back in 20.
and then again on the refusal that was issued back in 2022 you can again see that the refusals
were identical back then although the one difference is that the yard refusal at that
point was identified as being a side yard refusal instead of a front yard refusal I'm not sure why
that was because in this case the relevant uh yard is actually in the front so I think back
IN 2022 IT WAS JUST WRONG SO IF I NOW FLIP TO EXHIBIT SIX THESE ARE THE ZONING PLANS THAT
WERE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION AND AGAIN YOU CAN SEE HERE THE IDENTICAL BUILDING THE ONLY
CHANGE BEING NOW THE YARD LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOW IN EFFECT SO YOU SEE THAT YARD
LANDSCAPING REFLECTED ON THIS PLAN THE BUILDING ITSELF IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE
relevant PHFA requirements. The building itself is proposed to be five stories and will include
30 dwelling units, which is the least minimum number of units that will actually qualify the
project for LIHTC funding. As you'll see on the floor plans, there is a small basement which is
reserved for mechanical space only. As you can see here, the building extends to the lot line
along westminster although the lot line as you can see here is actually angled quite a bit
and then it does briefly meet the property line right here at this little pinch point
along north north 44 41st street again owing to that angle if i bring up the floor plans
and again these were designed specifically in compliance with phfa standards
STANDARDS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS, THE DESIGN CONTEMPLATES 19 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, WHICH INCLUDE
FOUR TRADITIONAL ADA AND ONE HEARING OR VISUAL-IMPAIRED, AND THEN 11 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS.
AS I'VE MENTIONED, ALL OF THESE ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO COMPLY WITH THE PHFA REQUIREMENTS
for unit size, layout, any form of special accommodations or in-unit amenities that would
be required by PHFA. On the first floor, you can see that there is an office, a lobby,
and then a community space for building residents, which is also a LIHTC requirement. So when you see
LIHTC projects you will pretty much always see a community room which is one of the things they
require and then you can see to the right the typical floor plans for the upper level units
which are again a mix of the one and two bedroom units the building itself will have an elevator of
course and then as you can see on the floor plans there is a three-yard dumpster enclosure proposed
along Westminster Avenue in the, I guess, what you would consider the quasi-rear yard of the
building. And of course, it would be picked up by a commercial hauler. This is not my client's
first LIHTC project, so this particular development group is intimately familiar with all of the
requirements. Some of these units will be reserved for extremely, extremely low income, and then it
it kind of goes up from there. It's all at different AMI levels. And my clients are here
and they can answer any questions that you have about the funding or anything having to do with
the LIHTC. So in terms of the refusal itself, I'll start first with the dimensional refusal,
which I have somewhat hit on a little bit in the introduction here. So as I mentioned, there is a
front setback refusal here as you can see 12 feet would be required and there is no front
setback proposed and that is again measured basically right from this little pinch point
here on 41st street ultimately this results from both the angled lot line as well as from underlying
phfa requirements that do not allow for any flexibility in terms of the layout of the
building and the size of the building, the unit sizes. This is basically designed to be exactly
what would accommodate the 30 units to secure this type of funding. And unfortunately, this would not
be as simple as just moving the building back a little bit. If you look at the zoning plans, you
can see that there is only nine feet in the rear yard. So effectively, if you were to shift the
building all the way back to that rear lot line you would you would not only create another refusal
here but you still would not have a compliant front yard if you were to then just say well
If you were to then just say, well, why don't you shave off 12 feet of the front of the building? Unfortunately, that would then render the entire project incapable of the LIHTC funding, and it would no longer become viable as a 100% affordable project.
why don't you shave off 12 feet of the front of the bill?
this is one of those unfortunate conflicts between lie tech and phfa requirements uh as
they are applied against the zoning code so a lot of these projects are designed with very very
specific dimensional requirements in mind this is also consistent as i think you saw in some
of the photographs with the conditions of two of the three corners that surround this particular
property which also have structures that extend to the front lot lines so you saw that in the
assisted living across north 41st street as well as with the structure that is directly across
westminster only the charter school has a setback which you can see here is essentially built on an
angle next the applicant received a refusal for the proposed density as you can see here the
refusal notes that 24 units are allowed where 30 units are proposed i will note that the 24 units
does already include the allowance for the mixed income housing bonus so this project will
ultimately end up with a double deed restriction once the litech funding is procured it'll have
the restriction imposed by litech which is actually more restrictive than the one that
the city would impose so they tend to interact together as i mentioned already the 30 units here
is a crucial number in terms of eligibility for litec funding effectively they have told
applicants that if you don't have 30 units you might as well not bother applying
now given of course the importance of encouraging projects such as this one that will not only
provide deed restricted affordable housing but will do so for seniors over 62 that predominantly
come directly from this community the refusal here represents a clear hardship as strict conformity
with the zoning code would prevent development of this important project that directly serves
the goals of the current mayoral administration the number of units here and the variances requested
are the least minimum, as it is necessary to ensure that the project can be built as a 100%
affordable senior project. Absent this, any developer could come in here and build 24 units
at market rate. And fortunately, the additional six units here does not alter the building
dimensions or layout. Let me bring up the RCO letter, which you can see here from Belmont
alliance uh i will resubmit this if if you don't have it it was in my exhibit packet you can see
here the votes nine nine uh votes in favor seven votes opposed one vote abstain uh and it says
based on the vote tally the community has expressed support for the variance proposal with a majority
voting yes so in conclusion we submit that the proposal will not increase congestion
harm neighbors' properties or impair light and air, and a more detailed analysis, as always,
is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 11. At this point, I would ask
for the chair to look for Eugene Nadevich or Robert Sherman, whoever is going to raise their
hand. Eugene, you have been allowed to speak. Hello. Could you please state and spell your
name for this tomographer eugene knightovich e-u-g-e-n-e last name is n-a-y-d-o-v-i-c-h
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do counsel eugene have you heard all the testimony and evidence that i offered in front
of the board today i did would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you
adopt it as if you had provided it to the board yourself yes i would thank you we're happy to
take any questions. Questions from the board. I have a few questions. One, I'm assuming this