basement correct okay so what's the plan for the egress well um on the alleyway uh on the side
three foot alley we could add egress where the uh the gym is you have the hvac there i mean
The other issue, you know, that I'm going to speak on is the fact that the bedroom is off of the backyard in a unit.
So there's no other access to the backyard except through that bedroom, which is always a bad situation when you've got, you know, units that have more than, that are not efficiencies, essentially.
um so it's resident useless and you're you know you're doing all this work creating all these
stairways and all these openings but you force people to go through a bedroom to go to a backyard
which i think is um it's not the it's horrible other questions
and the other thing what do you what's the trash plan well trash is um picked up in this
neighborhood on um in terms of in terms of storage how is your trash stored where you
plan to store your trash well the trash would be stored um in units until that monday when
trash is collected is there if you have dedicated trash rooms in the units and ventilated
danny can you speak to that i i we actually we do it in a basement in the front where the staircases
uh we we could put two trash cans down in the basement so that's that'll be ventilated
so your plan now is to do trash cans in the in that uh basement area under the porch correct
okay what's the depth of the basement below grade uh approximately seven foot six no what's the
depth of the basement below the i'm sorry below grade uh the four four foot four and a half foot
And then just to confirm, the first unit is the basement, the first floor, and then the
front portion of the second floor.
Second floor, right.
what what is the deck up is there a deck on the second floor is that a note that says deck
there's no no there's no in the breezeway what is that is oh is that that first floor
there's no no there's no data in the breezeway what is that is that
just extends beyond it oh that's the roof below okay i don't think i'm going to slow down i don't
think we're still down i'm going to be in now if it's not going to come back here
questions or comments for our attorney um yes uh attorney valentine you need to have your client
adopt uh your testimony what's that he needs to have his client adopt his testimony he didn't
he didn't do that uh okay mr lee can you affirm that um my testimony today has been um true and
correct yes questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands landing commission
thank you chairman and good morning david effecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential
single-family zoning of this location. The city rezoned this neighborhood in 2015 in accord with
recommendations in the comprehensive plan. At that time, this block was zoned RM1, residential
multi-family. Most of the homes on the north side of this block face have three dwelling units,
so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant a proposed use variance for two
dwelling units. MI 2025 007 716 4045 Spring Garden Street, I vote no. Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no. Tynetta Graham, my vote is no. Ryan McAdams, my vote is no.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is no. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Number 13 and 18 on the list, MI 2026-002-138-828 Ritner Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
We do have letters and positions of opposition to this project.
good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes my name is zenjin z-h-e-n-j-i-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do counsel could you identify your client a relationship to this
property. Yes, my client is Ms. Tsleijan Deng, the owner of the property. Right, and our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of this hearing?
Yes. And do you waive the reason of your refusal simply to its accuracy? I do. All right, thank you.
You can share your screen and proceed with the case. Thank you. I'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted as
exhibits. It should be coming up on the screen. Yes, sir. Thank you. So this is an application
for the property located at 828 Rittner Street. The refusal indicates that we are asking for a
two-family household living in a CMX1 district. In the CMX1 district, normally whatever is the
most restrictive residential district next to the property would be also the restriction against
this property. The most restrictive being RSA 5 near this property. Therefore, our request for
two-family household living was refused. We met with the RCO. I actually have the RCO letter as
a separate attachment exhibit because at the time we submitted our exhibits, we did not have their
feedback yet that was received today by my office i will address their comments as far as their
basis for refusal and opposition so as the board can see this is a corner property but it is a
corner property on a small side street that also faces retner street there are multiple of these
little streets between the major streets such as 8th street to 9th street and this property itself
falls kind of in the in the corner type situation without being really on a commercial type corridor
street such as 8th street which is a lot more active this property was purchased by my client
buying in 2021.
And at the time of purchase, the property was previously zoned as a CMX-1 with a vacant commercial space and two residential units.
And at the time of purchase, the property was
my client had to do some work on the exterior at the time because at the time of purchase
the certificate the property certificate indicated there were some requirements that
has to be met including exterior repairs as well as mechanicals being installed uh before
I'm going to zoom into the plants uh this is the layout that we are proposing but
But the history of it is that after purchase, after some of that work was done, the property
was put into use and then got a violation for getting rental licenses as well as updating
the use permit.
So at the time, she hired an expediter who applied for a use permit that was indicated
it as vacant commercial on one unit, and it's the way that it was applied for. That was approved
and essentially carries over to the current situation where after about a year of trying
to rent this commercial space, my client decided to simply convert it to a residential unit because
it wasn't really renting for that period. That is what triggered the current violation.
Now, the RCO's letter primarily objects in that one, they indicated there are multiple violations
on the property. That is simply not true. There are only two open violations. I think the RCO's
looking at atlas which any property will have all its prior violations in history listed as
violations which yes there are in history of this property probably some 30 some violations
but there actually was only four or five relating to what i just discussed since my client purchased
and none of those violations related to uh the claim of trash or anything of that nature the
the property itself was updated over time. And I think the fact that it was purchased with some
vacancy and needed some work at the time of purchase essentially affected the prior variance
approvals or the prior approved uses of the two family and vacant commercial that was actually
obtained by my client at the time of purchase. What I'm going to do is I'm going to actually
show the board uh the property certificate real quick that was the uh issue to my client at the
time of the um the purchase so this this property was purchased in uh april of 2021 by my client
from a Mr. Michael Chen. And at the time, the property was a vacant non-residential space and
two dwelling units on the city records. However, it does say that at the time that additional work
needs to be done before it can be occupied or certified as fit, because there was exterior
cracks, siding falling off that the city felt was unfit for occupancy, and there were mechanicals
missing. So that was part of the work that was done after acquisition. Those items were actually
cleared by the city as complied and removed as any violations in June of that year. So that was
taken care of relatively quickly. So my client was under the impression, of course, that she is
acquiring a vacant commercial and two residential units at the time. Ultimately, she was still
having a lot of problems getting the vacant commercial leased. When the next time she went
for permits, that was still applied through the city as again as vacant because it was still not
rented so that frustration eventually led her to make the current design of making the vacant
commercial into a residential the original layout of the second residential unit that was actually
partially in the basement and in the back half of the first floor she understands that that basement
basement area in the back first floor is not really conducive to good residential living
area in the back first floor is not really conducive to
that is why she actually only wanted the front uh part that was commercial converted to a
residential unit and keep the second floor unit which already existed the way it is
she's not looking to use or want to have the other piece as a residential unit that would simply be
used for storage and utilities there the way this property is laid out the basement front already
has washer dryer and the trash area that can be accessed by belco doors the building is at 100
lock coverage so there's unfortunately no rear yard space available to the building
so for the layout of the actual residential spaces this was the former commercial space that
the community feels would be viable at this point it's about 30 32 feet deep by 15.
it doesn't have access to the basement because the prior owner actually built a party wall here
and made this into a residential unit which actually was by the original permit permitted
so it wasn't done illegally but it certainly isn't helpful to the commercial space
being rented out what my client wants to do is to make this the a small single bedroom residence
and keep the existing second floor the way it is as well it's access so the first floor will
be accessed from the corner entry there's a secondary door on the side of the building
that leads straight up into the second floor, which is its entire space. And then a third door,
actually existing door on the back of the building as part of an addition as well,
that used to lead to what would be a third unit in essence. My client does not want to
have this used as a residential unit and would prefer to have it as storage
and utilities for the basement, and then keep the existing washer-dryer, which is accessible by both
units, in the front as is. So from the standpoint of other properties in the area that are similar
in that they are on the corner of a small street like my client's property, further down the street
there's another small street, Meldred, which is 814, 816, approximately those numbers for
Rittner Street. They're very similar in that there are also corner properties like this on
a small street. All of those are duplexes. There are really no active commercial activities on
Rittner Street itself, although there are active commercial activities on 8th Street, which is
another block down from this small street towards the next corner. The building here is zoned as a
contractor office slash single family, although I don't know if it's active as a contractor office.
But generally speaking, the smaller street corners have been used as duplexes. And we believe that
that is actually the best and most fitting use of a property like this, given its prior
permit for the use as a duplex, as well as having the, and here's the permit that was
obtained back. This is going back quite a few years. But as you can see, at one point,
the owner did obtain a permit for both the retail store on the first floor and one dwelling
unit in the basement and the first floor rear and second floor dwelling unit so the renovations done
to the property at least structurally was done long before my client purchased the property
so that particular setup does bring a level of hardship to my client to now comply with what
the community wants which is uh basically one single unit with just a commercial on the first
floor, we again submit that the location of this property on a small corner street
already limits any kind of commercial activity that possibly could go into this space. And
the layout of the space makes it even further more difficult to meet what the community is asking for.
With the RCO letter, I do want to share that briefly with the board because I did receive it.
I do want to show that the letter itself, the vote is kind of split, with support and non-opposition being two.
the vote is kind of split with support non-opposition being two and then opposed being
two. And again, they're saying there are over 23 violations. That's all the violations in history
listed on the property. You can see from the photos that were taken of the property that
trash is not omnipresent. There was in fact no trash in front of the property in the photos.
And while we understand that any property is viable as a single-family home,
the hardship here is we don't believe the commercial is truly viable at this location,
given its physical proximity to Rittner and a small side street.
So that is the reason we're asking for the board's favorable review of our request to
use this property as a two-family dwelling with the layout as presented in the plan.
I do believe my client should be here for and would be able to confirm my testimony as well
as I will now put the original exhibit back up so that I can answer questions.
Sure. Thank you. Why don't we bring your client on?
Ms. Dunn, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Let me put this to the, my apologies. I'm going to move this to the plans.
did you say miss dunn uh yeah uh dng should be her last name all right
this stone
i don't see anyone with that name let me let me verify that
Yeah, it's Tsui Jindong is the full name.
D-U-N-G?
D-E-N-G.
Oh, sorry.
No, they're not in the audience.
Counsel, you're an officer of the court.
We'll have to take your testimony, okay?
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
I'm going to move back to the plans for the board.
I have a number of questions.
So, one, I think, you know, there are currently, since your client bought the property, there are nine L&I violations on this property.
All seem to be for property maintenance, incorrect use, or construction being done without permits.
And so, I just want sort of clarity around when the property got to the condition as shown in the plans and the photos.
so the the original so at the time it was purchased there were already um some violations
that were carried over from i'm only talking about the nine since your client there yes there
are many from before there are nine cents there so there was a series of them right around 2023
three. Um, and that's where an application was actually made, uh, by an expediter to have
the zoning updated with vacant commercial and single family, uh, that those violations were
relating to also to use. And, um, I believe property having the proper permits for the
use that were in place uh then there was the more recent violations were actually dated i believe
2026 or 2025 for the current use because she converted the commercial space into a residential
unit right yeah so that was done so we're confirmed the conversion did happen without permits
that's correct okay and like this you're so you're saying the wall that bifurcates the first floor
was there at purchase and there was actually three there were two residential units at purchase
and the front half of the first floor was a vacant commercial space correct so the only work that
your client did is in the now front apartment well actually she had to update the mechanicals
of the upper floor lower floor at the time at the time of purchase because it was it was in a
dilapidated condition. So mechanicals were done. Exterior walls were updated. So the current
awning type section and the brick upper facade were done by my client as well.
Because they used to have...
A lot of work that was done without permits.
Those were actually inspected and complied. So I think those were done...
Are you sure? Because I'm seeing no record of building permits. And I'm seeing the only
certifications are only for there's one electrical certification and i'm seeing a certification
for the fire suppression system only um i i'm not sure why that why the inspectors at the