I have no further questions. Thank you.
Counsel, how long has it been a duplex?
uh i'm i personally don't know maybe my client will be able to answer that question for you
when i purchased the property it was in the condition that it is in currently which is
a duplex with two apartments one being on the first floor the second apartment being
a bi-level on floors two and three okay but i'm not sure i'm not sure when did you when did you
purchase it? The transfer was completed January 2nd of this year. Thank you. Questions from the
board? Yes. When you purchased it, was it, what are tenants in both units or either one? There
was a tenant in the second and third floor unit. The first floor unit was vacant, but it was
occupied shortly after i purchased it i guess a question that i have is this you know kind of
kind of happens a lot right that people buy these duplexes i think they're duplexes in and out they're
that people buy these duplexes i think they're duplexes and they're not they're not um licensed
as such on the in the review process or the title process is zoning looked at and maybe that's not
a question for the zoning board but you know real estate folks but it seems like a title report
should show sometimes it doesn't uh and i've dealt with issues in the past for with this exact uh
type of issue but a lot of the times the title report may not show um any type of non-conformance
with zoning and they didn't have rental licenses for these units uh i'm not sure i'd have to ask
my client i obtained a rental license uh for unit two which is the second and third floor unit
um after i learned that it wasn't actually conforming to being a duplex i would have
otherwise apply for and receive two rental license the second rental license would be obtained the
moment this board approves the variance the questions from the board yes did the um did
Did the owner, prior to purchase, did they get a, I think it's called a city certification, where it kind of says what uses are approved for a property?
Was that part of the sale process?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but we obviously got title insurance and the realtor, you know, conveyed to me that I was buying a duplex.
So I just went through with the financing and the acquisition process of the property.
I do have a certificate of occupancy, which I had to obtain after purchasing the property.
this isn't this is another certification and it comes from um lni and it says
what um uses have been approved for a particular property so it kind of i don't i don't recall
specifically saying any lni um certificates during the process okay thank you questions
or comments from our attorney hillary emberson um just just briefly i just the uh what miss gas
is referring to is a property certification um so i didn't do exactly um what she was referring to
um i think sorry i was just looking i think i think that's everything that um that i had on
this one thank you thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience yes chair i have a hand
up by the name of luke whittaker they have been allowed to speak sure hi could you please state
your name is spelled for the court stenographer hi my name is luke whittaker it's uh l-u-k-e
w-h-i-t-a-k-e-r right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes i promise are you a neighbor are you a neighbor sir yeah i live uh five streets down
or uh five houses uh i live at 1468 east world street uh five houses away from the proposed
building variance location i am also a volunteer committee person for the 18th ward as a nearby
neighbor i support this project during the local meeting neighborhood voted yes to support this
project and i'm asking the zba to file the neighborhood votes in addition during the
meeting the nearby residents were promised the structure would remain intact after receiving
the approved zoning variance no demolition will occur the owner and his lawyer promised to add
this proviso provision uh which we also request the local rco to include in their response letter
Thank you.
Did you hear the proviso?
I didn't hear the proviso.
So I believe Mr.
Mr. Taskin has this up on the screen.
This was addressed in the letter.
And that was the other thing I meant to mention, Mr.
Chair, we did we did receive a copy of the letter.
Mr. Everett, who I believe is here to testify from the RCO Senate.
But yes, there is, as you can see, and maybe Mr.
Taskin can enlarge it a little bit.
there was concern that the new owner yeah may eventually demolish the property um and build
a larger one um i mean the property is currently zoned for rsa 5 i mean they could build a larger
one but they you know they couldn't increase the number of dwelling units without coming
number of dwelling units without coming back to the board thank you very much
back to the board thank you very much
I'll see you next time.
uh questions or any more questions from the virtual audience yes chair i have a
hand up by the name of robert everett they have been allowed to speak
hi mr everett could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes good afternoon everyone first name is robert last name everett e-v-e-r-e double t
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, sir.
Just echoing what Luke Whitaker said, and sorry we didn't get the letter to you earlier, but yes, we did vote in support, and I'm aware of the neighbor's petition, and we ask that you grant the variance.
It's had a long history in that property, maybe things that weren't supposed to have been there, but they were allowed.
So the new owner is taking into his hands to get things set right, and Ms. Anderson already read what the neighbors would like to have as a proviso if it's something that would be enforceable.
Thank you very much, Mr. Everett, for taking the time and calls. We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no more hands at this time.
Planning Commission, please.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
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 at this location. The
appellant seeks to convert a commercial space into a residential unit. By the looks of the
materials in the second unit, the commercial space has recently been converted to residential use
without the benefit of permits. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the
proposed use variants for a second dwelling unit. David, but it's RSA 5 right now, right? It was
never commercial? That's correct. It may once have been commercial. I'd have to check the zoning
history. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. So MI 2024-002-637-1821 Memphis Street, I vote yes.
michael johns my vote is yes
carol gaston my vote is yes
tanetta graham my vote is yes
tayo winn my vote is yes
james now my vote is yes
thank you council thank you i'm sorry mr chair can we have mr snell and mr shaheed
vote again because they voted over each other
and I couldn't hear their votes.
All right.
Mr. Snell? James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell,
my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number 13,
MI 2024-002-710-706-South 11th Street.
Meredith Ferlicker is the attorney.
unanimous support from the East Pachon Crossing Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition
from Council Member Squilla. Meredith Fertlicker has been promoted to Penalist.
chairman members of the board could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
sure meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client a relationship to the property
Sure. My clients are Rosemary and Michael Dolan, Rosemary being the deeded owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading and I agree to stipulate to its accuracy.
Thank you. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this area?
yes thank you council please proceed you have already shared the screen wonderful good afternoon
mr chairman members of the board again my name is meredith ferlgar of dilworth paxton uh the
property before the board today as you know is 1706 south 11th street in the city's east
past yonk neighborhood today's request involves a minor dimensional variance for the construction
of a third floor addition without the required eight foot front setback.
With me, I have Michael and Rosemary Dolan, as well as our architects from FUSA Designs.
I'll be happy to bring up the architects to answer any questions that I am unable to answer.
i'll be happy to bring up the architects to answer any questions that i am i am unable to respond to
the exhibit packet submitted to the board contains 15 exhibits including tax clearance at exhibit two
and the deed at exhibit three and we would ask the board to move our exhibits into evidence
the deed at exhibit three shows that miss dolan inherited this single family home
from her father who passed away last year. Prior to his passing, Mr. Guadaro had owned this home
since his acquisition in 1960. Now, Michael, who is Rosemary's son, is looking to occupy the home,
which would round out three generations and nearly 65 years of consistent use by the same family.
The property is located at 1706 South 11th Street, which is roughly mid-block between
Mars Street and Watkins Street. Its location is reflected clearly on the zoning map that I've
shown up on the screen at Exhibit 7, showing this property is zoned RSA 5.
Aerial views of this property are also shown at Exhibit 8. The view from the east shows that this
block has seven attached structures, each existing at two stories high. From the west, the board will
see that the opposing side of the street has six attached structures with a uniform three-story
height, and none of these have any setback, as you can see. From the southeast, the board will
begin to glean some of the context of the third-story editions that have been built in the
surrounding area without the third-story setback that is required by code. You can see an existing
one sort of mid-block here on Marsh Street and a fairly new one that was erected here that does
not have the third-story setback. Looking at street-level photographs at Exhibit 15, you'll
see the existing two-story frontage. The next view shows directly across the street from the property
where all of the properties have, again, a uniform third story. Additional context views are shown
here in the next couple of pages which were prepared by the architect. Of particular note
on this next image here, just showing again some of the context, is a newer addition in the lower
right-hand corner located at 11th and McClellan Street, which is not too far away from this
property, again showing a similar third-story design to that which is proposed before the board
today. We've also included photographs of the interior of the home, which is currently undergoing
renovation. That renovation is not a part of this application, of course, since it is a single-family
home. That did not have to be included in the application before the board today.
This is and will continue to be a single-family home for the Dolan family.
Although most of the structure was gutted, the stairs you can see have remained in their
long-standing location, which is part of the reason that today's variance is necessary
in addition to some of the other unique characteristics of this property.
Photographs of the zoning posters which were timely posted are also included,
showing they were posted on the front edge of the property.
With this instant application, the applicant is proposing to construct a third-story addition
and a roof deck for personal use. The zoning plans are shown at Exhibit 5, and let me zoom in
on the zoning plan itself so you can get a better sense of that.
As you can see, this is an 880 square foot lot, which is undersized based on the standard RSA 5 lot size requirements, which does require a minimum lot size of 960 square feet.
In addition to just RSA 5, this lot has a size smaller than any permissible lot size anywhere in the zoning code.
The lot is 55 feet deep, which is also quite shallow compared to many of the surrounding lots fronting on South 11th Street, which vary between 60 and 70 feet deep.
And if I bring up the zoning map, you can actually visually see that just even looking at the length of some of the properties in this area, which are all quite a bit larger than this property before you today.
As a result of these conditions, this lot is small and shallow.
The structure itself is also quite small at only just over 1300 square feet.
Quite simply, the Dolans are proposing to add the addition on top of the existing second floor.
The Dolans are proposing to add the addition on top of the existing second floor.
They are not proposing to extend the addition beyond the current rear,
so the property will retain the existing over nine-foot rear yard. Furthermore,
the roof deck will maintain the required five-foot front setback.
Because no other structures on this block have a third story, this application was refused because
the third story would require to be set back eight feet from the front, and that would be from here.
However, given a series of hardships that have been alluded to, the proposal does not include
the required eight-foot setback. Instead, FUSA has designed the third story with a mansard design,
which better seeks to achieve the goals of this section of the code to mitigate impact of the
third-story addition on surrounding properties while still maintaining a consistent facade.
And this is very consistent with many third-story additions in this area.
A rendering is shown up on the screen here at Exhibit 6. Regardless of the addition,
the height is compliant with the zoning code. With this addition, the owner will gain an
additional 668 square feet to create an owner suite. And I have included floor plans. And again,
we do have our architect here to answer any questions on the interior layout. Again, this is
going to be their single-family home, so it's very much what you would expect of a single-family home.
As I alluded to in the beginning of the presentation, the property suffers from
several unique hardships that justify the board granting today's request for relief.
Looking at the floor plans at Exhibit 6, you can see the impact of these hardships on this particular application.
If you refer to the third floor where this addition is proposed, the front of the structure at 11th Street is at the top of the page here.
The bottom is, and the rear yard is at the bottom of these floor plans.
As you'll notice, the distance from the front of the structure to the existing staircase is only 12 and a half feet.
Accordingly, if the applicant were to provide the code compliant eight foot setback, that would render nearly the entire third floor unusable, as there would only be slightly more than three and a half feet in front of the staircase.
So it would basically be cut roughly where I'm showing on my cursor.
In considering a by-right design, nearly a third of the third floor would be occupied by stairs
and hallways, leaving limited space remaining for a bedroom and a bathroom. The rear space is
roughly 13 or so feet long by 11 feet wide, so about 143 square feet. The board can likely
understand the challenged logic that any property owner would face in making a financial investment
to construct a third story merely to gain a very small bedroom that would have extremely limited
space for a bathroom. These conditions exist because of the unique conditions of this property,
including its small size and shallow depth. Because of the uniquely small lot, there are
no dimensional standards in the code that contemplate these conditions, and therefore
it would be inappropriate for the board to strictly apply the requirements of the zoning code
to this lot. Conversely, if this lot were an additional 10 feet long, like many of the
surrounding properties, this constraint likely would not exist. Furthermore, there are no
contextual cues since this would be the first homeowner on this side of the block to even
propose a third-story addition. On the opposing side of the street, the board saw that all of