you wish to send that in
you can send it by close of business
tomorrow
and we can add it to the record in this case community benefits agreements or private agreements
between community groups and applicants and so they do not need to be sent to the zoning board
and they're really not something the board considers because it's not it's not something
that is you know enforceable or overseen by the city is that why excuse me is that why mr voss
may not have listed it on his
letter of support.
Probably. Because the attorney did agree to it. I had sent everything to the same exact email address that Mr. Ross had sent his to as the direction on the system about it.
Probably. Because the attorney
did agree to what
I had said.
Like if you wanted to add, you wanted to send documentation, but I can resend it. I just would need to verify what the address is.
All right. Well, we will put the emails that that the letter needs to go to in the chat.
Can I ask Mr. Devin a question?
As in regard to the CBA agreement that he did agree to.
Yeah, but but we don't do this. I understand, sir. I understand, chair.
That's OK. But I just want because he is on here.
I don't want, you can't ask them a question about the CBA.
But thank you for your time and we appreciate your comments.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Were there any provisals in the letter?
I say from the coordinating RCO, there were not.
I did not see the letter from King Sessing RCO.
did the owner say that they were going to do a cba i mean can we ask that i mean
could you help us with that council yes yes sir um so just just to give clarity they the
the rco acts that we participate in like a coat drive and uh things like that we did agree that
we would do whatever was necessary to help keep the neighborhood clean and and care for the
neighbor and be good neighbors did you did you agree to come to submit to a do a uh a formal
community benefits agreement i think that was the question no you did not okay thank you
council was there any uh provisos that were given to you no thank you um questions or comments from
the virtual warnings anyone else i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman
and good morning david vecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from rsa 5 residential single
family to rm1 residential multifamily the proposed zoning would allow three dwelling units by right
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variants for three dwelling units.
MI 2023-003-683-5021 Woodland Avenue, I vote yes, maximum three dwelling units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
I win, my vote is yes, with proviso.
thank you thank you counsel number four mi2023 005 926 3223 west burke street pasquale
colavita is the attorney um tenetta graham uh from the board has recused herself for this case
Mr. Colavita is coming back in as a
panelist now, Chair
Good morning
Could you please
state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Absolutely, Pasquale
Colavita, P-A-S-Q-U-A-L-E
C-O-L-A-V-I-T-A
Attorney for
HASA Construction, LLC
and its member
Jorita Hassa
J-O-R-I-D-A-H-A-S-A
she is one of the
two members of the LLC and she's
present. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? I do.
And there's a letter of unanimous support
from the Strawberry Mansion CDC
based on revised plans.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
or stipulate to its accuracy?
We agree, and we do so stipulate.
All right. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
I'm going to try to do this in a more expedited fashion due to the simplicity of the case.
Again, this was a RSA 5 district. We received a refusal due to the overlay. It was a request for a new construction on an empty lot for a three-story building and two-family dwelling.
Again, this was a RSA 5.
The initial plans indicated that there would be a rooftop deck.
After our third meeting with Strawberry Mansion Community Development Court, we came to provide concessions with the build.
The biggest concern was the way that the front was going to be constructed.
We made changes to that.
And with that, as indicated earlier, at Exhibit 13, we received a letter of support, a unanimous letter of support from Strawberry Mansion.
So Exhibits 1 through 13 are listed here in the Table of Contents.
As I indicated within my initial comments, the notice of refusal is attached as Exhibit 2.
I'm not going to go through every single one of them.
What I'll do is I'll show you the revised plans with the proviso, the renderings, and the photographs,
and just indicate that the prior use of this property was that of a three-family dwelling.
and there were just I gave four other examples that are right next to it with two families and
three family dwellings also and I'll also show you some photographs of the neighboring properties
as to show how this property fits with with those within so this is the initial plan as you can see
it had a bump out and a rooftop deck. The new plans have no bump out, no rooftop deck,
and has, I want to call it, I can't remember what the architect indicated, a stable roof,
I think is what it was referred to. And one of the concerns of the neighbors was obviously trash
location where it was going to be placed. It's going to be stored inside. There is no
uh front storage of of the trash and if i scroll down here is the revised proviso
plan remove the rooftop deck remove the front bay otherwise
the calvito mr calvita
awesome
Council, we lost you for quite a while there.
You just disappeared.
Can you tell me where it was so I can go back?
I think you got to go back a little bit.
Did you see the architectural plans?
we i'll tell you when we last let you weren't sure what the roof was oh it was i think they
call it a stable roof um so this is a okay so that um i'll scroll back up so
as you can see one of the concerns of the community group
we're losing you again sir
is stored inside council council we look we look we lost you again i don't know what's going on
um i got i seem to have full access okay so um trash storage is inside
the do you still have me we're we're good i'll let you know okay remove as the proviso indicates
remove the rooftop deck and the front bay the rendering this is what the property should look
like at um completion notification to the neighbors was done for the third time
i'm not going to go through each of the exhibits unless you want them for uh previous use this is
I'm losing you again.
Mr. Colavito, would you like trying to go out and come back in?
the older properties.
The older properties.
Mr. Calvito,
Mr. Calvito, do me a favor.
do me a favor. Go out and come back
in. We're going to see if that works.
Because we lost you again.
Chair, while Mr. Calvito is going
out and coming back in, we have a hand up
from Joseph Consul.
Is he related to this case, to your knowledge?
a few other cases coming up.
Oh, okay. He just put his hand down.
No worries. Thank you.
Mr. Calvino, are you back?
Let's try again. Try to start where you left off.
Hopefully you saw all of the photographs of the neighborhood.
We did.
Okay. And then I'm basically done. I mean, here's our tax clearance.
Could you do me a favor? Could you show me what the inside looks like where you went from three to two?
There is no inside. It's an empty lot.
Yeah, but you have drawings, is what I'm saying, right?
Oh, okay. Yes.
Yeah, show us the drawings of what the inside looks like and how the two apartments fit there.
Sure. It's first floor, basement, second floor, third floor.
So, let me – oops, that was it.
Unit A is basement, first floor, and unit B is second floor, third floor.
the basement has bedrooms in it yes okay
all right questions from the board yes chair um how high is the basement um from the floor to the
do not see them on our plans
there's no there's no elevation or section or anything
that shows the heights
and and i would you know ask jurita hasa
but uh i her husband unfortunately is probably more fit to respond to that question he's
actually the contractor on it we would obviously have they would obviously comply with all building
requirements and standards for a basement, but I can't imagine it's going to be less
than seven feet.
He's got an empty lot, so he's going to wind up having to do a foundation in order to get
this done.
We lost you again.
yeah the connection must be pretty bad you may have to turn the screen off
sir we lost you again we lost you again i was saying as you can see the the first floor
is actually um i mean the basement half of it is above ground
because the first floor starts one two three four five six six seven it'll be seven uh risers up
so those are usually what eight eight inches i think 56 inches minimum
above ground so not all of the basement is is below ground
yeah i don't is there a an exit straight from the basement or you have to
because on your basement plan you show an egress well you cannot have an egress well
underneath of that porch that covered porch then the front at the other end right
you can't that means shows the egress well you can't have an egress well and have no room to get
out so i don't know something's going i i have a feeling that's an error in the plan only because
we've this is the third um revision of this plan and i think that because as you can see on
The front elevation, it's blocked off.
the front elevation it's blocked off i know
I know, but you've got bedrooms in the basement, and bedrooms must have an egress well.
But you
And it looks like they...
Listen to what I'm saying.
I understand.
On your plan, you've got bedrooms in the basement.
Each bedroom must have an egress well.
You cannot have an egress well underneath of a porch.
You can't do it.
and and and so you see what i mean they wouldn't need some revised plans chair right
the basement wouldn't be less than seven feet but it wouldn't legally be allowed to have less
than seven feet because per l and i you cannot have an occupied basement if it is under seven
feet ceiling heights so so uh council i think what we need to do is we're gonna have to continue
you this you're gonna have to come back with revised plans that you know it's a shame your
builder's not here but we we can't vote on this um yeah i i we're gonna have to do it hillary how
do we want to handle do we need do we need to meet with the community group again because i mean
everything else is i'm not i'm not saying that no hillary i mean if we'd like to schedule
a resumption hearing when the
architect or builder is available to discuss the
plans, we can do that. Right. And I don't want
David taking a position until we see the new
plans. Okay. That's fine,
Mr. Chair. So will we then wait
to have public comment until... I think
so yeah okay i i apologize but i i i didn't hear anything i guess there's so so so here here here's
what we're going to do we're going to come back with a resumptive hearing you'll bring in plans