Mr. Holloman has just a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I apologize.
For some reason, it's not showing up.
can you see the house on the screen now no no okay we see a we see it let me stop sharing sure sure
here we go
so mr chairman members of the board this is uh an application to legalize a carport that was
erected prior to the issuance of a permit um the refusal is on page two of the materials uh it is
The refusal is on page two of the materials. There's one dimensional refusal. It's a de minimis variance. The required setback is 25 feet. On the north side, which is the side closer to the car, it is 31 feet. But on the south side, it is 15 inches short. It's 23.4 feet.
that's a view
from the opposite direction looking north
the zoning plan is on page
page 7 and again this is called out here that the
this dimension is
23.4 and this is 31 so that's
The only refusal is that dimensional issue.
The plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Wissick and Watershed and for landscaping.
It's been reviewed and approved by the Streets Department and both neighbors on either side of the Machini's home.
Let me make this a little bit larger.
on the left side abel and abigail arazzo uh right to the board that they are the owners and reside
at 927 manitoba avenue in andorra that their neighbors at 925 manitoba john and laurie
machini have built a carport at the front of their home we understand that the location of
carport does not satisfy the setbacks required under the zoning code we support the grant of
variance to allow the carport to remain in the current location. Joan Barry, who's on the right
side at 923 Manitoba, signed the same letter supporting a grand of a variance.
John and Laurie Macchini are in the audience and
perhaps they can raise their hand and we can
hear from them.
Mr. O'Brien, the issue is there's just one zoning refusal, am I right?
Instead of 25 feet, it's 23.4?
Yes, here it is.
Gloria Machini has been allowed to speak. Please unmute.
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's sonographer?
Lori Machini, it's
legally Gloria though, Gloria Machini
G-L-O-R-I-A
My last name is Sheeney, M-I-C-H-I-N-I
You swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth. I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Lori, did you hear my testimony?
I did.
Is it truthful? Yes.
You adopt it as your own? I do.
Thank you, Lori.
all right questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from
our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair this is keith davis city planning
commission staff the required front setback for this single family detached rsd3 lot is 25 feet
which should be measured from the front of the structure to the nearest part of the front property
line so in this case the front property line is actually 12 and a half feet in from the street
curb so uh that the measure here the 23.4 feet um is erroneously measuring to to the street curb
and not to the right-of-way line which is 12 feet off of that curb so in fact the structure is only
providing an 11 foot setback so the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique
physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used
in conformance with the requirements of the code uh therefore we recommend the variance not be granted
hillary um did l9 use this numbers mistakenly or
I would I would have to look. This is the first that I'm aware that there may have been a mistake in the measurement.
So I'd have to look at the plans and look at the code to see how it was measured and go back to L&I.
Right. So, Mr. O'Brien, why don't why don't we hold the vote on this until we clarify where we stand with this?
I understand. Is that OK, Hillary?
That's fine, Mr. Chair.
OK, so we will get back to you with this, Mr. O'Brien.
Okay, and the record would be closed other than the additional information from Eleanor.
The record would be closed other than the additional information from LNI, if there is, or how that works out, and Mr. O'Brien having a chance to respond to it.
Everything else is closed.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Number five.
mi2023 006089 2000 east clairefield street rachel pagan um mr chair we already continued
this okay that's right that was the one we i'm sorry i didn't have it listed number six
MI 2024, 000256, 1817 South 2nd Street.
Pascual Calavita is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Penn Sports Civic Association for two dwelling units,
and there's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Pascual Calavita is coming back as a panelist.
Thank you.
good morning again sir just state your name for the record you've already been sworn
pasquale colavita and could you identify your client and their relationship to this property
my client's 1817 south 2nd street llc its sole member is william bonforte okay um mr hallman
has just a few questions okay good morning counsel do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy?
Normally, I would say yes.
This is one that was corrected,
and I did attach a corrected version.
I just want to confirm that the date of the refusal
that you're speaking of is 228 of 24.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents
as required five days in advance to this hearing?
I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
And, Mr. Kolobita, this is Hillary. I can confirm that that refusal we're looking at is for 228-24.
Great. Thank you.
I'll try to keep this one shorter.
This is a three-story property with a similar exhibits that I did last time.
Copy the deed, the zoning application, the NOSA refusal.
This is a multifamily in a CMX 1 zone adjacent to an RSA 5 zone.
And the reason it was denied is due to the fact that it's adjacent to the RSA 5 zone.
Otherwise, the actual addition to it, there are no refusals for it.
It's strictly a use refusal.
You're going to see copies of the zoning plan and the floor plans.
This was previously a doctor's office.
Now, we initially made our application for a three-family dwelling after discussions with the RCO.
We've come to an agreement to make it a two-family dwelling, and they've agreed to it.
We would show proof that there are evidence that there's other similar properties of similar use and height and size.
And again, as the board indicated, a letter of support was there.
I was unable to get the actual letter, the tax clearance certificate only, but what I want to show the members of the board is that payments were made yesterday for the commercial trash fees.
That was the holdup and now attached at Exhibit 11 indicates that there's a zero balance due.
The real estate tax has always been paid.
The commercial trash fees apparently were not paid, but they are now.
Now, as of this morning, the tax clearance, this zero, I just asked that the board accept this.
And again, as you stated, at Exhibit 10, I have a copy of their agreement to proviso to a duplex versus a three-family dwelling, which my client has agreed to do.
Just show you photographs of other properties in the area.
and at exhibit nine and show that there were six units and two units right down the block.
Notice, where is it? And here's the zoning poster that was was sent. It's exhibit. And here's a copy
of the property or a photograph of the property. I mean, if you're inclined, I think that this
is sufficient for us to show but if if you want i can show you on google maps a uh better version
of what what the property looks like but in essence this was like i said the doctor's office
in essence this was like i said the doctor's office on the first and second floor there was
on the first and second floor there was always always
always always in it a um a third floor uh apartment and um my client again wants to
make this into a duplex because of the uh change it just doesn't fit anymore in in the area um
And counsel, that's a corner property, right?
It is.
And the poster was on both sides, as you can see.
All right.
Do you want to bring your client on?
I will.
It's William Bonforte.
Or Bill Bonforte.
I don't know how he has it listed.
There he goes.
William Bonforte has been allowed to speak.
Close enough.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name and spell it for the courts of the Nogger?
Good morning, Chair. My name is William Bonforte, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-B-O-N-F, as in Franco R-T-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Bonforte. Did you have an opportunity to hear my testimony this morning?
Yes, I have.
do you agree with its accuracy yes do you adopt it as your own i do
watching questions from the board no chair
no mr chairman thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just quick clarification um mr colavita um william um i missed his last name um he he's the
you said the sole owner of the llc that owns the property is that correct so okay thank you
you're welcome questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands here planning commission sorry quick quick uh this is keith david city
planning commission uh quick point of clarification so the request now is for for a duplex yes two
two dwelling units sir great okay um this three-story corner lot is owned commercial mixed
use cmx1 uh the south district plan completed in 2015 recommends uh actually recommended residential
multi-family for the site because of the site's proximity to major bus routes and amenities
uh the planning commission has no objection to the granting of this variance for for a duplex
Thank you. MI 2024, 000256, 1817 South 2nd Street. I vote yes with provisos. Per refusal dated 228-24, maximum two dwelling units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
You have your vote, sir.
Thank you. Have a great day.
Number 11, MI 2023-006-334-616 North 57th Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from HMC Squared Community Association Incorporated.
Henry Clinton has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Could you state your name for the record and spell it for the court stenographer?
My name is Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Anat, A-N-A-T, Madar, M-A-D-A-R.
She's a principal of both entities which own the property.
And Mr. Holloman has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do, Mr. Holloman.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?