Let me share my screen.
Everybody have my screen?
Awesome. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my exhibit packet, my typical packet, which includes
A1 is the notice of refusal. The application was for a permit to erect a two-dwelling unit
PUD or planned unit development with roof decks and rear garages. It resulted in two refusals.
The first, a two-family dwelling is not permitted in the district, and the second was for height.
38 feet is permitted, whereas pursuant to the review, 48 feet was proposed.
I would submit that the area above the 38-foot height limit consists of pilot houses and elevators.
And we'll get more into that later.
So accordingly, we're seeking variances for height and a number of dwellings.
I would point out also that there are revised plans.
I would ask Sharon to confirm that she received the revised plans and the revised plan form.
I did receive both of those, and the changes are acceptable.
Thank you very much.
A2 is the ZBA application.
A3 is the project information form.
A4, proof of ownership.
A5, proof of tax clearance.
A6 are the site and elevation plans.
A7 are photographs, posting, subject, and aerial views.
A8 is the RCT notice and proof of mailing.
A9 is the RCO letter from Logan Square.
I believe Dennis Boylan, president of Logan Square, is on the conference.
A-10 if it's received or submitted a Council President Clark's letter. I'm not sure if that
was submitted or not but if it was I would ask that that be marked A-10. As far as relevant
zoning history 1990 there was a lot consolidation of 2108 and 2110 Cherry Street by the then owner
And then in 2002, that owner relocated 2110 to 22112th Street.
And then A12 is a zoning map.
A13 is the aerial photograph.
So very quickly, we have the notice of refusal.
Again, the two-family household living is not permitted in RSA 5.
And the height of 38 feet is allowed.
48 is proposed.
Then we have the petition of appeal.
The project information form, copy of the applicant's deed, tax clearance, so you paid through 2020.
The original plan, which was submitted with the application, basically called for, let me try and get this in here.
There are five individual single-family dwellings to the east of the subject property.
It's bounded by 21st Street on the east, Cherry Street to the north, and then the street behind us is Appletree Street.
So basically, 2110 and 2112 are one lot.
we propose what is in essence two single family homes on one lot and so in lieu of a subdivision
into two lots the applicant chose to present a PUD plan those the original plans called for what
we thought was access from an easement running behind the five houses along
2100 through 2108 Cherry Street.
That was disputed, so that's in question.
So at this point, we are going to proceed with
proposed rear entry garages on these two houses.
The owner of this house attempted to convey the easement,
but that easement document indicated that
Written consent would be required by all. So again, we're proceeding without the plan or proposed rear garages for these two units.
The original plan called for a proposed stair access atop each unit, along with an elevator shaft on the top of each unit.
There were some requests made by Logan Square's Planning and Design Committee to make some changes.
One was to have a cornice line along the front and to substitute the solid panel parapet wall with...
and to substitute the solid panel parapet wall with glass
so as to not have the appearance of a solid structure on the fourth floor.
So we have these ready suggestions by Logan Square
was to basically eliminate the solid panels,
at the cornice line and a glass parapet wall, which the revised plans do provide.
And again, on the floor plans, again, they highlighted and made those suggestions, which we have accommodated.
With regard to the actual pilot houses,
so again the uh the the original proposal was they would have a basement there would be a rear
garage a rear deck the kitchen living room with a vaulted ceiling two bedrooms on the third floor
and a master suite on the fourth floor all with elevator access to each floor as well as the roof
deck and the stair access again the rear it was originally proposed to have the two rear garages
with regard to the revised plans
I would point out that because the houses are considered one structure under the zoning and building code because it's one lot,
the pilot house and the elevator shaft, the square footage of same is well over the 160.
It's 63 square feet over the 165 square feet permitted.
If they were two separate lots, they would comply, and therefore the square footage would be sufficient,
and it would not count towards height of the building.
But because it's one lot, it's considered one structure, the aggregate of these structures, again, is 228 square feet over the 160 feet permit.
again the changes made to the plan were to do away with the proposed solid panel parapet walls
and proposed glass so that was changed another request pursuant to the rco meeting
was to recess the parapet back the deck back another five feet the original plan
had the minimum setback as required by the code.
We have since increased that by 10 feet.
Therefore, the proposed parapet and roof deck
are set back 10 feet from the front of the facade of the building,
thereby being further invisible from the street.
Another request was at the rear deck.
The homeowners on Appletree Street
had requested that it be set back three feet
from what was originally proposed so we have included that in the revised plans as well
looking at the rear of the property you can see the garage doors have been since been removed from
the plan replaced with double doors and that and and that area would now be used for storage for
the residential dwellings. Going back to my exhibits. So, obviously, the property was posted,
put the posters in the door, and there is a further picture of it. This is 2112. This is 2110 here.
as you can see 2112 is an existing three-story structure 2110 is a one-story structure which
was I believe built as an addition to 2108 at one point in time but has since been subdivided
and then consolidated with 2112 Cherry Street again you'll see these are the five homes that
I referenced, 2100 through 2108 Cherry Street, and our structures are here.
Again, you have Cherry Street, 21st Street, Appletree Street, the Cherry Street Tavern,
one of my favorite places to get a good roast beef sandwich on the corner.
With regard to the notice, the notice was sent out to all the neighbors.
It included the notice, the refusal.
the notice the refusal and a copy of the actual zoning notice identifying the time date and link
for this this hearing today
here's the list of addresses so there was a substantial number of addresses that were
included 163 pieces of mail were sent out pursuant to the certificate of bulk mailing
This was the link to the Logan Square Neighbors Association community meeting, which was held.
I would also point out we did have, prior to the public meeting, we had a Zoom conference meeting with the near neighbors to discuss and try and resolve any of the issues, which I hope we did.
As far as the zoning history, I mentioned that there was lot line changes.
This is the permit creating 2108 and then 2110-12 Cherry Street.
Here was the site plan pursuant to that.
Another site plan pursuant to another permit.
Again, it was to relocate lot lines to create one lot from two lots.
This was 2108-2110 Cherry Street.
The zoning map, the property is zoned RSA 5.
Again, if we were to subdivide it, the deed clearly indicates premises A and premises B.
However, there is one OPA account number.
Therefore, Ellen and I reviews this as one lot and therefore one structure.
And again, another version of the aerial view.
So, very briefly, in summary, we propose – let me blow this up – we propose a tube-dwelling
PUD, which is considerable in structure.
With regard to the proposed construction, it would be, in fact, two separate attached
structures on one lot with separate deeds of ownership, separate addresses, separate
real estate tax accounts, and separate utilities, all similar to what would be freestanding
single-family attached homes. The PUD versus the subdivision, it would be the same effect. We would
end up with two residential dwellings. The PUD eliminates the time and expense required for the
subdivision. The subdivision would result in the erection of two structures and would comply with
the height and the single-family residential use. However, it would require a variance for lot size.
We can get to that in a second. So with regard to the variance requests, the number of dwelling,
RSA 5 permits single-family use. It does not permit two-family use in a single structure.
The PUD is considered a single structure on one lot. Two separate dwellings in one structure is
considered multifamily. Subdivision would be considered two structures on two lots.
The project effectively proposes two structures on one lot. With regard to the height, RSA 5
permits 38 foot maximum height. The roof deck access structures are permitted and they are
the pilot house and the elevator structures. They would not be counted towards building height if
the pilot house was a maximum 125 square feet and a maximum 10 feet high. If you add the elevator
shaft or access structure you're allowed 165 square feet per structure that totals 114 for
each unit total together it's 228 square feet but since it's considered one structure we exceed the
165 square feet permitted. With regard to if we subdivided, the subdivision would eliminate the
height and use refusals. However, two variances would still be required for lot size. 1440 square
feet is permitted for minimum lot area. And our units at the 2110 Cherry Street or unit A
is 1,189 square feet, 2,112 Cherry Unit B would be 1,194 square feet. So when you look at them
in comparison, 2,100 through 2,108 Cherry Street are all 1,187 square feet with the exception of
2106, which for some reason is a bit smaller at 1173. 2114 Cherry Street is a through lot. It goes
out to Appletree Street. That lot is 1,664 square feet, as are several of the other properties. But
But the four at the end of the block are 936 square feet.
the four at the end of the block are 930 square feet.
So I would submit our lot size would be consistent with what's on the block.
And if we were to go through a subdivision, I would be confident that the board would be inclined to grant the variances for the lot size.
It brings us to the old idiom, six of these, half and a dozen of the other.
Two variances are required either way.
and you know the idiom is explained as the two alternatives are equivalent or indifferent
it doesn't matter which one we choose so obviously two variances would be needed
again if I go to the zoning map you will see
21 14 16 18 20 and i guess 22 are through lots so they are so you know they are larger in size
than the five lots existing to our right and the four lots existing at the end of the block
So based upon that, we do have a letter from the RCO.
They took a position of non-opposition by a vote of 26 to 2 with two abstentions.
Dennis Boylan is present, and I'll let him discuss this.
But at the time he submitted the letter, we did not complete our community benefits agreement
or the development agreement, but that has since been completed.
And again, I'll let Dennis address that.
I do have Reuven Mashaev on the conference.
Reuven, if you could raise your virtual hand to adopt my testimony, I would appreciate that.
While we're waiting for Reuven, you have revised plans?
How many pages?
Hello? Can I speak for a second?
Yes, please.
identify yourself spell your first and last name sir sure my name is Reuven Moshe if it's R-E-U-V-A-N
and my last name M-O-S-H-E-Y-E-V as a big term and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth I affirm thank you Sean uh Reuven very quickly you've
heard my representations to the board yes I do I just wanted to clarify one little thing
As far as the easement rights to the back of the property, for the record, it's still unclear,
and we're in the process of figuring it out because it was written in a little bit unclear way
whether we have the rights or not.
But this has nothing to do with zoning or refusals, but I just want to clear that up for the right.
And I would agree.
The easement issue is separate from the two zoning issues before the board,
and I believe Logan Square was aware of that and attempted to make that very clear to the neighbors.
all right so Reuben you've heard my representations are they true and correct
to the best of your knowledge information and belief yes they are and you adopt them as your
own testimony yes they do thank you very much Sean again how many pages two pages and they
are dated the revisions the revisions are dated 11 24 20 if that makes any difference to the board
thank you uh anyone uh any questions from the board no no anyone would like to testify in this
case if so please raise your hand uh dennis boylan uh logan square neighborhood association
hi dennis good evening uh good evening mr chairman uh yeah go ahead to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do and my last name is spelled b-o-y-l-a-n
just to confirm
a neighborhood development agreement
was reached between the
developer and the Logan Square Neighborhood
Association
and as
Mr. Ward
noted there were a number of instances
where they were responsive
to design related
issues that were put forth
the cornice line aligning up
the movement of the parapet back
on the Cherry Street
side the movement of the deck back on the apple tree street side the developer also agreed to
at the request of one of the neighbors that there's an issue with the tree pit to have
that removed out on cherry street and some bollards removed again was agreeable to that so
our documents are submitted and that's all i have mr chairman thank you thank you very much anyone
else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand good evening mr chair