that's the property air aerial view
and let's get to i'm going to move all 52 pages by the way into evidence thank you
and let's take a look at the plan
there's the site plan as you can see and i'm going to zoom in on the photos because
i like these photos that mr toner took
as you can see the the parking pad is behind here
and here is the the rendering we understand this is an unusual request my client is
amenable to a temporary variance I've already spoken to the planning commission folks and the
board's administrative staff on that, but that's what we're looking for.
But that's what we're looking for.
The easement renders the space utterly useless.
Parking is the only usable space use for it.
And as such, the neighbors are overwhelmingly in support.
With that, I'd like to bring Charles Whelan on.
If you could please raise his virtual hand.
Is there anything like this anywhere in the area?
Not on this block, but, you know, it is Port Richmond.
People do park where they can find spots on lots, but not on this particular block.
And, of course, everybody who lives on the block who supports it is aware of that.
Mr. Charles Whelan, if you could raise your virtual hand.
Charles Whelan has been promoted to panelists.
And I have proof of mailing.
173 households were mailed.
And as I said, 64 attended.
Mr. Whelan?
good morning morning mr whalen could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
charles whalen c-h-a-r-l-e-s w-h-a-l-e-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you mr whalen did you hear my
presentation to the board this morning yes is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
yes do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i have nothing further questions from the board
i have a few questions oh go ahead mike i just have one question what what is the utility um
what is it is it water gas electric what's what's electric yeah below there what's what's going on
is that actually well mr wayland would know better go ahead it's it's actually bell uh verizon
oh there you go yeah what what the original plan was they were going to put one of those
like those phone junction boxes that that you see sometimes in the neighborhood
but you know they i was i've been here 29 years and they never did anything but
what they have done is they're now
hanging, they're so much smaller
they hang them
up on the telephone poles now.
Okay, so but there's still
an easement underground
there? Yeah, they still have the
easement. Yep, it's still a legal
easement. It has not been extinguished.
Interesting. Yep, and he's
unable to do anything with it otherwise.
The question?
Yeah, my question is about
is the pole an active use
currently for pico or verizon the they just put a new poll in about two weeks ago
so the poll if you want in one of the pictures that uh verne showed that you can see the new poll
and mr whalen why don't we just answer the question that was asked is the
currently in use yes thank you okay and then so mike i know that you got the streets review of
the parking pad and plan did either of the utility services review this no they would they would not
they usually do though so the reason i ask is because typically when this was done and it looks
like it was done without permits pa1 call happens for anything relating to a utility it goes to
state review after streets department, because they usually have a box around a pole of like
things that can't be touched. And it looks like this dimensionally is very close to like what
they usually don't allow. So my question would be, are we sure that if we approve this variance,
that it's going to meet all of the other legal requirements, just because it's supposed to be
18 and a half feet for parking space where it's a very narrow margin right now that we would be
approving. And then my second question is, is the car always parked on a diagonal like it is in the
photo? Well, the second question is easy. No. In fact, he's getting rid of that car. He's going to
a smaller car, but it's not always parked that way. Right. When that car is parked, does it fit
in the parking space or does it overlap the public right of way? It doesn't overlap the public right
of way but there is a couple inches that breached the line that is still
that uh breached uh the line that is still um in line with the adjacent properties steps
okay that's fine and then so the first question the first question which is i think the more
important one well not necessarily at least more mechanical one just because we get if we get
approved here whether it be long-term or short-term uh that doesn't give him as you know
carte blanche to just put his car there, right? He's still going to need to go through the regular
channels before he can actually put his car there. And that's going to require the utilities being
notified. Okay. And then my last question is, so it looks like you had a plan that was presented
by Toner Architects. Was that their design as proposed or is that an as built based on what
was already constructed and if so um what was the sub system that was put under the
asphalt on top no this is as this is a toner came in and gave us existing conditions
got it okay if that makes sense okay yep other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
and i have a picture mr chair i have a picture here that miss taya i had a the question about
the when the car might uh does it fit all within the line just i i have this photo up and i think
it can illustrate pretty well uh the car when parked uh tip to tail will come out about two
or three inches right where my cursor is is and that's in the public right-of-way so the line
that's shown demarcated in the concrete is not this here the property line this here uh begins
the public right-of-way here okay so i was just making sure that the car was not in the public
right not in that public right-of-way that's correct perfect thank you questions for our
attorney not at this time mr chairman from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time
chair planning commission amy boy by the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the current zoning of rsa 5 residential single family the area for the proposed parking
space is not sufficient to fully fit a vehicle and there are no unique physical conditions
or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance of
the zoning code for parking the planning commission recommends that the board deny
their requested variance for parking thank you mi2025 000477 2817 almond street i vote yes
with proviso. Temporary variance expires 6-19-28. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso. Brian McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Number 10, MI 2025-000478-2235 Montrose Street,
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the South of South Neighborhood Association, SOSNA,
and a letter of non-opposition from North Washington Avenue Coalition.
Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Morning, Mr. Clinton.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Michelle Rees, R-I-E-S.
She's owned the property since 2019.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
I do, up to a point.
Up to a point. That's fine, sir. Please proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. May I share my screen?
Yes, you can.
Is that large enough?
It is.
So this concerns 2235 Montrose Street, and I represent Michelle Reich.
As I mentioned at the outset, she's owned the property since 2019.
This is a request to add just a second floor addition to an existing two-story house, which will match the depths of the homes on either side.
So it's a de minimis open space issue, but I'll walk through the presentation.
These are my contents.
A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted.
A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted.
The refusal, RSA 5 Zoning District, 2200 block of Montrose Street.
The refute.
The open area should be 25%, proposes 21.2%.
And the reason the open space ends up being a refusal is because the second floor addition encroaches above the yard.
We're not changing the first floor, so the yard itself will remain the same size.
But because of the addition of the second floor, it results in a refusal.
As you mentioned at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we do have a letter of support from SOSNA, South of South Neighborhood Association, as well as North of Washington Avenue Coalition, otherwise known as NOAC, when we presented the project to both RCOs.
So photographs, aerial view, 2200 block of Montrose.
you can see my client's property is wedged between a three-story property
to the west and a two-story property on the other side a closer view the proposal is to take the
second floor and move it out so that its depth will match the same depth of the homes on either
side we're not putting a third floor one like the house next door that's already there that's 22
to 39, excuse me, 37.
We're just going to maintain our two-story living.
Just another photograph from the rear.
This is the front of the building now.
It's not going to change.
Just another view of the front of the building.
Again, the front elevation is not changing in any way.
These are photographs of the rear of the property.
It's two-story stucco wedged in between the two other homes.
And we're going to take the second floor, bring it out to the edge of the other two homes, and have steel poles embedded on footings holding up the second floor addition.
My client wants to maintain the yard that she has.
Also, the architect is on the line if we need any questions answered by him.
Name is David McArthur.
This is the site plan, existing, proposed, again, only on the second floor.
The refusal is a little bit confusing because it says two-story addition.
I just think the examiner forgot to put the letters ND to make it second-floor addition.
Again, we're going to come back to the depth of the homes on either side.
And this is the rear elevation.
Second floor, two double-hung windows.
You can see the first floor will remain the same depth.
There are steel posts holding up the addition, which is on the second floor.
existing first floor plan living room kitchen uh and mudroom will stay the same
second floor second bedroom on the second floor as i mentioned and there's one other thing you
know i was mistaken the first floor is not going all the way out to the you're showing a mudroom
as an addition and you keep saying it is existing but your plan is showing it right that's what I'm
correcting myself right now Mr. Johns yeah all right so and that's what that's why the refusal
is what it is because we are encouraging in the rear yard we're adding a mudroom and powder room
on the first floor even though the refusal just says the second floor addition we're adding
this first floor but not and I stand corrected not to the depth of the bedroom on the second floor
so this will still look like the rear elevation but we are coming out enough to fit in a mud room
and a powder room so that is that is my mistake and i'm sorry i wasn't clear on that
the remaining documents are what you would see in a typical presentation the application
the tax, proof that the taxes are paid, a zoning map again indicating RSA 5 zoning district,
the deed indicating ownership since 2019, a notice letter mailed out to 174 nearby properties.
And that's a straightforward presentation. So we have a de minimis incursion, as Sazna mentions
in their letter of the open space requirements for this client to expand her existing home
partially on the first floor and deeper on the second floor.
With that, I'd ask my client to unmute herself and adopt my testimony.
Ms. Reese, are you still on the call?
Michelle Reese has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Hi, good. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer? Yes, Michelle Reese, M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E, last name R-I-E-S.
Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Good. Could you please
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Please proceed, counsel.
Ms. Reese, were you on the call when I present your project? Yes, I was.
And did I present it properly with a partial addition of the first floor and a wider or longer addition on the second floor?
Okay. And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, I would.
Henry, you have your architect there if there's a question?
Okay. Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing zoning of RSA 5 residential single family.
The proposal is consistent with the open area and setbacks of neighboring properties.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their requested variance for open area.
Thank you.
MI-2025-00478-2235
Montrose Street. I vote yes.
Johns, my vote is yes.
Terrell Gaston, my vote is yes.