ZBA Hearing - January 15, 2025

the requested variants for two families thank you mi2024-005-356-3519 conrad street i vote yes

michael johns my vote is yes and you have a well-maintained and attractive

Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.

Snedag Graham, my vote is yes.

Iowyn, my vote is yes.

Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, sure.

Number 15, MI 2024-002-165-1328 Fawn Street.

Jermaine Harris is the attorney.

there's a letter of opposition from protestants on fawn street residence letter of opposition

from burr home community town watch and civic association and there is a petition of support

good i'm sorry good afternoon good afternoon good afternoon

could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer uh sure my name is uh jermaine

harris that's j-e-r-m-a-i-n-e-h-a-r-r-i-s i am the attorney for the applicant uh melvin torres

who's also on this call to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

i do and is your client the owner of this property he is okay and our vice chair has

a few questions sure good afternoon counsel do you agree to wait to read another refusal or

stipulate to its accuracy i do and we do agree have you emailed in all the required documents

and exhibits that's needed to perceive this case five days in advance of this hearing yes we emailed

it and we uploaded it thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen sure

okay all right so this is concerning uh 1328 fawn street and this is the uh

exhibit packet and i'll just walk you through it so this is a posting of the notice to hearing

today's hearing notice uh but this is what we're talking about right here it's converting uh

this property or getting legalized rather not converting but getting legalized a two-family

dwelling for this particular property so this is the front of the building

uh it has two garages well two garage doors uh this is the rear of it as well

and my client bought this property in 2022 right here and this is a description of it

uh when it was on the mls um he paid 330 000 for the property but this is the

what what it was this is what it was advertised as which was a two plus two duplex in the area

perfect foreign owner occupant and uh basically that's what it was advertised um lo and behold

he purchases the property and then he moves in a few family members and then he just

And then he moves in a few family members and then he discovers, unfortunately, that the property is not that the property is not, in fact, a two family.

It's not zoned as a two family. So, again, it's two by two.

so basically two bedrooms each floor first floor second floor and this is well

this is the these are the garage this is the garage this was this is walking into

the first floor. Walking and continuing. Bedroom, common area. Bathroom. Another bedroom. Well,

no, it's the living room. I'm sorry. This is another bedroom. I'm sorry. It was scanned

sideways somehow and then you go upstairs into the second floor which is

quartered off with an entry door to the second floor you walk in walk in the

door common kitchen hallway common area leading to the uh leading to a bedroom

kitchen this is another bedroom sorry i don't know why it's zoned sideways i mean it's scanned

in sideways right here but essentially we're talking about again two and two

uh this is part of the living room for that second floor

these are the this is the site plan for it again it's

the layout uh which has the front the gar the garage garages and uh let's see

we have the tax clearance right here

we have the purchase of the property shows that my client purchased the property in 2022

may of 2022 um for 330 000

dollars and we also have uh just a history a license history of what's going on on this block

so apparently there is a significant history of two family dwellings on this particular block

That are on the same side, same block. In fact, as this property, 1328, we have 1320, 1330, which is a two family.

we have petitions right here significant petitions signed by nearby neighbors on this

same block 1321 23 25 on the block and we also have the adjacent on the adjacent block 75 28

2524 Whittaker Avenue. We have the following block, which is 1400 block of Fawn Street.

Also, 1336 Fonts has a history of two family. 1334 Font Street has two family. 1332 also has it.

So basically, 13, 30, 32, 34, 36, all have a history of two family dwellings.

So this is not something that is a unique, this is not something that's unique to this

particular block.

Again, we have significant support.

Now, we do have a letter of opposition that was given by the RCO, and the reasons that they cite is, is that there were L&I violations, that is, oh, I'm sorry, here it is, here's the 1332, 34, 36, all of the.

34, 36, all of the two families.

We have the opposing of it because there are violations and that there are, notably that

they're saying are nuisance tenants, but there's no tenants that's there.

It's my client's family members that are there.

the L&I violations are the violations relating to zoning, which were present at the time,

and it's still present, of purchase. And he's trying, he's here now to try to correct that.

And so we would, I'm prepared to call my client to adopt my testimony, and we would open it up for any questions that the board may have.

Counsel, before you bring your client one, the plans include in the exhibit packet that the basement with two accessory garage spaces would be converted to habitable space. Is that true?

i don't believe that he plans on converting it to a habitable space but i will have him

testify as to that i don't believe that that's his plan because that's not

well are you that's not what he's seeing are you doing away with the garages counsel

the garages are there they're still there but he's not going to make it uh a habitable space

for a living. It would just be used

just for car.

Sure.

So, Mr. Torres,

raise your hand.

Could you please

state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Mr. Torres?

Yes, I'm here. Could you please state your name

and spell for the stenographer?

Yes, my name is Melvin Torres.

M-E-L-V-I-N-T-O-R-R

yes you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

i swear mr torres could you turn your video on please sure proceed counsel

sure uh first of all mr torres did you hear my testimony that i just made in front of the

board yes i did and do you adopt that as your testimony do you accept that to be true

Yes. Now, there was a question that the chairman made regarding the garages. Is that planned on being used for living space? What's the plan for that?

You mean for the garages? Nothing. It's just a garage for regular cars, regular entry for vehicles.

Okay, so you do not plan on using it to, you do not plan on using that space for living?

No, no, no, not at all.

Okay.

Questions from the board.

I have a question, a few actually.

So for your client, the property was purchased in 2022, I just want to confirm.

Yes.

May of 2022.

Okay, and at the time of purchase, was there ever any, like, review of the property status?

I'm just trying to process a hardship.

Oh, so.

Yes, go ahead.

So, well, I'll let my client answer that question, and then I'll answer the question about the hardship.

Okay.

But I'll let my client answer that, first of all.

Yes, when I purchased the property, the real estate, it was listed as a duplex.

As you can see on the advertisement itself, it was a duplex with real estate and everything.

So she got a background, everything went out good, and I went ahead and purchased the property.

Did you run a title search when you purchased the property in 2022?

to yes that's what that's what i'm on the the which called the real estate title property and

everything was clear she said you got clear title okay yeah and and and and just to answer the

question about the hardship uh it would be significant financial hardship to with the

way that this property is fitted out to demolish this and rebuild it as a single family so that's

the hardship it's not something that was created by my client he unwittingly that was my actual

second question so my second question is what was the condition of the property at sale

it was a duplex of two apartments two apartments already there at purchase and then so i'm just

trying to process timeline so you because you received a few lni violations that looked like

that looked like it was for work that hadn't been permitted.

it was for work that hadn't been permitted and so i just want to confirm that you're stating

And so I just want to confirm that you're stating on the record

I don't know.

that the work was done prior to you purchasing the property.

Yes.

Okay.

And then you proceeded to move family members in,

and it looks like you got rental violations for not having a rental license in 2022,

and then again in 2023 for each of the units.

Can you explain to me why you didn't apply for zoning until 2024?

That's right.

The house was baking.

At the beginning, I purchased the house in cash.

I just left the house baking for a few months.

I wasn't ready to get things done.

So when I tried, then one of my family members, a cousin of mine,

moved in the first apartment.

So when I went to apply for the rental license,

that's when I found out that the house was not a duplex.

It was a single family house.

And I was like, no, I bought this house as a duplex.

So that's when I got the rental violation because I couldn't obtain the rental license because it was a single family.

So that's when I hired the lawyers to start the procedure to see what was going on, what was the process.

Because for me, it was a duplex.

I was advertising and I was buying for myself as a duplex house.

And when I went to apply for the rental license, I couldn't receive the rental license because the EFPs said it was a single family.

that's when I got the violations.

So then I had to move the people out from the house

and have the house vacant for more than a year already

and to get this hearing and see if I could get the zoning done

and apply for the rental license and get the procedures done as well.

And then my last question is,

is your intention for this property to reside on property

and then have an additional income-bearing unit,

or is it to have two units rented out?

Two units rented out.

How is it?

It was a duplex, two plus two.

Okay. Other questions from the board?

Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?

I just wanted to know if, Mr. Harris, if you could go back to the plans, because when I looked at your exhibit packet, it showed an existing plan and then a proposed plan for common space in the basement with like a kitchenette and a bathroom.

So it looks like there was a unit proposed down there and that parking, which is required in the RSA 3 district, is being removed.

So I'm just a little bit confused as to why those plans were included in the packet.

Let's see here.

That certainly would have been an error because we have the testimony of the owner that he plans on using this solely the basement area as just parking.

So if a revision is needed.

Yeah, I was going to say, so I believe that's the existing, and then there was the next page that was proposed plans there.

Yes, I, yeah, I see that.

Can you make that bigger?

Sure.

Hold it.

Jermaine, you're saying that

that plan was a mistake?

Hold on.

I am...

Well, it certainly shows it as a common area.

Yeah, it has it as common area.

It shows it as storage and.

Yeah, common area storage.

That's what I'm looking at.

And not garages.

It appears that the required parking is then being removed, which is not included on the current application.

The current application is only for a duplex.

so if if your client is proposing to remove the parking and replace it with storage space that

will need to be done with a separate application right there's storage space and common living

area too because that's a kitchen and a lounge yes also these plans should be updated to reflect

the current condition and not a future condition right so if you need the plans reflected to

to go with I guess to be consistent with what the testimony of the use of the intended use

is going to be we can submit that we can submit the plans for that

We can submit that. We can submit the plans for that.

But that's that. I believe there was an existing plan, though, that showed the go up back up one slide.

I believe it showed the existing conditions, but then it shows proposed conditions, which are not listed on the refusal.

Let's see here. So it's more an elimination of the proposed.

sheet

right because it has the garage here

but that's

and I believe

and Mr. Torres is that what the

intention

of this is to be is to remain