situation I'm not trying to pry in any means we're just trying to see you may be more in compliance than you realize no quisiera ser um imprudente in mis preguntas personales solo quisiera poder tener un mejor entendimiento de la configuration de como stand actualmente our zoning ordinance recently changed and one of the good things is that it acknowledged more clearly that families come in all different forms las ordenanzas municipales actualmente everyone everyone in the household based on the testimony you've prescribed has enough of a common link that under the new definitions in the code they could be considered one single household which would be permitted to occupy one single dwelling unit could you please repeat that and break it into the new code the configuration of people currently living in the household there's enough commonality that could be considered one single family formula de una sola familia at the moment you said you're only using one kitchen correct the como se unifamiliar legal usados disponible para usar pero solo una using one kitchen even though there are three available three available kitchens for us to use is that out of a preference just all come together and share meals as a family solo unirse todos y compartil do you generally maintain common food and do common grocery shopping so in look in una compra de comida y cosinan juntos at the moment yes but if we were to get approved to be a three uh three family home they would want to use their separate kitchens so the your main hope in making this application is to be able to keep three separate kitchens so everyone can have their own complete or so every cluster in the house could have their own complete kitchen.

Yes exactly okay and the only reason why I wanted to follow that line of questioning and this is also for for attorney fleisch benefit is just to be able to determine right now there are no definitional issues with respect to family presented by this application this frankly frankly and is an aside is one of the things I really like about this code if the main and there's no need necessarily with this living arrangement to bring anything in the compliance much beyond potentially disconnect or removing some stoves if the main intent though is to be able to keep all three kitchens three dwelling units would need to be legitimized but in the event that this proposal weren't need to be approved the only thing that would need to be done for compliance in this case the way I see it would be to would be to remove some of the stoves and ensure that there aren't separate locks on the units and I can break that down into smaller pieces I apologize for rambling.

No.

And thank you for indulging me there.

The main intent was just to confirm that the appeal was necessary and even that a permit was necessary and that the adoption of the new code hadn't made the matter move.

Can I ask a couple of questions of Mr.

Hansel?

Okay.

Mike first thank you for the explanation regarding the new code and the and the household compliance.

I do agree.

I do agree that's an upgrade from the existing code with regards to larger blended families like this.

What I gathered from your testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as it currently exists, if this family were to use the second floor kitchen.

It's not in zoning compliance.

If this family were to use the second floor kitchen, I read the definition of dwelling unit in the new code book here, and it would not be it would not be in compliance, or it's the presence of eating and cooking facilities in the form of a stove and sink or the or the rough ends.

So if it were a if it were a kitchenette type scenario, if there was a if there was a sink and a microwave to be able to reheat food or carry food from the main kitchen, that would be acceptable.

But three separate kitchens plus three separate bathrooms still would would need to be legitimized as one dwelling unity.

Right, and that would defeat the definition of a household use, right?

Correct.

That would make it uh that would make it a multi-family from the perspective of the from the perspective of the zoning office, though the client does have a little bit of a fallback room in that in that the configuration of individuals there's enough of a relation that they that they all would be considered as comprising a single housekeeping unit based on the pattern of use that's been testified to.

And in addition to the the rough ends or the you the appliances within the existing second and third floor kitchen that are not presently used, the locks on the doorways to the third floor as well as access to the second floor bedrooms is also a non-compliance issue.

And that's generally been the attitude that's been taken by the building department, so that would that would be best to confirm with them.

But in general, if there have been if there have been any kind of heavy duty locks that would prevent prevent quick entry by first responders or that might require a door to be broken down to gain access rather than the standard kind of tumbler lock that might have the little pin above the above the door frame that you can never quite get right.

Okay, so you're you you're I showed you the photographs of the second floor door, the first floor door, and the third floor door.

Those don't appear to be those tumbler pen over the doorway locks, do they?

They appear to be a lock and key.

Yes, I do see locked and key type blocks, some more if it were a question, some more physical inspection of the lock might be needed to be able to determine compliance, but we are probably looking at a simple home depot hour hour and a half during a playoff game fix right there.

Especially if it's a game not worth watching like the one on Sunday.

Um if and I'm not supposing that you did the pre-sale inspection or the post sale inspection of this property, but if it were inspected and a certificate of occupancy were granted to this owner, it says a non-compliant structure as it currently sets.

And that would be a question best directed to the building department.

The board probably gets a little sick to hearing me say I'm not a building code official on in certain circumstances.

But you're as the zoning officer, there are certain zoning pieces that are required uh for it to be compliant, and the locks on the doors indicating not free access for a single family and perhaps the extra kitchens may under the new code or even the old code is imply to you that it's a non-compliant home from a zoning permit perspective.

Yes, that's correct.

The the locks in the kitchens were always custom and interpretation by our office previously.

The car or the kitchens were codified more clearly into the new ordinance and tried to revise dwelling unit.

I do imagine that the lock test still will be used a little bit in inspections.

We haven't yet seen one under the under the new code, so this is a little bit new territory here.

Okay.

And the this is under the old ordinance and the new ordinance.

There's not a section for residential conversion of I guess this is a or this would most likely be considered.

This would most likely be considered a town row house.

And as testimony has been going on, I have been referencing what I've been hearing against the new code book to confirm that to confirm that the solution for zone compliance wouldn't just be a wouldn't just be a fresh application because this application is right, or if this were if this application were presented fresh against the new code today, there would be an insufficiently insufficiency with respect to lot width for a small general, so I couldn't go there.

But there would be some interpretive gray land that we'd need to live in slightly to make a determination.

And as a small general, it also requires some distance but uh side yard setback that we wouldn't comply with either.

It just more complies with the the the pound row would be the closest compliant and compliant building type, and that would still only permit the permit the one dwelling unit.

So we can you and I can dive into the fun of interpreting the new ordinance later.

That's correct.

There also could be some possibility depending on the relationship, since everyone is related for one principal plus one accessory dwelling unit within within this building.

Once again, that could be a that could be a possibility since there is a since there is a single housekeeping unit present.

So one way or another, and I suppose this is a bit for the benefit of the board and the in the record, it's a proposal exactly like this.

The that this new code is meant to provide a little bit more nuanced and fine-grained look at, even if it's not necessarily an automatic buy right approval in every circumstance.

It at least provides provides some more caveats to discern between your your standard chopped up residential conversion situation and some kind of familial living situation that's not the 2.34 kids in white picket fence and Buick in the driveway scenario.

Does Buick even make cars anymore?

I believe they do.

So uh one more question about parking, because Ms.

McLean asked about parking.

I think it's important.

As a six-bedroom single-family home, what's the parking requirement?

Or if it's single family dwelling, it would at this point under the old code, it would have been two cars, and would have needed two cars per dwelling unit under the current code since you're in an N2 zone, it would only be one single car per dwelling unit.

If it were one single dwelling unit, three dwelling units under the new code would require would require three cars under the current code and would have been or with the three units it would have and would have been one and a half per.

Okay.

So under the old code, it would have been roughly four and a half, five cars required for three units.

Under the new code, it would be three.

So while we're applying under the old code, as you interpret the new code, if we provided three on light spaces, it would be compliant in that regard.

If you're able to provide three on lot spaces, it would the drawing would need some, or the drawing that was prevent presented would need some technical review to ensure that the parking spaces meet the meet the technical requirements for parking spaces.

But three spaces would be able to meet the theoretical burden by the ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate it, Mike.

I don't have any more questions of the zoning officer.

I have I have one question.

I guess it depends on whether or not like I don't I don't know if anything that you heard from the zoning supervisor impacts the direction of the application or not.

Um if not, then I'll I'll have one more follow-up question for the zoning supervisor.

I think it impacts how I'm gonna try to close it and wrap it together, but not necessarily any questions that I need of my witness.

No more factual things are required of that.

Okay.

Um there may be you may be in the packet or in the uh the master file.

Does the zoning office have record of when I mean clearly there's photographic evidence that at one point in time it was a three dwelling unit?

Um the the age of the mailbox shows that it was not a recent conversion to it to a three unit.

Um do we have any record?

And and I only ask this because sometimes the county and the city are not in sync, and obviously um the municipalities records prevail in terms of the zoning law in terms of zoning hearing board.

Um, do you have any records in the zoning files of when it was deconverted and in any circumstances relating to that?

Not clearly in the zoning records from what I could see, but in the city's master property records, it looks I could see a record acknowledging three units at some point in the early 70s.

So going back maybe about 55 years, this was acknowledged as a three unit.

Go back about 25 or so, a little more to 2000.

I saw the the property acknowledged as a two unit, I believe.

So I can't necessarily speak as to to when the city would and wouldn't have required a zoning permit in the past, or if it or if uh this determination may have been made this is a less intensive use, no permit needed or such, but I can see I can't see records to support the appellance assertion of uh of a reduction in density.

Because I I know historically the city did used to issue deconversion permits whenever you were removing dwelling units.

So there's no there are no permits in the file that you're aware of to substantiate going from three to two or from two to one.

It may be under a different terminology.

The information seen in our legacy system is fairly limited and in acronyms, but there are records that that suggest that the city acknowledged a deconversion on some level over the years.

I have any other questions.

So Ms.

McClane, you said something in the last application which struck me, I wrote it down, uh, which is you like to see things remaining as is.

This was in a different context of a different property, I understand that.

But uh what this applicant essentially is asking the board to do is allow this property to remain as it was and as it currently is.

Uh I've seen a lot of applications where we do residential conversion where we're converting a single family for the first time to three units, and we're very tight on space, and we have some constructions that's required.

This is one that when they bought the property uh last year in May of 2025, the infrastructure for a three-unit was already clearly in place.

This property has been used, whether it's been acknowledged and deconverted from a three to a two or a two to one, it has been set up and used as a three-unit for a long time.

Uh there are locking doors, a little bit more than a tumbler lock that you'd have on your bathroom door.

These are locking doors on individual units.

There's no interior access that you'd find in a three-store apartment, a three-story house where you go from the kitchen up to the hallway.

You have to actually physically leave one unit, go out a locking door, go up a communal hallway that is set up to be uh a stairwell between separate units.

Uh this building, uh when I phrased this in my client, I I liked it.

We're trying this application is setting free this building and its initial purpose, which is a three-unit apartment building.

It complies uh if we go to the old code, this is under uh section 33A of uh what's 660 84.

Uh it has the specific requirements for residential conversions.

Um it does not meet uh section A, which is 3,000 more floor area.

That is not something that my clients did.

That's a limit of this building itself.

Uh it does not meet the area of the lot, which is section F.

Uh that is not something that my client did.

That is something that is a unique characteristic of this property.

Uh it also doesn't meet under the old code, the definition of the parking standards, which is uh section H.

Um, all other issues are met.

These are three apartments uh that are all over the the limited square footage requirements of B.

There's no efficiency units that's under four units.

There's no exterior structural alterations done.

Uh they all have complete kitchen, toilet, and bathing facilities.

Uh the applicant will allow city inspectors obviously to come in and inspect and make sure that code compliance is done.

I don't think that's even something that's a question.

Uh and I think even if the board were to make it a condition, it's unnecessary because they're gonna have to apply for apartment permits and the the city's allowed to make those inspections as a matter of right.

Uh this is one that under Hertzberg, uh, these are a lot of dimensional variances.

Uh they're not use variances.

We're not asking to do something that's completely new.

As a dimensional variance, uh the standard is reduced.

The hardship standard is still there, but it's reduced down.

Uh and it allows certain physical unique characteristics of the property to guide whether the hardship exists.

And I'd I'd argue here that when my clients purchased this property some seven months ago, the hardship already existed in the way that this building was structured.

The interior of the building is the hardship itself.

We have three units.

I don't think there's any way to look at the structure of this apartment or to listen to the testimony of Mr.

Casada as anything, but there are three units.

There are three distinct families that live in the units, even though they probably qualify as a household under the new ordinance.

The intention here to convert to a three unit is not just to make sure that we are celebrating this family, but to also give these property owners the benefit of the way the building is structured.

Uh to give these property owners the benefit of a three-unit apartment such that if family were to move out, they could rent to a third party.

They could access and utilize the full economic capacity of this building in Allentown where there is excuse me, a housing crisis.

Um from a parking perspective, we have six bedrooms filled with adults currently, uh five bedrooms filled with adults currently, with a parking requirement that well exceeds our parking need that well exceeds the capacity allowed by the current and and the former ordinance.

Converting it to a three-unit is actually no change to the parking requirement to the parking insufficiencies of this neighborhood.

Uh if there are no there's no objectors here saying that parking is a problem.

Uh this applicant's shown a willingness not only to install parking in the rear of the property to try to be as compliant as possible, but also willing to consent to a condition that if required, parking spaces would be leased uh in surrounding parking lots to accommodate the overflow parking that's required.

Uh that is an acknowledgement of the issue and it's a willingness to work with the town, with the city and with the zoning board to find a solution to a parking problem that I believe every variance application in the city has a problem.

So is it perfect?

No.

Um they bought a property that has a hardship.

They bought a property that is structured and created to be a three-unit, but it's somehow masquerading as a single family home now.

When that deconversion was occurring, whenever it did occur, it wasn't done in a way to make the home flow like a normal single family home would flow.

And it's never been changed.

The best use, the better use, and the realistic use for this property is as a three-family dwelling, a three-dwelling unit uh to emphasize and utilize the existing infrastructure in the house to its best capabilities.

Um as conditions, the applicant will follow anything that the board puts in front of it with regards to parking with regards to code compliance, whether that's fire, whether that's apartment code compliance or otherwise.

Uh and I do thank the board for their time tonight.

I know with the interpreter, it adds a little level of complexity to it.

I appreciate your patience and your consideration.

Very good.

Um I assume you move the admission in your own.

I would move I think we're on eleven, so A1 through 11 is full exhibits to the record place.

Those are accepted, and I'll pass my copies over there.

Uh I have uh two additional.

Oh, god.

Oh, sure.

I was just gonna tell them they could come down.

Okay, actually, no, I have two additional questions for the applicant.

Um when you purchase the property, were you represented by a real estate broker?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and were you represented by an attorney?

Um react.

Not just uh the real estate agent.

Okay, did the did the real estate agent um indicate to you it was uh a single family home or a three family home?

La persona de bienita is le indicó que era una propiedad de una unidad o de tres unidades.

One uh single family home.

Right.

I I have no further questions.

Thanks.

Okay.

Nothing.

Thank you.

Uh we can bring those two.

Actually, you know what?

Hand those to me.

I gave them ones that are okay.

Just making sure everybody has one.

I thought we'd have to be able to do that.

No, I'm going to be up to that.

So you need a new set of use.

I can go.

Or I can start off.

I might have more to say.

With the you know, the separate meters, the three mailboxes, the locked doors, three kitchens, et cetera.

So I I see it as kind of you know, putting the building back into the use that it was meant for.

Um while it is, yeah, the building footprint appears to be consistent with what's on the block, it is a uh corner unit, so it is a little bit larger in scale.

Um the one thing that in terms of the parking, I um I am not interested in seeing those two spaces kind of wedged in the yard.

Um actually going back a little bit in terms of the conversion to three units.

I think we've seen other conversions before us um that it does feel like there people are just trying to cram in as many units as possible into a building, and this is not the case for this.

However, I feel like cramming in those two parking spaces and that yard um it is doing that.

So I would I would rather see a condition um if we are to approve this to have um you know four leased spaces, the one existing space in the garage, and then um this way that that sidewalk can maintain or can be maintained and not have curb cuts and people can enjoy that alley the way it's it's meant to be enjoyed.

Um let's see.

Um I think another thing that was really compelling to me is just hearing um from the owner that you know, right now if this uh is granted then or approved as a three-unit building, and then he will not have to make any structural changes or any significant changes to the property.

Whereas if it's not, then that triggers you know more change to the building.

So to me, just kind of uh plays into the fact that this is this is a three-unit building, um, as we heard from kind of masquerading as a as a single family.

Um so those are my initial thoughts.

Yeah, I I mean I'm I'm essentially in a in agreement.

Um I I and I think if it I would also say it I uh my impression is the city is pretty careful about not approving parking spaces that would be wedged in or or don't have the requisite square footage.

I guess I would even be comfortable with with having the conversion of the space to parking as a possibility uh provided that that uh meet all city codes and the leasing of spaces be required in you know the strict alternative.

Maybe in a little bit more vague up to you up to however the applicant Yeah, it seems like it's it we're we're sort of stealing their their thunder a bit.

I mean, my guess is they would turn down those spaces uh regardless, and I'm not sure if it's in the auspices of the zoning uh board to make those decisions, I guess.

All right, um let's start with the parking.

I I tend to agree with you or that the introduction of new parking spaces into the what should be some type of yard space, whether it's green space, patio, whatever, um I think is a negative uh and I would prefer that some other methodology be used to to satisfy whatever parking requirements might come out.

Um I have a different spin on on the overall case though, simply that um in the testimony the applicant indicated that he was represented by a real estate broker, and the real estate broker told him it was a single family dwelling.

Um so any hardship that could be used to compel us to grant relief was was known to the applicant at the time of purchase, and he should have at that point in time amended the price or his offer to to mitigate that hardship.

It's not the zoning hearing board's um place to um correct bad purchases or or errors on the part of the applicant, Pennsylvania is a buyer beware state where the buyer is responsible to satisfy themselves with all the facts.

Um and in this case was was even supported by a professional real estate broker.

Um so other than the convert removing kitchens and unlocking some doors, um, there was nothing presented that I can see that that makes a legal hardship.

Um that would now granted their dimensional variances, so the the hurdle is lower, but it's not non-existent.

Uh and because the applicant was aware of the condition and the fact that the configuration did not match the the legal licensing or or zoning characteristics.

Um it was a hardship, but it was known to the applicant.

So the applicant still proceeded with the sale.

Um, and therefore I I I struggle to find a legal basis to approve the relief.

So I do think from a hardship perspective, it also might in practicality in fact be less onerous to remove stoves and locks than deal with the parking situation.

Um it's gonna be uh less expensive.

Um I'm still leaning with uh Samantha, but I I think it dealing with the parking issue would be difficult.

Uh I think maybe more than taking out some stoves and uh locks for them.

Well, right, but I think that the parking issue is much less if it's a single family dwelling.

There's only the only requirement is two.

And I guess that that might would be I was just saying, as a practical point, they're gonna continue to occupy the building as a as a family anyway, and and having them all pay for parking would be more expensive to them as a family than removing uh stoves and and locks from doors, I would think.

So I'm I'm not sure how that uh stacks up in terms of hardship.

Right, and and what's not known to us and wasn't presented while there's three meter bases on the back of the building.

We don't know what the interior wiring configuration is and what that would what would be necessary to return it back to three units with three separately metered.

That that could be relatively simple, could be an extraordinarily expensive process too, and that wasn't presented to us.

So um okay, any other thoughts?

Is there a motion to approve or I mean I I would motion to approve the application on the basis that any parking requirements uh made by the city are strictly fulfilled, that the code is met in terms of converting or reconverting the electrical meters uh and and uh do it on that basis.

Such is my motion.

From an from an enforcement standpoint, can we clarify on the meaning of strictly fulfilled for a minute?

And the in the language of MPC strictly fulfilled would mean an exact compliance with uh rather than uh strictly fulfilled, then that the that the city uh department of codes and the zoning department be fully satisfied.

And the engineering bureau as well, or that or that parking compliance is provided in accordance engineering, yeah.

In some cases, some technical specifications or any approval for curb cuts or such would fall to the jurisdiction of engineering.

Um I think since Scott's uh already has a contrary opinion here, maybe it's best to take uh Samantha's note in two and and approve it on the basis that the additional parking be separately leased.

Um I I would second that motion with those conditions.

Okay, any additional discussion?

I think just something I'd like to add if it's appropriate, um, just in terms of my thinking, Scott, I do um appreciate and acknowledge your point.

I I think something that's a little uh still a little confusing to me, um, but it's kind of playing into my decision tonight is kind of when the building was inspected or a certificate of occupancy um was you know given why the the kitchen conversion or you know changing some of the things that would make it a single family wasn't noted at that time.

Um so now it just seems a little burdensome um to to the owner at this point um to to ask them to was I it was the occup any certificate of occupancy or inspection by the city was not provided as an exhibit.

No.

Was it I I didn't see it in the zoning file, was it in the file?

No, that typically wouldn't be included in our files that that would be another piece of information that we'd be capable of obtaining if the board thought that if the board thought that that was a key fact in the case.

If the board wanted to want to continue the matter, we could provide that and we could potentially have an have an the inspector completed the inspection or or a supervisor here to offer testimony.

I I don't think it's or to me, it's just a little bit.

I'm trying to explain my reasoning and why I am gonna second it is um just because I in addition, well the realtor um you know made it clear that it was a single family, um it does seem like there was some maybe you know confusion whether it's on the applicant's part or you know, just in terms of that transfer of sale, like in terms of what the building could be.

Um so that's just explaining a little bit my understanding is it was a again, it's not in front of us, but it was referenced as a pre-sale inspection.

Yeah, and a pre-sale inspection within the city of Allentown is a rudimentary and baseline basically safety compliance um inspection, has no bearing on zoning whatsoever.

Right and carries no legal basis of any zoning type.

So in this particular case, it appears that the real estate broker understood what the law was and said this is a single family dwelling.

Okay.

The pre-sale inspection is again, like I said, uh a cursory, it's not it's not wildly extensive either.

It's not a full-blown, like if you have a pre-sale inspection, it doesn't automatically mean your house is fully code compliant, as Mike indicated, fully code compliant is um, but it it meets the minimum standards provided by the pre-sale inspection.

And in this case, I was able to obtain a copy of the pre-sale inspection report from our record, and it only in the keats the it only discusses one kitchen on the inspection report.

So I'm I'd read that as silence on the topic.

If the board did need more information on that inspection, I I would advise directly questioning the inspector would likely be the soundest approach.

Yeah, and it could be I'm speculating.

It could just be that in order to comply with the safety inspection, you have to have one functioning kitchen.

So they got to one kitchen kitchen, checked the box and stopped.

I don't know that.

I'm just saying that that's um that could be what happened.

Well, yeah, I I don't require you know any more, I just my two cents.

Um, but I do second that motion with those conditions.

All right, there's a motion to approve with conditions and a second, all in favor?

I and I dissent.

So by two to one, Mr.

Fleischaker, your application is approved.

Can I just confirm the condition on parking that it's uh outside lease spaces to the zoning department satisfaction for the number?

Is that a fair representation?

Um my understanding was that it's the four lease spaces.

So it it the condition is gonna be four additional lease spaces not referencing the zoning department satisfaction of where the current ordinance might be less.

I I believe so, but is it four or three because they have the existing garage?

So it would be uh under the old Mike, you can wreck where I'm wrong.

I think under the old code it would be we need four, but under the new code we need two.

But this came in under the old code.

This came in under the old code, that's correct.

And there's an one existing.

One exactly.

And this is exactly what we're doing.

And this is exactly why I'm asking.

So the condition of the approval will be will be a specific reference to four parking spaces, leased spread out however the owner wants to spread them out through the tenants.

Four spaces and the it has typically included language or such conditions have typically included language to the satisfaction of the zoning office, just so we can confirm that there is a lease agreement in place, and so the whole trust but verify root budget.

It's not it's not a leased space in the conji.

Yeah.

Do the best we can.

That's close enough.

Yep.

Thank you for time that I appreciate it.

Thanks.

All right, that brings us to case number three.

Okay, we're we're gonna take uh just a moment, we're gonna take a brief brief break.

Just question um for my curiosity.

So like say a single family hall was being sold, and they went ahead and did the inspection and notice that there was like a uh kitchen operating, like without permits, right?

It would not be required a condition of sale for them to remote that or like if that's probably in that case it still has a kitchen.

So I think it still probably checks the box to make someone could safely dwell there and feed themselves.

Got it.

Um not worry too much about them using it legally as like that.

Now whether or not they might have notified that might have caused them to notify the zone in the office, possibly.

Got it.

That makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, I just I was surprised when we moved here just how um how much the previous owner is required to do to like get a certificate of document fee for us.

Like it's someone has to do that.

Yeah, yeah, the previous I owner.

Well, you could as the buyer you could always negotiate with the cell that you would do it, and then you have to sign it after the end saying you comply.

I think that they had like done it months before or something, but like things like removing the oil tank, you know, the old oil tank, or things like that, which I sounds grateful.

Sorry, I didn't realize that my classic function right now.

So iron paper kind of struggle.

Yeah.

But seems to be one bit.

I want to make sure that they were on the record that while they're all it may trending in that direction slightly under the old code or the new code, uh that that would have been necessary because the increased line vision for the definition thing like it's presented.

Is it continuously everybody else for it?

Or rent or something.

I think that was the day or I think I worried that the realtor was not telling me um they understood that just because it was single and they would have to take this everything.

The city comes out and verifies that you have a version.

It's like they were trying to incentivize you and for whatever reason this somehow got changed to a lower number that's never verified that it was the problems I was voluntary for sure.

Yes.

Now you saw an application that was presented by someone who did not have an attorney.

You also saw an application that was presented by someone who was was represented by an attorney.

You are not, and that's okay.

Uh and then the the board will or I'll ask you some questions to pull some additional information out.

Does that sound okay?

Definitely.

Okay, so give us a give us a brief overview.

Yes.

Uh we moved to the house um 2012.

Uh then we decided to uh like uh build like uh a small edition to the house.

It's like uh 15 by five, uh 15 by six seven inches a feet.

Then I'm sorry, when did you make the addition?

Uh bought the house in 2014.

You bought the house in 2012.

Did the addition 2014?

Yeah, we've been having like for around like 10, 15 years.

Okay.

Yeah, uh we decided to do the edition because it wasn't like enough like sun uh going through to the house from the ace from yes, so we decided to open this edition so we can have like uh more sun going through the house.

And um Yeah, that's it.

And we only take uh like uh uh feet and a half from the alley.

Um yeah, that's a when you say from the alley from the the grocer's alley?

No, from our alley.

Okay beside the house.

Okay.

There's the alley is like three feet.

Okay, and so this is like a uh it's not into the alley, it's just into the side yard setback.

Yeah.

Okay.

So it's on your property, but you've reduced the setback by what appears to be seventeen inches.

Yes, of an inch.

And did you did you pull permits to these work?

The only things we didn't do it uh that day.

Okay.

Because we didn't do it like it everything at the same time, we do it like letter by letter.

My dad he does in construction.

And yeah, every time he decided to do like a wall stuff like this.

Yeah, that's how we do it.

Okay.

And how did so you didn't pull permits to do the addition in 2014?

Um what brought you before us tonight?

Um we wasn't like uh know a lot about the uh the the law and all the stuff, so yeah.

And no one thought us we have to do a permit and all the stuff.

Yeah, that's what right, but so you didn't pull the permits 2014, that was 11 years ago.

Why not?

Yeah, what caused you why are you here tonight?

What compelled you to be here?

Our neighbor complaint about us.

We don't have a permit, yes.

Okay.

Any questions from board members?

I yes.

So in in the packet that we received, um we uh have some photos.

Um and I see uh what I I think is the addition with two glass sliding glass doors.

There's like a different door, yeah.

So um our and then I see a DAC.

Is the deck No deck is removal.

Uh we don't move it.

We don't have anyone yet.

The deck is no longer there.

Okay, got it.

Oh, understood.

Thank you.

I have a question regarding the the text of our our agenda.

Is is it's references being an expansion of a non-conforming structure.

What about was the structure non-conforming or is just the expansion non-conforming?

It and the structure itself would have been non-conforming, it wouldn't have met area and yard requirements.

Area and uh requirements.

Yeah, and the work performed by the appellant that they're trying to legitimize tonight would have would have increased the non-conformity.

Typically that increase in the nonconformity requires board approval and we're here the appellant is here tonight attempting the clear up their permitting.

So it was non-conforming only in the in the lot.

Uh yes, that's correct.

There are no questions of non-conforming use at play here.

Okay.

Do we have a photograph of the actual uh of the kind of helpful ones?

So that's the addition.

I do have a picture of on my phone.

So in the edition with the house.

If you want to see we have it, yeah, in our packet.

And then there was one other photo here that kind of shows kind of how it protrudes out from the side of the house.

Okay.

And Mike, is there anything else in the zoning file or anything that we haven't that we're not aware of that you think we would we should be aware of?

No, it is important notice.

One of the corrective courses of when a homeowner is or when a property owner is faced with an enforcement action is to attempt to fump pull the appropriate permits and make the appropriate appeals and get their house in order, which is what we're here for.

Is there is there anything else you'd like to add, or is there anything we you think we should have asked?

So okay.

All right, you can take your seat then.

Thank you.

Guys, we're done.

We always bring it back if we change.

All right, at the time the case was called, there were two objectors.

Actually, it's one.

Okay.

She what?

Don't say that because I'm speaking Arabic.

Oh, okay.

All right, so it's one objector with an interpreter.

Correct.

So my other name?

Radastav.

G-H-A-D-A-A-S-S-A-F.

G-H-A-D-A.

Yeah.

A yeah, this is the first name.

Astaf A-S-S-A-F.

And first name of the women for inform.

Yeah.

And then she'll know I'm just taking it.

Yeah.

You want my name?

My name is Nora.

Nora?

Nora.

And on last name?

Say it.

S-A-Y-O-E-G-H.

And it's Arabic, right?

Yes.

Can you raise your hand?

Interpret.

Do you swear to English to Arabic and it's English to the best of your ability?

I do.

Yes, I do.

Do you swear it's all true?

All through them had one true guy and speech over there.

I do.

So when they ask the questions, let's use all answers through the interpreter.

Sure.

And and as the interpreter, even if you might be familiar with the property or know the answer, don't answer yourself.

Make sure the the uh witness answers and responds back.

So okay.

Um so would you uh have the uh objector uh give us her name?

So that stuff.

Okay.

All right, and what is your address?

636 North Second Street, Island Town 18102.

Okay.

So it's immediately adjacent to the applicant's property.

I'm sorry, can you so it's immediately adjacent to the applicant's property?

Yeah, Jason applicants.

It's right next door to the applicant.

Oh I'm sorry, I don't know their name.

Yeah, and then me jaraton but cool.

Yeah.

All right, and and you heard the testimony of their presentation as to how they purchased the property, put the addition on, um, and that it apparently encroaches uh into the side yard set back by 17 inches.

Uh and this Matikal Shuan is set back to the shimmers pool.

Yes, Matthew.

Yes, she had everything.

All right, and what what is your objection to the uh encroachment?

Okay, sure.

Uh save machine is a sarhari uh yes my foot fire.

Yes, no, you salho.

Um is a fact of Nibia bit, yeah.

Okay.

Her objection was because this setback is very like uh the uh maintenance is very like it uh the distance is like it was like originally before 32 inch.

Now it's like uh less than she said is 16 inch now.

So that is gonna be is less than the code.

So uh if any like uh fire happens, so the fire crew is gonna be so hard to go in.

And uh if she uh like even the law uh uh yeah, if she's gonna like has a like any maintenance, so it's gonna be for for her, it's gonna be so hard for the maintenance to fix and uh uh for like uh so hard for everything like to go in, even for her or like for both of them for like her or her neighbors.

Okay.

Okay, is there anything else that she'd like to add?

She said one more thing.

I'm sorry, I forgot about like her price for like her like uh house price.

So if she wanna like to sell her pro like her like house like in future, so because both of them is single house, so whatever like they gonna come to see their house or her house, they're gonna say no, that is not single house anymore.

So it's like the it's gonna be lower than like whatever like she gonna sell.

I'm sorry.

Okay, so I have to.

Okay, whatever she said also the f like the in the backyard also, she they built something for like they name uh chicken house, so they uh next to her fence.

So in the backyard, whatever, like she doesn't she doesn't like a has a like a printer like picture, but I think she has a proof on her phone.

So whatever you want to see, she has everything on her phone.

Questions of board members.

Well yes, one question.

Um so we heard that this edition was built in twenty fourteen.

Um when when did you move into your house?

Okay, yes, I might and no high that she saw extension what the mason yam okay, she said no, it's not two thousand.

That happened is not two thousand fourteen.

That's happened after two thousand fourteen.

It's only been like before three years ago, and she went to the city hall actually, and she uh tried like to um a sacrament elfinut lati.

Oh okay.

Uh she's been there uh since two ta uh two thousand three and uh she like tried like to go to the city and she uh like um gives them some proof, but I think nobody no addresses still now.

And then so we're here tonight, they are seeking relief for what they've already built, but from your perspective, what what do you how do you see fixing this situation?

Okay, and this aru honey on beetle bo and no beton and no it came to shaif a situation and not see.

Okay, whatever she saw like for safety, both of them she wants the extension to remove to be removed.

Removed or would it re reduced to a line to be in compliance?

Okay, like removed, but they can reduce like in no berkey in no yeah and blue and no sear and on Mesafe and no bill code must boot, and I didn't ecternal code.

But they had not seer bill code and no masbutta, so my kunser feel my marmos would be not gonna must but you can and mustafil must but she well and sell and not a dorry.

So is a hada big doing some halas around the feet.

I don't know, uh whatever she said uh I think like the distance between both of the buildings, sh it's supposed to be I don't understand what a three three feet, I think.

So she just asked for the three feet.

I don't know.

From like the whatever, like on the line.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

So that's what she said.

Yeah, it's just sticking out.

Yeah, that's how it's like questions.

I I think just one comment and Mike, please feel free to chime in.

But yeah, we're here today to discuss the addition that is out of compliance.

Um I you brought up you know, another potential issue that's going on regarding chicken houses potentially being there.

I think um Mike, in terms of them, if they are interested in putting in uh a complaint for an investigation, should they see you afterwards, or how can they go about that?

Or make a complaint at City Hall during business hours, please, then we have access to everything, so then we can take it in.

And we are not here to discuss any kind of personal dispute between neighbors, or we're not here to entertain complaints between between neighbors who might the zoning hearing board isn't necessarily here to entertain disputes between between neighbors, but complaints can be filed during business hours.

Sure, I I just want to make sure that she's aware of the right mechanism to because it seems like she came to City Hall and maybe had some confusion before, so I just want to make sure she's connected to the right form that she needs to fill out um afterwards.

And the resident has made a complaint at City Hall, that's how this particular issue came to light.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, is the board ready to vote?

Um may I say something?

And who are you?

Um I have something uh come you have to come up and get sworn in.

Okay.

E L I A S last name A L Z A G H T I T I Sorry Talk, all the truth about I do.

Do you do you reside at 630 638?

638.

Yes, sir.

All right.

What would you like to tell us?

I just want to address something.

I just wanted to say something.

Uh the animal control did come and address the chicken situation, and he found no chickens, and that was already adjusted taken care of.

And I just want to have one question uh if you guys didn't know like what she did to her house, or if you guys have pictures of her house as well.

I'm sorry, and if I may with respect to complaints between between neighbors at this point, once again, you're welcome to file a complaint against your neighbor and that's why.

I just had a quick question, and I just wanted to see see what's going on because she also if she's complaining about us, and it's been so long ago, but she also did add uh addition to her houses, and they're also not permits, and she has as much installs to her house as we did to to ours.

All right, well, I I can't speak to that.

The only thing that's before us today is what's on the agenda and what was actually and what was advertised.

So yeah, I just wanted to say that a few um, you know, it would be the same procedure.

If you thought there was something that was that was out of code or out of zoning with the addition she made, you would have to file a separate complaint that would be handled in the same way.

Yeah.

All right, I just wanted to uh thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I have one question.

It's been more than three years.

It's been like since 2014.

Well, you said you started building it in 2014, and it took it took over time.

Yeah, we moved to the house down the 12th, but yeah, we started 2014, but yeah, I've just wanted to say that.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

You bet you ready to deliver you guys fight over who goes first.

Yeah.

Um I mean, this is the I'm trying to think of cases I've seen.

This is kind of a as unique one.

I haven't seen something like this before.

Um, I know you know, a few months ago we had something before us about a fence that had been put up kind of without pulling the appropriate permits and some issues there.

That's a fence.

Um this is like a a building that is or an addition that now is part of a structure.

So I guess I'm I'm not sure in terms of like our options.

Um like if we can even say, if we wanted to say, like, you know, we find that this is you know that we don't see any hardship or you know, whatever we don't want to grant this this variance.

Can do we have the power to ask them to modify or remove their their structure.

Okay.

Okay.

You have the ability.

They have no permit for it.

If it's encroaching and they didn't get a variance, then they've got the comply or file for a variance.

Yeah.

Okay.

Right now, our our decision is is there an encroachment?

Are they in violation because they did it without a permit?

Basically.

And I get and I guess the other question that I think we should be asking too is the is the encroachment, is the violation um the minimus, or does it have a material impact um the life so much the how public health and usability of of the adjoining properties or public right of way and things of that nature?

So in the case of the fence, while it maybe was out of compliance, really had no material negative impact.

Yeah.

And so the question is, is this addition in its current configuration that's not compliant?

Um it may only be 17 inches, but depending on the circumstances that 17 inches may or may not be material or diminished.

Yeah, I mean, I I'm finding and once again I'm I'm not you know a fire professional or or maintenance or anything, but uh it does certainly um cause a complication um or kind of to in in between the two houses in terms of access, like you know, if it's something's happening on the the second floor, um, whether it's maintaining the siding or or the whatever material um or accessing in in case of emergency.

Um I know a property value um concern was brought up, but I'm I to me it's a fire in the maintenance um that seemed most concerning to me.

Did I have a question actually?

This the space uh and it's for the objectors.

Do you need to pass the extension to get to your own door?

Oh you talked about I'm talking to over here.

So no.

No, okay.

It's happening.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I I tend to agree.

I think that um in some cases, you know, we've had variances of several feet that we found to be de minimis because in those circumstances there was no material impact on any adjoining property, but um, but this 17 inches is basically half of what used to be um space that was you know in between the two houses, which was accessible for maintenance, um, particularly maintenance.

I don't I really don't know that 17 inches versus 36 inches gives you or takes away any fire protection or adds any fire risk, it's probably more to do with building materials than anything else, but certainly doesn't improve the fire.

Um just should anyone need to walk through this space for any reason having you know 17 inches or or three feet is the difference between walking through it, right?

And if it's a four-foot side yard setback requirement and they're calling 17 inches, which is a foot in almost a foot and half into it, so it is gonna shrink it down considerably.

Mike, do you know, and if you don't, that's fine.

Um, you know, in some cases, you know, when you've got a grocer's alley, you've got a shared space that kind of straddles the lot line, which is kind of an anomaly in of sorts.

Uh in this case, um the the objector's property.

Am I correct that the objectors uh wall is immediately on the property line, and the applicant's wall used to be 36 inches or 48 inches away and is now 17 inches closer.

And this is one situation where, as my understanding is that we is that the uh the improvements in question were not built with any concern as scraddling lot lines or any concern as to encroachment or trespass on the on neighboring lot lines.

The improvements on 638 were we believe them to be fully within the property of 638.

However, the app we made we made requests and suggestions that the applicant may wish to prepare uh a site plan that more clearly provided the lay of the land that that was not provided by the applicant.

I do certainly think it would be reasonable if the if the board needed to obtain that information or wanted to make a request of the applicant.

No, the uh the burden is on the applicant, so if they chose not to bring it, that's that's up.

We don't need to continue it for that.

So all right.

Uh I guess just one more point is that we we did not hear talking about you know burden of the applicant.

Um we did not hear from them why it had like why their design needed to extend, you know, 17 inches.

No the uh the burden is on the applicant so if they chose not to bring it that's that's up we don't need to continue it for that so all right uh I guess just one more point is that we we did not hear talking about you know burden of the applicant um we did not hear from them why it had like why their design needed to extend you know 17 inches well they said the intent was to get more light but that doesn't that didn't necessarily tie to the 17 inches yeah yeah I guess we're not we're done taking testimony okay um so that's just something yeah I'd like to add in terms of you know I'm not hearing a reason why all right is there a motion all right I guess I would I would move to language deny the um encroachment into the minimum of the or the side yard setback um and and with that by by denying um have the applicant and uh bring their addition into compliance of the side yard setback maybe so uh I will uh second that motion uh and I also agree I think for the uh the reasons uh provided uh the applicant has uh exceeded the uh limits of the zoning ordinance and uh um in such a way that is uh materially impacts negatively the adjacent property um and uh therefore I would I would join with my colleagues so any additional discussion okay all in favor to deny the application aye aye aye as you heard your your application has been denied um the board has how many days to issue a written decision 30 uh 45 days um so you get a written decision within 45 days there are um appeal opportunities to appeal this decision but there are significant time constraints on that and so if you are interested in doing that I recommend that you seek legal counsel who is um skilled and experienced in residential um and uh zoning real estate so thank you and for for benefit of the objector as was mentioned the applicant does have a right and a right of appeal or this isn't this may not necessarily be the final word so the addition on the house will will not necessarily disappear and in any kind of extremely quick time period there could still be some process at play at all right any other business before us all right we're adjourned