In just a moment, our secretary will call that list.

We ask that the appellant or applicant indicate his or her presence and whether represented by counsel.

Uh should I ask if there are any objectors or interested persons?

If there are, we asked that they raise their hands so we can get a count.

Case number one, special use appeal and application of Paulino Segundo Tahata at 118 St.

John Street.

Is the appellant present?

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number one?

No.

Are there any interested parties not necessarily objectors to case number one?

No.

Case number two, appeal of Jandal Partners LP at 1421, 1425 Hamilton Street.

Is the appellant present?

Yes.

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number two?

No.

Are there any interested parties not necessarily objectors to case number two?

One.

And for the sake of the record, I believe I saw a hand go up for objectors at the last minute.

So if there is anyone who's an objector to the case at 1421 to 1425, Hamilton.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

So one interested party.

One interested party, no objectors.

Okay.

All right.

Hamilton first.

Hambled for sure.

Yeah.

Okay, we'll take the Hamilton Street one.

Thanks.

Mr.

Shock, how are you?

Doing well yourself.

Good, thank you.

Eric Schock, Fitzpatrick, Lenson Booba.

And I will uh have a crew with me, but uh I think I'll have two possibly three witnesses, but we'll try to be fairly efficient.

And in that vein, I'll hand out uh the packet of exhibits.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And then I didn't do a whole packet.

Because actually the equitable order is here.

Okay.

And if we'd be able to testify, Casey, you're right.

Witness up here, as usual.

Can you state your name?

Casey Keller.

And can you spell it for the record, please?

P C C A S E Y K E L L E R.

Okay.

And uh who do you work for?

Heinberg Real Estate Advisors.

And what what do you do?

I'm a commercial real estate broker.

Okay.

And can you tell us what's your connection to this project?

We are the listing brokers for the property.

So we've been marketing it for about a year.

We supported in the marketing efforts both through phone call, email, interest, as well as tours of the property throughout the listing time.

And then we supported uh this equitable owner in their uh process with offerings to the property.

Okay, I'll I'll hand you a packet of the exhibits because you may refer to those as we go uh through this.

Um is A one a picture of the front of the building.

I believe the answer is yes.

Unclip it and you'll see it on the left.

That's when you use Google Street View.

The the left building is the building in question.

Exactly.

Um can you um you've you you're listing it, you've worked with the owner on the project.

Correct.

Can you give us kind of some history as to uh you know what's there, the building, what's been done, and why and how we got to this point.

Absolutely.

So the current owner of the building purchased it at auction in 2014.

It's been vacant since 2015.

Um they purchased it with the intention to revitalize it.

Um at the time, intentionally they were going to convert it to office space.

It was historically a law firm.

So they uh came in, they did all of the remediation of the property, they updated the HVEC system, the the main system in the basement, removed any electrical issues, any plumbing issues, and just sort of put it in a raw state with updated utilities in the structure.

Um throughout the time that they were holding the property, they were working on some other office property projects, so this was not their main focus.

Ultimately decided that it wasn't the right focus for them, both because the office market had shifted by the time that they were ready, thanks to COVID and some other uh situations within the office market, as we know is it's not the strongest, especially in this area.

And so in that regard, you said because of COVID, they acquired this property before COVID had it for quite some time.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So they purchased it in 2014, they held on to it, did some remediation, they were working on other office projects.

When the time came that they thought about maybe converting it to office, they went through the process with an architect to get plans together.

They also had that architect put some plans together for residential conversion as they weren't totally sure what their plans were going to be.

Ultimately, for whatever reason, decided to put their focus elsewhere on some other larger projects they were working on.

They tried to market the property themselves for sale, didn't have success, brought us in, and then you know, we marketed it to any interested parties, saw a variety of interest throughout that time, and a significant amount of that interest was for residential conversion due to the nature of the building, the location of the building, and the feasibility of the conversion that's there.

Okay.

Um so in that regard, the offices are allowed and and this conversion to apartments, the use is permitted, correct?

Correct, yes.

Um A2 is a list you provided me.

Does that give the can they give the board a flavor of what you saw was uh the likely use based upon the market for this property?

Absolutely, yeah.

So our through our marketing efforts, like I said, we did have a significant amount of phone calls and emails that didn't convert to tours.

These were all the physical tours that we gave throughout the time that we were marketing it.

Uh about half and half in some respects.

I think we're a little heavier by one number on the residential conversion interest, but a lot of the feedback we got from the office market was it was a big project, it didn't make sense for just one user.

They could possibly make it co-working space, but it was a really significant undertaking, and ultimately the investment just made sense on the residential conversion side to turn it into something that fit a little bit better with the neighborhood around it.

Okay, and from the time the current owner, part of the goal was it not, was to retain character, is that correct?

Can can give us a little flavor on on that, and because that'll tie into what what the applicant wants to do and why he's asking for the variants.

Absolutely.

So the the current owner is very um knowledgeable and focused on making sure that the character of Allentown remains and that they help to supplement what's already there and just make it better.

We also know that the zoning guidelines at this point require a lot of specificity to how things are maintained and developed, and I'll leave that to the architect to discuss a little bit more.

Um but the character of the building is so unique, it has very large rooms with big high ceilings, really ornate walls and doors, but the way it's laid out warrants itself nicely to apartments.

You know, there's some unique corners of the building that do cause it to make it tricky for sizing, which I'm sure we'll talk about too.

But generally speaking, when you walk through, you can see how it makes sense as an apartment, and it's really just making some adjustments to the layout to make that happen.

Okay.

And you are familiar with the area in which the uh building is located, correct?

Exactly, yes.

Okay.

Is A3 an aerial that you've marked up to show what's in the vicinity, and then if you can tell us why you think this type of use will fit well.

Yeah, so to be fair to the to the picture, I wanted to give a little bit of an idea of where your offices do sit.

You do have an insurance company directly across the street with a strip of businesses about a block up, but generally surrounding this property, you do see a lot of apartments, a lot of uh, you know, row homes of sorts.

And as I was giving tours of the property, I'd say almost every time I saw people walking their dogs, I saw families parking their cars and getting out and going to their apartments or homes.

So it it feels like it fits within the neighborhood if you put homes there, apartments there.

Um the property also has a very large parking lot in the back, which as we know is very hard to come by in Allentown.

So to have parking, which means it's not imposing on anyone else's parking allowance within the city, and transitioning it to a living space really seems to just make sense.

Okay, and from the perspective of the of the non-residential use of this, the commercial ones.

Do you do you think the the property is what created the issue with trying to make a conversion to something other than an apartment use?

I'm not sure I understand your in other words, you you mentioned that uh the users would say it'd be tough to make one use in that in those instances.

It's because the building remains the way it was, is that right?

Correct.

It's it's just a big project.

I mean, it's in raw condition right now, which makes it a really good opportunity to convert it because it's not like they're taking something that's pristine office space and turning it into a residence.

They're taking something that's been remediated and brought to feasibility as a structure and you know, internally, and they're just making the walls lay out differently to work for uh a residential use.

As opposed to someone saying I'll keep the outside, but I'll completely demolish what's in the interior.

You can have free rate.

Yeah.

But to keep this, the the residential use is what ended up making sense, correct?

Absolutely.

You have really good locations of restrooms throughout the house.

It was originally a home, it was the John Taylor house, and it was built as a home.

So you have plumbing throughout the building that allows for restrooms to fit where they already exist, bedrooms to come off of those.

I mean, it's truly set up to easily convert into a residence with minor adjustments to some spaces without taking away the character of the structure.

Um and as you mentioned, the other piece of that puzzle was we're not requesting any relief from parking because it came with an existing parking lot.

Correct, which is huge, yes.

I'm sure that those residents will be very happy to have parking.

Um that's all the questions I have for this witness.

Okay, good questions.

Lucian, just leave those up there because uh Lu Lucianne's exhibits are in there also.

Thanks.

I tried the thing.

Oh, did you not?

Oh, I I I can't recall.

I'm glad you could answer yes to that.

Oh, I know.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Can you state your name, please?

My name is Lucien Tibias Duli.

I'm a principal architect with artifact incorporated in Bethlehem.

Okay.

Bob, do you need her to spell her name?

Okay.

No, and I don't need her qualifications either, because she's okay.

So then I I would ask that she be uh qualified as an expert in architecture.

Okay.

Um have you been working uh on this property uh in your capacity as an architect?

Yes.

Okay.

Um we're here tonight for for one variance for three apartment units.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

In the pack it is A4.

It are those the plans that you prepared for what you're proposing.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you just walk us through?

I uh you know the first witness indicated there's a historic home on the property.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Well, do you know roughly what is it the Taylor House?

Taylor House.

And it's uh one of uh so Allen Town had a number of very statily mentions uh associated with the industry, you know, flooring industries in the high valley that uh went from the state hospital to the silky industry to the cement and to steel.

And Allen Town had a number of mentions on Hamilton's street and on 7th Street, and that this is one of them.

Okay.

And have you have you been working with the applicants on how to uh renovate this for a multifamily dwelling?

Yes, I actually worked also with the current owner on this project.

We were in uh originally hired to develop plans for uh office use.

We went through the process of the design, and in that process, uh we were you know the current owner was very careful about maintaining the architectural historical features of the building and uh come up with uh um with a uh solution that was respectful of both the building and the neighborhood.

Um after a number of iterations, including uh construction cost estimate, and uh uh as your previous testimony indicated, testing the market for the use, uh the project was abandoned.

And uh we were uh uh approached this tier by the applicant to uh develop a project to um to create 10 apartments to see if it was possible to create 10 apartments.

And as we mentioned, that use is allowed in this property, correct?

It's allowed and uh it is it is uh actually uh uh a use that comes very easily for uh uh for the um within the envelope of the building, but because so we deal with an pre-existing envelope, but we had some constraints.

Okay, so let's do this.

Go to the D 100, which I think is the second page.

Yes.

And then just walk the board through quickly the the each the floor plans and the units that you're putting on there, and then we'll go back to the ones and have you mark the ones that you're asking for relief from, okay?

So um sheet D100 represents what do we call uh the demo plan.

Okay, and uh it shows uh uh some minor demolition that we need to do to uh accommodate the creation of the apartment and uh um everybody will notice that we really demolish a minimum amount of walls, and uh we definitely maintain all the existing historic architectural features associated to each one of the floor play of the floors.

Okay.

And then when you go to A100 and A101, etc., that will then show the finished units and the square feet.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, so if we can turn to that, what is A100?

A100 is a unit uh that is being uh proposed on the lower level.

And uh to uh to create this unit is actually there is no demolition at all associated to it.

We are just uh create using the existing uh spaces and add some partitions to create areas for the bathrooms, for the kitchen, and uh uh this is a studio, and then we use closets uh layouts to separate the sleeping area from uh from uh the living space, and uh this one at this unit is 861.

Okay, so so let's point this out.

You do not need relief for this one, correct?

What's the minimum for for a studio in the city?

500 square feet.

So here you've got a unit 361 square feet larger than you actually would need it.

Correct.

And is that similar to the reason we'll get why some are smaller, you're using the existing space.

Correct.

And here you indicated you didn't have to demolish anything, correct?

Correct.

So all of the architectural features that are part of this will get to remain because you're not doing anything.

That is correct.

But you're leaving a unit that's well in excess of what's required, correct?

Okay.

How about A101?

Is that the next floor?

The next floor, yes.

This is the main floor, and the main floor has two access points.

One is at the front on Hamilton Street, and the other one is the back towards the existing uh parking lot.

Uh what is interesting about uh when we get to the building when we get to the first floor is that the first floor is the more ornate, the first the front is the most ornate part of the building, and then the back is what was mostly associated to servants, so it was less ornate.

Uh as we go through this uh this this floor plan, what do we have in the front?

When we enter from the front, and on the right inside, we have a uh proposed studio.

Uh this studio is uh about 404 square feet.

And uh the uh layout is dictated by the architectural features that are associated to the spaces, and we have a big open space with the kitchenette, and then the back of the wall um we have a bathroom.

The only demolition in this area is the door to go to the bathroom that takes in account that we have the paneling of the room is designed, the original uh paneling is designed, and we just open one panel to become a door.

So on this floor is unit 101 the only one that needs relief on this floor.

That is correct.

Okay, so all the others are in access, is that correct?

Yes.

And for example, if I look at unit 102, that one is well in excess of what's required, correct?

Yes, so this is a grand unit.

And uh we are about uh 11 uh 85 square feet.

Okay, and that this is a two-bedroom unit.

So that would require what, nine or two.

Um so again, for unit 101, attempting to keep the architectural character, that's why you're proposing for it to be smaller, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Uh actually we could so theoretically we could take space from the hallway.

Right.

But we are not going to do it with because otherwise we are going to ruin the architectural integrity of the lobby.

Okay.

Um, so what maybe there's a good point to segue then.

Let's talk about because you you're gonna have a second one that is a studio that's under the 500, correct?

On the third floor?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any concerns from an architectural standpoint that this will not function as an appropriate living unit?

No, uh, we don't.

And uh we have designed all other multi-family projects in the Lehigh Valley, notably the Simon Sick Mill on 13th Street in Easton, and uh we have a number of uh 350 square feet studios that uh uh are currently occupied with uh no issues.

We have another project, the Laro Silk Mill in Badlam.

We have a 400 and 450 square feet studios.

We have a project in Quakertown, the safety uh product building.

We have two studios in there that are about 400 square feet.

And all of these projects, the studios that are under the 500 square feet are occupied.

Okay.

And in that regard, all of those you mentioned, this is not a new build.

You are attempting to work with the existing building, is that correct?

It's correct.

Number one.

Number two, you do not have a building where you've attempted to put more units in by having all of them under.

You've got units that are well in excess, and it's only three of them that of the ten that are under the number, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And again, this one and the other two you'll talk about, it's all the interior features that cause you to do that, correct?

Correct.

And in those other instances, no issue with with the use of these.

At all.

Not at all.

Um then on the second floor, A102, all of those meet the requirement, correct?

That is correct.

Yes.

Um and would you say it's almost happenstance that they laid out that way because it's just the way the floor plate was was already existing, is that right?

That is correct.

So because it was uh laid out as a design as a house originally, uh there are already areas with bathrooms that have been provided that we reuse.

And uh and the rooms that are of these bathrooms worked out very well to be laid out uh as bedrooms and or living areas like a kitchen or a living room.

Okay.

And then if we go to A103, that's the the last floor, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

And do those unit do units need relief on that floor?

They do.

Okay.

Uh we have so what happens as we go up is uh under the roof, the floor plate is reduced because we have the roof that becomes a mansa roof, and uh uh the the windows become a special feature of the roof and that they take space within the floor plate.

Um in addition, the location of the main staircase doesn't allow too much flexibility of how the spaces can be uh connected to other uh spaces, and on top of that, the difference between a house mention and having a multifamily apartment uh complex is that we need to provide for a way for egress.

Okay, and uh uh to provide this uh egress path on the third floor, we cannot lose the central hallway that connects to the fire escape.

Therefore, those constraints create like uh the basis of design for the creation of a tree of these three units, and everything superposes on between floor one, two, and three that just keeps shrinking as they go up.

So again, to compare this, if this were a new building, you were designing the building, you could design the building in a way that would not create that issue.

You're you're you're working with what you've got.

That is correct.

Okay, and you can't get rid of that center hallway on the third floor, correct?

Or the stairs.

Um and again, are you in that instance saving as much of the architectural character as you possibly can?

In this case, it's structural.

We cannot really uh alter it the existing structure that of the roof.

Okay, so the other instances is the historical character here, you can't change the roof structure.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I asked you if you could give a percentage when we talked about uh how much of the character of this, if this goes through and you utilize this design, do you think you're saving as opposed to raising the clearing out each floor and just building new apartments?

I mean, you're is that a significant amount that's gonna remain?

About 99%.

99%.

The only thing that uh we uh remove is the secondary stairs that uh are uh um current the small stairs are currently unsafe and they cannot be used safely as a second mean of egress.

Uh but we have the fire escape, the exterior fire escape that uh uh we had inspected in 2019 with a structure engineer that has maintained structural integrity and is usable as a second mean of egress.

Okay.

Um last exhibit then is A5.

Those are some photographs.

Can you just just highlight for the board?

I pulled out about seven or eight of the ones you sent.

Can you highlight for the board some of the features that you've talked about that that this illustrates that you're trying to keep?

So the first picture, uh A5A.

It's uh the main uh uh entrance, the lobby.

And this picture illustrates why we cannot, it's a very generous lobby.

And this picture illustrates why we really don't want to take space for apartments out of this entrance because it will alter the quality of uh of uh of the architecture, historic architectural features and the space.

And you can see you have some beautiful colonnades, some beautiful trim work on uh on the ceiling, and uh we also have the original wallpaper that is intact that we are going to save as part of this renovation.

On exhibit A5B, we can see the main uh the main uh monumental stairs uh that we maintain completely.

Uh we enclose the space that it's at the right uh of the stairs and integrated into the studio, but we are maintaining the uh wallpaper and we are maintaining uh the casement of the colonnades.

Then uh uh A5C is the interiors of uh the studio space that we ask relief for um for the dimensions.

We maintain the beautiful uh fire um the uh the um fireplace with all of the decorations, all the casements around the windows, the trim around the ceiling, and we respect the paneling that you see.

In fact, the this one panel here.

This one is the one that we are opening for the door uh to get to the bathroom.

Otherwise, we respect everything, including the flooring.

That is a beautiful parquet.

Then uh A5D shows an area that is connected to the grand apartment, the over 1100 square feet, and you can see that uh we have uh uh coffered ceiling, and we do not do divisions uh with partition within the space.

We maintain the big generous spaces uh to respect the design of the coffer ceiling.

A5C, it's uh again part of the grand apartment, has a beautiful bow window with the uh eating system that is covered by a seating um it's like it shows like a you can sit on, but creates like a seating arrangement, and again this room is uh respected in uh in the geometry and in all of the architectural features.

And then uh A5F, it's uh on uh on the second floor.

As we get to the second floor, we start to lose a little bit of our we have less architectural details, and we mostly deal with uh structural um constraints, but again, overall we maintain the quality of the spaces, the quality of the trim work and the flooring.

And uh on uh on A5G, uh we maintain existing hallways because uh they're there already as a ways for egress.

Uh we don't need to recreate them, so we maintain what is there.

And then A5H indicates uh the third floor, uh, where we have the mansor roof, and it shows the thickness of these walls, means that the the facade walls are coming in to create a slendered mensal roof.

Therefore, that is what creates the loss of square footage at that floor.

But but but that does depict too that that that very attractive feature where the window is cut in.

It brings in all the qualities for the space.

Right, you're losing the you're getting that quality for the space.

Okay.

Um so and let's just quickly review the the variant standards.

Is it your opinion that the existing structure creates a hardship to you creating 10 compliant units such that you need relief for those three due to the character and the structure of the building?

That is correct.

Okay.

Have you attempted as best you could in each case to reduce the relief to the minimum?

Yes.

Um and in fact, the there are units in here that are well beyond the requirements because that's the way it fits into the building.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Can you think of any adverse impact to the neighborhood if some of these units are below sized but redone in the way you've shown in the plan?

We don't think so.

I don't think so.

The uh the market in our region is very strong and it requires a variety of offering.

And uh studios are some of the offerings that uh are not very much on the market, and uh they uh generally are for people that have like a first job, even if it's a young professional with a first job, and uh it's uh associated with um we see it associated most of the time if people have like works in jobs in uh the uh hospital industry in the medical industry, so they don't leave need much of a living space, but in general, studios, at least the ones that we have designed here provide for uh a flexible living area that uh um is still creates a quality uh space.

And the owner of the applicant didn't create the hardship.

It's based on a building that's a hundred years old and reusing that building, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, that's all the questions I have for this witness.

Board, have any questions?

Yeah, I don't either.

Okay.

Um the applicant is here, but most of his testimony would be similar.

I I I I and and and the only other thing he was gonna indicate is he actually is this is his second project, he's redoing one with a uh uh what used to be a radio station in lower Maconji and turning that into uh to uh two apartments also.

So he's got some experience.

So I will I don't think I'll take the board's time because a lot of it would just be the conversations.

So with that, I would move for the mission of A1 through a six, and I would rest.

And the uh oh six, that is six.

Yeah, I just I marked the agreement as six, yeah.

I I apologize, I do have one question.

Umit 302, which is a one bedroom apartment, and that sh is required by code to have a 700 square foot uh floor area and looks like on the plans to be 647.

That's at least what the other is.

Yeah, it's actually 532.

It's 532.

532, okay.

But my question is, and I'm not suggesting you do this, but just for clarity and and kind of following uh attorney shock's uh line of questions.

If you were to eliminate the wall in between the bedroom and the kitchen area and make that into a studio, that unit would be compliant, correct?

Yes.

And the reason for not doing that again is to maintain as much of the structure, because that's not a new wall, that's an existing.

Yeah, that is to maintain the structure.

Also, because uh what I didn't say, it's uh uh like in the you know, this building was built around the 1909.

I did they did a lot of experimental construction types, and uh this building has a specialty that it's uh the second floor has been built with a system that is called the balloon framing.

If we touch the wall, we don't know what is going to collapse, let's put it this way.

So we don't want to touch some of the walls because uh we don't want the way how it is uh built is uh nowadays if we do the floors, we do a seal plate, and then we do our framing, and then we do another double plate.

At the time, they were continuous and they come from down below, or the seat in between the flooring, and you don't want to disconnect those.

So we are avoided.

So again, so this to reiterate that unit 302, if not for the uh separate bedroom, could be turned into a studio and would be compliant.

Yeah, it's just uh just under scores.

Right.

No, I didn't follow the is there a is there a go ahead.

Yeah, so I I think I do want to clarify.

Um so we're looking at variances for three units, one on the first floor, one of one, which is clear.

Then there are two on the second floor, and then notice it's listed as unit 301, um, with 647 square feet proposed, um, which aligns with what we see on the floor plan.

I think the question is um unit 302 in the notice is listed as 383 square feet proposed, 500 square feet required, but it looks like that is actually supposed to be unit 303.

Um three that needs the audience, yes.

Uh that's probably a type.

Yeah, so I think yeah, so I think 302 is is compliance.

Yeah.

Is that kind of is that the question?

Yeah.

Well.

Yeah, 302 is compliant.

It goes it's 500 square feet for a one bedroom.

Right.

So efficiency or studios were 500 square feet.

One bedroom needs to be 700.

I think I think the issue is that the 303.

Oh.

And then 302 on the advertisement is referring to 302.

And if I may, with respect to the dimensional requirement for a one-bedroom unit, this is this application is under the 2010 code still.

Just to read them for all unit sizes.

An efficiency or studio would be a minimum of 500 square feet.

A one bedroom would also be a minimum of 500 square feet.

So a one bedroom with 500 square feet would be a compliant unit.

A two bed is 700 square feet, three or more is 900 square feet, but that's not relevant to the instant application.

So is 301 that there's a required relief because it's a two-bedroom below 750 square feet.

And then 303 because ATE say one bedroom below 500 square feet.

That makes more sense.

Thank you for clarifying that.

So can we have it?

Let me get this straight.

The notice says 301.

All right, and that's correct.

Yes.

And the notice says 302, and that's incorrect.

That's the only error here.

Yeah.

Okay.

Got it.

It created a cascade of other confusions, which has now been resolved.

All right.

Very good.

So I I I withdraw all my questions about what I thought was a one-bedroom.

Okay.

But this the same would hold true for that two-bedroom.

Like if it were laid out in the it's a it's a larger unit, and the reason you you broke the unit up into multiple bedrooms is again because of the way the existing layout of balloon framed demising walls.

So thank you.

Okay, the board has no further questions.

We don't think.

So you could have a seat, Lucian.

Thank you.

And your uh exhibits are admitted.

I just think a question, Scott.

What what is a balloon frame again?

When as Lucianne was explaining, modern framing, um, you have a sole plate, studs, and then a top plate, and then another floor.

And so the the structural framing of each floor is uh shorter studs and the independent.

Whereas sometimes balloon framing extends through multiple floors with a common set of studs that as she points out, they don't always go all the way up, but you never know where they're where they're uh sistered together, not slistered, where they're spliced.

And depending on where they're spliced, if you open up in the wrong spot, it becomes a much larger project than you may have anticipated.

So, in order to maintain the structural integrity, uh you want to keep not disturbed so that those continuous framing members are not broken uh at the less than ideal locations.

All right, we ready for discussion?

Yes.

All right, who'd like to go first?

Okay.

Um I think the again the the overall density of the of the unit count is not in question.

It's simply uh three of the the ten or thirty percent of the units are undersized, and and as was testified, several of the units are substantially oversized.

As a matter of fact, I think if you were to average it all out, I think the the overall units are more uh uh square footage than are required.

There's just these three.

Uh and the as you heard that we heard the testimony from the architect, uh, in all three cases, uh, and you can it's very clearly reflected on the plans.

Uh, unit 101, um the primary staircase, the exterior wall, and the interior hallway are the constraints.

It's just one room essentially in the corner of the first floor as you come in the front door to the right.

Um there's really no way other than stealing space from the hallway, which would really destroy the entry of the of the primary access point to get your your necessary 96 square feet uh to make that unit compliant.

Uh unit 301, which is the two-bedroom, um is a pretty large unit, but it's probably the most disjointed in terms of floor plan.

Uh and again, that's just the result of the uh the nature of the framing.

Uh there's some interior walls actually added to that, but there's just a uh a challenge with the roof line, and then 303.

That one's kind of the same thing as the first floor, but in the back, in that it's constrained between the exterior wall, the mansard roof, the interior stair, and in this case it's an egress hallway.

Um so there really is no option to even steal from the hallway because you'd lose your your code compliant egress.

So I think for all of those reasons, I would agree that the physical structure of the building itself is the cause of the hardship.

Um I mean, certainly they could do substantial renovation and make all the units of the appropriate size, but that would uh extensively change the nature of the project and and more importantly, um eliminate some of the the historic elements that are that are clearly obvious in the photographs and the drawings, uh, and is the intent of the the plan to maintain.

And I think uh the ordinance also encourages um, well, not required in this particular district, the ordinance certainly encouraged encourages the maintenance of historic appearance and and uh architectural features.

So for all of those reasons at the appropriate time, I would make them a motion to approve the uh variances or I'm sorry, the relief as requested.

Committee, anything?

Yeah, just the only thing I would add, I would agree with all of that, and just by by working within kind of the existing you know uh structure and uh framing of the structure, you know, it really there is no adverse impact on the neighborhood, it's not changing anything, it's not really impacting surrounding properties, it's in line with the land use that's already there.

Um, as we heard, and as is you know noted, there's no relief besides what's happening within the structure due to the unique characteristics of the structure.

So I would agree.

No, and thanks for adding that, because it's not like there's gonna be more apartments than there could otherwise be in a building of this.

Like if they knocked it down and built the same size building, you'd still get 10 apartments, they'd just be evenly distributed across uh each of the units.

So uh, and we certainly don't want to encourage that.

So the only thing I'd add is that we're dealing with the dimensional variance, uh, which of course is a lower burden.

So uh all right, do I have a motion?

So moved.

So moved.

A second, second.

All in favor.

I so it's as shown.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

Have a good evening.

All right.

Uh we'll just let them quietly leave before we start the next one.

Thank you, Mike.

Okay, this is now we're gonna deal with St.

John Street.

And we have um okay, so the owner of the property is uh Tejeda?

Yeah, is that you?

Yes.

Okay, you are Paulino Segundo Tejeda.

Okay.

You're the owner of the property.

Yes.

Okay.

I do.

And okay, okay.

Uh so you're here asking that the existing uh family child care home be expanded to a group child care home.

Yes.

And do you live there?

We live there.

You who's you and who?

Um, my wife.

You and your wife, okay.

Uh and so how long have you had the family child care use?

We have been operating since uh 2021.

Okay.

All right.

And uh this expansion, let's call it to a group is is permitted, and this is a it's a permitted as a special exception.

The only deficiency, as I'm judging from the notice, is that you need three parking spaces off street, and you only have two.

Yes, we have two parking lots actually pave in the back of the house, and also we have parking law off the street, but in order, you know, to uh to get another third parking space in the back.

I also have more space that is on paved in the back of the house.

So last week I went to the Bureau of Engineering department here, and I request a permit for a commercial crossover.

Uh, and it was approved.

I mean that's thinking.

He knows more about this than I do.

So uh that's gonna allow us to extend the the existing uh parking lot in the back a fit.

So that's gonna give us another the the need of is more, but we're gonna have another nice uh third parking lot.

I was just gonna ask um Mike, are you were you aware of this?

Or this crossover permit was just very recently issued as of February 24th.

So it appears the applicant would have received information on what was needed for zoning, obviously filed the application to keep the process moving for the sake of their business interest simultaneously attempted attempted to cure the deficiency.

At this point, obviously the crossover permit has been has been issued.

I can I can see that it's unclear from the from the crossover permit at this point the dimensions that would be available.

So it's suggested the board inquire about that.

If the requisite width is to or dimensions are to be present, I'd advise the board condition any approval if it were so inclined on that the space be surfaced and that the applicant follow through with the the or with the paving authorized or with the activity authorized by the crossover permit.

So I am attempting to load the permit right now to see if there's a sketch or anything of that nature.

So my the answer to my question was no, you're not you haven't had the opportunity to review this.

And just so I understand what you're saying is while the crossover permit has been issued, we don't at this point in time potentially with that the applicant may have it, but the city does not have a position on whether or not if granted that with the uh crossover, if the additional space will be code compliant or not, we don't know that yet.

Yes, that's correct.

The crossover, I can see that the crossover itself is eight feet in width.

So if there's if there's eight feet available for the curb cut or for access from the right-of-way, there's a decent likelihood we can get that that eight and a half feet available.

Just taking a look at what has been provided on a block plan, the space likely exists, but I don't I don't think there are enough pieces in the city's record that unless the applicant can sufficiently do so with testimony that that I can conclusively say the real estate's there for the space, I'll give you a 90% certainty that it's there for what that's worth.

Excellent, thank you.

Yeah, the crossover is the essentially if there were if there's a sidewalk is where that comes from, where you've got a sidewalk and a curb, and you have to break through that with a driveway, you have to come across the sidewalk and have a depressed curve.

That whole system is called a crossover.

Um so it maintains the sidewalk and has gentle ramps down, goes across the depressed area for the car and then goes back up.

Okay.

So that whole system is called a crossover.

I don't know if there's sidewalk in this particular location or not, but regardless, a crossover permit is required to essentially install a depressed curve to allow vehicular traffic to come across the intended pedestrian corridor.

Okay.

We have we have enough enough space in the back, so we actually doesn't have to touch the corner because we are located.

My parking lot in the back is located in an alley that is an intersection of two of two alleys.

So basically we're um the intention is just to extend, you know, eight feet, and still there's gonna be another like uh five feet, you know, to the remaining, you know, to get to the street.

So I'm just planning to expand it.

No touch like any sidewalk of the three feet allowed to to the corner.

So so what we don't have with in terms of we've heard verbal description, we've heard the zoning supervisor give us a pretty good likelihood based upon his quick review of the available materials.

But what we just simply don't know is will all three spaces be compliant with the ordinance.

It appears that they are likely would be.

Um, and if that were the case, there'd be no relief necessary, correct?

That would be correct.

This would be well within the situation that the the zoning office would be comfortable conducting an admin review and only letting uh only letting a permit if a suitable space was if a suitable so if we saw evidence at the time of a suitable space.

So this would be an application where if the board wanted to want to impose conditions or authorized the zoning office to do some after-the-fact review that we certainly have the capability and willingness to do that at the board's discretion.

I guess the the challenge is we I don't want this applicant to have to come back.

Yeah, but since we don't know if there are deficiencies or what they are, it's really challenging for us to rant any relief.

Um at this point, looking at a Google street view, there would be a deficiency because there's there's no paving present on the crossover at the moment, even if even if the permit is approved, even if the real estate is there, there appears to be some asphalt, but some additional mechanism would need to be laid down before the buttons we're not 100% sure that once that additional paving is done, if the three spaces would all be fully code compliant.

We just don't know that.

We can presume, but that's the challenge.

So I it sounds like the the applicant may very well be fully compliant and won't need any relief from us, but I but they wouldn't need to come back for special use fully compliant.

The daycare use is still a special exception use, the expansion from the from the group child care home to the family still gotcha.

Yeah.

Well good, so that makes it a lot easier.

Yeah, can I say something?

Of course.

Yeah, but because the space that we will currently have in the back, we can pretty much almost park three cars, okay?

So it is really so eight feet is gonna allow me pretty much almost four.

So you have a very high comfort level that you could provide three spaces that will be code compliant.

Look, these are my two cars on the right, are really separate.

I have more spy space in the left.

Uh, we have so we sometimes we can park three cars really tight, okay?

There in that so how wide is your lot?

How?

How wide is your lot?

Do you know?

The coronal one?

It's about like an eighteen, eighteen, nineteen uh no, the entire property.

How wide is that?

Uh don't have an idea.

I think Mike is looking.

He doesn't have to, but he may he may be doing it just because he's helpful.

And I have my map, but I forgot to actually show us the three cars.

We just know exactly and the lot is 29 and a half feet wide.

29 and a half feet in there.

And it appears that the whole 29 and a half feet of width at the rear would be available for for use.

It doesn't appear.

I'm just I'm just taking a quick measurement.

And what's the width for parking?

Eight?

Eight and a half.

Yes, that's correct.

So you'd only need 25 and a half to get three spaces, and that would still give you two feet of grass on either side.

I suppose if we were inclined, we could approve with the condition that the um property comply with the uh physical requirements.

Uh determined by the zoning office.

Yep.

Yeah, but we so then we should just go through the special exception criteria.

Depending on the location of the of the partner, depending on the specific location of the of the lot, there is a there is a there is a little bit of uh bizarre Pentagon shaped jog almost at the rear of the lot because the the abutting lot uh to what would be plan west in my view is almost uh pie shape.

We're we're just shy of 24 feet at the back of that Pentagon space.

So we're just shy of the required width of that location.

There is a garage, but there should be sufficient space at the full width portion of the lot to be able to get a stretch of width all the way across that should be should be sufficient from lot so what you're saying is at the at the crossover point, we might not have the full 25 and a half, but if you as you go deeper in the lock spot, St.

John, yeah.

So from the applicant, we may want to see well, we likely want to see some kind of sketch to indicate where the spaces are, or there may be some work that the applicant would need to do at the desk to demonstrate the layout if the board chose to delegate that responsibility to the desk, or the board could request that the applicant return here with that sketch, whichever approach provides greater comfort.

Okay, go ahead.

Um I just have a question in terms of um kind of scaling up your operation moving to uh a group daycare, that's our term.

Um will that change your staffing level?

How many staff people do you?

I should probably for a s for six uh for the current license, that is six children's uh that we only require one staff.

No, we when he's moving to a group, we're gonna need two stuff.

So it's gonna be my wife plus another another stuff.

Okay.

Um and in terms of your hours of operation, are you planning to change those at all?

No, no, no.

No, I was it remained the same.

What are they?

Uh from six to five thirty.

How many days a week?

Uh Monday through Friday.

Just looking through the file.

I mean, one of the requirements is the first requirement is a narrative.

Am I just missing it, or do you recall if there's one on record with the application?

I decend the narrative and there is a narrative that's included in the file scan, so I'm not sure if papers may have just stuck together.

I can I can read it into the record if there's any.

There was a narrative that was supplemented by a sketch of lock drop off and loading arrangements.

I just thumbed over it.

Does it say that if the expansion plans are approved?

Um one additional employee from outside the house currently, as he said his wife is the operator, one other would be added.

Talks about the driveway.

Is that does that bring us to the parking space deficiency?

Because that one additional.

Yes, that would be correct.

Two for the residents plus one additional for the off site employee.

How would some go ahead?

You okay?

Yep.

So how would how would something like this sound?

Uh that well, we're gonna go over the I don't see we don't have any evidence that the negative impacts that would prevent us from uh granting the relief or in existence, and they would be uh on objectors.

You burn with the only objectors to establish that.

And there are nobody here with respect to the special exception, right?

And to the parking.

Well, so I I don't I don't see any reason to deny for the negative impact because I don't see any.

Right.

As to the uh parking, what was this sound like if we were to approve uh condition upon the applicant presenting to the zoning office uh specific drawings showing compliance with all dimensional requirements for three parking spaces agreed?

Okay, and uh and then do we want to add in addition to the dimensional requirements, any other requirements like pay like paving that spot?

Oh, that's a big yeah, three code compliant.

Yeah.

So um we did talk about the narrative.

Um you have presently uh I assume you have a an operating license from the the commonwealth for your family child here?

We do, yes.

And then you will um you will secure or have secured from the Department of Human Services um whatever might be necessary to expand to a group child care.

If he's approved, we will not move on and you know we'll make it subject to all permits licenses and authorizations required.

I'm just working through the less the rest of the special exception criteria for group child care homes.

You found that quick.

I did do one, huh?

It's even a blind squirrel finds it out occasionally.

Um requirement three is that group child care homes are permitted only in house types A, B, or C that are occupied by a single household.

Um so you are the you and your wife are the only residents in the the dwelling, or your family is?

But it's just it's just a single family single family, yes.

Um it looks like it's uh it's just a house type.

I don't know my house types yet.

Looks like it's a house type, it's a single family.

And if it's in an N3 zoning district and it's uh standalone single, it would have been determined to be either an A, a B or a C house type.

So that requirement would be met.

Okay.

Um do you plan to make any exterior renovations to the house?

You mean interior?

Outside.

Outside, no.

Okay.

So it'll it'll continue to look like a house and be indistinguishable from other houses in the same, same as structure.

All right, and you've already established that your wife is a permanent resident in the dwelling unit.

And you said you're gonna have one additional outside employee in addition to your wife, and the ordinance allows for up to two.

So based upon that, um, it appears to me that all of the special exception criteria for a group child care home have been met.

Um, and therefore I'll make a motion to approve the special exception use subject to the providing to the zoning office the required license, um, providing to the zoning office a scale drawing showing that the additional parking uh can be installed and will be installed in a uh to make three code compliant parking spaces, that the use be operated as testified, and am I missing anything else?

I don't think so.

Okay, then I'll stop.

I'll stop my motion there.

Stop before it goes awry, huh?

Testimony, permits, parking.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We do all in favor.

I what you have to do is work with this gentleman over here.

He wants he wants a drawing with exact dimensions so that we can see in writing, so to speak, in drawing, okay, that the proposed three parking spaces are gonna be code compliant, the right size and McAdam does they should.

Okay, which is a question because you know, uh now that we have the permit, like can we move like paving this area before showing it, or do we have to show the space before paving I would show them the drawings and show them that it's compliant before you do anything.

Okay, okay.

Because the approval is conditioned on that.

If you don't have that, you shouldn't be doing anything.

Okay, okay.

We'd also hate to see you have a contractor install it wrong, yeah, then show them and then have to fix it.

So you're way better off, it's it's much less expensive to draw it, show it to them, and then have the contractor install it.

Okay.

And I'm gonna get some information, any like letter and sir.

If you just want to come forth and take one of my cards, then we can definitely work with you here in the office to to get this over the finish and hopefully hopefully getting you up and running as soon as I can.

Yeah, of course.

Thank you very much.

Sure, thanks.

So we're done.

You're done.

Thank you very much.

Okay, okay.

Have a good night.

You too.

And we do not meet this coming Monday.

That's correct.

This Monday, but 16th.

I think it's 16th, isn't it?

Yes, Monday is 16th.

Okay, and with that, the meetings adjourned.

All right.

Thanks, folks.