opening with the advertisements that precipitated all the L&I action and police action
is the applicant. It's connected to him. He also owns smoke shops in different areas. This is his
world. I just mentioned that because this has gotten this development of Parkwood. And Parkwood
isn't a small development. It was built actually in 1960. The doctor's office was finished because
it didn't. When it started in 1960, it was built as the largest. The planning commission told me
this in the 1980s, that it was still the largest single family development in the United States.
These row homes, as we used to call them with the garages in the front, they're now called townhomes
because they're more expensive, I guess. And there are thousands of them. There has never been
a, other than a doctor's office, there has never been a variance for anything other than
commercial. I mean, you know, across the street, the Corman Corporation built the entire development.
They also still own the shopping center across the street, across Academy Road, which is a major
artery. And this, this particular doctor's office addition was built. It didn't need zoning. This is
a very wide side yard. Side yards required here are for an end unit are eight feet. There was
There was plenty of room to put this in in there with a permit, with a doctor living in in the residence.
plenty of room to put this in, in there with a permit with a doctor.
So we have a full service shopping center that's been there for 60 plus years across the street with the same same Parkwood neighborhood.
and uh and then on the same side of the street where you saw the cmx1 there's a huge you know
very large bank that's been there forever since the beginning okay and while there's been different
um uh occupiers of the adjoining building there's a small building adjoining joining the bank
corman is the is the uh landlord of that as well uh it is currently a hair salon
But there is absolutely no hardship here. The Parkwood shopping centers across the street, no one in this community trusts anything that's going on here.
And I would just ask you to keep Parkwood residential. And if we get a doctor or a dentist that wants to rent that out or a single family, this is not a, this is an addition that would be allowed under single family zoning.
I'm not sure they'd want it maybe to look exactly the same, but there's enough room to put a one-story or a two-story addition on this house.
So a larger family, instead of having to move out of Parkwood or some other neighborhood, may very much desire this space.
And if a doctor comes along or, and remember, it was an Az Wright doctor who lived there, and there were several doctors in succession that did.
We check the zoning history. So I would ask you, there's there's no hardship here.
The community is totally opposed to it, as am I. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman, for your input. Is there anyone else in the audience with their hand up?
No, sir. That is all. Mr. Goldberg.
Yeah, just briefly. So, you know, the hardship here is that, you know, it would be entirely cost prohibitive to convert this as a part of the existing single family house.
It doesn't currently connect. You know, it appears at face value as a commercial or office space. And, you know, to the point about the previous use of the property, the tobacco shop, that was a tenant that the property owner had rented the property to.
Once he was made aware of the issues and the violations occurred, that tenant was evicted.
And finally, you know, if there are concerns about trust with the community, we would be willing to agree to a temporary variance.
Thank you for your input, Mr. Goldberg.
Planning Commission.
Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
The property is...
Ryan, did you get sworn yet today?
Earlier today, but...
Okay, you're right.
That's fine, Ryan.
That's fine, Ron.
Properties indicated for residential use on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning at this location.
Applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
A record of several violations and failed inspections have been noted.
We recommend that a queser variance not be granted.
Thank you. MI 2022-007-604-12301, Medford Road, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Okay. Number seven, MI 2022-007-574-2551 South Galloway Street. Joseph Consul is the attorney.
We'll be coming back to another panelist, sir.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Hi, Mr. Consul. You were sworn earlier today. Could you just state your name for the record?
Yes, it is Joseph Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Right. Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Waypoint Properties, LLC, and the owner of Waypoint Properties should be on this call.
is Simcha Nozinski. Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all of the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Everything but the RCO letter, and I'd like to just bring that up briefly.
We met with the RCO on May 17th.
This is Whitman RCO.
They asked us to send a petition around and send them some pictures.
We did both of those things.
And they, since that time, have not responded to us in terms of producing a letter or anything like that.
I don't want to prejudice my client by delaying it for a super long time.
So I was just looking to the board for some direction on how to handle that.
All right. Well, let us go through the actual case. We'll look into it. Please proceed and share your screen.
Let's see.
Did my packet come up or is it?
It's up. Yep.
All right. Great. 2551 South Galloway Street. The owner is Waypoint Properties, LLC.
see. They purchased this property in 2019 at the point of purchase, and you can still see this
online. They were shown a two-unit rental license that was owned by Stephen Chappin. They purchased
the property from his estate. He had that property since 1967, and as far as we can tell from the
neighbors that were at the RCO meeting, that property had been a duplex for as far back as
they can remember. The earliest proof that we have of that is an approval from 1947, which is an
atlas showing that it was approved for a two-family. I believe at the time it's a zoning
permit not required. I guess it was by right, but there was a two-unit proposed approval from 1947.
So it's been occupied. That was a long time for a very long time. This man, Mr. Chapin died. And at some point between when he died and when they purchased it, this license lapsed and is now inactive. We're seeking to revitalize that that two unit license.
we have our refusal to family household living is prohibited in this zoning district
we do not have our rco letter like i said we uh scheduled and attended this meeting with whitman
on may 17th um i thought it was a decent meeting they asked us to circulate a petition email to
them they would then reconvene with us in a non not not like a full second second meeting they
just wanted us to pull some neighbors and send them some photos and they would get back to us
but we sent it and haven't heard anything photos and plans i'm actually gonna i have a whole set
of interior photos here this is the basement first meter there's a second meter
First meter, second meter.
These are the units.
Each is one bedroom and one bathroom.
Counsel, is that a corner property?
It is not a corner property.
It is the second property and it's next to a restaurant
on the corner of a third and Galloway there.
There's the outside of the property.
The floor plans as built. Backyard. Sorry, I'm repeating these meters.
There's the deed. Tax clearance certificate and the petition that we circulated. They had wanted us to speak to the neighbors on Galloway and then also on Third Street, which this property, the rear of the property of Butts.
We were able to get 12 signatures in support. And that's it. That's our whole presentation, absent some input from the RCO.
Why don't you bring your client on to adopt your testimony?
Simcha, are you available?
shai nazninsky has his hand raised i love him to speak thank you sir could you state your name
and spell please for the court stenographer yep it's shai nazninsky s-h-a-i-n-o-z-n-i-s-k-y
n-o-z-n-i-s-k-y right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
the truth i do i apologize i thought it was going to be the other owner on on the line um how are
you doing today good evening good no worries um can you uh did you hear my testimony just now
to the board yes do you adopt it as your own i do can you confirm to the board that at the time
you purchased the property it was set up as a two unit you did no work on it and as far as
you knew from the family it had always been a two unit that's correct okay is there anything you'd
like to add not at this time okay mr council were you at the community meeting the rco meeting yes
sir you were yes okay thank you uh questions from the board no chair no mr chairman questions or
comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for residential use
on a city plan or adopted district plan
recommends no change to the existing
residential single-family zoning at this location.
Applicant's hardship is not supported
with evidence of physical circumstances
preventing it from being used
in conformity with the code.
We recommend the request for variance not be granted.
Thank you.
Hillary, we're going to vote this.
I think we have enough indication that the RCO was involved, even though we don't have a letter.
That is fine, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you.
So MI 2022-007574-2551, South Galloway, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, and thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Number 10, MI 2022-007-582-5245-47 Germantown Avenue. Steve Masters is the attorney. We have two different RCO letters sent separately. Are they in favor of the RCO in favor there? Hillary?
Mr. Chair, yes. So we have a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, Faith CDC. Then we have a letter of non-opposition from Solo Germantown. They recommended the following enforceable provisos, a temporary special exception, interior trash storage, and interior mailboxes and mail storage.
Thank you. Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
My name is Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E-M-A-S-T-E-R-S, from the law firm of JustLaws.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
So one of my clients is Stan Smith, who's with me today, and he's the property owner.
and another client is pastor nathaniel co which is um he's the pastor of the church house of glory
they're the tenants okay and our vice chair has just a few questions good afternoon counsel do
you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy um good afternoon it is
not actually a refusal it's a referral there it's only for a special exception um i do agree to waive
the reading of the referral, and I stipulate to its accuracy.
Understood. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we did.
Thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
Good evening, again, members of the board. We are here
for a special exception for religious assembly, basically a church, at two spaces in an existing
office building on Germantown Avenue, 5245 to 47. The referral is the only zoning issue
identified by LNI. This is a CMX 2.5 zoning district, and the religious assembly use requires
a special exception. We actually have the support in Exhibit 1 of two RCOs. The coordinating RCO
faith is the first letter in our binder, in which they reported that six near neighbors
appeared at the RCO meeting, all were in favor, and the two representatives of Faith CDC were in favor.
The two representatives of faith, CDC, were in favor, and there was also support from the 12th Democratic Ward.
We also have a letter from Joseph McCarthy from an RCO called BHNA.
They took a qualified support with provisos.
And those provisos were stated at the at the beginning of this hearing.
We also have a letter from the RCO known as solo RCO with the same support with with the same provisos.
In Exhibit 3, we have 48 petition signatures of the close neighbors to this property.
I'm going to make my screen a little bigger here.
So the petition refers to that the House of Glory Religious Ministry has been operating at this location since 2021.
They came in the midst of COVID, and their operations were very COVID.
In other words, they were primarily an online church in the very beginning, but then they ultimately were able to have many programs and weekly worship services on Sunday at the location.
These neighbors are from the unit block of East Springhurst, which is the adjacent street that we will see in a moment with our plans.
uh these neighbors are also from that unit block of east bring her street and uh from streets that
are very close by uh these signatures also some of them are from the very closest neighbors and
some for uh slightly farther away and as are these signatures a total of as i said 48.
so this is a site plan that shows you um here's germantown avenue um this is the front of the
building and the building goes uh quite a bit back um and it also uh juts out a bit um on the side
this is bring her streets um just to give you the orientation of germantown and bringhurst
um next we're going to look at the actual breakdown of the spaces so this um orientation
is from germantown avenue um at the bottom and the um all of the spaces are occupied by various
commercial businesses they all have proper zoning uh except for the spaces c and space d which
is going to is where the church has been operating and where we're seeking the special exception
This next diagram shows the significant amount of parking that this building has. So I'm going to go down to the bottom. So here is Germantown Avenue. This is a cutoff, but it's down towards this area.
um the parking that's available here goes all along the perimeter of the property um that is
a total of 20 parking spaces along this perimeter plus there's an additional five um in this area
and an additional five in a in an outer um part of the parking area here is bringhurst where my
cursor is on this side. So that's a total of 30 parking spaces that are right literally on this
lot. But there is also the owner, Mr. Smith, has a property a half a block away. And he is
allowing the church to use that additional spot for overflow parking. And the overflow parking
lot is an additional 38 spaces.
The site has a security plan and it also has a lighting plan.
And we shared both of those with the RCOs.