i've been around there longer than most of them it's been a lot of them actually not most of them
but a lot of them the people that's on here the lady that says she in 17 that just moved there
i've been there longer and the address is on the trona street these are people that you spoke with
who are in support yes project yes like i was under the impression that they didn't vote last
time on the 22nd they cut us off said they're going to postpone the voting so there was no
voting so all the people that was going to vote logged off so there was no voting now i'm now i'm
hearing that they voted when they told me when mr uh the reverend told me and you that no i
recommend you postpone it there's no way you're going to win postpone it so everybody hung up
but now i hear that there was a vote so so that was kind of like unfair to me that that people
didn't get the vote for me because they all hung up and so when you were on that call the last thing
you heard was that there was no vote taken there was no vote they wanted me all they wanted me off
they wanted you off and there was going to be no vote they said they was postponing the vote
they said there was going to be no vote because you try to say i want to vote now because next
month we're not going to be able to get an rco before the zba meeting so you try to get them to
vote right then and there and they told me and you know we can't vote they said there will be
no voting that day now they saying there was a vote and we lost we didn't want to vote so that
sounds kind of funny to me thank you okay i'll share do you want to you have any other comments
i just really would like the board to understand the dynamics of what happens i understand that
the community members who are on the call feel that they don't want change. And that's, that's
understandable. And we try to, as Mr. Watson said, explain to them that we heard their concerns.
There was no callousness. We actually asked if they had any specific requests,
requests, we would consider them, but they continued to insist that we were not listening
we would consider them, but they continued to insist.
to them. That was the whole conversation, that we weren't listening. We weren't. We sat on the
meeting for about, it was over an hour. And Mr. Watson is not the kind of owner who wouldn't want
to address any concerns. Again, the first that we're hearing is that there's opposition is here
because we were told there was no vote that was going to be taken, that they couldn't take a vote.
So it's a little, as Mr. Watson said, confusing and, you know, somewhat concerning that
that changed somehow, and we didn't know about it until today. But with that aside, we believe
we've presented enough for the board to know that there are neighbors on that block who do support
Mr. Watson and our near neighbors in a block next to him that support him having two families he's
only asking for two he's not asking for three he's asking for two and as he said this was his
family's house and they had multiple people that lived there so understandably if you have a five
bedroom house five people could live there and parking would you know be what it is whether it
was single family or not. So we would just ask that you grant the variance, understanding that
this will not change the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Planning
Commission. Mr. Chair, please pardon the interruption, but we have one more hand raised
from a number ending in 61641. I will allow them to speak. Okay. Okay. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court stenographer hello can you hear me yes could you state your name
and spell for the court stenographer my name is Gwendolyn Blake Blair g as in girl w-e-n-d-o-l-y-n
b as in boy l-a-k-e where you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth? Yes. Are you a neighbor? Yes, I am. Proceed. Okay. I reside right across the street from
your client's residence. I also own the lot next to my home, which is 1820. On that list,
It said that it was granted a zone for three family homes.
Number one, I'm the owner of that, and I've never requested a grant for anything.
It's always been where I've been living here for many, many years for single-family homes.
And, again, I'm going to agree with the other neighbors that I'm with, and we are family-oriented.
We know each other.
um there is a severe issue about the parking whether or not it's too like adding on additional
family we're still going to have that issue and we're just asking that you would consider that
when you um whatever you decide that there is to be but you just need to know that it is very
congested in this neighborhood along with the services that are not being granted or not not
following through. I've had an issue with the tree that was planted by the city and it's been
over two, three years and I still have not had any results. Wait, we understand your personal
issues, but the question really is this property here, are you for the variance or against the
variance? I am not for the variance. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Nichols, you want to follow up
any questions? Well, I don't want to follow up with any questions from Ms. Ware. Thank you.
What I would like to just point out, as the board knows, the documents that justify the variances
are on Atlas. So we didn't research properties and find them to be multifamily when they weren't.
That's what I just wanted to point that out. Thank you very much. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chair and members, in 1967, the zoning maps were changed at this location from residential multifamily to residential single-family.
In 2014, a neighborhood-wide zoning map change left the single-family zoning unchanged in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variants for two dwelling units.
Ms. Nichols, we've had a great deal of testimony on this.
And what I want to do is take this to the other members of the board and meet in an executive session to vote.
to vote. We will vote next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m. on this request, okay? Thank you, Chair.
We will vote next Wednesday at 930 a.m. on those.
Thank you, thank you, and thanks for everyone else who called in. Is there anyone else in
the virtual audience whose 9.30 case has not been called? I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, everyone. See everyone at 2 p.m. Okay, Chair, thanks.
And Emily, thank you, Emily.
Thank you, everyone.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's CBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
And also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunket.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised if proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunket at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and
star 6 to unmute. To an unappearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the
address of the property a question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is now for
comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon. Number one, MI 2021-004-819-2900 Distance Street.
This resumptive of hearing this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, October 18,
2023 at 2 p.m. Number two, MI 2023, 001-213-301 Delmar Street. This case is continued. Number four,
MI 2022, 005-442-3021 Vare Avenue. This case is also continued. Number six,
MI 2022 007 282 4100 Orchard Street. This case is continued. Number nine.
MI 2023 001 286 152 to 58 West Logan Street. This case is continued. And number 10. MI 2023
303-001-364-1433 McFarren Street. This case is continued. Is there any comments relative
from the virtual audience on any of the cases that haven't been continued?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I do see one hand, Mr. Brian O'Neill.
I've allowed them to speak.
thank you mr chair sir could you say your name please mr councilman brian brian o'neill um
councilman for the 10th district which includes 4100 orchard right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed sir um we're asking for a
continuance, um, Sean Whalen, um, my attorney is on the, is on the call. Um, but two months ago in
May, um, this city solicitor asked for a continuance and, uh, as, as a favor, because he
had a very busy schedule. Um, we were not anxious to have a continuance, but we've been having
difficulty for the last year or so getting a measurement of said property garage. The property
in question is a garage. And we didn't get that. We had an agreement to get the measurement before
the next hearing, which is today. It was a must be tried. That measurement has not been taken
by the city. And I'm asking that the zoning board in their wisdom and authority
get a continuous there's a clear discrepancy on both the
get a continuous. There's a clear discrepancy on both the atlas and just a visual of the property
that this property is well into the required setback. And all we're asking for, it's a
different, it's not the issues we have before you in the appeal, but it's an issue that would
automatically make it a variance. And rather than waste the ZBA's time, and also knowing that
this is a serious issue that I'm hoping, and my counsel is hoping, he stated this in his
continuance request, that we can have an order that L&I or the survey department,
streets department um do a um uh a a survey or measurement of the um uh the garage from the uh
from the um uh you know with the setback and the uh and the utility easement uh we haven't heard
anything on that and i don't know what is going on hillary uh yes mr chair i've um i've asked um
mr reuter who is representing uh the city in this matter to hop on i believe he is coming on
okay um so let's if we could just give him a minute come on and respond to that thank you
they've been allowed to speak
mr reuter
uh the way i know this is this is sean whalen hi sean how are you sean i i swore you in earlier
didn't i you did that was my mistake apologize that's okay all right good um yeah just want to
let you know that i'm here i'm representing councilman o'neill okay to put it succinctly
so that mr reuter can respond and i think he will very clearly um we conditioned our last
continuance agreement on one item which was that basically we meet out at the site and have a
measurement done either by ellen i or the survey district um that has not been done and that's all
we're asking for right now so as soon as he gets on
leonard is on you've been allowed to speak i'm mr reuter hi sorry i apologize my computer i had
to reboot and that's okay just for the record state your name is spelled for the court reporter
sure leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do leonard have you heard any of the conversations we were having
uh yes and i know i know uh and i can surmise from what i maybe didn't hear uh i i were talking
about 4100 orchard and the agreement to remeasure um my understanding and my recollection is that
the we we the city did agree uh to go back out and and met and see if the prop if we could measure
uh the property um and we did uh reach out to the inspector there was a change of inspectors
for the area, and so unfortunately that didn't happen. I made several attempts to reach out to
the supervisors to see if they could arrange for another inspector to do that, and they just
unfortunately just haven't responded to that. I can say that the property had been measured
previously, which was the basis of clearing the permits. What we did not agree to, and this is
what I want to be clear about is getting someone from the survey districts to do that. I agree
that would be arguably more accurate. However, city surveyors don't do surveys on private
property without being able to charge a fee, which is somewhat substantial, and the city
wouldn't agree to waiving that fee. And by substantial, it's probably around $1,500 to do
a survey, to have a surveyor go out. So what we had suggested in the past is if
Mr. Whalen wants to get their own surveyor, again, if they want to get an actual surveyor,
there's plenty of engineers who are licensed surveyors to go out and measure. I can see
and try to make sure that we can have an inspector there to witness the survey done by their surveyor.
But again, you know, as far as L&I going out and doing measurements,
uh again you know as far as l and i going out and doing measurements i mean it would be just
an l and i inspector going out with the tape measure or something along those lines uh but
yeah an actual licensed surveyor uh is not what we agreed to at least not from the city we've always
been we have no objection whatsoever if they want to go do their own measurements and have
somebody from the city present for that or and you know mr whalen yeah chair if i may um i'm not
in disagreement with mr reuter i appreciate the clarification i apologize if it came off that way
um we had requested a measurement at the site that was what was agreed to uh when the issue of
whether you know the change in inspector had arisen we had simply suggested that maybe somebody
from the city survey district would be an easier or quicker option you know the city can make that
measurement however they want we just asked for notice so that we could be present at the site
and we would do so at ellenon's convenience and and again if if there is and again there may be
still difficulties in terms of just scheduling an inspector to go and do this since there's no
current open violation or anything um yes if there were if this were a violation case then
we would always do re-inspection um but if there's a difficulty getting somebody there i guess the
question i have is because it doesn't have to be a surveyor why do we need somebody from lni to do
this anyway any of us could just go out there with everybody present with the tape measurer
is you know again i will do my best to get an lni inspector to agree to go out there and do it
but I'm just not sure why it needs to even be somebody from L&I anyway. Can't we all just go
out there and measure it? So, Chair, this is Sean Whalen again. I understand Mr. Reuter's
point there, and that was actually the exact reason why we had asked this board to direct
the city to since this is an appeal against lni the board has authority over lni to direct them
to conduct this measurement and therefore mr reuter is freed of that hurdle of you know not
having any basis to force somebody out there that that was all we we had been requested wanted on
the record. Hillary. Yes, Mr. Chair. We can do this, right? We can request that a measurement
be done. In appeal against LNI, the burden is on the appellant to show that there is an error on
the part of LNI. So if LNI is willing to do the measurement, that is great, but the burden in this
case is on the appellant yes and and if if i can uh just interrupt i i will we will agree if the
board wants to you know and if and if miss emerson believes it's it's possible for the board to
quote unquote order ellen i to do the uh inspection that might actually be helpful to make sure that
somebody from ellen i gets out there i can just say hey you got to do it um why don't we do that
hillary i'm i'll i won't object to that um uh but um well and again i don't i don't we don't want
to get into the merits or anything like that but this is an appeal against the validity of the
permit not that there was an error in the actual construction which so if we go out there and we
just we determine that the measurement is actually uh off and that in fact the uh the subject
structure is not set back far enough, that still doesn't invalidate the permit anyway.
It just means that there would be a violation for not following the scope of the permit that
was issued. So again, I guess that gets into the merits. Hillary, why don't we do this? Let's
order for L&I to go out there. Let's just get this moving. All right. Okay. And Mr. Chair,
what i will do is i will i will send uh correspondence on behalf of the board um
requesting the inspection um and copy all parties so that um that can get moving okay good
thank you very much chair and thank you mr reuter and thank you miss emerson yeah is sean ward also
here or no i don't think he intended on showing up i don't i didn't see him but right okay that's
fine. Thank you. Obviously. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much, everybody.
Okay. So is there any other requests for continuances?