I don't know if the council was implying
that we were looking at the
owners in any different way than we would look at any other owner
because that's not how we operate
our vote last night was unanimous 15 to
nothing 15 to zero as opposed
we have had an overrun of
single housing developments and duplexes that are being turned into duplexes and or triplexes
without anybody knowing. Now, I understand that this individual is going through the proper
channels. The feeling in our neighborhoods right now is they're fed up with it. We've had
L and I go out. They can't get into these
dwellings to find out if everything's
up to code. And
I currently am dealing with
six different
changes to houses
to duplexes
or triplexes
that we're dealing with
the councilman's office
and with L
and with l and i so our neighborhoods kind of had it um we we're fed up with it the parking has
and I. So
our neighborhood's kind of had it.
become a it's become ridiculous and you know it's funny when i sit here and listen to
us speaking about one car you know per you know you have six houses you have six parking spots
in our neighborhood i don't know if it's like this everywhere but i i don't know anyone that
has one car there's two three sometimes four cars okay although they have woods across the street
from where they live right now there's a four-lane highway that you would have to cross
if you parked across the street um so we're we're talking about adding additional parking there
um i guess uh and i'm from what i understand that after our meeting last night they've had
numerous trash violations
at that location.
And we've received calls
from local neighbors as they were
contacted in opposition.
Although they did not
all make the meeting last night,
they did contact our president
and oppose the
variance
to allow it to be
a triplex.
But we were in complete
agreement because i and i have to say it's it has a lot to do with what's happening in our
neighborhood right now and uh people are just going and uh and and making these single homes
and or duplexes uh and upgrading them without going through the proper channels so even though
it's already operating as one i we we still don't approve of any type of change and we've been asked
by uh by various neighbors to please show our opposition to any variance that would allow this
okay thank you i just want to i appreciate okay thank you mr bronzer so so you're i'm sorry mr
chair i i i just want to for the record and i appreciate the testimony of the protestant
those trash violations we do acknowledge they were from the previous owner and they have been
uh cleared number one and number two again she's not trying to do anything other than
to legalize what she just purchased okay certainly understand the problems associated
with density and parking um but in this case seems like this whole block was done as a multi-family
okay all right all right thank you mr bremser your uh your your view is uh recorded is there
anyone else in the virtual audience that has a question or comment no we have alice udovich
they have been unmuted and allowed to speak good evening alice good evening everyone alice udovich
on behalf of councilman brian o'neill my last name is u-d-o-v-i-c-h okay i wasn't even going
to have you do that didn't you already uh weren't you on earlier today okay all right great great
good to hear from you. Okay, go ahead. I just want to stress that in every case the councilman
opposes legalizing these conversions. This area was developed with row homes with often a small
set of duplexes or duplexes on the end of rows. However, it's still in a zoning class for single
family because that's the desire of this neighborhood to keep as much single family
as possible. You'll often hear, and I've heard several times today because I've been on many
hours as you have, a request for not using the basement for living. And that's exactly what you
have in this instance. It's a basement apartment. And there's no reason why a property that's built
as a duplex cannot be used as a duplex. There's no hardship here whatsoever.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Alex.
Mr. Chair, I also just want to just, again, reiterate, appreciate the testimony of the council office, of course.
This property is 100% above grade, and it was built out as a duplex, I'm sorry, built out as a triplex,
marketed as a five-family and a three-family dwelling on two different listings that my client relied on upon purchase.
and it's identical to all the other properties on the block.
Okay, Ron.
Understood.
Any other questions from the virtual audience?
Comments?
I see no hands at this time, Mr. Snell.
Okay, great.
So, planning, planning commission.
uh uh planning planning commission yeah this is uh ron bednar um city planning first name ron r-o-n
Yeah, this is Ron Bette.
last on bednar b-e-d-n-a-o thanks ron um this property is indicated for residents excuse me
um mr mr snell did uh did you swear in uh mr bednar i said it was his first time testifying
this evening you're okay it's your first time sorry ron uh let me swear you in do you uh swear
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thanks ron proceed okay this
property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given a documented use history of your
site recommend the request for variance be granted provided two units only okay so i think what we're
going to do here i'm going to take uh council's recommendation okay well we don't have an rco
letter all right so let us get the letter and uh hillary what in a week or two uh we can uh vote on
it um why don't um why don't we hold this one to um march 13th at at 2 p.m uh the record is closed
um and mr anastasio did receive those extra exhibits you sent today so those are included
um but the record is otherwise closed except for a letter um from the rco thank you thank you all
thanks hillary all right thanks thanks for taking me first appreciate it sure thing sure thing
Okay, so on to case number two, MI-2023-005743, 56 North 58th Street. Nixon Kana is the attorney for the owner.
uh i also once again i'm gonna i'm gonna state uh uh lebaron uh is is um lebaron leonard palmer
from district services will be uh serving as an alternate on this case as well all right um so uh
if the attorney can identify themselves their client and the client's relationship to the
property. Good evening, Commissioner. Nixon-Connor representing 56 North 58th Street, LLC.
My client is the owner. First name spells H-A-M-D-I. Last name is A-Y-A-Y-D-A-H. I believe he's on
zone, but he might be on another name, the individual who's helping him navigate the zone.
and his name is Hamza, it's H-A-M-Z-A, same last name.
So they both should be on.
Okay, thank you.
I want to swear you in, Nixon.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay, great.
At this time, I'm going to have board member Tom Solomon ask you a few questions.
Good evening, counsel.
Good morning.
Do you agree to wave the reading of the review book and simulate to his accuracy?
yes I do did you email all exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing
not me personally but I believe they were interviewed I mean they were even email
thank you please proceed and share your screen
Can anybody see the screen or I can't see it?
Well, there's nothing really on the screen, just the top of the screen.
okay let's go to the top what about now commissioner uh i cannot no it hasn't changed
so you you are sharing your screen it's just your zoom screen just have the documents open first
so you might want to stop sharing and then reshare your screen okay
yep and now open your documents up and once you hit that green share button it's going to ask you
what documents you would like to uh share and then click on the documents
and then click on the documents can I get it yes okay thank you thank you thank you
we're good now yes okay um
Exhibit 1 is basically the notice of refusal. This property is a property that Avarian was issued going back to 1941. It has a ground level, unsure whether that ground level was ever
used as a residential, but in 1941, the variance was granted to use that ground level as a doctor's
office. My client is before the board this evening trying to the doctor's office is no longer there
and he's trying to see he's seeking a variance to use that as a as a residential space. Let me just
down here.
Okay. This is the picture of the structure. As you guys can see, I have a problem with
this a minute. Okay. So basically, is it? It's a right now, where the where the posting is posted?
That's, that's the former doctor's office. And my client is seeking a variance to develop that
as a as a residential, an apartment on the first floor, which we should now move this from a two
family dwelling to a three family dwelling. The next the next exhibit prior to that,
well in addition to that you could see the posting as the posting was done. I believe it was posted
since early February for for today's hearing. My client did attend the community meeting,
have the letter of approval from the community which which is further down in the exhibit
The RCO for this was Achievability.
They basically issue a letter in support
of the development of this property.
That's the D.
The D is in the name of the LLC,
which is owned by Mr. Hamadi, who is on the line.
This is his D.
and he owned the property since 2017.
Now he's trying to develop the property.
This is the current layout of the property.
As I indicated previously,
there's an apartment on the first floor
and the second floor.
On the ground floor,
again, I'm not sure looking at the record
whether there was previously a living space,
but according to the records in 1941,
the youth was converted to a doctor's office
from what we don't know and we're just trying to get back our hope is that it
was it was previously residential and we're trying to get it back to
residential. This is this is the layout unit one is now the doctor's office and
then unit two and unit three would be the second and third floor this is my
client's current certificate of tax clearance as of February 23rd or the taxes on the properties
are up to date. Again, in the application, I just want to just emphasize some of the points as far
as if this would increase congestion in the public streets. We don't believe it will. If anything,
it would decrease it, given that we're going from commercial to residential. There's really no
additional outside of permits for plumbing, electrical. We don't see any significant
and structural change to this to this property okay and and achievability was on board with this
yes they were yes okay is your is your client here could he adopt your testimony yes he will
if you want to bring him in a swarm name commissioner I could do that
If you want to bring him in and swear him name, Commissioner, I could do that.
If not.
Yeah, I think he's got to raise his hand.
Is your client's name?
It's Hamadi, H-A-M-D-I, but he might be under Hamazi, H-A-M-Z-A.
Hamza Ayada?
They've been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Amadi, can you hear me?
Mr. Hamadi?
Mr. Hamadi?
Habsah Ayyad, can you please speak up?
You're muted.
I heard something.
Mr. Hamadi, are you on the phone?
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to overtalk Yvette, but he's free to speak.
Can you hear me?
Ah, there we go. There we go. Good evening. Mr. Hamadi, could you state your name and spell it
for our court reporter, please? Hamdi Farhad. H-A-M-D-I, the same Farhad. F-A-R-H-A-T.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to swear you in now. Do you agree to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, great. Proceed, please.
Mr. Farrar, good evening.
How are you doing?
Did you have an opportunity to listen to the presentation I just made to the board?
Was everything accurate?