You could have four charging stations, or actually you could have five charging stations, but I think the application was for four.
um Ms. Clark can uh can uh correct that uh at the end of my uh presentation um
come on Rob try to get a little closer you're fading out oh sure no problem uh yeah so here
we have yeah you know just the uh the site plan showing that you know vehicles turning in from
East Bringhurst Street uh an important thing to note is that the immediately it's currently a
vacant parking lot. The immediate adjacent property is an existing parking lot for Covenant House
which is across the street and serves the community providing important social services
but you can see in this photograph there is an existing parking lot. So with the improvements
that Ms. Clark is proposing it would effectively appear to be an extension of the next
door the next door parking lot um and again the idea here is that if you were have a multi-family
uh development you would invariably bring a lot more people a lot more vehicles
and create more of uh of a bottleneck in in uh searching for uh on street parking
that you otherwise wouldn't have here.
Now, I am filling in today for Mr. Malthahill,
I was, I am filling in today for Mr. Mulvihill, who is out on medical leave currently. So I know that he knows a lot more about the history here with the, with the community and the notices. Everything was properly noticed.
who is...
I did want to note, though, that while there's not a tax clearance that appears to just be administrative glitch, there is no property tax balance on the property, and we do have that in the packet.
And the only tax balance showing for the property online is for the property tax, and that's not due until March, and that's right here.
Mr. Monroe, does your client live next door?
she does not live next door so she's just buying a vacant lot yes and she's going to create five
spots for people to charge their cars to charge vehicles right the idea they would have some kind
of money yes they put money in and she'd make money or yes yeah so so there would be they pay
for like a membership uh that sort of thing so yeah so instead of having to go and gas up at
the station which you can't do with an electric vehicle you would just go in and plug plug in your
vehicle. You know, arguably, you know, there's currently a vacant lot there. You're not going
to be dealing with a lot of high traffic coming in and out. It's, you know, probably not really
have any material impact on the surrounding neighbors. And while I think that, you know,
again, while I think that there was some opposition, from what I understand, Ms. Clark
tried to make a presentation, but I think that there was some heated exchanges between Mr.
Mulville and the RCO and she kind of stepped into a hot room and didn't really get an opportunity
to present her case. But with that, I just want to say, I'll conclude. And Ms. Clark,
if you could raise your virtual hands on the Zoom so they can let you in.
Ms. Clark, please unmute yourself. You're free to speak.
Good afternoon to the zoning board.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Marilyn Clark, M-A-R-I-L-Y-N, last name C-L-A-R-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Ms. Clark, did you hear the factual statements I made on the record?
I did.
And Ms. Clark, we both know I'm new to this case, and there might have been a couple of things. How many parking spaces or how many charging stations are proposed for this property?
There are four stations proposed for the property.
Got it. And then aside from that glitch, were the remainder of the statements that I made true and accurate?
Yes, they were.
Okay. And would you adopt them as your testimony?
Yes, I did.
questions from the board no mr chairman yeah yes mr chairman uh exactly how many parking
spaces on the outside of the lot is this station going to use for the vehicles going in and out of
this a lot and uh and let me just ask um is the question related to how many uh on-street
parking spaces are um going to be impacted by uh the creation of a dedicated uh driveway
yes i i i believe it's just a single space okay all right no mr i'm good
questions or comments for the virtual audience
chair we have rosalyn last name ending in elma the mary okay
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter good afternoon
I'm Rosalinda McKelvey, President of the Wakefield 49ers Community Improvement and Development Association, RCO.
Okay, so you've already been sworn today, so you can just start testifying.
Thank you for the time to present to you.
First statement I'll say is the lawyer who was stepping in for Mr. Mulvihill, we were not notified of any change in counsel.
that would be represented today. Two, the last meeting that we did have scheduled,
Ms. Merlin had to represent herself. Mr. Mulvihill came on in the Zoom, but then left.
Mr. Mulvihill came on in the Zoom but then left. We had asked him to give us information on any feedback because he put his fax number in. He didn't testify. He didn't say he left the meeting.
So that's statement one. But we have all our overlapping RCOs that have said no. And the close overlapping or adjacent to said no, virtually because we have not been able to get above board information.
There was no presentation of any certification of mailing.
There was an email with an attachment that the man said someone had sent them out, and we asked him four times, can we please have proof of mailing?
Just send us a picture.
I have documents where even the city council office sent him an email asking for proof of certification that you've mailed it.
This is following after they hand-delivered the wrong address and the wrong date for the first meeting for this.
The second letter, after you asked them to notify us, they sent a letter out certified, they said, to people with the wrong date, January 13th, and we asked them again, can you please send the neighbors the correct date for your court hearing?
then they sent out another letter that the RCOs did not get for January 18th. With all those
errors, the neighbors have been feeling quite uninformed, and when we did have the meeting,
Ms. Clark wanted to present. The meeting was canceled because, again, we had no notification
officially to the neighbors, but the neighbors called me because they wanted to know what
happened. Ms. Clark did come on and wanted to present. And we told her, since we had no
notification to city council or all the RCOs of this meeting, we're only here to tell the neighbors
we're sorry, but she wanted to present. So it wasn't a hostile meeting. It was the fact that
they had not duly notified the neighborhood. Unfortunately, their postings, the first one
he showed that is orange, he posted that on Halloween, the deadline of us notifying before
the November 2nd meeting, and it was put by hand in neighborhoods front yards. The second posting
I have online, I can show you the picture, is from October and from November. They have failed
to post today's meeting. I took the picture this morning. The neighbors went out every week for the
last two weeks. They have not posted today's meeting for the neighbors on Bringhurst Street.
We have those that I've gone out to, and trying to wrap this up, the agreement with Mr. Mulvihill
was that if people could not come on zoom we presented a paper form to him that he emailed
out and said he certified mail to people that they could give it back and send it back to us
and they if they have signatures today if they have any approval they have bystepped the entire
community by not even telling us they had signatures off another block, not off Bringhurst
Street. So with all these things, we have said we are opposed. The neighbors have said they're
opposed. They took a lot that the neighborhood has spent the last 20 years cleaning and putting
flowers on and said that they're going to put for her parking, electric parking on Bringhurst Street,
which is one block from a school the crossing guard said she has enough loiterers we said where
are the people going to go while they have to go to the bathroom or let their car charge they said
that wasn't their concern they did not know and the neighbor said they'll be peeing in the bushes
and how do we know these people are in the front of the house also they could not provide us that
night any pictures of the fence. The fence is a privatizing fence. They said they will not
landscape or put any flowers on the block. It's going to be black topped. And when we again asked
them, they referred to Covenant House. Covenant House has sent an objection to this because
they can't use their bathrooms. Covenant House works closely with the neighborhood from Broad
from Broad Street to Chestnut Hill. And these people have not talked to us. They have not
street to Chestnut Hill. And these people had not talked to us.
conferred or talked to any RCO. If they got signatures, they haven't informed us of any.
I believe someone said, well, we've been on 10 minutes ago, an email.
Ms. McKelvey, so it's to say that you're against the project?
Five RCOs and all neighbors. We have not one yet.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your time in calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
I'm Mr. Richardson.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
uh it's just just a few minutes ago prior just a couple minutes prior to the uh to the beginning
the proceedings uh mr monroe sent a email showing a pdf of of this uh petition that had been
circulated uh showing some 29 or 30 signatures um and i did a quick did a quick you know because
of the fact it came up literally but during that five minute period that you had given us to
during the break. So I did a quick download of the of the of the addresses that were that were
required by the Planning Commission. And then I compared them to what they have on the on these
on the petition. They have addresses on Queen Lane, 14 addresses on Queen Lane, there are no
addresses on Queen Lane that were required or included in the Planning Commission. They had
seven signatures from Penn Street, which is not included either. They have two signatures from
Sheldon Street, which is not included, and also one from Baten Street, which is not included.
On Brighurst Street, which is the only street that actually was included, they have five
signatures. So out of that 29 signatures, they only have five valid. So, you know, I can only
say that, you know, the Councilwoman is definitely against this proposal. It doesn't have any context
for the community in there.
And it's kind of a waste of resources
for something that she's trying to do as a money grab.
And that's pretty much where we are on this situation.
Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no answer.
Wait a minute, Chair.
I was going to say,
if I could just address some of the comments that were made.
Sure, sure.
Just to clear up the record.
Number one, with respect to, Mr. Mulvihill has had a medical emergency.
That's the reason, and I did not know I was going to be taking this case until last night.
There was no subterfuge and changing out in counsel.
This was addressing a medical emergency.
Number two, I have open my screen the letter.
And just to clarify, Mr. Mulvihill did, in fact, send out notification.
And as noted in the RCO's letter, materials were sent out to 110 neighbors.
I think there was an error with respect to date and time, and then that was corrected.
The only documentation I think that they were looking for was the certificate of mailing form.
uh but there was in fact the the um the mailings were set and mr moldhill provided uh proof that
he paid for the uh the postage um okay and in absence of that and then i i think finally i
think a lot a number of the concerns are simply just related to the notice um the the meeting was
attended and um uh the uh the concerns about the projects that have been raised have been based on
speculation related to whether or not people would need to use the bathroom and that's a
gross misunderstanding about how the uh the project would work all right planning commission
yes excuse me chair we have mr richardson and another a member of the audience all right
mr richardson again go ahead just to rebut uh there were no no no no there was no mailing uh
Mr. Mulvihill hand-delivered everything as far as that was concerned.
And there was no mailing.
And we went back and forth on this, you know, in a very protracted way.
So just to clear that up, there was no mailing.
All right.
Thank you.
One more person in the audience.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
That's Charnay Ratchford, that's S-H-A-R-N-A-Y, last name Ratchford, R-A-T-C-H-F-O-R-D.
All right, do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Are you in favor of the project or against?
I'm against.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
and thank you for taking the time to cause planning commission so this is uh ron bednar
And thank you for taking the time to close.
Planning Commission.
city planning first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r
do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do proceed uh this property is indicated for multi-family residential use
on the city plan to establish a hardship for use the applicant must demonstrate that there's
no possible possibility that the property can be used in strict conformity with the provisions of
the code and that a variance is necessary to enable a viable economic use of the property
we do not believe that this applicant has met that burden the refusal for landscape requirements
fence height and drive aisle width represents a self-created hardship stemmed from the
applicant's choice on establishing the non-conformity use on a residentially zoned
property. Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny all the variances.
Thank you. MI 2022-003-295-230 East Springhurst Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Number two, MI2022005451, 1000 Cotman Avenue, Vern Anastasio is the attorney for the owner.
No RCA letter at this point.
Meeting was held 12822 Burr Home Community Town Watch and Civic Association.
mr chair this is hillary um i just noting that i'm recusing from myself from this case and
ryan mcsherry is filling in thank you okay okay mr chair i was uh being logged on when you were
announcing uh but we do have a vote tally from the rco okay all right so we'll cover that and
make sure that you send that to hillary please when you get a chance um i believe they did but
i'll be happy to do that again already been sworn um could you identify your client and the
relationship to the property is dr sabri ibrahim is uh my client for the subject property and
this is a bit of a bit of a sticky wicket because well before we get to the sticky
wiki could you uh could you answer a few questions from the vice chair sure
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy sure have you emailed in all of the documents that were required to proceed with