so so the so it's still there right and do we know what is what the use is
I don't know if it's a shower room, but how was it used in terms of the business?
Yeah, so it was used because there's a lot of oils being used as part of the massage process,
and some people prefer to clean themselves before they leave
and actually use the shower for that purpose.
Other questions from the board?
so so so so was there a letter do we have a letter of support from the rco no i mean i i think the
only letter we have right now is their request for continuance along with they want a continuance
and at this point they're uh unanimously imposed okay gotcha thank you right so one last question
so will you um i know the hours of operation uh initially was agreed to uh as a different closure
but they've been staying open an hour later.
Had they discussed that with the RCO that you know of?
When we presented it, we had said that the extra hour mostly also is for cleaning up
and trying to get the business property shut down.
I didn't get feedback at that time.
They had an issue with it.
Apparently, they took issue with it on their letter.
But at the meeting, that was just a discussion that, you know, we're operating a little bit longer than what was originally agreed to.
But that was also, again, the prior operator followed the same hour.
So we didn't, my current client didn't realize that there was an agreement to close at 9.
Other questions?
It says here that there was some fire hazards or some fire conditions.
So the fire alarm needs to be certified again.
There's actually someone working on that with the owner of the business.
Since we got that notification, there was a fire exit sign that needs to, I guess, to be updated or replaced because it's not lighting up.
And there was some extension cords used for some of the rooms where they had extension cords running from the wall.
we were told that that is not permitted.
It's a fire hazard.
So you're talking the hardwired smoke detection system.
Certification.
Annual certification.
Emergency lighting.
All right.
And I guess...
They're actually in the process of remediating all those items that were listed.
Right.
But the shutdown was because of the...
the shutdown was because of the fact that the temporary permit had expired like two years ago?
Yes, yes. The temporary permit did expire two years ago. The current operator wasn't,
because it was an ongoing business when they came in. The prior business owner apparently became
pregnant and decided that she no longer can take care of the business and transferred it to the
current operator and because it was already operating and existing he didn't rethink anything
of it and just continued the same operation okay about how many clients do we have here
so they generally um that question was asked i think they generally have i believe
it's by appointment for the most part um and then they said that generally speaking
they can get it's three workers generally there and each can see probably four four clients to
five clients a day, minimum. So about 10 to 15 customers per day.
And the services you're offering, you said it's massage, so it's...
Right. So facial, foot, body massage.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
um hillary we're going to wind up holding this um questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair are there any questions from the virtual audience
no hands at this time chair planning do you want to wait uh we'll weigh in okay so what i'm going
to do is um maybe a resumptive hearing resumptive hearing will give a chance for the the community
to come in, have some say, and Jen, I think some of the questions that were asked would
be worthwhile if your client could be here, too, to answer particular questions, right?
So I'm going to schedule this for a resumptive hearing, 1-13-26 at 9.30 a.m.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have one more matter, I believe, before the board today.
I don't know if that's ready to be heard or I can wait.
Why don't we do this?
Why don't, why don't you, yeah, okay.
Yeah, we'll be good.
All right, why don't we do it?
We'll, I see one of the councils in the audience here who, yeah, but we'll do your, not one
more, but I'm going to call it your fourth.
How's that sound?
Of course.
Of course.
So MI 2025-004-926-5017 Woodland Avenue.
This is a reconsideration hearing.
I believe that where we are with this is there will be a presentation by you.
There will be questions from the board.
There will be public testimony and the planning commission.
So just for the record, state your name.
Yes, Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N for the application.
Right. At the testimony and evidence presented at the original hearing on this matter are incorporated into the record for this hearing.
The scope of the reconsideration hearing is limited to the revised plans proposed by the applicant.
But as you start your presentation, you could just give us two minutes on what this case was about and then where you stand now.
OK, absolutely. Thank you, Chair. Good morning.
I'm going to share with the board the documentations we submitted for this reconsideration.
This is a reconsideration based on an application originally for a triplex at this location, which is zoned RSA 5.
We have, as part of our reconsideration request, reduced that to a duplex.
One of the main concerns, we believe, at the first hearing is the design of the building of the area is rather unique.
As the board can see from the photographs, there are porches, there are slanted roofs, and various unique design aspects to the facade, and our building is kind of a filler in the middle.
The community supported our original proposal, but the board had concerns with the original design being overly square and did not reflect the layout of the buildings in the area.
We have gone back with the architect to revise the building substantially, particularly in the setback facade area of the front to make sure that.
of sit back facade area of the front to make sure that the the roof design is one that while you
cannot exactly match next door has more of the character of the next door building brick facade
and the sit back porch which wasn't part of the original design all this would help make these
make this building fit much better into the neighborhood's design which I'm going to go
back to the photographs again that would much better fit the style of building that you see
already on the block which is a mix of brick and other materials but they have more character with
the porches and then this building which would share our the one side of our building has kind
of a unique slant to the roof. My client's architect tried to redesign with also a stylistic
slant, which would hopefully give it a much more coherent look to the two buildings once the new
building is constructed in. So it'll be brick facade, windows styled and sized appropriately
to match the neighboring properties and a front porch as well to match the neighboring properties.
We also will reduce the overall use from three units to two units by essentially taking away
the proposed third floor unit and enlarging the second and third floor combined unit to have
a much larger living, kitchen, family area, and the bedrooms would be part of a single unit rather
than having two separate units. The first floor unit would stay and continue to be structured
as originally proposed. And there is, again, a small setback roof deck for the upper floor unit.
so both units will have access to outdoor space as well.
So that is essentially the primary changes that were made
as part of our request for the board to reconsider this application.
We do want to point out again,
the community was in support from the beginning of this filler project
because they do want to see that this lot get developed.
And they originally actually had no issue with even the three-family design, mainly because it is not inconsistent with sizes and types of uses that they see in that area.
But we understand that a triplex might be too dense, and my client, again, has revised it to a duplex design at this point.
So that is our revised proposal we're presenting to the board today.
Do you want to bring your client on and adopt your testimony?
Yes, sure.
Let me see if...
Azik or Sam, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
There are no hands at this time being raised.
I counsel you.
You're an officer of the court.
We'll take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Yes, I have a question. So the RCO was okay with the two units too, right?
Yes. Well, they were okay even with the three units. So they are still in support of RCO.
But they've seen the revised plans and everything. Okay. And thank you.
What's happening with the basement? I didn't see anything labeled.
Oh, my apologies. Let me put that back up.
yeah so one one of the uh the basement will be let me put up that again
so that'll be a utility and storage and washer dryer they
they're not going to there's no living in the basement um one second my apologies
yeah so there's washer dryer um utilities it's it's basically a water closet uh there's
it's just going to be a essentially a storage space at this point um no proposed living in
the basement but the it's it's so the is it going to be finished um it well it's going to be because
it's a new construction so it will be there will be i don't want to call it finished but it's
you know concrete concrete and everything else would be in the basement it's not a
like a like when we look at older houses they tend to have a pretty rundown looking basement
this is still be a fully fully set up basement the plan the point your plan um is showing
the plan the point your plan um is showing a furred out wall in the basement all the way around
yes so it would be in a sense finished finished yeah yes so you so so if you're if you're not
utilizing the basement why is it finished i think the original the original plan also had it as a
finished space for whatever the uh person who's going to occupy want to use it for whether it's
workout room or anything else uh but again we understand that the board generally do not wish
to have uh living in the basement and we we have no issue with that all right other questions
is there outdoor space for the first the first floor unit uh yes there's a rear yard um for the
first floor um i believe there is a site plan um i see it 10 foot rear yard by 16. thank you
thank you other questions questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands raised at this time chair play any commission uh chairman we'll stand on our
previous recommendation okay um
so mi 2025 004926 5017 woodland avenue i vote yes with proviso maximum two dwelling units
Revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA on November 5th, 2025.
And no living in the basement?
No household living in the basement.
Michael Johnson, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you.
number three mi 2024 006 815 2000 west venango street um sherman tompin is the attorney
no rco letter do we have an rco letter hillary
or is a letter of opposition from tayoga united
Okay, so this one, so there were earlier letters submitted earlier this year, one in support and one in opposition.
But from your packet, it looked like there was another community meeting, I believe, in September.
And we have not seen any updated communications from the RCO from the time of that meeting.
Okay, just for the record, counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, my name is Sherman Toppin, last name T-O-P-P-I-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Mr. William Cook.
He should be in the audience.
He can be, I believe he's reflected there.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Good morning.
Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
All right.
Thank you.
you share your screen and proceed with the case okay so we are here um it should be right there
in front of you there it is so we're we're here to talk about 2000 west venango street and this
my client is william cook he is the individual owner of this property this property as you can
see by the picture is a industrial property but it is a series of just carriages that roll up in
the front uh we'll go we'll be talking to we'll be looking at the plans lower down let me just
go ahead and begin to scroll down to my typical all right so our the exhibits that we have here
include the this typical things that i generally present refusal deed application for appeal to
the cba the project information sheet the cba map um photos of the property as well as the plans
a notice of the hearing, the addresses we mail to, certificate of mailing, the notice of this
hearing, as well as photos of the posted hearing, as well, tax certificate. And the last thing we
don't have is the support from the RCO council person. Now, we know that Cindy Bass's,