And let me see one more.
This shows the back of the school.
This is the vacant lot where the church was.
This is the view of Distant Park from Keystone Street.
Beyond Distant Park, just the park there, is the railroad tracks.
And then beyond that is I-95.
So, you know, that's clearly, it's not a, there's no significant impact on the community.
So, you know, this is really what the project is, is to take a building that was damaged in the fire, was owned not by the archdiocese at that time, owned by a private individual who had been involved as a deacon in the church, but could not repair the building to its prior condition and live in it.
and was sold to Mr. Brodsky in 2023.
uh in 2023 so we are proposing to put a potential danger to the community back to a
So we are proposing to put a potential...
legitimate uh community use and with that i'd ask mr broski to be admitted and
see if he will adopt my testimony
good morning sir mr broski please raise your virtual hand
Mr. Brodsky. I see no hands. Mr. McElhant, Mr. McElhant, you're an officer of the court.
I am. I still am. And we will take your testimony. Thank you, sir.
All right. With that, I have nothing further. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david vecto with the
city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential single family zoning at this location the size and configuration of
the former rectory presents a hardship to reusing this property as currently zoned we suggest the
appellant should submit a request to the city planning commission and council for a zoning
change. The building is close to public transit and the comprehensive plan supports increasing
residential density near the regional rail station. The city planning commission recommends
the board grant a variance for multifamily housing and any associated parking variances.
Thank you. We're going to hold the vote on this. And so Hillary, you touch base with
Ellen and I, and as soon as we have an answer, then we'll conduct the vote. Is that right, Hillary?
That is correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, sir. Good day.
Number 13, MI 2023-006-540-1147 South 52nd Street.
Roger Perry is the attorney.
There was no, there was, there's no RCO letter at this point,
But there was a meeting on 325 by the 51st Ward Democratic Executive Committee.
Mr. Chair, we did receive a letter of support this morning just to update that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Perry.
Good morning, Mr. Perry.
Could you unmute, please?
I'm unmuted.
Thank you.
Could you state your name for the record?
I believe you were already sworn once today.
Am I correct?
Yes, we had an earlier case, Roger Perry, P-E-R-R-Y.
Mr. Perry, could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yeah, I have two clients, actually. Ameslet Tedla, A-M-L-E-S-E-T-T-E-D-L-A, is the owner of the property, and her daughter is Saba Tedla, who's here today, and Saba was essentially doing the paperwork for this retirement duplex.
okay uh and mr hallman has a few questions thank you good morning counsel do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy yes we do did you email all of the
exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing yes we did thank you
please proceed and share your screen okay should be up there
yes okay great okay yeah this is a uh property 1147 south 52nd street as i indicated it's uh
owned by my client uh it was purchased um in 2019 then sort of got stalled with uh
COVID and so forth, but it was purchased with the anticipation that it had already been
renovated as a duplex. When they went to, Amoslet was going to move in here and get rental income
from the adjacent property, but when they went to get the permits, it was discovered that it was
not a legal duplex, that it was still in an RSA five single family property and so forth. But I'll
I'll show the photograph showing that it had essentially been renovated as a two-family, two units.
Let me just scroll down through.
This is the deed.
It's been posted.
The refusal is because we were asking for a duplex and an RSA 5 property was posted properly.
We had the hearing with the RCO.
I just know that I can come back to this.
but we're requesting a duplex at 1147 South 52nd Street, the adjacent property at 1145 was a duplex.
South 52nd Street, the adjacent property at 1145 was a duplex.
And the adjacent property at 1149 is actually a triplex.
Let me see what I can...
Okay, so that's...
Okay, the duplex.
This is the block across the street, a series of it.
taxes have been paid and this is the plan the layout for the property it's a basement
as rehabbed and three floors it's a unit one and unit two let me see if I can put up the
you should be seeing the properties this is as it exists when they bought it it was metered with two
meters a separate entrance into the basement area the interior had been renovated it has an entrance
way uh which separates into two uh access uh ways um let's see what we got here
uh there's a kitchen in each unit uh there's bathroom in each unit this is the stairs going
upstairs i apologize for the flipping leaf up this is going from uh to the second floor
uh there's a bathroom in each unit um three bedrooms on the uh let me see second and third
floors three bedrooms the uh first and second they're they're bi-level units uh bedroom bedroom
bedroom so forth and this was as uh when they bought the property in the second kitchen and
so forth and so on so the property is essentially fully renovated but of course uh because it's
not a legal duplex. They couldn't get permits to operate it, and that's why we're here today,
in order to get it legalized as a duplex. This was the layout, the plan that was provided to me
by Ms. Tedla. And the block itself is, on this area of 52nd Street, is essentially multifamily,
and the two adjacent units are multifamily.
We did meet with the community organization.
As Hillary, the board, I believe, indicated,
they got a letter either last night or this morning
indicated that they were actually in support
of the variance for a duplex.
If I can ask, I believe Saba Tedler is in the audience
and she can review and adopt my testimony.
Are you there, Saba?
Yes, and they have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name?
Saba Tedla.
And spell for the court stenographer.
S-A-B-A, last name T-E-D-L-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Is this your property?
This is my mother's property.
okay hillary we can take her testimony
um if she's if she's i understand she was filling out the paperwork but if she's not
the deeded owner i don't think that we can okay i can just ask her a question about she did the
paperwork for the uh for her mother who's older and was moving into the property just a question
of whether or not she's familiar with my testimony,
I'm not saying that she's the owner of the property.
Up to the board.
Yeah, that's fine.
If you want to have her as a witness
to answer a couple of questions
based on her familiarity with the property, that's fine.
But I don't think she could adopt your testimony
as she's not the owner.
Saba, you heard my testimony?
And you arranged,
your mother obviously was intending to move
from the midwest i understand is that correct yes and uh did you handle the paperwork when
the property was purchased yes i handled all the uh paperwork as well as all the affairs of my mom
okay and uh was the property essentially uh looking as i presented it today when you purchased
the property as a setup with two meters and uh configured as a duplex yes okay and uh was there
anything in my testimony that was in air that your mother would have an objection to no thank you
questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary
emerson not at this time question or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands. Planning Commission. Thank you Chairman and good morning David Vecto with the
i see no hands planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david
City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single
family zoning at this location. This property appears to have been converted without the
benefit of permits. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the use variance
for two dwelling units. Thank you. MI 2023-006-540-1147 South 52nd Street. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
You have your vote, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number 18, MI 2023-006-843-2731 North Darien Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There was a meeting held February 15, 2024, by the 12th and Cambria Advisory Board.
Anastasio, you've already been sworn.
Just for the record, could you please state your name?
Yep, it's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
I'm sorry I represent
Killian Gerson
Thank you
Mr. Harmon has a few questions
Good morning counsel
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy
Yes sir
Did you email all the exhibits and documents
as required five days in advance of this hearing
Yes sir
Thank you
Please proceed and share your screen
Thank you.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, this is a fairly straightforward case.
This is the property right here.
It is zoned RM1, just like every other property on the block, save the corners, just like
every other property across the street, and just like every other property beyond that.
It's an RM1 neighborhood.
it uh so we want to make sure that that is um and here is another aerial view of the property in
question the application is for a two-family dwelling and you'd probably say well if it's rm1
and you ask for two family why are you here why did it get refused literally got refused for
a tiny, tiny amount of square footage. We have 676 square feet of the lot, and it's required
that the lot be 720 square feet. Obviously, we can't make the lot any bigger, and this property
was purchased by my client in 2021 as a two-family dwelling, completely rehabbed.
And he believed after checking the RM1 status that it was a legal two-family dwelling when he purchased it, only to find out later when he submitted for the rental license, he could only get one for one unit rented.
And that's when he contacted me, and we've been through this process.
We did meet with the RCO.
I believe they sent a report of some sort.
Virtually no immediate neighbors showed up. It was just the leadership. But I've also sent and submitted under separate cover. Here's some photos, and I'll scroll down these while I talk. Under separate cover, several photos of the block itself.
there's 14 vacant lots on the on just just this block in addition to the 14 vacant lots
there are six vacant structures all boarded up or masonry sealed so it is a terribly difficult
block uh to to live on especially in a single family situation but this is the property my
client purchased as you can see uh this is from 2021 uh completely rehabbed
he purchased it and then subsequently found out that despite the classification of rm1
uh they're you know about a hundred square feet uh as far as the lot is concerned short and because
of that, we're unable to get the rental license for the two-family dwelling, and that's why
we're here, because we can't make the lot any bigger, because the difference between
what the lot is and what it should be for a two-family dwelling is de minimis in nature
as far as square footage is concerned, and because the property and the block is zoned
is zoned RM1, and the block itself is blighted, to say the least. We respectfully request the
RM1 and the block
itself is blighted to say
granting of the variants. And I do have Killian Gersig here, if he can please raise his hand.