where we're limiting our ability to just keep that for parking for a significant period of time
it was also a concern of the spring garden civic association to clearly spruce up this
this parking lot because we didn't have control of that front parking parcel until recently
so by code not part of this presentation but by code we're going to make submissions for zoning
and building permits to make it look nice and you'll see kind of what conceptually we're going
to do here so again we have three refusals for you know sub this subdivision and then taking this
two car uh space parking pad to one car parking pad separated from the association to make its
its own parcel so the first thing is is that because this is an rm1 property this this parcel
is 440 square feet in size. So we're, we don't meet the size limitations of 1440 for RM1 properties
because we're subdividing the parcel, the preexisting building structure at 2231,
we're cutting it right where the parking is. And so right now, then we don't have a rear yard
setback, but it's form over substance because nothing's changing physically with the properties.
And then third, this is a non-accessory parking lot, which is not allowed under R1 zoning classifications. Again, this parking is parking. It's basically being used by Mr. Jallow at 2240 Mount Vernon, nearby neighbors, things like that. And Mr. Jallow and his wife has lived there in the Fairmont area for some time.
Letter of non-opposition, again, through extensive negotiations, because there were concerns about us potentially trying to subdivide it and one day develop it, but also, more importantly, is to make a commitment to fix up that parking lot, now that we have full control of that parking lot, and make it something that, you know, when you pass by, it's going to look like something that we should all be proud of.
and again i just gave you like a zoning permit it had two open air parking spaces previously
approved for this parcel so again all we're trying to do is just reconfigure it make it into one
parking space which i think is the more appropriate thing and then aerial views of the property you
really can't see much here but this is coming down 23rd street
and then maps of the area this arm one property we're not increasing density we're actually
making the parking situation better in fairmont by doing it this way and the photographs of the
property this is from green street this is from 23rd street and then you'll see the parkings right here
oh these are the postings so do we
Oh, these are the postings. So do we have, I'm sure we have pictures of, of the parking. This is Green Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property. This is the parking lot. You know, you'll see it probably more direct somewhere else. North 23rd Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property. Shocked that we don't have the actual picture of the actual parking lot, but I'm sure we'll see it somewhere. This is the site plan that we reviewed at the beginning.
here you go here's the difference between what it looks like now and what the intention is again
this is just conceptual this is not part of this application this is something we worked with with
the coordinating rco um obviously everything has to be done as of right so in terms of fencing as
well as anything else that relates to it we're going to repave it and such
rco meeting notice our firm was involved in this so this this matter has been about was in existence
for some time so but that's the rco mean notice the notice of refusal proof of mailing of that
notice our application for appeal it was under the former owners the notice of refusal the project
information form the amendment to the declaration showing that we have standing to do this because
there was some question before of whether or not we could. So we, you know, got all the unit
owner's approval in terms of this application. And I think we also have the deed to the property
that Jack owns with his wife. Let's see. Yep. Here's the deed to the property showing that
they own unit number one in that condominium as well. So anyway, oh, and I think we have a tax
clearance certificate. I guess we sent it
separately. So anyway, that's it.
Please state your name and spell it for the stenographer.
It's Jack Jallo, J-A-Z-K-J-A-L-L-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Helen, just to get my Barron Street, is 23rd Street where the large church is?
What do you mean the large church?
Green Street, isn't that?
that that's 24 24 24 oh 24th it's not 23rd okay all right questions from the board
oh can i just have him at can i ask him three questions okay sure go ahead you heard everything
i had to state today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes is it true and correct
yes and do you adopt this your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board do we have the
the traffic study or plan or how you're going to turn into that particular lot.
And doesn't it go uphill? I think that's the building.
Again, I walk it sometimes, not a lot.
so um yeah but i mean you can yeah um it's it's an existing parking lot now so i understand yeah
so we did not do a traffic study or not traffic study but at least what we're talking about
turning radius turning raises let me let me see again we weren't involved in the initial filing
oh mr jallow so that was done in the past uh that is in there with ambric i don't know that yeah let
me see i presented here but they've done a traffic survey to look at uh that's part of the reason why
it was converted from two car parking originally to one car parking because of the turning radius
to get into that one spot yeah because there's parking on both sides of the street and there's
also the bus stop near there correct yes but ambric has done that traffic survey and that's
if you look at the original deed it was two car parking the current request is for one car parking
yeah but it's currently being used as yeah because i can't even imagine how that is
two car parking like our parking uh space is i wrote it down is uh 15 and a half by 28 25 and
that's that's the parking pad that was supposed to be for two spots obviously they didn't take
into account the 12 foot dry vial and then there's an easement area um here let me just pull this up
to the front it just makes it easier uh but yeah there's an easement area for those five parking
spots as well so when the board approved this some time ago i don't know how that was possible
because like here this is all existing so this parking pad is existing actually here's a little
history this used to be a laundromat here and i guess it got demolished at one point and then
through a variance this became a two-car parking pad based on 15 and a half feet this way and 28
and 28 and a quarter that way which is impossible and again because like you need to have this
and a quarter that way which is impossible and again because like
you know the obviously the drive aisle for here but also the easement area and here so we're
actually cleaning things up a little bit more not just in terms of physically with with the paving
and and the fencing but to actually make this a true legal parking spot and uh board member gaston
the the bus is a little further down i would say like that's not mid-block but it's not
really the corner either the like the opposite the corner yeah but on the other yeah the bus
stops at the corner this is a little on the opposite side of the street yes on the opposite
side and a little bit before the bus stop yes i i'll agree with you right there and isn't there
But isn't there a that that that area? It's like it's like a slope. It's not like flat ground.
Well, I think it's like a hump. It's a hump. I think she's talking about the site itself.
Yeah, actually, it's a little it's a hump because the parking that sort of to the back of it, it sits higher than the pavement.
There's there's a hump, maybe about two feet. There is. Yes.
if i may um want to get closer to the mic sorry the the intent is the flat it was a flat uh
it was a flat parking space when they were trying to park two cars there because of the
traffic survey demonstrating only one the previous owner inclined that that um that top left
photograph inclined it down uh if you look at the wall behind it you can see that sort of a
white line across the wall that's where the lot was flat but then it was inclined to it
in an attempt to accommodate two cars which was never approved um i think okay the goal would be
i mean with some with the local rco and an architect to see if flattening it and raising
the wall that you see in that right side it's sort of proposal this was done by the prior owner
actually i think makes it both more attractive and probably safer and easier to get around
okay and again you showed what uh amber had to say um have you presented this
have you do you have anything from the um uh our own uh parking um folks about this turning radius
here again um we took over this from former council whatever we're showing you is what we
have in the file so i i can't speak to that but obviously you know this was previously approved
by the z by you know or reviewed by lni and approved by the zba some years ago it was submitted
as non-accessory parking which had to get streets of review and approval in terms of this um so i
can't i apologize i only have what i have okay so the answer is no you don't have a streets approval
of this plan but but but l and i does and you know you know as part of this process
okay and the previous process as well where they allow for two car parking which i don't know how
that's possible okay thank you you're welcome questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any hands mr chair planning commission madison matera planning commission
staff comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rm1 residential multi-family zoning at this
location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 1974 and a council supported map change
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 proposal is to use parcel b
for parking once the property is separated it would become a legally non-conforming non-accessory
parking space but also a developable lot the creation of this new lot is not strictly necessary
to enable the appellant to drive value from their property the city planning commission recommends
that the board deny the reduced variance for a non-accessory parking lot and the proposed
dimensional variances for lot area and rear yard depth i may just quickly respond um so again this
was previously approved for two-car parking in order to clean up this this lot we're asking to
subdivide from the condominium association or the condominium structure and the use is not changing
and actually it's probably more appropriate use on this one from two to one to the one and then
to the one and then we have the five behind us and we it would be very difficult to to develop
we have the five behind us and we it would be very difficult
this property without having to then consolidate this and we also have agreed to a restriction
on development of this property which was one of the conditions of the associate the spring gardens
approval thank you all right mi 2023 002 047 2231 green street have vote yes michael johns my vote
yes daryl gaston my vote is no tenetta graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes hi owen
my vote is yes thank you thank you council um mr chair can we actually move to number 10
next we're waiting for somebody or number nine sure thank you
So, number 10, MI-2025-006-149, 3411 Bering Street.
Paul Bonney is the attorney.
Rachel Pritzker represents the permit holder.
And Jim Kelly or Leonard Reuter represents the city.
Hilary, what are we looking at here? 40 minutes? We need some time or we want to do the time
for the lesson. Give me where you want to be.
A half hour?
All right.
All right.
All right.
So we're targeting to finish this up in a half hour.
When I say finish up, as much information we get today, and if we have to, we'll have a resumptive hearing.
So, Mr. Bonney, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Paul Bonney, B-O-N-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is the Powleton Village Civic Association, which is the neighborhood group and RCO in this area.
And we are the appellant in this appeal against Illinois.
Yep. Rachel Pritzker?
yes um good afternoon or i guess good morning still rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l-p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes but you identify your client in relationship to the property
yeah so my client is jayden chen who's the current owner of the property
jim kelly could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes jim kelly j-i-m-k-e-l-l-y
on behalf of the city what happened oh do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do and your client city right okay um so we've had testimony on this
before and this is where i believe we stand uh thank you paul finishes his presentation
and then rachel would be next for her presentation and then mr kelly if you need do more we'll do
that okay so mr bonnie could you please um finish your presentation thank you mr chairman and maybe
you want to give us a quick overview sure thank you thank you and ladies and gentlemen of the board
This is an appeal against L&I brought by the Civic Association, Palenton Village Civic Association, and it involves a property of 3411 Baring Street in Palenton Village that had received a zoning variance in 1940 for four dwelling units.
a new property owner came on the scene just recently in 2025 and applied for and obtained
a building permit to renovate four units and that building permit relies on the 1940 variants
it's our contention that that building that that variance from 1940
has been unused or abandoned for a period of three years or more.
And that is the legal basis of our case is that when you don't use it, you lose it.
And if there's more than three continuous years of not using the variants, that it lapses.
Not using the variance that it lapses and then the underlying zoning then comes back into place. Here the underlying zoning is two units. So it's the difference between four or two units. Last time you heard from my clients from the Civic Association, they testified that as soon as they saw that this property had been listed for four units that they rang the bell to everybody.
And then the underlying...
They rang the bell to L and I. By submitting something through the portal, they rang the bell to the real estate agent. They rang the bell to the prospective purchaser and so we're following the process that the permit having been issued, we filed an appeal within 30 days and we're here to present evidence mostly today that the property was in fact unused for
many, many years. The variance was unused for many, many years. So that's, that's the background,
Mr. Chair. Okay, so why don't you, why don't you, why don't you finish up your presentation? Is that
it? Yes. So the first witness we have, I believe, is online, and his name is Tony Dominic. Mr. Dominic?
chair council i do not see anyone answering to that name in the virtual audience
we'll we'll try and rouse him but i can move to the other money move on to another witness okay
thank you um my next my other witness is david crawford mr crawford
oh can you sit here please
and why don't we push the mic next door
yep mr crawford could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer david crawford
c-r-a-w-f-o-r-d do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
counsel mr crawford um as the board will hear you're a neighbor of the subject property
but by way of introduction just tell us your occupation and your age please i was a software
developer until i recently retired and i'm 77 years old and where do you live and how close
is it to 3411 bearing my family lives at 3413 bearing street which is adjacent to the 3411
and when did you purchase 3413 bearing we purchased the property in 1978
and you've lived there ever since yes and you're saying that's it that's that's directly that that's
next door to 34 11 is that correct yes and who was the owner of 34 11 for you know almost the
entire time you were there uh clarence wilson and uh did you know clarence yes does your house
and clarence's house 3411 share a party wall or is there space in between we don't share a party
wall there's a space between us okay um can you just explain the the the uh you know what's on
the side of your property what's on the side his well the two units face each other uh properties
face each other and these and the entire length of our houses windows have faced each other as well
Okay. So the entire length of windows on your house face the entire length of windows on 3411. Yes. Thank you. Um, when you purchased in 1978, how many people lived at the subject property?
There were three people in three different units. Okay. So that's Clarence and two tenants. Yes.
and when did that and when and if when and if did that change sir
uh somewhere in the mid 80s uh one of the tenants moved out
and then it was just clarence and one of the tenant
okay uh thank you um and what was the name of the tenant uh that remained in the house uh with
Clarence? His name was Walter Grant. And Walter Grant stayed as a tenant for how long?
He stayed until he passed away in 2012.
He stayed until he passed away in 2012.
Okay, so after Walter died in 2012, it was just Clarence?
Okay, so to be clear, from the mid-1980s, which is basically the past 40 years, the property never had more than two dwellers.
Is that correct?