mr brittell uh because it won't the sisters have agreed i'm not saying it will i'm wondering if
that's a concern.
That concern, I believe chair was,
is going to be addressed by the deed restriction.
And I had suggested the possibility of a proviso
stating that the use is limited to convent use,
which I believe that would mean
that it would not just be a group living approval.
Any group living to replace the Sisters of Mercy
would be sisters, would be nuns.
That's right. And just to provide additional context, the property I referenced earlier in my initial presentation that the Sisters of Mercy have been a part of this community for over 30 years.
And that's because another property up on Woodbine Avenue did receive approval as a convent under the previous zoning code that Mr. Ward referenced earlier.
then the in 2012 as we all know the zoning code was updated with new categories and that was left
off and that's why we have to go through this variance process i just want to i know this
sounds complicated but but but it's actually not the board constantly routinely
but but but it's actually not the board constantly routinely utilizes provisos to limit
certain things that they can limit for uses that may not that may be um appropriate for the the
potential end user or landowner um and that's subject to community concerns in this case the
community supports this. The proposed use is simply and easily restricted by deed restriction
and the proviso. And so that part of it is not complicated. I understand that once we start
talking about the underlying legal definitions of the zoning code and the problems or limitations
of them, I understand that can get complicated and I know religion is a touchy area. But what
What we're essentially asking here is there's a proposed use.
The community is okay with the current occupant using it in that specific manner.
They don't want anyone else to use it in that manner.
And we have established deed restrictions and provisos that clearly stops that from
happening.
And in that case, that's what's before the board today.
And that's what we really need the board to be able to vote on because the alternative, if we, you know, try to continue this to explore this further or, you know, try to go down the legislative path, that is essentially, that's denying the variance and those sisters will no longer be able to live there.
That's the immediate effect of that.
So there's no objection to the recommendation by Ms. Soweto that we put a provisor that says limited to convent use?
Not from the applicant, there isn't.
No, not from my side.
It's simply that we know that the property isn't unique.
The problem is ownership by a religious organization.
Do we deal with it now or do we kick the can down the alley?
i guess all i'm saying is i don't want to deal with it at the expense of the sisters
that's what will happen i i think we all understand that and tom i know you had a
question on my it was a fully answered tom it's more clear to me now that the he's opposing it
the variance we don't thank you we he's not really don't oppose it but we think that it's
kind of stupid to grant a variance and then put on a proviso, which amplifies the fact that the
property isn't unique because we're going to take the variance away when the sisters no longer own
it, which shows that the only reason that you're granting a variance is because it's owned by the
sisters. Why don't we just fix the flat tire instead of driving down I-95 on the shoulder
for 12 miles. Okay. Thank you. One more thing. I believe the adjoining neighbor Diane Falcone
may be present. I want to make sure. Does the board have any more questions? No. Okay. Anyone
else would like to testify? Please raise your hand. Diane Falcone, if you're in the room,
There you go. Thank you.
Ms. Falcone, you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Hello?
Hi. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your full name.
Yes, my name is John Falcone. That's J-O-H-N, F as in Frank, A-L-C-O-N-E.
diane falcone is my wife um she did write a letter um hold on sir hold on do you swear
for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed
and you have to tell you need to testify on your behalf
yes uh so uh i live directly next door to the neighbor i am one house to the west of them at
6435 Woodbine. I just wanted to testify on the character of the, you know, the applicants and
the quality they bring to the community. Thank you. You know, the nuns, the sisters, they've always
been, you know, very warm and inviting. They were the first people to greet my wife and my daughter
and i when we moved into our house they've hosted us for christmas parties um you know we talk daily
you know they're very um you know very pleasant people um they've been pleasant with all of the
neighbors at the christmas parties in which you know we've been together for and um
we've uh been together for and um you know they definitely bring um they are an asset to the
community and john for the record you and your wife support the uh the grant of this
relief requested today yes that's correct thank you thank you anyone else to testify
well if i might uh not to be the skunk at the picnic but uh mr falcone is your house any
different or is the house that the sisters are in any different from the other ones
i think we can all stipulate mr shirmer that there's no difference in the houses on either
side or down the block or whatever i gotta make a record i'm not trying to be a nasty
Okay, make your record.
Mr. Falcone?
Is my house different?
That's what you're asking?
Would it make a difference if the sisters were in the house next door, the other side, the opposite side?
Would they all be the same good neighbors no matter where they were?
That's the only place for them to be our neighbors.
all the other houses are occupied
well said
anyone else to testify
i see no handshare
you planning commission
i'm mr chair and members of the of the board
mason austin representing the planning commission
the property is indicated for single family use
and comprehensive plan is zoned for that use. However, the application would legalize a use
that has existed at this location for over a decade and is supported by neighbors. Accordingly,
PCPC staff recommends that the requested variance be granted. Thank you. Two things. Before I call
the vote, please everyone hang around. We may have to go back to case number one, which we
said would be continued earlier. And secondly, I just want to make sure Mr. Ward and Mr. Patel,
if we include that proviso
limited to convent use
only, would that be appropriate or not?
We're not
opposed to the proviso being
worded that way. Thank you.
We all agree. Okay.
Thank you. MI 2021.
That's 001-574-
6425 Woodbine Avenue.
My vote is yes with the
proviso
variance limited to the use
of convent use only.
Confessor Plaza yes with proviso. James Snell yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman yes with proviso.
Thank you. So earlier we continued case number one. Ms. Sunkett I think informed us or maybe
Sharon did that the attorney who was representing that applicant was in court. We can hear the case
But my guess is, since we continued it, that if there are any witnesses who were here at the time that case was called, we informed them that the case was continued.
They will not be available to testify.
So is Mr. Auerbach there?
I am, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last two sentences.
I was just joining as a panelist and the audio cut out.
First things first, spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
uh it's daniel auerbach d-a-n-i-e-l auerbach a-u-e-r-b-a-c-h what i was referencing is
that since we continue this earlier today unbeknownst to us that you were in court there
was no one here to represent the applicant we continue the case my guess is that anyone who
may have been on the call earlier to testify in this case has since left because excuse me chair
I believe Ms. Sunkett has confirmed that there was no one registered to speak on this case.
Oh okay. Oh I'm sorry no I didn't. I apologize. May I ask a question Chair? Sure. Would it be
appropriate to allow the case to go forward and then a resumption to allow the testimony of all
parties and we can do a short continuance for the resumption hearing if appropriate. Yep that's kind
of where i was going i'm actually i'm not certain that that we can do that um since we don't know
who those people are it would require another whole posting there's no way of notifying them
notice is going out yeah so if you want to go forward with this i guess if there was anyone
signed on who needed to um testify or wanted to testify they could always request reconsideration
And I'm sorry to interject the thought again. I could give posters for the new date for all involved as well.
I could give posters for the new date for all involved, as well as notify all parties who
were registered for this hearing, for that address. Yeah, I would be more comfortable
if we can put some notification out there. Yes, what do you think, Counselor Saleta?
I'm not sure. Mr. Arba, do you have a letter from the RCO? Do you have any
any idea of whether there was opposition to this proposal we've made a great deal of outreach to
them they they we do not have a formal letter from them despite my repeated follow-ups after
the meeting they had raised some concerns about trash management we i thought we resolved it but
i don't despite my best efforts have a formal uh letter from from the rco okay yes then in that case
I would agree with Ms. Sunkit. If we can do a reposting and a brief resumption hearing
that would just allow anyone who is not here, it would give the public another opportunity.
Understood. Yeah, we'd have to notify the public.
thank you chair we will do make all efforts to notify everyone who actually registered here
as well as the other people that we have um the rco and so forth as well as the council office
we will take up that to notify them and the request would be that mr hourback notify any and
all persons who discussed or appeared with him for this case if that's okay it's up to the chair to
move forward yeah well thank you we will move forward and we'll take your recommendation as
to how to notify the public do we have a date i i'll ask this at the end but i guess i can ask
it now do we have a date sure i'll have a date available for you at the end of the hearing
thank you okay uh mr aurebeck please proceed oh with the uh i wasn't sure i understood the
resolution here so what what are we we're going to hear the case we're going to hold it we're
going to put out a new posting for a resumption hearing specifically to get feedback from anyone
from the community who may have been on earlier or may not have been on but we need to make sure
the public is aware that this case is being heard because we announced earlier it was continued
right understood your honest want to make sure i wasn't today i now understand that i am um is
Is there a way for me to make sure that my client is on the call so that he can adopt my testimony?
It would be Salim Payne.
Well, you can start with your testimony and then we'll bring in Mr. Salim Payne.
Well, I just want to make sure that he's on the call.
Mr. Allabek, yes, he is on the call.
We will promote him forward once you're ready.
Understood.
Thank you very much.
So, Your Honors, we're here.
I'm sorry, not Your Honors.
so chairman of the board and other board members we're here seeking a variance to build a triplex
at 2003 uh north 9th street it's just currently an abandoned lot it's been an abandoned lot since
at least 2007 which is as far back as as google maps uh goes i just want to share the screen to
show you the site. So I should have that up here. So this is the site. It's the abandoned
lot. The building to the right is a list, a group of five separate triplexes. Those approved
recently were proposing a similar use for this property. So I'm just going to go through
the other exhibits. So here we have the refusal, which has a issue with the lot area, which is the
most substantial issue, I believe, which is that we have an 851 square foot lot when we would need
a 1080 square foot lot under the code for a triplex. We also have some small issues with
the rear yard not being sufficiently large. There's three different issues there, but they're
all essentially uh the same as the rear yard size so those are the issues we would like a variance
as to we um i'm sorry mr chairman what is the proposed i i didn't the rear yard spaces what
rear yard the required open area is uh 25 we're at 22 okay we're um the rear yard area uh is at
83 square feet when the code would require 144 square feet uh and the depth is um to be nine
feet when we're proposing six feet and and essentially the issue here is the size of the
lot we're zoned rm1 the triplex use is authorized by the code in r1 of course and it's simply the
essentially the depth of the lot is uh preventing a uh triplex use as we believe is
is preventing a triplex use as we believe is the only economically viable plan for this for this parcel.
So to pull up the plans.
So the building we're proposing is it would be a four story building.
there's three units. The first two floors are one-bedroom units. The third and fourth floor
are a two-bedroom unit with a pilot house and roof deck. There's no issue with the height of
the building. That conforms with the code. Again, it's simply the dimensions of the lot that are
an issue. So this is what we have to show what the building would look like. I'm going to turn
to the interior plans. So let me just rotate it appropriately. So this outlines what I just
mentioned. So there's a basement with no living space just for utilities. We have a first floor
unit with one bedroom, a kitchen, and a living area. A similar unit on the second floor and the
third and fourth floors, as I mentioned, would be a two-bedroom unit with the roof deck.
and this this is the plan that we believe is the only viable development we given what my client
paid for a lot which was over a hundred thousand dollars in the economic detriment of not being
able to build a triplex where that use is authorized we believe there's a hardship that
justifies a variance uh in this case and to support that i want to show a little bit about
what the rest of the the neighborhood looks like to show you how it's been uh developed because
this part of the city has been undergoing a number of changes recently and if we pull up the
photographs i'm going to show this picture which is looking essentially the um the property here
is where the viewer is sort of where the property is we're looking down the street south towards any
number of new sizable developments so it's not only the adjacent property with uh five triplexes
the same use we're asking for. It's also throughout the neighborhood we are seeing larger structures
that have been necessary to rehabilitate what was once a blighted neighborhood. We see vacant lots