Thank you, Ms. Jones, for giving me the opportunity.
First, I'd just like to say that I represent a couple of hats.
I am the president of the Yorktown Community Development Corporation.
Our interim director is Ms. Priscilla Woods.
I'm not sure if she's on this call.
Also, I work out of the office of State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta.
I am a constituent service advisor. So I just wanted to say I have been a resident of Yorktown
for 58 years. You know, it is a historical area. And again, President Darrell Clark laid out
the situation here in our community. Yes, he did a fine job with that. So
just to back up a little bit, meeting Mr. Whelan, we did have a conversation during the meetings.
Initially, the RSEO was assigned to the 14th Ward on the other side of your town.
but later on having a few meetings we decided that that meeting should be held
with the 14th Ward for the Yorktown community and again as you know this is
a community that's been here for 58 years we have been inundated with
parking in general in our cul-de-sacs problems with students unnecessary trash
parking where we are unable to get into and out of our driveways and this has
been an ongoing issue in this community we just wanted to be very transparent and
honest in saying that this is a project that we were totally against I did make
Mr. Whelan aware of that in our first meeting back in October this is also a
project that Representative Kenyatta was against as well. As Councilman said, we have lost the
Rite Aid. We have lost the CVS. So in my conversations with Mr. Whaling, he did say
that unfortunately, the way the law works, anyone can petition anything. But since this is by right,
And if you meet all of the code requirements, it's really no way to stop the project from going forward.
Going forward. He did inform our community of that. But again, we are expecting to have all of these problems reoccur with the unit that wants to be put there for 166 apartment units.
He did inform our community of.
I don't remember how many parking spaces they said that they were allowing for, and also there are supposed to be spaces for bikes along that unit.
So again, this is problematic, and it's going to really affect our community, to adversely affect our community with this building being there.
My understanding and from the conversation I had with Mr. Whaling is that it was reported that that Rite Aid was an underperforming store.
I find that hard to believe with all of the seniors, all of the people just in Yorktown alone that were there purchasing medications and just supporting the store on what they needed.
i found that information just not to be accurate for it to be an an under underperforming store
um i'm sorry again from uh you mentioned the redistricting so from what i understand
and having that conversation with mr whaling that when city council remaps
a district to make these designations different. They do not actually have to provide notice
to every individual homeowner. So there are times when property owners think that they
own one thing and they go to sell or build or do something and then they find out that
they have a different set of code that requires them to do something else I'm sorry I'm going to
have to object to this to testimony continuing we're we're talking about a remapping process
that has nothing to do with this case there was no remapping we don't know when this became
rm1 the law is very clear on how uh if you disagree with a mapping ordinance how that's
to be challenged um i you know again i'm not i mean that's but that's not the issue in this case
you cannot the the zoning board of adjustment has no authority to address any challenges to mapping
or remapping so this i mean again we're we're not trying to say that their concerns aren't valid
but this isn't the right place you know wrong church wrong pew this is not a zoning board issue
okay we would object on grounds of relevance
all right but again i was just going back uh just reviewing some notes and again i just wanted to
to explain uh how this project is going to adversely affect uh the yorktonians there
mr bichinko yes ma'am i should thank you okay
well again the city would accept an offer of proof that the testimony would
were to continue that the testimony would be that the project uh that the buy right uses of the
project will have an adverse impact on the community and i think those are very valid
concerns that they would need to raise perhaps with city planning perhaps with city council and
maybe look in ways of like you know again for another property at another time or perhaps even
for this property you know in the off you know depending on you know again projects maybe never
happen for various reasons so but i think that argument it's something it's an it's it's an
argument that should be made to city planning not here not here at the zoning board not this is
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Drayton, are you, you're finished?
Yes, Ms. James.
Thank you, Ms. Drayton.
Thank you.
I just, I did just want to have one more near neighbor speak.
it's mr. Eric Hall here he just raised his hand and he'll
You can just raise his hand and they'll allow you to speak, Mr. Hall, if you're here.
Ms. Jones, it's either Mr. Hull is having technical problems or
Yvette, can you unmute him?
Okay, Mr. Hall, please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
My name is Eric Hall, E-R-I-C, last name Hall, H-A-L-L.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Hall. Please proceed.
I don't have a lot to add that Councilman Clark and Ms. Frayton communicated to you.
It sounded like there was a mapping issue that got overlooked, but we as residents feel that
a hundred unit apartment complex is excessive. And as Mr. Clark stated, that adds a number of
negatives to the neighborhood. We do miss the Rite Aid and we'd like to see something that
would bonus the neighborhood put there. Another Rite Aid or something that we could use in that
vein would be great as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a lot to add to what's already been
said, but I do echo their sentiments. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking the time.
Ms. Jones do you have any other witnesses? I ask you because I figure you had a list that's why I'm
asking. Absolutely I have one last person Ms. Alexis Becton if she is here if she has something
to add please. Hello can you guys hear me? Ms. Becton please spell your first and last name
then I'll swear you in. Absolutely. Alexis Becton, A-L-E-X-I-S, Becton, B-E-C-K-T-O-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed. All right. So I understand that this is a zoning board meeting. I do want
to just share a couple of things. First being that, you know, the community was always in
opposition with this project. However, Ori presented himself as the owner of this property.
And so we were in, you know, in the beginning, constant communication with him. There were
things that he promised us, such as, you know, humidifiers for when demolition would start,
parking permits, things of that nature that just have not come to fruition.
um besides the fact that I think the last time um you know we've heard from Mr. Ori was in February
and that's also concerning right like on an ethical level I know that this is not the board
of ethics it's the board of zoning but besides the fact that this project would greatly change
the way this community looks, feels, it interferes with, you know, our parking, the
characteristics of our neighborhood, just in general, is also not ethical. Because at this
point, there is potentially a four-story apartment building being built across the street from my
house, and I don't even know who the actual owner is. When they started demolition, I live in
Valley Forge Place, which is a cul-de-sac connected to Flora Street, which is across
from the property, you cannot access, get into, or leave out of my block without coming on Flora
Street. And when they started demolition, they only gave papers saying when demolition would
start to the people who lived on Flora Street. So like just even in terms of ethics of how this
project has been moving forward, I would say that this largely has been inappropriate. When we were
first presented with this and we started having meetings, you know, Ori let us know that this
property would be such an asset to the neighborhood. And at this point, there is
only a vacant lot across the street. So we've lost a pharmacy, you know, at the very least,
at the very least, Rite Aid, soul, milk, bread, butter, very like basic needs that kind of helped
right. So milk, bread, butter, very like basic.
build up or fill in the gap of some other food insecurity issues that we have in this neighborhood.
And now we have nothing. And we have nothing to show for it because the neighborhood cannot even
get into contact with Mr. Ori. So I just, you know, there are just very real issues that we
have as a community first of all we feel like we are being steamrolled by some of these uh you know
more legal aspects about whether something should have been zoned but it didn't and you know in the
words of whoever that was wrong church wrong whatever regardless of if it's right wrong or
indifferent please know that this neighborhood is going to tell whoever will listen that not only do
we want do we not want this property but that is inappropriate how all of this is continuing to
happen. Testimony? Any other witnesses? That's all, Sharon. Thank you, Mary. Who's up next? Mr. Whelan?
We may have to resume this hearing, but let's hear it. Actually, as of right now,
there has been a stipulation as to the permit and plans that were submitted for this
project and that the permit obviously the permit was issued it's the city's position that
there there is no case that has been made here as to why the permit could not have should not
have been issued by Wright. Again, as I said, we've just heard arguments about why it shouldn't
have been by Wright. In other words, why, you know, maybe the code shouldn't have allowed this or why
the district or the property or that strip of Girard shouldn't have been remapped. I do want
to indicate I did receive information while the testimony was occurring that this actually has
been residential multi-use since 1971. So in fact the Rite Aid is obviously either predates that or
it's by variance after 1971 and there have been in fact a few attempts over the years as recently
as 2020 to remap this location but that has and city planning has in fact actually did study it
did suggest it, but no bill was introduced. So with respect to that, I'm sorry, would you repeat
that last part of that? It's my understanding that, again, the remapping, this location has
been the RM1 or the equivalent of RM1 since 1971. And that there have been attempts and
that i'm sorry that that people have looked at it being um remapped and there's been a number of
you know uh different people who've looked at it but that you know in fact it hasn't been so again
the the the rite aid itself is either a non-conformity that predates 1971 and again i
don't know what it was prior to 1971 or it is that self thereby variance um so
So a multifamily property could have been built here at any time over the last 50 years.
That being the case, we would also say that at this point, there has been no argument raised that would allow or that indicates in any kind of specifics why this permit couldn't have been issued.
And so we therefore think that the appellant has not met their burden.
and I have nothing to present unless the board wants to ask Ms. Ginhardt a question just about
the plans that were submitted or anything like that. But other than that, we are just going to
simply rest on argument. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for Ms. Ginhardt?
No. Okay, Mr. Whelan. Yes, thank you, Chairman. And I know that the time is getting nice, so
I will call, I will second Mr. Reuter's argument so I can truncate my own. And I guess I've never
done it as an attorney, but I will adopt his testimony as my own. And I will call Ori Fibush
on behalf of the owner and developer for a maximum of two minutes. And then we will be done.
Mr. Fibush, please identify yourself for the record, spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Here, I do not see Mr. Fybush with his hand up.
Here I do not see Mr. Fibush with his hand up.
Was there earlier.
Yeah, he was there earlier.
Let me call him.
If not, Mr. Will, we can see if you can reach him.
If not, we'll stipulate that he would adopt your testimony.
That you stipulated.
or he is saying his hand is up
yes his hand is up now okay thank you i wish you can unmute yourself and speak now
mr fly bush i don't know if you heard me please spell your full name and i'll swear you
sure or a five bush first name o-r-i last name f as in frank e-i-b-u-s-h
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
All right.
Thank you.
And Sean, forgive me.
I believe that Sean would be on a different case at this time here, so I attempted to represent myself.
I apologize for that.
No worries.
All right.
Just very quickly here, just want to make a couple points here.
As Ms. Alexis had mentioned, I was in constant communication with her and with her RCO subsequent to receiving our zoning permit here.
That communication ceased when the appeal was issued, but I'm very eager to get back to those conversations.
I very much believe that RCO is working in good faith and very much believe that there's opportunities to collaborate and create as little impact as possible on your neighbors here.
I do just want to share to the board the stakes for my organization here.
We received confirmation that our zoning permit would, in fact, be issued and was valid on August 17th of 20.
Two weeks later, on September 2nd, we purchased the property.
We've completed all of our efforts here.
We've demolished the existing Rite Aid, which left to consolidate their interests because they weren't doing well here and wanted to consolidate to the location they have three blocks away.
But we've also committed to a million dollars at the Affordable Housing Trust.
And we're now in a position here where we relied on the underlying zoning and have full ready to submit building permits here and would be at an enormous disadvantage here through no fault of our own.
if the underlying zoning was changed here
in the middle of our efforts here.
And so while I certainly hate hearing
a lot of the discourse here
and I'm uncomfortable being in the middle,
I very much at all times here acted in good faith
and submitted what I believe to be a buy-right application,
clearly continue to believe that to be the case
and have purchased the property
under that clear understanding
and with assurances from license and inspection
that in fact it was buy-right.
And I am obviously disappointed
that we are where we are here, but I very much do hope that the Zoning Board will affirm
the underlying zoning permits here and allow us to proceed with our plans here. Thank you for your
time. Thank you. I do have a final statement before you end everything shared. Sure. Please proceed.
Okay. So as we tried to show in our testimony today, this permit was issued an error because it violates the basic principles of the zoning code that interfere with light and air of the surrounding neighbors and eliminates much needed public amenity.
And even if this board does not find that the permit was issued in error, this permit is now, we're arguing that this permit is now void.
The applicant applied for a second demolition only permit in March of 2021, and then acted upon it, thus we're arguing voided the previous permit.
based on L&I guidance from September of last year regarding concurrent zoning approvals.
So even if we do not find that it was an error, we do argue that it is void.