Saturday, Sundays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
They don't prescribe narcotics, nor do they provide methadone,
and it's a no-safe injection site.
As I noted before, there are two letters in support or non-opposition from the relevant civic associations.
They're included at tab 7.
This is the Gronhurst letter.
And here's the letter from the community on the rise.
Also, here is the tax plan certificate and a copy of the redacted lease.
This application does comply with the code provisions relating to the granular variance by this board, as this use has not substantially increased congestion in the public streets, doesn't injure the use of adjacent properties or impair the adequate supply of light and air, doesn't adversely affect transportation or burden water or other public facilities,
noted by the support from the uh civic associations um happy to have mr mayorino uh promoted to a
panelist so that he can uh can testify in this hearing that could you raise your hand
marino has been unmuted and allowed to speak sir could you please state your name is spelled
for the stenographer uh matthew mayorino m-a-t-t-h-e-w m-a-i-o-r-i-n-o we're referring
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel thank you uh
mr mayorino you are the managing member of uh mhp roosevelt mall llc the tenant at this location
yes and you will be operating the afc urgent care location yes and were you present for
the testimony that i provided to the board this afternoon yes and was it true and correct yes it
was and do you adopt it as your own yes i do uh i have no other no other questions uh or testimony
other than to offer the exhibits and evidence mr chair questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just to clarify mr rescaldo um this is for store number 60 is that correct that's correct
okay um thank you if the board's inclined to grant they may want to include a proviso um to that
effect clarifying what part of this address so this property is is included thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing auto-oriented commercial CA2 zoning at this location.
This is an auto-oriented commercial strip with a large lot and no near neighbors.
The proposed use is in spirit with the zoning code and is not likely to have detrimental impacts onto the surrounding neighborhood.
planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for group medical
practitioner thank you mi 2024 003 848 2327 83 cotton avenue i vote yes with proviso use limited
to store number 60. john's my vote is yes with proviso
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
with proviso
Tionetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso
Thank you, number six
Thank you, Council
Excuse me, Mr. Chair
Can we jump to number 12 next
the reconsideration hearing
Mr. Leonard Palmer
is here for that hearing
Thank you.
Number 12, MI 2024.
Number 12, MI 2024-004-597-1709-Christian Street.
Reverend Anastasio is the attorney.
This is a reconsideration hearing.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Counsel, you've already been sworn. Just for the record, state your name.
Vern Anastasio on behalf of Elise Carroll, the owner of Subject Property.
So this is a reconsideration here, and my understanding is the evidence and testimony presented prior in this meeting in the matter is incorporated into the record for this hearing.
The scope of this hearing is limited to the applicant providing updated information about the proposed layout of the property and the South of South Neighbor Association making a statement regarding its position on this matter.
Public testimony will be limited to comments on that information presented at today's hearing.
Mr. Anastasio, please proceed.
Thank you.
A 1709 Christian Street is a long, long occupied three family dwelling that my client was attempting to get legalized.
This board at the time took it into executive succession and did, in fact, vote to deny it as the layout stood.
uh so with that the issue i believe was the basement and so what we've done just bear with
me for a moment these are the photos i'm going to get to the revised plans there they go
what we've done is we removed the basement bedroom
and just basically have it for storage or recreation.
It is attached to the first floor unit,
but the first floor unit now will have one bedroom on the first floor only.
The second floor unit will remain the same as we initially provided,
as will the third floor.
This will eliminate the bedroom in the basement.
which I believe was the point of contention for the second RCO, which is north of Washington.
And with that, I'm going to have my client raise her virtual hand.
Elise Carroll, to adopt my presentation as her own testimony.
Elyse Carroll has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name as fellow for the court stenographer?
Yes, it's Elyse Carroll, E-L-Y-S-E-K-A-R-O-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Carroll, you've heard my presentation to the board today, removing the basement living space and bedrooms.
Yes. And do you, is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. You adopted as your own testimony. Yes. And again, you are just legalizing existing
conditions long held. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I want to remind the board
1708, 1710, 1712, all multifamily, three, two, four bedroom properties in the right there
Within 20 feet of this particular property, 1712 is a brand new three-family that was approved by this board just about a year ago.
So with that, because we've removed the basement bedrooms, because we've kept the bedrooms above the grade level and have the first floor unit ostensibly on the entire first floor,
We ask that the reconsideration result in the granting of the variants given the new interior layout.
And with that, I also want to call Mr. Murray, who is from the South of South Neighbors Association, the coordinating RCO in question.
Mr. Murray.
Mr. Murray, if you are in the virtual audience, please raise your hand and wait to be sworn
Mr. Murrow, if you are in the virtual order,
They have been allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Murray, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Murray Spencer, M-U-R-R-A-Y, S-P-E-N-C-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
mr spencer could you please provide the zoning board with an updated position
from the south of south neighbors association the south of south labor association supports
this application revision as we support the original application yes thank you thank you
is there anything to add mr spencer uh no i'm a near neighbor it's a great house uh no issues
with the multifamily. I've been here for 48 years, and it's been a great property the whole time I've
been here. Thank you. Mr. Chair, to bring this property into compliance after half a century
is just impracticable. So I believe by removing the bedroom basement, we addressed the concern
that the second RCO had, and we still maintain the integrity of the building. With that, I close.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience relative to only information that was presented today?
Chair, I have a hand up from Madeline Shacomba. I have allowed them to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Madeline, M-A-D-E-L-I-N-E, Shacomba, S-H-I-K-O-N-B-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I am the president of the North and Washington Avenue Coalition.
We were the ones who presented the opposition to the use of the basement.
We are a co-coordinating RCO with SOSNA.
There are two of us, okay?
and we objected to it because he wanted to use the basement as living quarters.
And the previous notice of refusal, this had been refused to them twice to use that basement
and he put it in as living quarters and we opposed it
because we felt that it should be used what it was existed for, which was the storage unit.
And since he has decided to do that, we have no more objection to it.
But I would like for you to know in the future that we represent the children, the graduate hospital area, along with SOSNA.
We are equal in status.
Thank you, Brie.
I appreciate it.
Madeline, thank you very much for calling.
We appreciate it, and we hear what you've said.
I want to take this to a vote.
um it'll be myself Mr. Snell and Mr. Palmer so Mr. Chair I just wanted to check were there
any questions from the board members the Mr. Snell and Mr. Palmer any questions from the
questions no no no questions no chair but Ishmael is back oh Ishmael's back thank you
um and um and Mr. Chair I just wanted to to note you know because this is a change of use and
we can't you know stamp plans and we don't stamp floor plans normally you know the board could
include a proviso if it was inclined to grant that there would be um if it was if this is
storage only then no household living in the basement thank you so mi 2024 004 597
1709 christian street i vote yes with proviso no household living in basement
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Walt.
Thank you, and thank you, Leonard.
Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
Thank you.
Okay, so we're back to number nine.
Is that right, Hillary?
And we'll take care of issues before we leave.
No, number six, I see.
Okay. MI 2024-003-857-4355 North Penn Street. Alok Sokolov is the attorney.
Here, they will be rejoining as a panelist shortly.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Oleg Sokolov here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Cruz.
Mr. Sokolov, could you spell your name for the court sonographer, please?
Sokolov, could you spell your name for the court sonographer, please?
Sure. Oleg Oleg.
Sure. Oleg, O-L-E-G, Sokolov, S-O-K-O-L-O-B.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your clients again, please?
My client who's on the line today is Mr. Jeffrey Cruz. He's the subject owner of the property.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
good afternoon sir uh have you do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate
to exactly good afternoon mr shaheed yes i do have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of the impairment
uh i i did email them not five days i had a little bit of a technical issue with the size
of the exhibit so they were emailed i believe sometime on sunday so four days or three days
or something. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the board able to see my screen? We can,
sir. Okay, thank you. So just to give a little bit of a background, this is a single family
property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cruz. They purchased this property in 2021 with an unclear
intention at the time, but eventually decided to start doing some renovation work on the property,
as you'll see, in hopes of potentially moving into it themselves or potentially making it an
income-producing unit. They still had not decided, but the bit of a background for the board to
consider is they hired a general contractor who, unfortunately, as happens way too often,
took a little bit of advantage of non-real estate professionals and began doing work without
pulling permits. This eventually resulted in the issuance of a number of violations on the property
in February, late February, early March of this year. Thankfully, Mr. Cruz properly undertook
advice from architects and myself to understand what needs to be done in order to correct some
of those conditions and we are here as a result of that undertaking with really only one primary
refusal in terms of zoning having been issued so our hope is that if the board is inclined to
to grant this variance the the appropriate building permits to remedy the violations
can be put in as the refusal is for an existing condition that was built by this
contractor and is existent at the property. So to that end, I'll take you through it.
So as I described, it's an erection of a two-story addition. As you'll see, the addition
itself is not the subject matter of the refusal. And the only portion that's subject matter of
the refusal is a second floor deck that was constructed behind this addition. So this is
a very uh long lot but the property itself originally was very very um not very deep at all
and the addition was built and then a deck was built on the back of that addition but as the
board well knows second floor decks are not permitted especially i don't think they're
permitted anywhere let alone in an rsa five so that that is the singular refusal that we're here
before the board seeking. So, as I said, purchased in 2021, this is the deck in question. I will
elaborate on why I don't think this is impactful in the neighborhood in any way. The site,
The subject property sits next to ICMX zone property, which I believe is a roofing warehouse or building material warehouse.
And then here's, once again, a better look at the deck.
The property directly adjacent to the backyard of the subject property is also completely open green space.
So this is a view from the deck.