There you go.
And we are one of the RCOs in the area and developer in the area as well.
So we see this project as an initiative that we really embrace.
And we had a conversation with Mohamed.
We managed the commercial corridor of Wolland Avenue from 47 to 69 Wolland Avenue.
So we cleaned it seven days a week.
One of the problems we had is this site. When Chapman right and left, people were dumping trash around there, and we had to have our ambassadors going up there to clean it up.
One of the problems we had is this site when Shablami...
So when Mohamed shared this with us, we really see it as an improvement for the commercial corridor and the community as well.
And we also told him we make available to him our trash truck that was funded by M&T Bank on Woolen Avenue.
You know, we have our own trash truck that we are willing to work with him to make sure that we keep this plate clean, as well as other areas on the commercial corridor. So we support this project 100%. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us and stay here. All right. We appreciate it. Thanks. All right.
questions or comments from the planning department office amy boyd with the planning commission amy
boi dean do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the current
cmx2 commercial mixed use the appellant has demonstrated that the proposed use will not
cause detrimental impacts beyond what would normally be expected the planning commission
recommends that the board grant their question special exception for assembly and entertainment
thank you mi2025-007-215-6731 woodland avenue i vote yes with the following proviso
hours of operation no earlier than 9 a.m or later than 10 p.m monday through thursday no earlier
than 9 a.m or later than 12 a.m friday through saturday and no earlier than 9 a.m or later than
8 p.m on sundays no nightclub and public entertainment venue temporary special exception
that expires 3 12 36. thank you very much thank you michael johns my vote is yes with provisos
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Tywin, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Have a good afternoon.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
So number 10, MI 2025-006-964-3136 Melvale Street.
Alan Notkinson is the attorney.
there's a letter of opposition from south port richmond civic association and a letter of
opposition from council member squilla good afternoon mr chair members of the board alan
occamson you're in the same location alan i see i have not left but i hope hopefully will leave
after these two hearings okay could you uh could you uh identify your client a relationship to the
property yes my client is rayner robinson uh the owner of the property okay um our vice chair has
a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance
of this hearing uh yes we have okay and do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy i do okay thank you you can show your screen and proceed with your case thank you
all right um
i dare say this is a straightforward matter um so what we're trying to do here you walk you walk by
this location much i haven't said in weeks and i was waiting to have one especially on one that
has opposition but i really do believe this is straightforward in this sense we have an existing
garage on two lots all my client wants to do is consolidate those two lots he puts his building
supplies in there and we're on melville street we back behind 95 there's no resident even though
the rm1 property there's no residential on that on that side of the block maybe on the other side
you know but not our side uh so again it's not out of character we don't stick out like a short
thumb what we're asking for so i have 11 exhibits we'll go through them um it was a close vote even
though there was opposition um but you know these are two rm1 properties we have a pre-existing
garage structure there. We're just looking to make it for moving and storage vehicles and
consolidate these lots. So we do have a letter of opposition. We had seven people in support
who attended the meeting, 19 people opposed, and then three people within the affected area. I
can't imagine anyone on Melville would have been opposed because all there are are garages. So it
would have been opposed because all there are are garages so it had to be someone else but again
had to be someone else.
you'll see from the pictures um what we're asking for is not out of character you can even see here
this is the aerial view from an atlas perspective we're one of the few properties to actually have
any building structure on on melville street and you can see here where we're on 95.
and you can see it from this direction as well most a lot of these properties
are facing, and I apologize, I forgot what public street is here,
but are properties facing this public street, and it's the rear yard for some of those
properties for parking as well, but any property
that's a Melville Street address, if it has a building structure,
it's really a garage structure.
So definitely mislabeled as Richmond Street.
So anyway, I think it's mislabeled as RM1.
I do believe there's a hardship here, you know, under the circumstances that we're asking for.
So here's our building structure.
It's been up since, let's see, 19, 896, according to my notes.
And my client purchased this property in 1985.
His daughter is taking over his affairs and we've been looking over some of his properties,
trying to, you know, make sure everything is legal.
And we discovered this one.
And we indicated that there were two, this is on two properties, which probably should be one.
And I don't even believe there's any public utilities on Melville Street, too, which would make it really hard to develop this property.
But it's clearly not a residential property, even though it's zoned residentially.
Here's our hearing notice poster.
And then this is a property in 2011.
So I guess it was just painted or changed some other color.
So it's been this way for some time, at least according to Google.
this is melville street to the right of the property again you're not seeing any residential
like separate in the park from what's there on richmond street this is melville street to the
left of the property again here you're going to see 95 kind of like curves in you know around into
uh you know the port richmond area interior photos it's a garage you know he stores his materials
there now not a lot but enough and he just wants to continue doing that the right way and that's
why we're here today. And then this, well, this is our survey, really no plans. And then this is
our meeting notice. So we met with the community some time ago on December 10th. We sent the notice
via email a few weeks beforehand, as we always do. We send it to 76 addresses. These are a list
of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses. Our application for appeal that we
filed on mr robinson's behalf along with the notice of refusal the project information form
deeds of property as you can see it's a pretty old deed he's owned this property for some time
and then a certificate of tax clearance while it shows he owes money technically he's not
owed until march 31st of 2026. with that being said i believe i have his daughter on the line
He's an elderly man, not the most proficient with Zoom either.
But, you know, she can you can either take me as a officer of the court or I can have her adopt my testimony.
She's very familiar with his affairs.
Who's on the will? Who's on the deed?
He's on the deed.
Is Mr. Robinson with his daughter or is she just by herself?
I think she may just be by himself.
Okay. All right. Then we can just take Mr. Nockamson's testimony. Sure. Mr. Nockamson's,
right? Sure. Mr. Nockamson will take your testimony as an officer of the court.
Questions from the board? Yeah. So what's going to be the sort of use of the second
lot now that they're combined is the intent to keep the structure exactly the same and to continue
to use the the one that's currently vacant in a similar way for storage and parking yeah i mean
exactly i mean there's a there's a structure that's on both lots and we're looking to consolidate
that lot these lots and keep the building structure the way it is and really have the
use the same way it's just to legalize it by way of a zoning permit so to confirm the structure
currently is straddling the lots and we're not talking about the what looks to be a vacant lot
connected to it that is fenced in um i can take a look to see if there's a vacant lot my understanding
is that there's no intention to do any modifications to uh hold on i'm sorry there's no
indication to do any modifications to building structure if that's a question but let me just
take a look on that list just to confirm my understanding is correct that it takes a lot
That it takes a lot, but let me just see.
but let me just see middleville and
And does he own the two lots on either side?
The lot on either side of the two lots?
Only because the building has windows on both sides.
So does he own the properties on both sides of that?
Well, and I'll share my screen just showing you my review of Atlas here.
So that's helpful for everyone.
So it looks like other court, I'm sorry, right? No, just to answer board member wins question. It looks like the property, the building structure encompasses both properties.
There may be a little bit of open area in the rear, but it goes from like basically side to side completely.
So in terms of the, you know, the windows, I don't believe he owns RT Homes LLC.
And then it looks like actually there is a little bit of a sliver here on 3138.
Yeah, the reason I ask is because 3138 had a sliver.
And if you go back in Google Maps, there was a fence that was around that sliver that then grew and then started to cover the two lots.
that are that i'm assuming are 30 that are 40 and 42 so the fence that you see there today
covers part of 38 40 and 42 and so well well clarity yeah so obviously my i'll deal with it
with my client that if we don't own those properties we'll have to modify the fence
structure there um but um it also looks like there's materials i mean i'm not sure what
business this is but it does look like they're stored materials and equipment there as well so
i was trying to understand if they were related uses yeah and i don't know if he leases the
property so my clients lived uh it's saying that mr goldberg's stating to me that those are not
our materials and that's not our offense so um but you know obviously we'll deal with that you
know after the fact you know because this is just a you know first step we'll have to get a co
and all that and we'll confirm all these items you know beforehand um can you speak to the opposition
uh from the rcos i i so i can't i mean i don't know what why they're opposed to it um you know
sometimes you go to a community meeting and people are just opposed just to be opposed
um and you know again in terms of popularity oh they mr goldberg reminded me that uh
I should just have him next to me, is that they're concerned that this is an RM1 property and they're concerned if we consolidate it, it's going to make it a larger parcel to maybe for redevelopment purposes.
That is not my client's intention.
And if you look at the structure, that's not one that you can have an adaptive reuse.
That would have to be a complete teardown.
That's not totally true, Alan.
I don't know that that's totally true.
I mean, I do think I carry the same concern, I think, as the RCO, because I do think consolidating them does open up a pathway.
And while your client might have the best of intentions, and I believe you, this travels with the land.
So it's any future person or future owner or future tenant has to also carry those same intentions is, I think, part of the concern.
No, I hear you.
But there's also no utilities that run along Melville.
So it would be rather difficult.
And it would be completely out of character.
If there were other like residential, well, other properties, all RM1 properties, but there are other properties in their block, even one, I don't believe.
But like, but if there were any properties that also face 95 in that direction that were being used residentially, that would be different.
I just don't think it's a realistic scenario that my client would, you know, redevelop this into residential multifamily, given its location and given the constraints of lack of utilities.
Other questions?
Questions from our attorney?
Just one note on this one, Mr. Noggamson.
um the the refusal doesn't list the two addresses so we will need to um request that l and i issue
a corrected refusal before we vote on this but we can um try to have this voted next week
uh but they the addresses need to be listed on the refusal and unfortunately they are not
you mean even though it talks about parcel e and parcel uh c and then we include the survey which
has corresponding addresses on it the refusal so the permit language if this is granted comes
from the refusal in terms of what's been approved and the addresses should be on there that's that's
been approved and the addresses should be on there that's that's been a standard practice of
been a standard practice event.
lni and whenever we've had an issue where they haven't put the addresses they've issued a
corrected refusal so okay so yeah the board will request that there's nothing that you need to do
but the board will request that so that the so that everyone's records are accurate so i mean
we can't do it by way of proviso if we say parcel e is this and parcel c is that no we need to have
the l and i needs to have the addresses on the refusal so but we just that will can be handled
very quickly questions or comments from the virtual audience
miranda p
army yes chair okay who do we who do we have richard levy okay i'm gonna allow them to speak thank you
i can hear me i can sir could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
sure richard levy um my last name is spelled l-e-v-y do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes mr levy are you a neighbor yes i am please proceed
so uh the concern from the community is that the parcels he actually does own multiple parcels
along the back there um additionally this past summer he put up an illegal structure built an
entire garage and we reported it several times and it was built in less than four days um garage
with electric water everything um we reported it no one ever came out to do anything about it
that's not the first time um he continues to store and put things um in the back alleyway there we
there's many many things and our concern is that pretty much that because he owns so many of those
lots back there that he will combine them all and that's where we stand on this okay thank you for
taking the time to call us we appreciate it is anyone else anyone else there i see no hands at
this time chair hi planning commission oh mr chair can i just respond to that sure you comment you
can my understanding through mr goldberg is that we do not own any lots back there i haven't done
an independent like investigation of if we own any lots back there but we do not own any lots
on melville street we do own some lots on richmond street um and in terms of like whether we're going
to consolidate further lots into this one as the chairman knows and the remaining board members know
uh we would have to come back um potentially to this board uh for any type of change of use of
that sort potentially so is alex got an open text to you is that what's going on i mean oh you don't
see it i see it i'm really getting a little confused here you keep oh i i see it i see the
teams i thought when i share my screen it pops up all right all right all right uh mr chair there's