And right now, if there's no hardship for this or whatever, then it should be stuck with the rules,
which is do a setback in between the two stories.
That's our position.
And at the meeting, we really talked to him about this and everything.
They were trying to make a position.
He was supposed to go and talk to the neighbors.
I don't know.
He said he came back with three.
I have no information.
I have no copy of a petition.
I have nothing at this point from him.
He didn't even hold up the rules to notify us as an RCO of when the meeting was coming.
Thank you for calling.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Mr. Toppin, you have a comment?
Oh, yeah. I just want to say that it was typical for our office.
We send our notice and request for a meeting to all the RCOs at the same time.
And the lead RCO, which is Point Breeze,
connected to us and they coordinated all the other RCOs.
All information that we sent was to all RCOs together by email.
Point Breeze, and that's how I guess Mrs. Green, I appreciate her being here, she was at the meeting because she did get notice either from us or from the actual RCO.
In that meeting, it was my commitment to walk the block myself with the petition I just showed and shared and to do a doorknock to see what the people wanted because the meeting wasn't attended by folks on that street, which I have done.
What Mrs. Green has not done is shown me anybody who lives on that street that is opposed.
and so there was no one in the in the in the affected area at the meeting there's no one in
the effect the in the affected area in this meeting in opposition to our request for variants
um and we do we recognize what the intent of the the planning was for this but we see that intention
has been it is it as it is in practicality more three-story facades will be built on this street
and it is happening as we can see it.
So with that said, we'd like the rest there.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan recommends no change
to the existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence
of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property.
and would prevent it from being used in conformity
with the dimensional requirements of the code,
therefore, we recommend the request of that is not be left.
NY 2023, 002-455-2355 Goward Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, I vote no.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. Thank you, Lord.
MI 2022-001-395-341 North 52nd Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
No RCO letter, but meeting was held on 6-29-23 by the 44th Democratic Ward.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that we did receive the proof of posting that was requested.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Anastasio, you have been sworn before to state your name for the record.
Yes, my name is Vern Anastasio, and I represent Mr. Kester Osuji, who is in the, should be here today.
Yes, my name is Vern Anastasio, and I represent Mr. Kessi.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed. I see you sharing your screen.
Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chair, this is 341 North 52nd Street. This is a portion of 52nd Street
that is ostensibly a commercial corridor. I have an exhibit packet of 62 individual
documents in addition to a memo brief that I put up here just now. I sent it over to
Attorney Emerson after I sent over the binder, and I realize you have not had an opportunity
to review the memo brief, so I will understand if you decide to review it prior to voting
at the conclusion of this hearing.
But just to be clear,
we meet the unnecessary hardship under O'Neill
and the Marshall Courts
and all relevant statutory requirements
for granting of the use variance
because for decades,
this property has always had
two commercial operations in this property
in addition to the multifamily above.
Our application is for takeout restaurant for one of them and personal services in the other.
And for as far back as one can determine and the history of the property is in my exhibit packet for evidence.
It's always been commercial spaces, either for retail or some other very high dense density and high activity sorts of uses.
The personal services uses and the takeout restaurant are actually less activity than what we could have as a matter of right in an RM1 property.
There are commercial uses that are permitted, and those commercial uses run everything from a hospital to a religious assembly.
And obviously far more detrimental to the community, far more congestion, far more traffic than what we're proposing today.
Okay. So with that, I'm going to share, show you the interiors. Here's the third floor apartment
that we are proposing. And then here's the living space on the lower level. See if I can
come out a little bit here. There we go.
that's the second floor and then on the first floor we would have two commercial spaces one
518 square feet one 570 square feet when we did meet with the rco we presented a trash plan a
lighting plan and a security plan for the entire corner obviously we want to make sure that this
facility is lit well and safe not only for our folks who will be occupying the building but for
the surrounding community this is the property in question as you can see there historically has
always been a commercial space right here on the corner and historically always been a separate
commercial space right here on the side and it's a very long history of that the unique physical
condition here is that this property is already laid out it's already separated it already has
two long-term long-standing commercial spaces and to convert this property now
to residential would would be a herculean task on the first floor especially given all the
different entrances and the roll down windows and and the like so there's the area in question
there's the property again we have interior photos as well
this is what we'd like to do to the property
obviously we'll make it facade improvements we'll have a handicap ramp
here's the facade improvements on the side of the property
that we plan to make.
So it'll be certainly an upgrade to what there is now
and what there has been for quite some time.
for quite some time if you bear with me we were in fact able to get
If you bear with me.
signatures of support in our exhibit packet
i've already submitted them submitted them to them to the staff but we do have a petition of
support from 13 individual households on the block both on haberford and on i'm sorry
on 52nd street and on vine and in addition we did meet with the rco as you can see here
the history has been a retail store a sandwich takeout a restaurant i mean there's a history
of this use going all the way back to the 80s 181 individual households were mailed we did meet with
the community and we were under the impression that there was going to be a letter sent but
there are times when that doesn't happen so with that i want to move this and the
memo brief into evidence and i do want to once again want to reiterate that we do meet the
the case law and the statutory requirements for a unique physical condition of the property on the first floor with two separate commercial spaces and a long history of over 40 years of the exact use we're trying to legalize today.
And with that, I'm going to rest. I would like to call Mr. Kester Azuzi to the stand in order to be sworn in.
Kestor Osuji, can you please raise your virtual hand?
Chair, I see him in the audience.
He just raised his hand, Chair.
Thank you.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Kestor Osuji, K-E-S-T-E-R, and my last name is spelled O-S-U-J-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Osuji, did you hear my presentation to the board this evening?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, true.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Osuji.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments for our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair, just a brief question.
Mr. Anastasio, the listed owner is Bernice Osuji.
um is is that another name for kestero suji or are they related or it's his wife oh it's his
wife okay it's wife's property okay thank you yep it's your comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission i'm betting our city planning
while this property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan given its
documented use history. We have no objection to the
request advance. Thank you.
Do we want to take one more week and see if we can get something from the RCO?
It's up to you, Mr. Chair. According to my notes, the meeting was held in June.
Is that correct, Mr. Anastasio? It was. And this is like the
third listing. And this was not the first
RCO meeting, by the way. Okay, thank you.
MI-2022-001-395-341-North 50, 2nd Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you all. Have a good evening.
Is there anyone in the 3.30 hearing list in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thanks, everybody.
Got a lot of work done today.
We cleared up a lot of the backlog, and, you know, I appreciate what everybody did today.
Thanks, everybody.
Great job, Chair.
Here we go.
Thanks, everyone.
Thanks, y'all.
Have a good night.
Good night.