I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
received this case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you please proceed and share
your screen okay my packet come up yes okay this is three one two two three three one
Okay, this is 3122 through 3126 York Street.
We are here because my client is seeking to subdivide 3122 to 3126 West York Street into three separate parcels.
And on each of those parcels, he's going to put one single family home.
I, after having done the research required here, I am fairly well convinced that these parcels should have never been one OPA number to begin with.
And so therefore, what we're asking for should not be seen as the subdivision of a single parcel, but the just re-legalization of parcels that were always separate.
And the way that I kind of get there is if you go back to the oldest available deed on record from 1987, there was five separate parcels transferred under one deed listed as 3-1-2-0 West York, 3-1-2-2 West York, 3-1-2-4 West York, 2-6, and 2-8 West York.
And that's the oldest deed that's available on record. There is a mortgage that accompanied that deed that also lists these addresses as all being separate addresses. There's the five addresses listed there under the premises.
Now, when you go forward in time, the five parcels, and finally, here's the legal data associated with that transfer from 1987 that lists five different parcel IDs and five different OPA numbers or city account numbers.
So at one point, they were all labeled separately. But when you move forward in time, these parcels traveled on one deed three or four times until it got to my client.
And when you look at the deed that my client took, premises A is still labeled as 3120 West York. Premises B contains 3122, 24, and 26, all on what's called one premises, which doesn't really make sense to me.
and then premises C now says 3128 West York Street. There's nothing in the archives that
would indicate that these three properties were consolidated into one property. I don't really
follow how it became one OPA number, but the takeaway is parcel A is a single OPA number,
3120. Premises B is now listed as 22 through 26 under one OPA number. And premises C is 3128
West York Street under one OPA number. That said, we are here because my client is seeking to make
three single family homes, each with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. This does not feel
like he, the properties around this property are all of similar width and similar occupied area to
what we're seeking here. So we do have a refusal for the minimum lot size being low and the
occupied area being low. The occupied area limited to 75%. We're asking for 82%. And the lot size,
770 square feet for each of the three parcels, again, is in line with the neighboring single
family homes and is not super small by the standards of the city. We submitted all of the
plans that show three identical builds for three identical single-family homes, three beds, two
baths. We believe this is a part of the city that could use these. This is not someone seeking to
cram in units. It's going to be three homes he sells to three families or whatever. It's not a
multifamily project, nothing like that. Here's the surveyor, reviewed it. And again, I don't
need to go through all of those plans, but they're all identical for each of the three
parcels. We submitted photos of what's going on there. Now, I know we have a letter of
opposition from everyone i guess strawberry mansion they
Everyone, I guess. Strawberry Mansion, their letter of opposition appears to be based on the fact that they are upset that my client shortened the width of this store, which is 3120 West York Street.
However, he did so down to the dimensions of the parcel as the parcel is written. So he, in anticipation of building 3122, he shortened 3120 because the previous owner had basically opened all these spaces up.
And so my client minimized this space to be in conformity with the actual parcel. So all of the store is actually within the confines of that specific deed.
And it appears that that's what the neighbors are upset about. Although that wasn't brought up to us at the RCO meeting, they were hesitant to hold it. I don't fully understand their opposition to three single family homes being put there.
it's not really made clear in the letter except just to say no demonstrated hardship.
But we believe hardship exists in that these are three parcels. They were never combined,
as far as I can tell, and he's attempting to build three single-family homes that are
of adequate size and are going to be good for the neighborhood.
With that, I'll call my client to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Consul, what's your client's name?
It should be Eusebio Liz, like with an E, E-U.
Eusebio Liz, please unmute yourself.
Can we see your hand?
Yes, Chair, they are muted.
All right.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair.
My name is Eusebio Liz, E-U-S-E-B-I-O, and L-I-Z, last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not to swear the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Liz.
Did you hear my testimony just now about your properties at 3122 through 3126 West York Street?
Yes, I did.
And I want to ask something to it.
Do you agree with what I said and adopt it as your own?
Is there anything you'd like to add?
There's a lady from the neighborhood complaining that we're short in the store.
But we lease the store.
We don't own the store.
We never own the store.
So I don't know.
When I lease the store, the owner will show it to the side that he wants.
I understand that.
He could have as many shelves as he wants.
If one wouldn't have two, he wouldn't have ten.
So it's nothing I could do.
I just list the store to an individual person.
It's not my store.
I can't do nothing about that.
So you're saying the layout of the store,
which appears to be one of the major complaints of the RCO,
as was not your doing, that's a tenant,
who's legally occupying the store as a commercial space?
All right.
Questions?
Go ahead, Mr. Counsel.
Please proceed.
We have nothing further.
All right.
questions from the board no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
i'm just i just want to note for the record mr chair there are inconsistent um records um
on atlas in terms of whether this property was formally consolidated or not it shows as
consolidated, at least as a tax parcel, but
there may never have been a deed of consolidation
filed, so I just wanted to note that, the record. In other words,
the consolidation may have been partially done, not completely done, but now
the request is for it to be undone. Questions or
comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Strawberry Mansion Community Center.
they've been they've been muted and allowed to speak good morning could you please state your
name and spell for the stenographer good morning can you hear me i can good morning chair and to
um the members of the zoning board my name is bonita cummings and um i am speaking on behalf
of 31 22 through 26 miss cummings just miss cummings just for the record spell your name
for the stenographer?
It's B-O-N-I-T-A
Cummings, C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Right.
right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth,
the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
i do please proceed um from what i just heard the i'm not sure who we're even dealing with
like is this a person that's a tenant or is this the actual owner of the bill but the arteria the
Ulta Exterior violation on 3120 is open.
And as we have indicated, for over 50 years, that property has been consolidated to one, what we see as the community,
one contiguous property that has allowed the benefit of being in a market.
What was done and done illegally with moving the exterior, the alter exterior position has put the community in a position where you have a building that is not now suitable for you to even spin around in an aisle of shopping.
So we're placed in this hardship position of lacking quality market conditions due to the violation of the refusal.
So we have a minimum area that we're not even privy to because of the decision that they're going to split these properties open.
The zoning laws and rules have changed.
So we've never had the problem of being in an uncomfortable or burdened, harmful situation in this market.
So the substandard conditions that we're now placed in is even an open violation with the Department of Licenses and Inspection for 3120,
Which this 3122-26 pushes everything forward. And whatever the measurements are, they were not for a supermarket necessarily without all of the other measured length and space in that property.
so i don't so we're we're not we're asking that they not violate the uh refusal the refusal is
a lot area required is 1440 square feet and the minimum lot width should be uh 16 feet and the
proposed is 14 feet and if this was followed at the minimum there would still be you know ample
and adequate ability for our elders, disabled, and others to go into a property where they are
treated with some dignity. This process right now is no dignity. You can't even move. I've sent
examples of how the store has reduced its aisles, how you can't turn around, how even the space that
the owners or the tenants are behind in servicing us, they can't even hardly get out of their
space. Not to mention the other nuisance conditions of this 3120 property where I've
showed in our photos that they won't allow the community to even use the handicap accessibility.
None of these conditions are going to change in how we're treated because somebody comes along and can subdivide and puts three houses there, which is still too small for two bathrooms and three bedrooms, one of which you can only access by going through a bedroom out into the yard area and coming out of a yard area, coming back through a bedroom.
the the design is a flaw within the way that these properties are even designed
so okay uh miss cummings we appreciate your time and your comments is there anyone else in the
virtual audience can i just spend 10 seconds just to put on the record um yeah mr console why don't
we do this why don't we see if there's anyone else in there then you can respond at one time okay
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Please proceed, Mr. Counsel.
I wanted to just reiterate what I had said, that Ms. Cummings, and we appreciate her thoughts there, but 3-1-2-0 is a separate property.
It's a separate OPA number.
my client moving the walls to accommodate the actual size of that property, regardless of what
happens to 3122 through 3126, it wouldn't somehow give the store back width. The store is a parcel
that is only, it's fitting the size of the parcel. So refusing this would not serve the purpose of
that the refusing this would not serve the purpose of widening the store back into the lot of three
widening.
one two two two that's all i want to say thank you questions uh or comments from the planning
commission thank you chair bergman and good morning dave defecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location. The zoning for this property dates to 2014 during a community
supported rezoning. The appellant has an auto garage that they would like to demolish, split
the lots, then build three separate single-family homes. The proposed lot sizes would be 770 square
feet, which is substantially similar to the average lot size on this block face. Lots on this block
range from 734 to 805 square feet. Every lot on this block has a width of 14 feet, so the
dimensional variance for a 14-foot lot width for each lot is supportable. However, the occupied
area could be ameliorated by redesigning the proposed structures on lots A and B. The City
Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed variances for lot area and lot width,
but deny the proposed variances for occupied area.
mi 2023 002 80 3122 to 26 west york street i vote no
there's no shaheed my vote is no
baron leonard palmer my vote is no thank you council number seven
MI-2023-002863-2528
North Jessup Street
Erica Miller is the attorney
for the owner
There's a recommendation of support
from the 37th Ward RCO
Erica Miller is coming back
in as a panelist now, Chair
good morning chair good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yes my name is erica miller e-r-i-k-a-m-i-l-l-e-r right do you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client
the relationship to this property yes my client's zlata properties and the sole member is nazari
kovacek okay our vice chair has just a few questions for you good morning counselor do
you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy i do have you
emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed and show the screen
All right, as I mentioned, my name is Eric Miller. I'm here on behalf of lots of properties and our, my client is Missouri call the check. I'm going to the property is 2528 North Jessup street. I will mention at the.
Jump that my client is English is not his 1st language. We have set up a interpreter. So when he comes on, he can.
do we have an interpreter hillary i set it up oh so i i will and his name is no but wait wait
one minute is it is it the interpreter that we have no miss miss miller if if um an applicant
needs interpretation those requests need to come to us and we will set up an independent
interpreter um for you um so unfortunately we can't we cannot use your interpreter but because
you are representing the applicant we can you know accept your testimony on their behalf okay
thank you sounds good and i can only and he he does speak some english so if um that okay about
but apologies and thank you sure um nonetheless this property is located 25 28 north jessup
We received a refusal for Table 146021 Note A1, essentially saying that this lot is too small for a two-dwelling unit.
Essentially, the minimum of 360 square feet of lot area allows for the required dwelling unit for the first 1,440 square feet.
We have 709 square feet, which allows for one dwelling unit.
Essentially, this is actually very similar cases to the very first case we heard here today from Adam Shapiro.
My client was marketed and sold this property as a two unit dwelling.
My client was marketed and sold this.
Again, he doesn't speak English as his first language, so that might have been a factor in the sale.
I'm not entirely sure. However, he bought this property as a two dwelling unit, made some improvements to improve the, especially the second floor unit.
And then he has a tenant in the first floor unit. When he went to get his business license, he was denied and he received a violation for the second upstairs unit. And then here we are. He purchased this property in 2022 as, like I mentioned, a two-dwelling unit.
Two dwelling units are permitted in this RM1 district, however, for this size of property.
Council, why don't you move some photos or give us an idea of what it looks like.
That's great. Thank you.
And these are also the postings.