I don't, I don't know. Perhaps the interpreter could ask that.
Okay, so then you'll just have to break your interpretation into smaller pieces.
Excuse me, I'm sorry, this is the court reporter. I apologize for the interruption,
but I did not clearly get the applicant's name.
There was some crosstalk.
Could I please have his correct name?
Your name is written in the same way, right?
It's clear.
B-I-N-J-I-A-N-G.
The first name is B as a boy, I-N as Nancy.
Last name is J as a James, I-A-N-G.
Yeah, J-I-N-G.
Thank you.
Mr. Ward, are you the one?
yes i am mr chairman hi mr ward could you please state your name and spell it for the court
stenographer my name is sean s-h-a-w-n last name ward w-a-r-d do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do mr ward could you identify your client
a relationship mr chairman i just uh issued my or submitted my appearance statement i represent
City Council, District 6, Councilman Michael Driscoll, the 41st Ward Republican Committee,
and Joseph McHugh, who is adjoining neighbor directly behind the subject property.
All right. Mr. Council, please start.
Okay. 4242 Cotman Avenue.
The zoning records for the four properties at the corner of Cotman and Walker all indicate that these four properties, that's 4242, here is the property across the street, and there is two more that match identically across the street in that they were built as multifamily properties with commercial uses on the first floor.
An important note for this property, 4242, there is no connection whatsoever by steps or any other mechanism, and there never has been, between the ground floor unit and the two floors above.
The zoning archive, going back to 1946, is two-family dwelling and a doctor's office.
Going forward through time, as you can see in this photo, and I'll zoom in a little bit, there was a doctor's office on that first floor, and I'm told by the RCO and the near neighbors that the doctor's family lived above that, and so it functioned as one residential unit and one commercial unit.
My clients, should he be interpreting?
That is actually according to the rules of the law in 1947,
it is already started from this way.
So the next one is a doctor's hospital.
The next one is where they live.
None of the properties on those four corners
are single family homes.
If we go back, this is an 1800 square foot property.
The other properties are similar in size.
uh 4249 um there was a hair salon and a one-family residence um the other corner 4301
uh was a um storage an office space and a single family and 4300 at one point was a four-family
dwelling with a tailor shop and an accessory garage so we're dealing with four corners that
have never been, ever been single family homes. And I think that point is salient because the
And I think that point is salient, because the way the properties were built, there is no connection between the floors to say that it could be easily converted back to a single-family home.
way the properties were built, there's no connection.
We look in the back of the property, we see that there is parking, and there is room for trash storage.
My client...
Yes, no, please continue.
So this is the house, it's the design of the building.
From the beginning of the year, it's already a design.
The inside is a shop, the inside is a living room.
Like 4249, it's a repair shop.
4301, it's a repair shop.
43100, it's a repair shop.
So it's all this design.
It's not time for him to do it.
You can't speak now, it's not your time.
windows, entrances on the side of this building that provide light and air to this space.
The previous use of the property was a six-office doctor's office.
It's a somewhat large space, and so what they're seeking to do is a one-bedroom apartment.
那之前是六个办公室给那个医生用的那现在就是把它改改成这个样子
然后旁边有空有的那个窗子各方面也有可以拍车的地方
所以是有这个考虑想要这种改变
对我的这个人他是想要做就是把下面改成一个一个房间一个厕所的一个那个客厅的一个方式
but yes um there's our certificate of mailing
the photos that we submitted showing the posters
exterior
back at the property
the interior photos of the property
and the deed showing my clients took possession in June of 2023
regarding other two families in the area while we fully agree that the properties off of Cotman
Avenue, our single family, such as the Protestants property. On the same block as this property and
across the street, we found two unit approvals for 4242. And granted, some of these are quite old,
but just to give an impression that Common Avenue does support many two unit properties, 4249,
to unit 4301, as mentioned before.
There's 4300, 4234, 4228, 4224, 4222.
That was a three unit.
What number is this?
And again, these are on the same side of the block
or directly across the street.
This is 4-2-2-5
4-2-2-3
There's two more
If you'll humor me
4-2-1-7
And 4-2-0-9
Interpreter
I'll continue
If you want to summarize that
This is the form of the file
We provide all the information
And there are all the photos
In front of the photo
And the photo
In the house
裡面的照片還有外面外圍的所有東西我們都提供了
然後在旁邊的那周邊的那些房子好像都有4242
旁邊好像有4249 4301 4243 4228 4224 4222
4228, 4224, 4222, 4237都是同一條街或者是對面街的
然後還有4225, 4223, 4217, 4209
這些都是在這個方面的,旁邊或對面的一些房子的架構
Mm hmm. And just to conclude, we understand there is significant opposition. We don't understand the basis for it specifically at the RCO meeting when asked what the neighbors wanted here.
There was no conversation for anything to go into that lower space, the space that is not connected to the home upstairs and never has been.
They simply did not want to accommodate this use.
In addition to that, there are unfounded allegations.
While I didn't get the letter to Kony, I did get an email.
There are unfounded allegations about there being an increase in rodent activity related to this property, some issues regarding parking, and we believe that these are just things being brought up to create a case against my clients, which we don't believe exists.
之前好像我们有开过会好像在RCO里面都是讨论这个问题的时候
我们不明白为什么就是对方会有就是不同意
有相同的相反的看法
那好像提出一些的意义
觉得好像说不够那个停车位或者是其他的原因
我们都觉得是不合理的
也是不合常就是那个根据我们刚才看的照片
各方面来讲都是不合我们刚才看到的事实
So we think this is not correct.
So we also have to say this,
and this is the next one and the next one
is not connected.
This is all divided.
So we have to have our own rights,
and we don't think that the other
same thing is to agree with.
Yes, I agree.
With that, I'll have my client adopt my testimony.
So Ward, would you want to present your case,
and then we'll open it up to the board for everyone?
i'll i'll turn off screen sharing to the extent that sean's interested in doing the same joe joe
before you do that can you hear me yes sir uh could you go back to the floor plans for me
yeah i i i just want to clarify um can we let can we let the testimony client's testimony or client
and adopt the attorney's testimony first, please,
and then we'll move on to any questions.
Oh, sure.
Sure, Hillary.
Interpreter, please ask my client
if he heard my testimony today regarding his property
and whether he adopts it as his own
for the purposes of this hearing.
Yes, I agree.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joe, good to see you. I know it's been a while. Could you curse her up to,
you know it's just for my own edification i'm just trying to understand what what's going on
with the uh first and second floor i mean let's uh the former doctor's office is ground floor
yes sir right and then and then you got first and second floor what
do we have floor plans for the first and second floor or no there's no work being done on those
floors. My client can testify to the contents of them if you'd like. All right. And for
clarification purposes, Mr. Chair, I just want to get to the point of it all. The first and
second floor is a single family dwelling, or are you submitting today that that's a two-family
dwelling, first and second floor, and we're looking to add a third unit at the ground floor
level, the former doctor's office? Oh, certainly not, Sean. The two-unit approval I showed from
1946 was just to elucidate that, because several neighbors said that, oh, there was never any
multifamily approvals, and I flashed a ton up, including this property, which was two units.
I flashed a ton up, including this property, which was two units.
No, the first floor.
No, the first floor is a single family.
The doctor's family live there by all accounts, and it's not separated.
I just wanted to be clear that we're talking about a two-family dwelling, not one family to an existing two-family.
And so it's it's purely a two family, one unit in the former doctor's office and then the second unit occupying first and second floor of the existing structure.
That's correct. OK. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may proceed, I am here on behalf of Councilman Michael Driscoll, 6th District.
I also am entered my appearance on behalf of the 41st Ward Republican Committee, which is the Republican ward that encompasses this property.
In addition, I represent Joseph McHugh, who is the adjoining property owner directly to the rear.
We are here.
Can you just pause for, so the interpreter is interpreting the proceedings, so if you could just pause at different points, but if you could let her interpret who the clients are, that would be helpful. Thank you.
My apologies, Hilary.
Okay, this white man, he just wanted to ask you
your house, what kind of house you live in there?
He said, you changed the house after the bottom,
it's just one house, and the other house is just another house,
so it's all just two houses together.
So his meaning is that.
He also said, yes.
And he said, it's also代表了第六区的居然会,
and the member of the group,
and the member of the family,
so it's just the third part.
So he didn't speak his opinion.
He just wanted to check the details.
You want to your opinion first?
Well...
We don't need testimony from him.
sure okay all right thank you mr chair uh uh uh yeah again i represent uh the the three uh
parties uh previously identified and uh we are obviously opposed to this application and
And I believe at this point, if Joe McHugh could raise his hand, I don't have any testimony from district council and I don't have any testimony from 41st Ward at this point.
However, they are interested parties as protestants to this application
But Joe McHugh as an adjoining property owner
Who has previously submitted a letter
Or if I email to the board
I believe on January 9th
If the chair can confirm that the board has that letter
I would appreciate that
I'm going to take three parties today
I don't have a record of a letter.
I haven't seen one other.
In any event, I would ask that Joe McHugh raise his virtual hand and be sworn in.