so right so if i'm seeing right one's a little larger than the other
um yes okay so you want to join these make this one property that's all that's all we're trying
to do okay all right why don't you continue in
these properties
have been licensed
forever and ever
the one
is licensed
commercial
and there's also
license for
residential
and it's
a corner property
with a kind of a strange
let's say shape.
Ian, why don't you show us
the photos of it? You have
photos of that, right? Yes.
All right.
those are licenses
which we got
so tell me
what this is here
mr ross yeah no i heard you um i'm good well there should be another one
there should be another one there should be a second one okay
oh so there's the two properties together there yes
yes and then there should be another one
so as you can see it's sort of a strange corner um property um it's always been a regular
um but it's always been uh legal and licensed and um
here we are today so you you want to join these two properties together to
create one correct and and the reason for that just out of curiosity well i have my client um
orlando martinez i i i hope that mr martinez is there and i would like to let him explain that
okay is there is there anything else you want to offer us
no because i think it's it's pretty straightforward and
we're not even sure why this this requires um yeah i i'd say that's yeah yeah okay um
okay why don't you bring your client on and we'll try to figure out
all right so how do i do that well just tell me her name and i'll call her his name is orlando
His name is Orlando Martinez.
Martinez. Orlando, could you please come on?
Orlando, could you please come on?
Good evening.
Can you hear me?
I agree.
Orlando, hi.
Could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, sir.
Orlando Martinez, O-R-L-A-N-D-O, Martinez, M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z,
and I am a junior.
JR. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. And Orlando, what are we trying to do here? Why don't you explain that?
So we have a we purchased the property in 2017. It's a we call it a dual building,
but it's two addresses. They're both premises A and B on our deed. If you have that,
I'm pretty sure you do. Ultimately, the building has always been nonconforming and utilized as a
conjoining building. So literally the buildings intertwine already. This is, from my understanding,
has been this way since its inception. So ultimately, when we discuss with a professional
to acquire the CO for the building, it was recommended that we do the consolidation just
to have some form of legalization properly done as the city completed an overlay at one point.
So we're hoping to get the deed consolidation, one parcel number, one tax ID,
one grounds and continuously use it as it's always been used, which are three apartments
and a repair shop.
And Hilary, the only thing we have here is the occupied space.
Am I correct?
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Martinez, I'm just a little bit confused by the photos
because it looks like there's other commercial uses here
other than the auto repair shop.
It looks like there's a couple of offices plus the apartments above,
unless I'm not understanding where the property boundaries are proposed.
Yeah, no, you're correct. The management office is actually one that we're in the works of legalizing and the tax accountant, the tenant there is going to be responsible for doing that, which he should already be in motions to complete.
When we purchased the building, it was a CMX2 property with the storefronts. We have zoning documentation from 2021 that allowed the storefront, the repair shop, and the garages. Since the overlay was completed, we've been trying to, I guess, put together an actual plan as to what we're allowed to do there by right or what we can afford to fight for.
okay so we can we can finish this hearing but i would just recommend the board that we hold this
because yeah the way the refusal is written it's just the apartments and the um and the uh vehicle
repair and maintenance the repair shop it doesn't include these other uses so i i'm a bit concerned
if the board granted the granted the variance as it's written that you would lose these other two
uses that you're saying um you're basically existing non-conforming uses so i think that's
something that we would need to discuss with l and i um and and yourself to figure out what what
this needs to be should this be a resumptive hearing um not necessarily i think you can testify
to what they want and if the refusal doesn't line up with it then we can address that with l and i
Okay. Questions from the audience.
I do. So, Mr. Martinez, can you explain exactly how many commercial spaces, separate commercial spaces exist on the property?
So what you see.
I'm sorry.
And their entrances.
And their entrances. So if you look at the right of this photo, that is the 59 building.
uh in the first yes the black the black roll up so the entrance to that small space it's probably
about 250 square feet there um that is the primary black iron roll-up gate the entrance to the
apartments uh which are upstairs over the 59 and the 61 and 63 building that entrance is dead
center in between both properties and this is how with the gate yes ma'am and that's how it's been
since the beginning of time, since inception. I'm from Hummington Park, and it's always been
that way. So that entrance right there does go over into the apartments upstairs. So you have
two one-bedrooms at the 59 building, and you have one two-bedroom that encumbers over
the 61 and 63, which are right over here, if you can see my arrow. If we could pull the side photo
up I can show you that is part of the mechanic this is the rear which is on
Darien and Cayuga this is all part of the mechanic shop so if you move to the Cayuga street
This is all part of the mechanic shop. So if you move to the Cayuga street, you'll see the mechanic shop entrances, which are these. So as from here, the apartment is upstairs, the storefront and the corner, which was once a corner store, which the zoning records show that was approved at one point.
And then this all in the back where we don't have a second floor at, that's all the mechanic shop back there.
which is fully licensed as a repair shop.
And then you've got the other two storefronts that face 9th Street.
Yes, the two on the front is the My Management Office,
which we hope to legalize quality management.
And this is a tenant that is supposed to be going through the motions
to legalize his space as well.
And then how long has the tenant been in place?
I'm asking, and I'll tell you why, I'll be specific.
the zone uh the google maps image from seventh month ago has different signage on the facade
so i'm trying to rectify the businesses that are listed on google maps versus the ones that are on
this photo currently yeah these are current our sign is is new it was installed maybe a couple
months ago as well as the tenant there he has been there i think maybe six months i don't have
in front of me so to clarify we have four commercial spaces the garage the empty 250
square foot commercial space your property management office and the consulting business
on the corner and then we've got the three units upstairs yes ma'am okay hillary we have nothing
to do with 59 oh am i correct this is a lot consolidation mr chair so they're proposing
to consolidate 59 with 61 to 63 okay and then my only other question is because it does look like
this building has had additions historically do you know if fire separation wise isn't an issue
like from my understanding no uh none of the walls were can be removed as they're all load
bearing and rated for fire but as far as anything else i'm not aware of okay
okay questions or comments from the audience uh rcos
we do have the recommendation from the rco um yeah i saw that yep i yep we have that
no hands mr. chair okay um any anyone in the audience at all with their hand up
no hands raised mr. chair okay um we want planning to take a position on this planning
amy work with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in
zoning at this location from the existing rm1 residential single multi-family the proposal is
to combine two lots and preserve the existing structures. The Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the requested variance for a max-occupied area.
And we're going to hold our vote, Hillary, until we get this
straight. Should we give it a date?
How about two weeks? Well, two weeks will be on
a Wednesday, right? And then I think
we'll be ready to vote. That will be December 17th.
Right. And everything else is closed on this until we figure out where we are.
Well, Mr. Chair, I'd like to leave the record open because we may need a corrected refusal in this case.
So we'll just leave the record open for anything that we need.
But. OK. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
All right. Thank you. Sorry about being upside down.
Thank you. Well, yeah.
yeah yeah well i can't i can't figure out why it was all right mr ross thank you see you
blood might rush your head but you're going to be fine thank you all right have a good night
everybody right um can we go here meredith
i know you're out there mi 2025 004037 931 south 18th street
murder the furliger is listed as the attorney i believe it's going to be brandon saverin
mr chair brandon's here hi sir yes yes he'll be coming back in as a panel shortly
i can't wonder when your case was coming up how long you've been here
about two o'clock
oh okay all right
oh that's okay you've been here a long time
Oh, that's okay. You've been here a long time.
Oh, well, maybe.
Brandon?
Yes, I'm here.
Oh, hi, Brandon. How are you?
Brandon, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N-S-A-V as in Victor, R-A-N as in Nancy.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
My client is the owner and resident, Anirud Kolambi.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good evening. Have you emailed your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
Yes, Madam Vice Chair.
All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and start your case.
Thank you.
Okay. Good evening.
So we are here, Ani, my client and I, to legalize this deck at the second floor level in the rear of his home that was constructed in 2008, a long time ago.
Ani bought the property in 2022 and now lives there with his wife.
We are going to show you that the size and location of this deck is appropriate.
And that in this environment, the lack of an elevated deck would lead to no ability to have readily accessible outdoor space with decent light, particularly in light of a proviso against roof decks that's already on this property.
So that is one of our hardships that we think compels allowing this property to have an elevated rear deck.
To be completely transparent, there has been a violation in place against this deck since 2017.
So my client is here basically to do the right thing and try and get this thing legalized.
The violation is not for the deck being an unsafe condition.
It's simply for lack of permits.
I can't tell you why it took nine years after someone else constructed the deck for a violation to be issued.
But my client knew about the violation and, as we'll explain, shortly after he closed on this house, started the process of legalizing it, which is why we're here today.
So without further ado, I have submitted 20 exhibits to the board, which I ask be moved into the record.
But I will, in the interest of time.
I'm so moved, so moved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, the former chairman would not really say anything in response to that.
So you caught me off guard there.
the 20 exhibits I will not go through all of them in the interest of time so
starting right off with the refusal here's the refusal on my screen that's exhibit one
but the zoning code and I have another exhibit on the text of the zoning code
does a better job explaining the issues than the way the examiner did in the refusal
So I'm just going to skip right over this and explain that the gist of the issue is that on a small home like this in South Philadelphia, you can't really have an elevated rear deck without dimensional variances, because the deck cannot encroach on the rear yard setback area.
And inherently, a deck in South Philadelphia is going to encroach on the rear yard setback area, just because there's not enough space otherwise.
So the coordinating RCOs were SOSNA and NOAC, and SOSNA held the meeting. And I'll show you, this is an email that I was sent by SOSNA. This is the vote chart. And by the way, because I received a phone call, so I'm basically telling you this as an officer of the court.
The council president's office does not oppose this application, I believe, unless he's still out there, that the representative from the council president's office had to drop, but their stance is non-opposition.
The vote sheet here shows you that the vote was 11 to 1, with two of those 11 supports being my client and his wife.
So I'll get into this more in a second, but that is a near unanimous vote of support.
Two of those folks in this vote chart were from NOAC. The rest were from SOSNA. And the NOAC votes, my understanding is, were split one to one. So, you know, except for that one person from NOAC, who is Ms. Shacomba, who may be on the line. I know she was earlier. Unanimous support at the meeting other than her.
Two of those folks in this vote chart were from NOAC.
The rest were from NOAC.
tax clearance here at exhibit three my client's 2022 deed at exhibit four I'll skip right over
our zoning appeal zoning map exhibit six so the properties in the northeast corner of 18th and