my client, Mr. Shehzad Alamov.
Shehzad Alamov has been promoted
to penalist.
Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the
stenographer?
hello hi sir could you please state your name and then spell for the sonographer
we can hear you please s-h-e-r-z-o-d my first name our last name olimov o-l-i-m-o-v
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir please proceed counsel thank you uh mr alamov did you hear my presentation to the board
this morning yes true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes you adopt it as your own
testimony yes were you aware at the time that this built this this uh shed was built without
the benefit of the proper uh permits yes i don't think you understood my question
did you believe that there were permits pulled and this was legal when you did it
no i'm sorry i didn't get the question say it again no okay i have nothing further thank you
questions from the board uh yeah in the shed does it have any uh plumbing or drainage
that you had to put in there i don't i know it vernic currently does because it it was
that it was designed to be a kitchen for the third apartment but sure surezad
agreed to remove everything from it um when we and we told the neighborhood this when we met with
them. So do you have any images of what the shed looks like
now with that removed? None of the work
has been done as of yet because obviously
we will need permits to make
the changes. So zoning is the first step of legalizing
all of this. So you don't have any
interior pictures of what's in the shed
you don't have interior pictures
of what's in the shed now.
Now we'll continue.
Is that what you're saying?
Vern, do you have those?
There they are.
This is in the shed now?
The upper left-hand picture
is what is currently in there.
this is what was built because remember this was gonna this was gonna be a third unit right
so that's a that's a full is that a kitchen in there yes ma'am yes that's all in the shed that's
all in the shed this is in the shed currently right but because again the initial application
was for a three-family dwelling and so this and so the the applicant is going to remove
this all this okay that's correct we're going to gut this close it off to the interior of the house
based on the input from the rco and it will be used solely for storage uh and accessible only
from the outside and so the request is that this be that i'm just i'm trying to but what's the
request here just to for this to be a just to legalize we're over storage shed yeah that's
those request is to legalize this as a storage shed that's correct right and initially michael
they wanted three units they wanted three units so they they they don't they're not doing that
now they just want a storage shed right we are short about nine feet with respect to it being
where it's positioned in relation to the rear yard gotcha yeah and that's why we're here just
to legalize the the nine foot shortage um i have a question what was the foundational system
and how is drainage around the now shed plans and has the architect's team surveyed any of that
to make sure that it's going to meet
any applicable
codes.
Alex, do you want to take that?
Yes, I mean,
the shed was
built on
a slab
type foundation.
It has a
foundation.
The way everything was
built seems correct, except that
the contractor essentially went out there and built it telling shirzad that he had pulled permits
and he had not um and then l and i obviously came and you know issued the violations and that
that was ultimately when i was brought in um so things have been sloped uh i believe you can see
the downspout
there at the rear. There is a drain
below that.
Everything, the rest of the yard is
essentially sloped
away from. And there is
a drain that's below this
downspout? Doesn't look like it.
Looks like it's just
splashing onto the
grade. That's actually why I asked, Mike.
Right, I know.
I'm trying to see if I have any other photographs
I guess my concern is that this now is like
rerouting water and this was an additional slab
that was built separate from the house and because it's a twin
if any of the soil gets compromised that house is going to have
an impact on the other houses in that subdivision or on that cul-de-sac um we can we we can tie
all of the we can tie the roof drainage and additional drainage into the existing lines
so the there is an existing line there if uh you move burn move a little bit to the right
in between the two neighboring properties we we we can reroute the gutter to tie in with that
and then my second question is about the original rear wall to the property that would have had to
be removed to create access into the shed do you know if the brick wall was just cut through or
removed uh nothing was actually removed there was a rear door and that rear door was basically used
as the access to the new edition so when it gets closed off it's not gonna have any
issues now with that back wall and shit no it should not but alex let me ask you this there's
issues now with that back wall and shit no it should not
no exit to the back now um you're going to close the door up right and yes this is just a shed so
if you're in the house you can't get out the back now you can get out the back so uh in that picture
on the left where you can see ricky from my office standing but i'm saying before there's also the
other houses have exits in the rear right they they did yes so now there'll be no exit in the
rear no but that the the room in the basement is not an occupied like it it is not an occupied
space right and now it's not so now you're saying you got the well you got a shed but you the shed
closed off the exit to the rear previously behind the garage it was an unfinished like
cellar space and what i'm saying there was an exit there but there was a door at the back right and
now you've you've closed the door yes okay okay but there's still two exits the front and the side
the one that one on the side right yep and the and the front right through the garage through the
garage all right i'm gonna make a comment and you know you can tell me that you know if if we
if we're not going to be using this as anything other than a shed there is a provision in the
administrative code that allows you to have a shed that is a certain size and it's not attached to
the house it doesn't mean that you you know have to deal with drainage or anything like that it's
just the regular little shed it's a certain size and those are approved under the administrative
So why, if we're not going to be using this as anything other than a shed and there's no access from the rest of the property, then why can't we tear down this whole thing here and just put in the little shed that you're allowed to have and let that be the end of this?
I guess my concern is you put in something now and now we're trying to make, you know, we're trying to make lemonade out of a lemon that maybe we shouldn't have had in the first place.
so can't we has any thought been given to just um getting rid of this um and uh getting the
little shed that you can buy like at a home depot or lowe's or whatever that you're allowed to have
without all of this well yeah but that would further uh burden my client who no fault of
his own ended up with this back this back structure right it's it's it's it's not his fault okay it's
not his fault i mean as alex it clearly said that when the when the architect when the uh when the
client hired the contractor it was believed that all everything was properly purchased you know
permitted so and that money is gone that contractor is long gone it took the money and ran
And because it's a dimensional variance, we're not looking for any use variance.
Those sorts of financial impacts is part of the analysis.
So, yeah, in a perfect world, this would have never happened.
But because it did, we're trying to make it usable without it being living space.
And we thought we came up with a pretty reasonable accommodation to address the RCO concerns, because we're literally looking at nine feet on a very large lot, which is all the difference between it being by right or needing this relief.
yeah essentially if this was built where you see the trash cans right now this would not
this would be a by right addition it just shirzad hired the incorrect people and was told the
incorrect things and it wasn't until everything was complete that he learned the proper way of
doing things and and ultimately it's been a very expensive learning experience for shirzad
and what did the um civic association say as part of their opposition
they were against the three-family dwelling that was the that was the um the vibe that you know
that that was the message we got there was also some other issues that are very unique to
this particular area of the city
that we're not going to really get into today.
But one of the rooms in the plans
And one of the rooms in the plans was earmarked for a prayer room.
was earmarked for a prayer room.
Mr. Shahzad is practicing Islam, and some of the folks there had some issues with that.
But we're not litigating that today.
Right, and I'm not sure why he would need to have permission to have a room in his house where he prays, regardless of his religion.
but okay yeah it was just it was marked it was marked on the plan they caught it and they made
an issue of that ah all right okay uh but i guess uh so did you go back to the civic association
with this new proposal here to uh uh use this addition just they aren't a shit yeah or not
I think we
attend
did you go back to the civic
association and ask them
burn your volume again burn your
volume yeah
we can't hear burn
yeah we can't hear
can't hear
can you hear
me now we can
great yeah I don't know what's going
on today I could hardly hear
one of the
board members just now as well.
But Alex, if you could
speak on the last...
I just wanted to, you know, did you take
this plan back to
since you had gotten the opposition
before, if you came back,
did you go back and say,
hey, now we're just going to use this first shed.
We're not going to have this third
unit. We're going to
separate this.
That was
how we
that was how we presented the the project to the neighborhood and the neighborhood was
completely against any additions any use of the basement any use of anything any anything to do
with islam anything it was a very it was a very negative hearing alex listen one minute so when
you have you been at the site alex i have right is there anyone else that has a shed
attached to their property on that block um not that i can see maybe from the aerial aerial photo
i mean the immediate neighbors did not yeah that uh there are sheds there are actually sheds that
are larger than this little addition but they're not attached but they're not necessarily attached
to the house that's correct right right because of the i mean honestly this was not built as a
shed this was built as an addition to the house that's correct right and now you can't have the
addition because you can't have the third unit right we're not having it right we're removing
the third unit yeah what i'm saying the purpose of this was you wanted to put a third edition there
a third unit initially right right okay all right any other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair i should check comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chairman and good morning
david fechto with the city planning commission chairman and board member the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the rta1 residential two-family zoning at this location
the appellant appears to have built a rear addition without the benefit of permits
there is no unique physical circumstance or condition of this property that would prevent
it from being used in strict conformity with the zoning code the appellant has not shown that they
will suffer an economic detriment if they were forced to comply with the rear yard depth provision
in the rta1 zoning district the city planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed
dimensional variance for rear yard depth thank you mr chair just for the for the record my client
spent tens of thousands of dollars on this and it now to have to just throw it all away because
he was taken advantage of would be difficult thank you thank you mi 2024 001 169 10914
nadina court i vote no michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is no
Tenetta Graham, my vote is no.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you.
My vote is yes.
Sorry.