to you to have more than three cars there you know if if the zoning board said to you well
you know a lot of the time we've we've approved three cars is that would that be okay or or
why is it that you want to have like five or ten cars be able to be to be stored there
i mean in case in case if go to five or more so i want to be in legal side right right i'm sorry
excuse me this is the reporter i'm having difficulty hearing the witness oh yeah you have to
bring your bring your face right to the to the microphone yeah so is is there is it is it an
economic thing that that you that you need to that you in order for it to work um economically
you need a certain number of cars to be able to be stored there yes it will help to do my business
okay is it if you only are allowed to have three cars would that would that would you
be able to have a business or would that be too small for for your business yes it doesn't matter
if it's only three if if cannot do it it's so you would prefer more than three but you could also
you could also live with three yes yes okay and you heard all the testimony that i gave
earlier today do you do you agree that it was true and correct and do you do you accept it
as your own yes yes ready for questions yes all right um mr mustapha what's the most you've
stored there because i i saw that one picture look like there's quite a few cars there
one more time please what what's the most amount of cars you've stored there or someone's stored
there because the one picture you showed looks to me like six seven cars were there yes the fact
is that when you see three sometimes go more than three i don't want to be you know like doing illegal
stuff so i would say 10. but sometimes reach 10 sometimes not most of the time not all right yes
questions from the board so i know we're saying storing cars it's not parking these are like
long-term storage right there's no it's not parking this is a storage like a u-haul but for cars
okay so is it is it is the the fellow that owns the uh uh repair shop down the street are they
going to be still storing cars and bringing them in and out is he bring it in and out but it could
be once they maybe could be once a week going on okay very quiet business okay sorry just clarify
because i'm just trying to understand what how this use distinguishes from non-accessory parking
um so are they storing vehicles that are being that are being repaired and this is just their
storage lots is that okay all right yeah they're kind of like on deck for repairs and then and then
they they tow them out and bring them to the repair shop okay all right thanks yeah so it
is a storage use yeah so what is your business rental renting you're renting these cars no our
uh the business for some at this time i'm renting to one guy
the business for some at this time i'm renting to one guy he used a lot to store
he have his own mechanic shop but he when he finishes the car he store it in my place
okay are you asking what his business is in general so he has multiple businesses that he
operates but at this property he has he has has a tenant who is storing cars at his property
but that's not the only thing that Mr. Mustafa does.
Can you share with the board
the kind of businesses that you operate?
I'm fixing laptop and computer.
I'm technician and I have few lots.
I own it as investment.
So he buys lots
and then either uses them himself to store things
or rents them to other people to store things
as one of the side businesses that he has.
Okay. All right. So then I wanted to get back to this whole idea that there's some, it's not technically what we're doing here about this whole idea of continuous use, but it looks like in 1981 it says that there was a variance granted for storage of trucks and storage of building materials in the garage.
so that's 1981. so was there a garage there in 1981? we yes we believe that there were several
structures because there's also indications in the zoning archive that there were two apartments
that were somewhere on this property those obviously are no longer and and by the time
mr mustafa uh took possession a few years ago it was only an unimproved lot and there was there were
no structures whatsoever so whatever the permissions were that were granted before
it was for um a use within a enclosed structure correct no um the this wasn't no the the zoning
archive indicates that there are there were some there were some storage of of things in a in a
garage but that was not that was not the total um that there were all there was also storage
of vehicles outside on on the on the uh where is the permissions for that it doesn't distinguish
it because it's a it's a use um so the the used isn't restricted to to the garage in the garage
so you're saying that this variance also meant that there was some kind of storage
on the street somehow which they can't get no not on the street um which which on page are you
looking at um looking at what um we have as notes here from the examiner oh okay okay
because i'm i'm looking at the actual yeah the the 19
in yeah and then 1959 or 57 they talk about a private garage and then um 81 yeah so i'm going
to go back to the 81. i mean so here's my here's my issue if if the permission that was granted
before was for something which was in an enclosed structure which is what they generally
give permissions for I mean otherwise they would have had to have given permission
for him to park you know for cars to be parked on a a lot and they didn't do that
so building a truck and building materials exactly in the garage and then at some point
this garage is demolished and just disappears here and whatever else went along with it and then
uh when your client comes along he's buying a property that is you know it's vacant now because
there's no building anymore on it and then there's the question of whether the use can survive
the demolition of the structure within which the variance was supposed to operate
yeah and maybe i'm reading this the wrong way but i don't understand my reading what there
definitely was structures there definitely was storage inside those structures but my reading
was that there was also um there was if you go back to the to the 1930s they they said that
there was a funeral home and that and that there was and that and there was a court case on this
So we don't have to go back to the 30s. We're just talking about from a time when we can establish what kind of use have been granted sometime before your client purchased the property and when did he purchase the property?
your client purchased the property and when did he purchase the property 2021 okay so long before
you know but this is the use and so you're you're asking about continuous use it can't be continuous
use because um the use that was granted was supposed to be within a structure and that's how
illinois generally grants this they don't just grant permissions for um uses of making well
i'm looking at um here is the part of the zoning archive from um 1966 uh it doesn't say that
there's uh it it doesn't say that that there is a an interior location the structural location for
for the storage it simply says two family dwelling storage of three trucks um and 81
that's the one you mentioned when you first started your presentation yeah all right go back
to 66 or any other time you're talking 81. okay so let's look at okay so here's the here's the 81
one it says applications for storage of three trucks and storage of building materials in the
garage and whereas the storage of building materials in the garage is not permitted in
the district so it implies that the building materials were put in the garage but the trucks
were could be outside the trucks and storage of building materials in the garage yeah and
but then it says that the only issue was that you that you're that you're having building materials
in the garage not three trucks yeah but you had three trucks in the garage the truck's not here
anymore right and and the garage isn't here anymore the truck right the garage isn't here anymore
so i'm not sure how we can have some idea of continuous use of anything um when the permissions
which were originally you want the permission now now right we do to use this lot for storage
yes and you were um you're you're saying now is this a uh paved is this paved it it has asphalt
um but it appears to be it's not it appears to be not not uniformly it it it it would you say
mr mustafa that there are some parts that have grass and some parts i can do it if it's it's
just mint concrete okay and do we have drainage of some sort no it has it and i think it may be
not working so when when it rains where does the water go out to the street yeah
I mean, to me, there's the whole, before we get into, but I've already had my issues with the continuous use piece, but these lots, there's supposed to be some sort of drainage.
drainage, there's also supposed to be some sort of if you're you're going to use an impervious surface. Are you going to use pervious surface? What are we? What are we talking about here? And if you tell me that the drainage is, you know, an issue, then I have an issue with it.
um the other thing is is there a is there a fence or anything yes the photos we showed there are there
are um there's two different fences um okay and what are the well I'll look let's look at
I see that you have a refusal for those. So, um, I guess I'm not, but here we go.
so there there's a uh wood fence here and then a um more of a metal fence it looks like with
with um with some green uh strands yeah yeah and then so so there's there's like a more of a blue
wooden fence on the to on the left and the right and then where the where the entrance is for the
vehicles that is um that that swings open and closed and is that a that a legal curb cut there
i mean again we are yeah that that's been around since 1930.
okay and then my last question okay is um when you say you talk to
and then my last question okay is um when you say you talk to all these different folks did
you talk to the person who owns the residential property here right to the right on the on the on
the yeah yes you said that the on the left side it's the church right and then on the right side
there's somebody yes i spoke to him yesterday uh-huh and what did they say he's a guy he does
not speak english at all he's not understand me then he give me the landlord because he's
the landlord he say i don't care okay so he's renting the property the guy next to me renting
okay and then you got the landlord to say it's okay i spoke with the landlord he said he doesn't
care yeah so he doesn't care but maybe the tenant does but you don't know the tenant
no English at all, no . That's what he told me. Then he gave me the landlord, the one in charge.
The landlord says he doesn't care. All right. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Any other questions?
Hillary? I didn't have any other questions that I was going to suggest in terms of, I mean, unless the board wants to do a resumption hearing,
if the board wants to hear and hold that we vote, schedule the vote on this matter for May 20th.
Well, okay, so why don't we go, we're going to bring Craig back on, I think.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have two hands up.
The first hand is from Craig Melodosian.
I'm going to allow him to speak.
Why don't you bring Craig on?
good morning chair good morning craig i i believe i swore you in earlier today could you just state
your name for the record yes craig sure d-r-a-i-g last name melidosian m-e-l-i-d-o-s-i-a-n
All right. And I'm sure you've been listening. Could you just give us your comments of where
you stand now? And then we'll talk about where we go in the future.
I have multiple observations, but the first is a request. You all are aware that we're a
consortium of, at times, up to six RCOs that work together. There may actually be more than that in
our service area, but there's a core of us that work together. As volunteers, we do not have
access to certain tools so for example today mr masters presented multiple materials from you
from city archives with which i slash we are not able to access i would ask the favor of the board
that someone within uh the zba or the planning commission provide us with a link so that we can
go into that material and have access to it like steve had in preparation of our case uh
i just say that those are from atlas i just i i could not find that a link on atlas
and if it's there uh i i'd be happy for someone to provide us with your document i mean yeah
i'll send here what you presented sure right is that okay we'll get him to share with you
Yeah, but just so Ian and Hillary know, I'm not supposed to use the R word, but I'm pretty good at this.
I could not, on the atlas that I had access to, I could not get to that material.
Okay, we're going to make sure you get the material.
Thank you.
Number two, digging around, and I had to use AI because I didn't have the same tools, and with what also was on Atlas, this property, going back to 2007 on Atlas, has a continuous history as a vacant parcel with multiple clip violations.
those violations then continued in 2023 and 2024 with sammy as the owner uh at two points
and i will tie this together with some other material at two points in those violations
in june 20 2010 it was cited for motor vehicle must be removed and then again in
And it was cited again, this looks like June 20, this was 24th of September, 2018, again prior to the owner.
So we posit that there was not continuous use of this piece.
that there was not continuous use of this piece. It was originally, Steve indicated it was owned
It was originally...
by Goodwin and Sybil Roofing, which was at the bottom of the refusal that he showed.
Goodwin and Sybil went out of business, and their property was sheriff's sale in 2012,
which was again long before Mr. Mustafa purchased the property. And again,
we're pointing out that this was vacant at least since 2007. The fact that someone may have
illegally parked the vehicle on it, we do not believe constitutes continuous use. Additionally,
if you look at Steve's photo, which is up now, if he will zoom out, you'll see that the walls on
both the carriage house that's now a church, zoom out Steve, and the adjacent 7132 house
are stuccoed all the way up to the edge, which would be the boundary line just before the public
sidewalk. So we were told by the neighbors, and we did not invite Steve, perhaps I made a critical
error, but I had gotten communications from Dominic Long and from a mere day out of the
council president's office, his district office, that they were receiving multiple complaints
about the operation of this lot. I'm not blaming it on per se on the owner, though he is the owner
and he's responsible for his tenants. And it was indicative of that there were vehicles and car
parts being stored on the lot, that vehicles were being towed to the lot, including multiple
complaints about the tow trucks coming down the street the wrong way. Again, I'm going to admit
this is hearsay, but this is what the neighbors told me, as well as Dominic, on the Monday night
meeting. We were trying to sort this out. They indicated that there were men on the lot who
would come onto the lot in the good weather and spend multiple hours during the daytime working
on vehicles on the lot and that car parts are also stored on the lot and they reported they
saw some vehicles that were towed onto the lot repaired and then left and i also indicated in
the material i shared with you and steve that there are also allegations that there are auto
sales up covering on the lot we'd also like to address and we'll need technical support on this
is there any type of rain water management or runoff uh that is applicable to this lot
that uh the owner will need to meet should you grant him uh his request we also want to point
out and we pointed out to steve we believe that the fence is illegal it's on the uh the street
face of an RSA 5 block, which I believe is only four feet high. But maybe Steve has something in
there that indicated they were granted a variance. Our position is, I'm going to call him Sammy.
We spoke. He's a very nice guy. I laud him for being an entrepreneur. And in honesty,
he probably shouldn't have said this to me. He said, when I bought it, I thought it was
IRMX, like the buildings on Woodland Avenue that it backs up to. And we explained to him, no,
it was RSA5. We tried to come up with alternatives for him. We'd love to see him develop at least
six affordable housing units. We believe we could get that in there with no problem.
We also believe that this rends the fact, despite Steve's allegation of longstanding use,
We believe that that use was fully containerized within the building. We were told by the neighbors, the long-term neighbors, that once the roofing company left, the building fell into disrepair and ultimately was demolished unless that was a streamline.
you know that you know my experience is uh unless imminently dangerous that takes multiple years
and we believe that also would have can be construed as an abandonment of that use while
the building was vacant and no one was using it so so so let's so uh Hillary let me let me tell
you where I think we need to do we need to have a resumptive hearing and um um is that May date
too soon what what's the may date that you have you you know i have my resumptive hearing today
is seven seven twenty six okay so the may date i gave that was a regular hearing day that was
just a suggestion for when to vote this but if we're doing a resumptive hearing we got to go to
the we got to go to the resumptive date so i'm going to use a resumptive date of seven seven
twenty three at nine thirty a.m and that way by then you you you'll have the rco done and anyone
else who's interested we'll open it back up to the public again and things of that nature okay okay
and things of that nature okay okay all right thank you thank you craig thank you i i believe