Actually, there's 15, well, 14 support, one that's support and non-opposition.
So a total of 15 letters that outline what the project involves, what the refusals were, and that included copies of the original plans and the notice of refusal that was issued by L&I.
Were you the one who distributed those plans to the neighbors and secured their opinions on the project by signing the letters?
Yes, I was the one, David. Yes, I was.
Okay, thank you. And you're aware, real quickly, during our three meetings with the community group, they pointed our attention to a project down the block at 447 to 49 West Queen Lane, correct?
And that project's also zoned RSA 5, zoning classified RSA 5, correct?
That is correct.
And that was a project for a multifamily dwelling for 19 units and 11 accessory parking spaces, correct?
I believe it may have got changed to about 12, a total of 15 units.
Three, yeah, 15 units ended up the design, the final design for that project.
You're correct. That was the original application.
That was the original you mentioned.
But you did not want to go with multifamily. You wanted to do the single family because that's what you heard from the neighbors that they wanted, correct?
That is correct.
Okay. And to the board, real quickly, that project came before the board last week, and I believe it was approved.
Had some of the same variances that we have in this project, and I've included the refusal for that project as well.
Some information for it down at tab nine. You can see their refusals.
Nicholas, anything else you'd like to add for the board right now?
Nope, that'll be all, David.
All right, thanks.
And then real quickly, Mr. Thank you, Nicholas.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like Stephen Mileto, who's the architect for the project,
having promoted the panel sworn in so he can adopt my architectural design statements.
Do we see his hand?
Looking right now.
But her hand just went up.
All right.
He's been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Hi, Stephen Mileto.
First name, S-T-E-P-H-E-N.
Last name, Mileto, M-I-L-E-T-O.
I'm a partner at QB3 Architects.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Stephen.
I'm sorry.
I keep calling it QE, but it's QB3.
Stephen, did you hear the statements that I made to the zoning board today?
I did, yes.
And are they true, correct?
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And would you adopt them as your own?
I would, yes.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have Ms. Cheryl Smith with her hand raised.
I will not.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
can you hear me yes could you state your name please and spell it for the court stenographer
cheryl smith c-h-e-r-y-l-s-m-i-t-h right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? I do. Are you a neighbor? I represent the 12th Ward RCO, and yes, I am a
neighbor, a near neighbor. Thank you very much. Prasheed. Yes, we wrote the letter in favor of
the changes, and Nicholas and his team have been very helpful. I know it was a hard, you know,
a very long experience, but they did send in a final rendering to us, and those that I shared
it with which were the people who were on the last meeting of the few that i i got responses from
they all approved it we liked the way everything looked and um we hope that you do well with this
project thank you for taking the time to call and give us your input thank you is there anyone else
in the virtual mr chairman just going to ask cheryl this is the just so everybody knows this
what i have up is the rendering the last rendering that was sent to you correct cheryl yes this is
final one that we saw yeah all right sorry mr chairman sorry to interrupt is there anyone else
in the virtual audience i do not see any further at this time planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission sure proceed
sorry sir i just lost my okay take your time spreadsheet there it is
the comprehensive plan recommends rm1 multifamily zoning at this location but the properties were
rezoned to rsa 5 in 2015 after a community-led remapping the proposed development is largely
consistent with consistent with the recommended zoning however we feel the applicant has failed
to demonstrate any hardships for the proposed dimensional variances parking is not required
under either the existing or proposed zoning and any associated dimensional hardships are self
inflicted accordingly the planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed use
variance but then i to deny the proposed dimensional variances um david do you want to respond sure
Sure, sure. Again, I think I understand the Planning Commission's position regarding parking.
We hear it time and time again, with all due respect.
But the result of that that position often is, is that an already.
We're going to we're going to address off street parking and or traffic in cars, I think, in a different way, ultimately.
And right now, the existing circumstances are that on-street parking is a real problem.
People need their cars, particularly out in this neighborhood.
Maybe it's a little different if you're downtown, but this is not downtown where you can walk
everywhere.
You need a car to get a lot of places to do your basic daily activities to get to work.
So what Nicholas heard loud and clear, made very clear to Stephen and me from the beginning,
What we heard during the meeting was everybody liked, needed and liked everybody.
When I say everybody at the meeting, people that lived on the block and even people outside of on the block wanted as many cars off street, even parking for guests, if possible, along the side of the shared drive, which we were able to show could be a possibility, was what they wanted.
And again, those refusals, the refusals regarding height, the one where the parking extends for, it's only through A through F, not for all of them.
But in order to get a nice share, wide share drive, we needed to do this, what we did.
And again, we feel that there is a hardship that impacts this property to make this project work.
You can't get cars off street, even though it's not required.
I think it is a hardship for this property not to have, given the size of it, not to have off street parking.
given the size of it, not to have off-street parking, and it's what creates those dimensional
And it's what creates those.
refusals. And with all due respect, I understand what the Planning Commission is coming from.
We think that there is a hardship, and it warrants the granting of those refusals.
So thank you for everyone and their input. MI 2023-000-635-415-Queen Lane. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plan, free pages, stamped by ZBA, June 14, 2023.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Dishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can do this.
My business may be excused.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number nine, MI 2022, 007-475-2120-22, West Tioga Street.
Jeffrey Young is the attorney.
letter of support from allegheny west civic association and hillary do i believe we have
a second letter too yes mr chair um we have we received a letter of opposition from swamp pool
neighborhood parcels association um however they did suggest um some provisos um i i also received
a posting photo for Mr. Young showing the property was posted for today's hearing.
We will not be able to vote on this matter today because there is an issue with the balance on the 2022 taxes.
That's fine. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Young.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Mr. Young?
sorry can you hear me yeah we hear you now sir could you state your name please
and spell for the court stenographer yes uh jeffrey young counsel for the applicant
or owner of the property um j-e-f-f-e-r-y-y-o-u-n-g do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes and mr young could you identify your client the
relationship to this property? Yes, my client is Self Inc., Self, the owner of the property. It's
a non-profit entity organized here in Pennsylvania. Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy? I do agree to waive the reading and stipulate to the accuracy.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing? As Ms. Emerson stated, we do not have a tax
clearance. Unfortunately, there seems to be an issue with the city. My client is a nonprofit
homeless services provider that owns multiple properties throughout the city. And for some
reason this property does not have the tax exemption that it is allotted. So we are working
with you to figure out what issues we're having with this tax exemption. This property shows that
it is a tax balance owed for real estate. Understood. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Again, members of the board, my name is Jeffrey Young, here on behalf of the property owner
self. The property is located at 2120-22 West Tioga. Here is just our table of contents
and indicating the exhibits that are in our presentation. We have the deed, a leasing
letter for the tenant. We have maps. Then we go into the refusal and referral. I'll talk about
the zoning history of this property, our notices, our certificates, and our letter and photos from
the property. Again, here's the deed showing that my client self, a Pennsylvania non-profit
corporation, is the owner of the property located at 2120-22 West Tioga Street.
Here is a letter, a leasing letter.
The tenant of the property is actually Center for Hope, which is also a homeless services provider program that is ran by the Urban Affairs Coalition.
uh program that is uh ran by the urban affairs coalition uh so although my client uh self
does provide uh homeless services um we are leasing this particular building out
to another entity that provides similar services as we do
here as a map of the zoning map of the property at the shaded areas you can see
is our property in mid-block on the south side of Tioga between 21st and 22nd. We have a large
lot that is zoned. It's actually two zoning classifications. The front of the property
is zoned RSA3, and the rear of our property is zoned RSA5. This is an overview map to give the
board, a sense of where our property is located. Within 500 feet of our property are two parts.
We're close to Hunting Park Avenue and Airy Avenue, which are major thoroughfares in our
city, in this part of the city. We have one refusal and one referral. Again, our application was for
the erection of a fence on both sides, one side of the fence being six feet, the other side being
and eight feet in the rear as a personal care home.
This prior application was approved
for this exact same use back in 2023.
My client applied for a use as a personal care home
to consolidate the two lot lines
and to legalize a breach that was in the property previously.
Here are the plans for the property that were developed and submitted to the board
at the original hearing.
Just to zoom in to show where our fence is, we have a rear eight-foot fence to the rear
of the property.
That fence is still erected, and we essentially are asking for the legalization of this fence
because our prior zoning application expired.
We were given a five-year proviso
and the specifics of that proviso was not presented.
So ultimately the entire zoning permit
had to come before the board.
I believe it was particularly just for the use.
However, it wasn't specified in the zoning permit.
So we had to reapply for other things
that we were refused for,
everything we refused for the first time as well. And the six-foot fence is on the, to the
side of the property in the side yard. Again, we're asking for this additional height just
because of the population that we serve. This is a large, atypical amount of folks at this
particular property, although this property has been having a non-conforming use since the 1940s,
which I will get to later on in the in the presentation. But again, we're asking for that
the additional height, I'm not offense, just to keep some privacy from our neighbors from our
from our use. Excuse me. Sorry, Mr. Young, I apologize for interrupting. We're getting a lot
of questions in the chat about two cases on the 330 list. And I just wanted to let people know
we are on the 2 p.m list. We have three more cases on the 2 p.m list. Then we'll take a brief break
and move to the 3.30 list. The Medford Road case is first and the 1401 South 13th Street case is
fourth. Thank you. Sorry Mr. Young. No problem. May I proceed Mr. Chair? Please. Thank you. So I just
want to go through and lay out of our property. In the basement, there's no living quarters in
the basement. We have two laundry facilities, recreation space, storage, and also utilities in
the basement. The first floor consists of two offices, a kitchen area, dining area, and a waiting
room and living room. And as you can see where my mouse is, this is the breach on the first floor.
um, that, uh, connects the, the, the two, uh, originally the two parts was 21, 20 and
21, 22. Um, but again, those parts that have been consolidated into, into one, uh, the
third floor, uh, the second floor, excuse me. Um, and third floor have a similar layout.