this property they're carrying uh financing costs ongoing uh and basically this is their primary
source of income so with that i do believe my client should be here to verify my testimony
thank you why don't we call it your client sure uh mr jung can you uh raise your hand to be identified
it's the um do we see him
he has a hand up from alicia but that might be his wife
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Hey, hello.
Hi, could you please state your name is spelled for the sonographer?
My name is K-E-H-A-I-J-H-E-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you turn your video on? Is that possible?
I tried it.
okay all right well thank you okay great all right counsel thank you uh mr jones did you
see my presentation and hear my representation to the zoning board yes and do you verify what
i have represented to be true and correct and adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you
questions from the board. I have a question. So currently there are 10 bedrooms or 10 spaces
that you're leasing out as the Airbnb or whatever, the limited lodging. But you said that you would
not have a problem with converting them down to four suites. We would probably just combine
certain the bedrooms into one unit i discussed this with my clients when we received the rco's
request to limit it to the rco's main concern is they don't want 10 units rented out all at once
it might be too many people for the area uh and produce noise we in reality we have always had
more or less uh partial rental of the space in that building and my client has verified that
during his uh meeting with the rco as well i think all that influenced uh part of the influence the
all that influenced uh part of the influence rco limiting uh the number of units to four
rco limiting uh the number
and so if you reduced it to four or would you be um making it bedroom living room space that
type of thing would you be adding kitchens to it do these i don't know kitchens but we will
probably add like a living space living room type space or office space connected with the bedroom
for use by the occupants so it'd be like a almost like a you know in helton they have larger suites
with a living area right but no cooking in the units no cooking no cooking in okay no um would
it be like a another like extra sink or something like that like a little kitchenette if not a full
kitchen like possibly like a kitchenette for these folks to um they don't really want something off
have to go into the restroom to do it yes they could they'll probably ask something along those
lines but not a kitchen they don't want real cooking being done in their space and it has
never been an issue yet with uh because the the people have been using the bathroom sink without
really requesting and there's a bathroom within each unit so that they have direct access to that
other questions questions from our attorney
um uh mr jen did you you said l and i directed your clients to seek a visitor accommodations
permit okay because i just this doesn't necessarily well i have two issues one that
this looks more like a group living arrangement um not visitor accommodations um and secondly
If this was to be made into four units, this would probably need to be an application for multifamily household living for dwelling units and visitor accommodations.
I don't think we could make we could put that into what's currently before us.
So I'm just I'm a little uncertain with with kind of what I mean, we are our primary use has always been Airbnb.
be where you know that has not changed um I'm certainly I'll defer to the board what makes the
most sense here the when we when my client received the cease operation I had a lot of
back and forth with the LNI and inspectors regarding the use and ultimately they their
position is that the only way a setup like this can be legal for them in their view is that it
has to be a visitor accommodation for for airbnb purposes right i mean group living can be short
term or long-term rental um or at least a single room residence part of it can be um so yeah i'm
just we've we've just had a few of those i'm not sure before you spoke what we're not going to vote
on this we'll take it back yeah and then and actually we'll we'll spend some time with our
attorney and try to figure out where we want to be with this that's that's where i think we have
to be i mean i don't there's no way we're going to vote today understood okay so why don't we see
if there's anyone in the virtual audience and from larry friedman okay welcome i should be back in
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello.
uh hi how are you can you hear me now yeah i can could you please state your name is spelled yeah
my name is larry friedman i'm the uh chair of northern liberties uh zoning committee how are
you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed sir
Yeah, I just wanted to say that, obviously, this is tricky for us, as are all legalizations. This is tricky because we didn't see this back in, I think it was 2021. And so the renovations were done under the limited lodging, which doesn't allow for renovation. So it was very confusing when it got to us.
uh and then we were instructed to just make an assessment so what we did just so you all
And then we were instructed to just make an assessment.
understand is that we had to make an assessment as if we were back in 2021 and somebody from a
single family dwelling came in and said they want to do visitor accommodations so we had to look at
it that way which is kind of was kind of crazy but we did it and the reason we came up with four
is because it was a single family dwelling
and I believe it had five bedrooms at the time.
So we went back and forth and neighbors,
you know, we all discussed this
and we came up with four
based on the fact that
there's not unlimited parking in that area.
And also in a single family dwelling,
four kind of made more sense to us
than the small hotel which it appears to be at this point um and i i just wanted you guys to
all understand how we came up with that okay all right okay thank you very much we appreciate your
input thank you um is there anyone else in the audience do we see anybody jace no sir no further
hands planning do you want to take a position yes we can sure amy boyd with the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location to the existing rsa 5
residential single family the appellant has not shown that there are any physical conditions or
circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the zoning
code the planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for visitor
accommodation thank you um sin like like i said we're going to spend some time in executive session
and um we'll we'll sit and talk with hillary and try to get as much information as we can we won't
take long we'll make a decision on this next week at uh two o'clock and if if uh there's
certain changes that would be needed legally to make sure it fits the proposed use i'm happy to
work with Hillary. I understand. I understand. Take care of that. Yep. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir.
uh mi 2026 000 731 8550 old line road i have well we either have alan or alex and i think we have alex
alex you've already been sworn just for the record please state your name alex goldberg
could you identify your client a relationship to the property sure my clients are uh stephen
zachary martin and jeffrey todd waldman um and and jt jeffrey todd is sitting to my left
vice chair has a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits
five days in advance of this hearing I have and do you waive the reading of
the refusals and simply to the accuracy I waive the reading but I believe it's
not correct I reached out to the planned examiner regarding the wording I can get
into that now or later but I believe the refusals are correct just the
description of the the application I don't think is fully accurate all right
hello do i want to go ahead it's okay yeah so yeah so sure yeah i'll do it while i'm sharing
my screen so and this is a textbook hardship case um we are they bought the property in 2018
at some point i think between 1990 and 1996 a deck and an enclosed screened in porch were built
on the rear of the property actually crossing into the lot line behind them i don't think that they
were permitted at the time. So this application is, in reality, what we're trying to do is replace
the porch with a new porch in the same location, but on our lot and legalize the deck. And the
language of the application says that we're legalizing both of them. I really think we're
erecting a porch and we're legalizing a deck. I know it's just semantics, but I think you're
because i did i did look at this and the it's um the porch is mainly enclosed now already yeah
yeah so i think i know that you're not you're you may i wondered it based on the condition if it was
being um reconstructed uh did you have to show plans ride lands okay yeah you should you should
be fine but i'll put it on the record that we're understanding that you are replacing
the existing porch with a new porch and the prior one was not legal
most likely. And then is the deck being replaced as well?
IS THE DECK BEING REPLACED AS WELL?
THE DECK IS ESSENTIALLY BEING LEGALIZED.
WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AND IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES LATER, WE'LL COME BACK.
THANK YOU.
AS THE BOARD JUST HEARD, THE SCREENED IN PORCH IS A SAFETY HAZARD.
IT'S FALLING APART.
THEY HAVE A SMALL CHILD.
and because of where the building structure is there is nothing we can do not only to the rear
of the property but to the property at all without having to find having to get some version of these
variances we are zoned rsd1 that requires a 30 yard a 30 foot rear yard currently the building
structure if we're not including the deck in the porch is 12 feet 12 feet from the rear lot line
so again any modification would would cause this this variance right now the porch and the rear
deck are over the porch specifically is over the lot line we're just bringing it back up to the
lot line so that's why you see that we have zero feet as a rear yard it's not registering that
there's a rear a porch or a deck there because it's not legal the second refusal is with regard
to the proximity to a stream i believe based on my measurement that we're about 130 feet away the
building structure is so again even even though this is already here we're actually bringing it
further away from the the creek um we have to deal with that refusal at the at the rco meeting where
we got unanimous non-opposition there was actually a member of the whistahick and watershed group
there was probably flagged just because of this refusal and their position was essentially yeah
we can't really support it because of what the refusal is but we recommend that you implement
x y and z you know ideas and concepts to make sure that we are as friendly to the
Wissahickon watershed as possible and we believe it's actually going to be an improvement because
the construction is going to be done right and it's going to be wrought further away from the
creek. Here are the aerial views. So this is what the site, this is the big lot. It's 17,000 square
and change, 17,000 square feet. We're talking about this building structure right here.
You can kind of see the porch there. You can see it again in this aerial view from Atlas on 1996,
where again, you see the deck, you see the porch with the skylights and it's,
Atlas isn't perfect, but we know it's over the lot line based off of the surveys that we've seen.
Here's a zoning map.
You can see this is the creek that we're within 200 feet of.
Single-family zoning.
This is their residence.
They own this property.
They live there.
JT lives there with his family.
Here's the photos of the structure we're talking about.
So the deck is in fair condition. We are not doing anything about it right now, just legalizing it.
You can see there's a ton of overgrowth covering this screened-in porch.
It gets worse. The inside is falling apart. The footings are not great. It's not completely watertight.
There is an exit point from the house directly onto the screened-in porch and directly onto the deck.
um they try to use the exit from the house onto the deck more more often but sometimes out of
convenience they walk out this way and it's going to be built essentially the same way that it is
currently except a little bit smaller it's going to be brought onto our lot so you can see very
basic drawing we have from the rear wall of our house to the lot line it's 12 feet um and we you
You know, this screened-in porch is 12 by 15.
You can see there's an elevation.
There's an elevation right here.
There will be electricity run to this screened-in porch
for, you know, some outlets and a fan
and maybe a TV or something like that,
but no other utilities, no water or gas,
and it's essentially the same height,
which is 11 feet, 8 inches, as the one that's currently there.
just a little bit smaller to bring it back onto the lot line we have the rco meeting notice we
met with them on april 8th the application for the variance the deed to the property
and the tax clearance so with that i'd like to ask jt to adopt my testimony
sir could you get closer to the mic and turn it on make sure it's there could you please state
your name and spell it for the stenographer sure it's stephen martin s-t-e-p-h-e-n m-a-r-t-i-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes counsel did you hear my testimony today was it true and correct
Council did you hear my testimony today was it true and correct and do you adopt it as your own yes questions from the board questions from our attorney not at this time. Mr. chair questions or comments from the virtual audience.
see any hands mr chair planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsd1 residential single family detached zoning
at this location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 1978 and council supported map change
the appellant has not shown the compliance with the zoning code would cause significant financial
burden the setback required by the wissahickon watershed overlay is in place to reduce
erosion siltation and channel enlargement in the stream wise mills run and the downstream larger
wissahick and creek the planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed dimensional
variance from the rear yard depth requirement in the zoning code and the requested variance
of the stream setback requirements in the wissack and watershed overlay district yeah so you know i
understand with regard to the watershed but we literally cannot do anything here including
fixing a serious safety hazard without coming into these variances and as i showed the board
we're technically bringing the screen in porch further away from the creek than where it currently
is mi2026 000731 8550 old york road number a i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
My name is McAdams, my vote is yes.
Hi, Owen, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number 13, MI 2026-001-478-3430 North Bodine Street.
so you were here earlier right thank you just for the record could you please state your name
Alan Ockamson right and can you identify your client a relationship to the property yeah my
client is Sarah Fernandez the owner of the property vice chair has a few questions good
afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing