report. All the action is in the rear of the property. And as you'll see here, here's one
of the roof decks that goes all the way back to just about the property line, and another one
along the block that's pretty far set back. I'm sorry, not far set back, pretty close to the
property line. Our property is situated in between the two properties right here. You can see the
one neighboring roof deck and the other neighboring roof deck structure. Here is a picture of the
current existing yard where the proposed rear deck would go. And there is a door here that
currently leads to nowhere but would lead onto the deck. Another vantage point from inside looking
out the property owners have this legal approved gate at the rear of the property as you'll see
on the in the plan the intention originally shows the plan with the deck going back with a three
foot setback after meeting with the RCO we understand that they are seeking that we bring
that they are seeking that we bring it back an additional two feet to create a five-foot setback,
it back an additional two feet to create a five foot setback which is one of the conditions of
which is one of the conditions of their approval, which we are not opposed to.
their approval, which we are not opposed to. I will indicate also that the RCO did have
I will indicate also that the RCO did have statements or concerns with the footings for the deck.
the footings for the deck. However, we did not receive a refusal for this issue and we believe
However, we did not receive a refusal.
that it would be taken up when and at the time of the building permit should there be any issues
with the location of the footings and the setbacks from side yards. Again, the building permit we
believe would address those matters and concerns. Here's a copy of the deed to the property showing
ownership tax clearance and the letter from the neighborhood association again it is not opposed
if conditions are honored those conditions being an additional two foot setback so that there's a
five foot total setback from the property line but that first condition of support posts being
required 18 inches from the property line again the applicant's not necessarily opposed however
However, this is not a refusal and we would address that at the building permit stage.
There was some relatively small attendance, but approximately nine people at the meeting.
And again, that opposition that is there is with those with those intended provisos by the RCO that they would strongly support this if those two items are met, which I believe they will be met either way.
we're prepared to agree to the two-foot setback and address the footings and settings with the
building permit. The remainder of the package includes proof of mailing of the notice of the
RCO meetings and then followed by proof of the photos of the posting that were done on the front
and the rear of the property. At this time I'd like to call my client Andrew Miller to raise his
hand to adopt my testimony. Mr. Miller has been allowed to speak. Hi. Could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter? Andrew Miller, A-N-D-R-E-W-M-I-L-L-E-R. Right. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. Thank you.
Actually, before I ask that question, I would like to state one more thing, a few more things that
that the proposed deck would not increase congestion in the area, be a hardship to
neighbors, increase burden on utilities, or create any environmental concerns. And we believe that
there is a legitimate hardship here based upon the situation of the property having the two front
yards and no rear yard designation. With the rear yard designation, the proposed deck with the RCO's
proviso would meet the setback requirements and would generally otherwise not generate a refusal.
With that said, Mr. Miller, have you heard my statements to the board this morning?
And do you believe my statements to have been true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt the statements that I've made as if they were your own?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no further hands mr chair planning commission thank you chair bergmanian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location as we've seen this
is a through lot with shell street serving as the rear street for this and all the adjoining
properties on this block the proposed dimensional variance we believe is consistent with the
arrangement of adjacent properties and the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2022-000055-617 South 9th Street. I vote yes with the following
provisos. One, vertical support elements must be at least 18 inches from all lot lines as required
by the zoning code two deck must be a minimum of two feet from the existing roll down security gate
for a total of five feet from the property line on south shell street thomas howlin my vote is
yes with provisos james snell my vote is yes with proviso this is my vote is yes with proviso
thank you counselor thank you very much all right mr chairman i'm going to accuse myself yes yes
Yes, sir, Mr. Holloman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kelman.
MI 2021-005-302-7037 Large Street.
Letter of non-opposition received from the coordinating RCO,
Take Back Your Neighborhood. Nelson Emanuel Amante.
I'm sir, Mr. David Garcia has been re-promoted to panelists.
Fine. Good morning, Mr. Garcia. Good morning. Again, you would think that I would know how
to do this after a while. So you've already been sworn. Could you identify your clients
and their relationship to the property?
Yes, Mr. Bergman.
My clients are Nelson Almonte and Mabel Caba,
I believe are present.
And have you supplied all ownership,
deed, tax information, RCO information, et cetera?
As with my previous case, Mr. Bergman,
I have been recently retained,
but I've had an opportunity to review
all the submissions
so I would say yes to all
please start your case
share your screen
that's wrong
no that's not the one
here we go
Mr. Bergman, members of the panel, this is a refusal basically seeking to a variance
for the legalization of an already erected deck in the rear of a property located again
at 1737 Large Street.
The first exhibit would be the refusal itself.
um there's also tax clearance certifications that were certificates that were sent however
if you note the certificates identify my clients as tenants and they're not tenants um here's the
deed that i believe was also filed uh showing Mr. Almonte and uh Ms. Caba or Ms. Caba Nunez as
the owners of the property. The photographs, if I may, this is the rear derrick area where the
construction has taken place, the build has already taken place. If you will note in the
photographs as I show them, the size and dimensions of this proposed deck are pretty
consistent with those of the neighboring properties. There's no encroachment. There's
really no environmental issues here or hazards. If I can show you some of the other decks in this
area. Certainly the erected deck as it stands is not inconsistent with that entire area. In fact,
I believe the property next door, as you can see here, has a deck that is quite similar,
at least in the material build. Again, this is just for purposes, just legalizing
that which is already there. It certainly will enhance the appearance of this building and
certainly of the neighborhood. The RCO, I think Mr. Radinsky, has given it his blessing with
certain provisos, but that is pretty much it. Could I just get my client on to ask her to adopt
the statements that I've given the board? Please, please, get your client on first.
Yes, Mr. Almonte, Ms. Cabo, would you please come on?
And it should come out as Luis Castillo raising his hand again.
That is our accountant.
I will be with you, sir.
I've allowed him to speak, Mr. Cabo.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Nelson Emanuel Cabral Almonte.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes proceed mr garcia yeah mr i'm sorry chair yes we would need a spelling of that name
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
N-E-L-S-O-N-C-A-V-R-A-L
Mr. Bergman, I could spell that in English.
Mr. Burke, but I could spell that in...
Sure, good. Why don't you do that?
Sure, good. Why don't you do that?
And this would be for Mr. Nelson Cabral. It's capital N-E-L-S-O-N, Cabral, capital C-A-B-R-A-L.
Mr. Garcia, does he need an interpreter?
Well, I was under the assumption he did not, but this whole setting may make him a little bit...
Let me ask you this. You have spoke with him.
Yes, I have.
And he's communicated everything about this project to you.
So as a court officer, we will take your testimony for that, okay?
Very well. Thank you, Mr. Bergen.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, sir.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. The comprehensive plan recommends, sorry, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. The proposed dimensional variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code, and so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-005-302-7037 Large Street. I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Garcia. You have the votes.
Thank you, Mr. Bergman. Have a good day for all of you.
Thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. We'll reconvene at 2 p.m. Thank you, everyone.
All right.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EPA hearings.
With me is Jamal Shahid, our board secretary.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Sitterman.
James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, our executive director, Tanya Sunkett, and our board attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Bill, I'm here.
And here is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
The advised proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you do knowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phillip.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand.
and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen
is not for testimony or comments. Any comment should be directed to Tanya Sunkit, our executive
Director. Let's take a look at continuances for the two o'clock meeting. Number six, MI 2022-001-058-322
Delancey Street. Is there anyone in the audience who has a comment or statement relative to that
continuance. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Jason Hand. Mr. David Orphanides has his hand raised.
I will speak at this time. Sure. Mr. Orphanides, please wait to be sworn in, sir. Could you state
your name and spell for the court reporter? Certainly, David Orphanides, first name D-A-V-I-D,
last name O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. I do. 332 Delancey Street, sir. Yes, just stating that I'm here on behalf of
the applicant, and we did submit a request for continuance, and I thank you very much for
granting that. Fine, that's fine. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Have a good day. All right, and I want
Number two was a request from an RCO for a continuance, MI 2021-004397.
004397 um could mr knockamson come on too please and also the coordinating rco north central
philadelphia susquehanna cdc
mr chair members of the board alan knockamson of knockamson pc
C-A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Is the CDC from North Central Susquehanna here?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
tina marie russell north central philadelphia cdc t-i-n-a-m-a-r-i-e-r-u-s-s-e-l-l
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes you're requesting a continuance yes can i ask why well the first meeting we had um we didn't have
anyone from the community there it was no one there um and as i walked around the neighborhood
I found that only one person actually got to receive the letter, and the one person who received it, she said that she didn't know what it was at first, but she happened to open it up, and when she opened it up, she didn't understand what she was supposed to do about it, but she didn't understand it, so we find a lot of people who are older, they just didn't understand what to do, and we just wanted to make sure that the community, the people who I did talk to, they said,
listen, I would like to have heard from the applicant and we'd like to give them that
opportunity to hear from the applicant. And I think, so this way it'd be fair for the people
in the community. It's a house, they're homeowners and they've been here for a long time. The
community is also zoned incorrectly. So zoned as a CMX2, but everyone there is a two story
single family houses so we also wanted more time to talk to um the city council because we talked
to planning commission and they told us we need to talk to city council we just kind of want more
the people to be more more aware of what's happening so that they can actually um feel
part of the the whatever this decision is mr knockamson yeah so mr chair we filed this appeal
on October 12th of 2021 we had an original hearing date of February 8th of 2022 we were unable to
secure a hearing a community meeting date before our February 8th uh hearing uh and so at the