neighborhood for that.
Uh, so we have several refusals.
The first is this is a two-story structure, which is a non-conforming lot.
We're adding a third story to it, which is expanding that non-conformity.
Due to this technical refusal, we're asking that the board allow this variance to take place.
The second refusal has to do with the amount of dwelling units.
Again, we're not trying to put 19 three-bedroom units.
units we're only looking to do 19 studio units you know if you know the given the the size of
the lot you know technically under the code it's almost like the same amount of bedrooms that we
would be allowed as of right so 19 you know dwelling units sounds like a lot for this property
but because there's studios and there's physical limitations we can't put more than studios here
We think that the circumstances are appropriate to grant that variance, and we'll go further along with that proposition later in my presentation.
The third variance has to do with the fact that we would like to eliminate the commercial component for this building, even though this is a CMX2 property.
You'll see from photographs that it's out of character to have commercial use, not only for this property due to its history, but also in close proximity, there's no commercial use around there.
We're actually across the street from a cemetery. So commercial would not succeed here just because there's not much residential use to begin with.
And instead, we should focus on supporting the commercial quarter that does exist a few blocks away.
So those are our three refusals.
So we did receive correspondence from 12th and Cambria Advisory Board RCO.
It looks like there were 12 people in support, five people in opposition.
12 people in support, five people in opposition who were there physically, and then they also
had a Zoom component, and there were four people in support virtually and two people opposed.
So it was 16 to 7 in support of this project. Now, a couple things that they stated in their
letter I want to acknowledge is that they wanted one-bedroom units rather than studios. Again,
Again, in order to allow for affordable units here, and given the limitations on the size of the property as a whole, and the need for studios as opposed to one bedrooms where these individuals don't want to take care of a full one bedroom, but rather would have a studio, we can't comply with that request.
Again, and we stated that during our meeting as well, like that we needed the amount of units in order to keep this building affordable.
They also asked us to put a fire escape outside of the units.
I think what they meant is we talked to them about providing Jacob ladders for the second and third floors that would be affixed to the lintels of these windows.
We have no issue with that.
So I don't know if that's an enforceable proviso, but we have no issues with putting Jacob's Ladders there, you know, for life and, you know, and safety purposes.
And then they did reference the fact that they wanted to have a store, you know, within this building.
Again, we defer to the board, but it would be rather difficult for us to put a commercial unit in here because of the lack of density in this part of the neighborhood.
We have a cemetery right across the street.
There's not much residential activity at all on Germantown.
There is a commercial corridor, which is a few blocks away, which is struggling.
And we're hoping that this increased density will help support that commercial corridor.
But, you know, that's where we are with this.
But we have overwhelming community support for this project.
And then not only do we have overwhelming community support by way of a community meeting where a vote was taking place,
We also have overwhelming community support from individuals that we reached out to in the neighborhood. And again, this is by way of that petition. And then letters to support as well, which were in your materials that we filed not just last week, but also resubmitted today with the letter of support from the coordinating RCO.
and then maps of the area again we're not taking an rsa5 property and trying to
convert it into a multi-family structure what we're asking to do is increase the density
by way of studio units rather than having like essentially three bedroom units it's almost the
same amount of bedrooms that would be in the building itself it's just a need that the
community has. Again, we're working with a non-profit organization where we've housed
their clientele in other parts of the city. They asked us for such support in their community,
and they're a few blocks away. And that's why we purchased this structure,
and we're hoping to do affordable housing by way of this project.
And then this is just where we are in the neighborhood from a Google Maps perspective.
And as you can see, there's, you know, we have, you know, the cemetery across the street.
We have the recreation center. We have a few churches here.
We have a little commercial corridor down here, but not much.
But it's rather empty. And again, it'd be really difficult to put a commercial product here that would be that would survive.
And then this is our property. It's a two story structure.
it's been a church forever this is the property from west monmouth because we're in the corner
of monmouth and germantown this is proof of of our posting for today's hearing on both streets
and this is germantown to the right of the property as you can see um not much of a
commercial corridor here germantown to the left of the property same thing and you know obviously
of the cemetery across the street. And then West Monmouth Street to the right of the property,
and you can see there's some vacant lots here, and to the left of the property. And then you can
see the cemetery as well here. Our plans and drawings. So what we're trying to do is just
have a third story addition, and that's one of our refusals because we're just taking the
building footprint and adding a third story and really cleaning up this structure. But by adding
and really cleaning up this structure but by adding this third story to a non-conforming
this third story to a non-construction.
structure we created a refusal uh for that um and then you know this is just a different angle from
the front view from germantown the other one was from mount monmouth and then this is also from
monmouth a couple things to note you know here are bay windows which are in the current building
structure, we extended those out to the third story as well. And this is just our site plan.
There's no basement living here. There's no roof decks. We're actually storing garbage
responsibly outside, so that's an enforceable proviso. Obviously, we're required because of
the amount of units to do commercial pickup, but we would agree to a proviso trash stored outside.
And then this is just our floor plan. And there is one, two, three, four, five, five units on the first floor. And the other thing that was really important to the organization was all of the units on the first floor are ADA accessible. And this was helpful for the aging community that's there.
And then on the upper floors are the remaining 14 units.
Our community meeting notice was sent out.
It was for a community meeting on September 21st.
It was first emailed to the coordinating RCO and the other RCOs, as well as the district council members zoning aid.
And then it was mailed out to 153 addresses.
Here are the addresses that it was mailed out to, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Two Key Property Investment Group, Inc., along with the Notice of Refusal, Project Information Form, our deed to the property showing that Two Key Property Investment Group, Inc. is the owner of the property, and then finally our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
I would ask that Philmon virtually raise his hand.
Philmon is allowed to speak.
Please wait for the chairs.
Sir, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court sonographer?
Philmon Helmichael, F-I-L-M-O-N, last name H-A-I-L-E, M as in Michael, I-C-A-E-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, tell the truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Philmon, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And everything I state, was that true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
questions uh from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair thank you um
questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands here planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning dave
with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning of this
location from commercial mixed use to residential multifamily. A proposal without ground floor
commercial conforms more closely with the recommended zoning, and the lack of a rear yard
is an existing condition. However, the appellant would be allowed seven dwelling units, not the
19 proposed, so the 19 proposed is not the minimum needed to derive value from this lot.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed variance for required rear yard
and the variance for not including ground floor commercial use, but limit the total number of
dwelling units to no more than seven.
Mr. Nockman, do you want to respond?
So, again, and I know this is not a zoning situation per se, but Philmon's business model
is affordable housing.
And also, you know, he's worked collaborating with a group in the neighborhood that is requesting
studio apartments. In order to make this project economically feasible, he really does need to
create that density and also to create a need for the community. It's not like based on the limited
size of a lot, we're going to be able to put more than studio apartments in there. So given the
unique nature here, I would ask that the board grant the variance requests. So MI 2023 002
913 2912 to 16 germantown avenue i vote yes proviso trash stored outside
I vote yes. Proviso, trash stored outside.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
We're going to go back to number eight.
MI 2023-002-916-712 South Shell Street.
Mr. Knockerson, just state your name for the record.
Alan Nockamson.
Okay, and there's a letter of opposition from Bella Vista and a letter of opposition from Council Member Squilla, and we do have three letters of support from nearby neighbors.
Could you identify your client in the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Rich Autari.
Okay, and our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Council. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed and required to proceed this case
five days in advance of this hearing uh yes thank you please proceed and uh share your screen thank
you no problem all right so i'm here i'm here to present 712 uh south shell street um
What we're looking to do here is to allow for visitor accommodation use.
During our presentation, we'll review the notice of refusal, the correspondence we received from Bella Vista Neighbors Association,
the letters of support from nearby neighbors, a little bit about this property, and we'll look about us, the Airbnb listings.
It's not uncommon, not only for this to be an Airbnb, and it has been an Airbnb since, I believe, 2018, but there's other properties nearby that are also being advertised on Airbnb.
We'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property, inside and out.
We made some simple floor plans for this single-family structure that the board can review.
too. Our RCO meeting notice and proof of mailing of that notice is the next exhibit or application
for appeal that we filed on behalf of Rich is the next exhibit or deed to the property showing that
he has owned the property for some time. And the purpose of his property acquisition has always
been to do Airbnb. So before the city changed the way they've handled Airbnbs, his intention was
such that this is a non-conforming use, in my legal opinion, where ultimately the city changed
the rules on him, and it would be financially devastating if he would have to do long-term
occupancy for this property. And then certificate of tax clearance showing that he's paid all of
his real estate taxes for this property. So this is an RSA-5 property, and Mr. Oteri is looking to
have short-term use for this property. Mr. Oteri actually lives in a neighborhood. He lives nearby.
So not only does he own this property, he owns another property on 10th Street that he actually
lives in. And as stated previously, he purchased this property when, you know, back in, I believe,
2018, when this use was allowed as a right. He's done everything right. He does everything right
now. He's just trying to legalize this use. And again, it'd be financially devastating for him
if he could not use this property this way. He purchased this property for, again, we'll review
the deed by, I believe, $455,000 with the understanding that he can use this for short-term
accommodations. He can't make the money up by renting his property out. So, it would take a
significant financial loss. This is part of the revenue stream that he is dependent upon.
You know, so it would just be financially devastating. We did meet with the Bella
Vista organization. A couple of things that they stated in their letter, you know, that there's
frequent double parking and street obstructions. Is that good? Yep. Mr. Chair, members of the board?
Yeah, we're fine. All right. They mentioned that there was issues with, you know, individuals have
used this property, who have parked on the street. Again, Mr. Altieri lives next door.
Again, Mr. Oteri lives next door. People know him. You'll see the letters. I think two of the letters are supportive from nearby. Literally, they're next door neighbors to this property. So everyone knows Mr. Oteri. He self-manages it. If there's a problematic tenant, he deals with it.
People know him. You'll see the letters.
like then and there. There's no parking signs in front of the building, as well as in the building
itself. There's notification, do not park on the street. It would seem logical to me that you can't
park on the sidewalk, but he put it out there anyway, so people make sure that they don't.
You know, people were talking about, you know, there's other issues about noise complaints and
such. So Mr. Artari screens his tenants in the building. So he looks at three different things
as telltale signs of problematic tenants for short-term occupancy. If the tenant
like lives in Philadelphia, that's probably a tenant that he's not going to rent to. So again,
Again, they can try to reserve for this building structure, but likely Mr. Artari is not going
to rent to someone who lives in Philadelphia because there's no reason for someone who
lives in Philadelphia to rent a property.
Second telltale sign, he actually asks the tenant in the application, why are you using
my property?
If they're vague, someone can say, yeah, I'm visiting Philadelphia.
Great.
Or I need, you know, an extra building property because my parents are coming into town or a family relative is coming into town and we need extra space.
But if they're vague about it, that's usually strike number two.
And then strike number three is when it's the only indicate that one person is staying there.
This is a single family structure.
So if one person is only staying in there, it's a telltale sign that someone's probably trying to, you know, have a party or something else in there.
So those are the three things that he focuses on when he screens tenants.
The other thing is, and I think I've stated this before, Airbnb and the short-term accommodation websites not only rate the landlords, and we'll go over that, but they also rate the tenants.
But Mr. Altieri is not going to he does not rent to anyone unless they have a very, very high rating from other landlords.
It's really important to him that, you know, that he's responsible, not just because it's the right thing to do, but he actually lives around the corner.
So people know if there's an issue where to go. And, you know, he wants to limit that as much as possible.
But he'll obviously be respectful of the people who live in the neighborhood.
it. So, you know, have there been issues? Yes. Are there issues for long-term occupancy versus
short-term occupancy? Yeah. So it's how you handle those situations. And Mr. Oteri has handled them
well. And you'll see that from the letters of support. So, so Mr. Knocklinson, could you,
I guess the second paragraph, the enlarge that one more time again, you, you. Yeah. So look at
the second paragraph, nearby neighbors expressed many concerns generated by the occupants of this
short-term rental property. Frequent double parking, public illicit drug use, drinking and
intoxication, loud talking, verbal intimidation, and various noise in the street all hours of the
night. Yeah, so I talked to Mr. Terry. We, you know, obviously talked before the community
meeting um there was one incident in the summer of 2020 that was dealt with um other than that