ZBA Hearing - October 4, 2023

Certainly.

I'm here representing 1437 W. Pass Yonk Holding, LLC.

That's the owner of the property.

All right.

Mr. Holloman, could you do the follow-up for me, please?

Hey, sir, you in?

Mr. Wayne, all your records were, all your things were sent in on time.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to stipulate yes, yes, and yes. Everything was submitted. You have all the documentation.

Thank you. Thank you. And we're good to go. All right. Thank you.

All right. Would you like me to share my screen and begin? Please, please.

Thank you very much.

So hopefully you're seeing now an Atlas aerial view, just to give an outline.

This is 1437. You can see the blue dot here right along West Pass, Seonk Avenue, right in the middle of a major corridor.

Obviously, there's been a lot of conversation publicly lately about the Melrose Diner and its redevelopment.

That's pretty indicative of what's going on along this corridor.

We are in a CMX2 zone. We're surrounded by CMX2.5, but we are in a CMX2 zone.

However, the CMX2 requirements really don't come into play here.

Rather, what we're dealing with is an existing building.

So our hardship and everything stems directly just from the existing nonconformities under the current code.

We did proceed before the East Point Breeze Neighbors Association.

They did take a position of support.

And so, again, you can see here, this is the building.

and I'll just give this for context, it's fully built out. It was built approximately 15 years

ago. My clients purchased the property this past summer, and essentially what they're asking to do,

you can see here, there's a large open roof area and a large oversized roof access structure,

roof deck access structure. They're looking to just build out this floor, and in doing so,

they received what looks to be an overwhelming number of refusals. I will walk through to show

that they're much ado about nothing, but they are all simply due to the current build environment

and exactly what that means and how we extend that. So while we don't disagree with any of them,

I'll walk you through all of them quickly. So for instance, the very first one is that there's a

commercial roof deck and commercial roof decks are not allowed in this zoning district. This was

built at the time. So there's currently a first and second floor commercial unit combined. We're

seeking to have that made vacant. The prior user has vacated. And then there's a third story

existing apartment with an over large fourth story. It's actually so large that it constitutes

with an over-large fourth story. It's actually so large that it constitutes a fourth story

roof access structure. And so this is the commercial roof deck that they're talking

about. You can see there's a small kitchen, existing kitchen area here. And then if you go,

this is the extent of it. It's about eight by six. It's built out. It's on top of

existing structure, and it mainly is the HVAC access point. So again, looks and sounds like

an issue really in reality is a non-issue. Essentially, this was previously used only

for smoke breaks by the existing tenant. Secondly, we have an increase of height.

And again, what we're looking to do here, you can see up in the top left-hand corner, this is an existing built condition.

You can see this is the stair tower that I'm highlighting right here.

That stair tower is already built to the street frontage.

That would not be allowed now and is an existing nonconformity.

So in order to, again, what we're doing is simply asking to build out this floor over top here.

In order to do so, we have to increase the height of the stair tower in order to provide dual access to the roof deck and to accommodate the building code and fire safety and access.

That's the issue for height.

We are not increasing the overall built environment for height. The height is currently just over 56 feet, and it's going to stay there. But we will be elevating this one floor to add a story here.

In fact, there are two owners. One of them already lives on the third floor. The fourth floor will be a second dwelling unit, which is by right. There is no use refusal here for the second dwelling unit. And the other owner will be occupying that unit.

So if I can zoom in here for you very quickly, this is what creates the height refusal, is simply that extension of the existing and non-conforming stair tower.

Again, that's required for health and safety and fire code basis under the code as a second means of egress.

It's already there. Again, you'll hear me beat this like a drum, but our hardship is a clear hardship from an existing nonconforming building.

and the occupied area i'll show you in the plans occupied area and there's a discussion of a

vertical extension of a non-conforming rear wall that's a bit of a mouthful which i admit i'd not

seen that variance before myself but here is a site plan that was proposed for this this is

existing open area over here there is currently you can see here an eight foot setback that was

allowed by code back 15 years ago when this was approved and built that requirement under the

existing code has to be nine feet so an additional one foot is added now unfortunately the can't you

cannot so if we set back our our new story or our build out here by one foot from this existing wall

we would not have that refusal however as this board i'm sure is aware

the structural components of the bill of the wall are in the wall itself you can't structurally just

build a new wall one foot behind that wall and so all we're doing again is extending this wall here

directly vertically up to include and encapsulate this uh this roof deck that's being built you can

see here's the existing stair tower that's what i showed you before on the plans that's simply being

elevated up uh in order to provide access to what will be a new residential use only roof deck

so again you can see numerous images here of how everything is built out the first and second floor

is commercial it's vacant right now that will remain commercial that's by right there's a third

floor unit which is by right and a fourth floor unit which is by right and you know instead of

And, you know, instead of seeking additional density or trying to cram additional apartments in here, we just want these two large residential units.

seeking additional density you're trying to

And again, we believe that this is the least minimum variance requested because we are not expanding the existing built envelope in any way other than the, you know, to advance the further prior nonconformities.

and you know obviously we think there's no public health safety or welfare detriment

because we're only adding one additional residential unit and certainly I think the

vote of vote of confidence and support from the RCO you know certainly weighs and ways in favor

of that being the case there again as I've already said the the hardship we have stems from the fact

that we have an existing built building prior non-conforming and previously approved under

the code as it existed. So we are not exacerbating that in any way. We're simply building out an

existing story. So again, the fourth story currently now is just the portion of the roof

that has, let me see if I can show you, that has this. So it's a limited portion of a fourth story.

we're just going to build out that fourth story as a as a full unit and then we get the height

requirement we get the height refusal simply because we're raising uh this stair tower

so i believe that that addresses all of the issues that we have for today

i am happy to bring on michael scally on behalf of the owner why don't you why don't you bring

them on, please. Michael Scali is allowed to speak. Hi, Mr. Scali. Could you state your name,

please, and spell for the court stenographer? Good afternoon. My name is Michael Scali,

M-I-C-H-A-E-L, last name Scali, S-C-A-L-I. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

told you is nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel thank you chair uh mr scally you're here

on behalf of the owner 1437 w passion holding llc correct correct and did you hear all of the

testimony i already provided in this case i did and do you believe it to be true and correct to

the best of your knowledge information and belief i do and would you adopt that testimony as your

own. Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.

Jim?

Chair, I was having a little trouble there trying to get unmuted. No questions. No questions.

um chair i would just advise the board also that uh i do have agata reister here the project

architect if the board has any questions for her thank you why should your comments from our

attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual

audience there are no hands here planning commission thank you chair bergman and good

afternoon. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends

no change to commercial mixed use zoning at this location. The appellant has not shown that

complying with the dimensional requirements of the zoning code will have a detrimental impact

on their property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use

and dimensional variances.

MI 2023-002-936-1437 West Paschalk Avenue, I vote yes.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.

James Snell, my vote is yes.

Counsel, you have your votes.

Thank you very much, Chair. Have an excellent day.

Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?

there are no hands here all right sorry we went a little late see everybody two o'clock and thanks

thanks everyone all right thank you see you later everyone

patina we ready to go yes chair we have 25 attendees you can proceed as you wish

good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be sharing this afternoon's eba hearings

Our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid, should be on any moment.

Also here is Thomas Holliman, our Board Member.

Present, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

And also our Board Member, James Snell.

Present, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

you. Present also is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken. Here's

Present also is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Snell.

our virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded. Video will be available

by contacting tanyasunken at phil.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys

and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone

and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. To an

Interappearance statement, call 267-270-5548.

Leave your email and the address of the property in question.

And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.

All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkin.

Let's look at the Shafton's List.

Number two, MI 2023, 002-778-2848 North 26th Street. This case is continued.

Number 11, MI 2022-004-584-5824-26, North Broad Street.

This is a continuance.

Alan Nockamson is the attorney.

Mr. Nockamson.

Good afternoon, Chair. This is Doreen Blakely, and I will be your co-host this afternoon.

Mr. Knockelson will be coming back in as a panelist.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Knockelson, you've been sworn several times. I understand this is a request for continuance.

Yes. We're having difficulty getting tax compliance with this matter, so we're trying to work through that issue.

So we request one more continuing so we can get our house in order with regards to this matter.

Thank you. So MI 2022-004-584-5824 to 26 North Broad Street. Cases continue. Mark must be tried. Thank you, sir.

And number 12, MI-2023-001-070, 70 to 80 East Worcester Street, cases continued.

Is there any other requests for continuances?

I see no hands, Chair.

Okay, I see two withdrawals on the list.

So number three, MI 2022-007-293-2200 East Cumberland Street, the case has been withdrawn.

And number four, MI 2022-005-364-2537 North 32nd Street, that case has been withdrawn.

We're going to go to our add-on list.

Excuse me, Chair.

There's a person with a

calling user with the hand up.

Okay. I will allow

them to speak.

Calling user, please

unmute yourself and wait for the chair.

Can you

say your name, please?

Yes, Adrian Hernandez

from RCO.

Did I swear you once today,

Adrian?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes.

What case are you interested in?

Can I ask you, I think I may have missed 2848 North 26th Street, whether that was continued or not.

Let me see here.

My continued sources were...

2848 North 26th?

yes yes that case is continued okay thank you sure any other requests for continuance

no hands here all right we're going to go to our add-on list

number one mi 2022

MI2022, 005922, 1719 North 2nd Street. I vote yes with provisos.

Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA on October 4th, 2023.

Note, use of commercial space for a smoking lounge would require

Note, use of commercial space for a smoking lounge would require a separate approval.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with Proviso.

James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.

Thank you.

Number two, MI 2023-002-766-11-Sherers Lane, I vote no.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is no

James Snell, my vote is no

We're going to go to our regular list

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, one moment

Sorry, Mr. Snell, I forgot to have you certified that you watched the video of the hearing last week since you were not present at that time

Yes, I apologize for that, you're absolutely right

Yeah, I did, I certified that I did watch the video from last week

And my vote is no.

Okay, we're going to go to our regular list.

Number one and number 10 will be heard together.

So number one is MI 2023, 002-845-2613 Eves Seltzer Street.

And number 10 is MI 2023-002844-2815 Mercer Street.

Ryan Bolin is the attorney.

There's his recommendation of support for both from Southport Richmond Civic Association, unanimous, no explanation, and letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.

Ryan Boland has been promoted to panelist.

Thank you.