Thomas Holloman.
My vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell.
My vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shahid.
My vote is yes with provisos.
Number six, MI-2022-003-699-1709 North Marshall Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
number seven mi 2022 002 384 3125 page street i vote no
i will pass um mr chairman i was not that's fine fine thomas
sorry james james snell my vote is no john munlock my vote is no
Thank you. And number eight, MI 2022, 004-547-1849-51 East Venango Street.
Hold on one minute.
I vote yes with proviso. Multifamily household living, 12 dwelling units,
previously approved under zoning use permit 978144. Daking commercial space at first floor
previously approved under zoning use permit 978144 use registration required prior to occupancy
and all all fencing to be by code under the zoning code. Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell my vote is yes with provisos. Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with provisos.
we're going to go to our regular list number one mi2022004 yes sir sorry this is hilly
oh yeah i got it number four i'm sorry yeah and i think we may need to promote um ryan mcshary
to panelists so that he can serve as counsel in this matter as i need to recuse myself okay
Okay. Bring Mr. McShari on. So this will be number four, MI 2021-005-233-5018 North 12th Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney. Letter of opposition from Logan Civic Association.
uh hillary emerson is recusing herself and we have ryan mcsherry filling in as the attorney
is ryan on hello oh thank you ryan yes yes i'm here uh mr chairman we've also received a last
minute uh letter in opposition from council member phillips i believe it may have just just
been forwarded to you letter of opposition yes from council member phillips okay as well yes all
Mr. Ockmson, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Allen, Ockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Ockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, it's 2035 Silver LLC and then the virtual audience should be Eli Silverstein.
Okay. Mr. Shahid has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you turned in all of the documents that was required five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Please proceed and show your screen.
Hi, so I'm here to present 5018 North 12th Street.
We're asking for this property that's an RSA 3 property to remain as a two-family dwelling.
So during the presentation, we'll go through the noisier refusal, the correspondence we received from the Logan Civic Association,
The permit showing previous use of the property.
The permit showing previous use of the property, letters to support for this use, we actually have the neighbor to the left of us in support of this property, as well as many surrounding neighbors.
A total of 10 letters to support were signed because the community meeting that was administered by the Lowood Civic Association was a poorly attended meeting.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice,
our application for appeal that we filed with the CBA, our deed to the property,
showing that 2035 silver LLC is the only other property in our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, in the virtual audience is Eli Silverstein.
At the end of my presentation, I would ask that he would virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in, and adopt my testimony as his own.
This is a pretty straightforward matter.
This is an RSA 3 property.
It's an application for two-family household living.
How the property is configured right now is two-household living.
For some reason, in 2008, the previous owner converted the use to single-family use.
Don't know why.
It's always been configured as a multifamily structure of two units.
And you'll see that not just our house, but many of the homes on that block have two entryways.
So it would be very cost prohibitive for us to convert it into a single family use.
Even though it had a zoning permit for single family use, again, both of the units are configured in a way to make it as a duplex.
We have two refusals. First, because this is an RSA 3 property, the two-family household living is not allowed under the zoning code. But again, how this property is configured and many properties on that block are configured, it shows that this makes sense under circumstances.
The second refusal has to do with parking. Technically, because this is RSA 3 zoning, two parking spaces are required. Again, just looking at our lot, it would be impossible to accommodate that request. And it would also be out of character because there is no other property on that block which has off-street parking of that similar request.
So the correspondence from the Logan Civic Association actually speaks volumes about why this is justified to allow the two-family dwellings to remain.
It was a close vote. It was four people in support and six people in opposition.
But if you look at it, the people that were in opposition, they want property to stay a single-family dwelling.
Well, first of all, it's not a single-family dwelling right now. It's configured as a multifamily dwelling, two units.
but they say there are already 15 multifamilies on the block.
That's something that we showed them during our presentation.
That's something they acknowledged that most of the properties on that block
are multifamily. That's the way they were configured.
So, and that's the way our property is configured.
So I understand that they don't want, you know,
our property to remain a duplex, but that's, you know,
why we're here today to legalize that use.
When my client purchased the property, they understood it was a duplex.
The only reason why they're here, I don't believe there's a violation against the property, although I didn't check before the hearing.
This is self-inflicted by my client.
They were trying to get rental licenses for this property.
They're trying to do the right thing by legalizing this to family household living.
They should not be penalized for trying to do the right thing here.
So, again, anyway, there's only 10 people that showed up to the meeting.
It was a closed vote of four to six, meaning that if one person switched their vote to the to the other side, it would be five, five, which would generate more, more likely not a letter of non-opposition in the circumstances.
So there's not overwhelming opposition to this project.
You know, so you have to take that into consideration.
Again, if you look at it, this has been two family household living for some time in 1940, since 1943.
I venture that the person changed it to single-family household living at one point without changing the configuration, partly because of, you know, code-related issues that we were unaware of at the time.
But again, this is multifamily, has been multifamily, is configured in multifamily.
So the letters to support.
My client made a concerted effort to reach out to members of the community because it was a poorly attended meeting.
Specifically, the person that would be most affected by this property would be 5018 North 12th Street.
And Patrick Holmes signed that letter in support of this legalization.
Then across the street, 5019 North 12th Street as well signed a letter of support.
5021 North 12th Street signed a letter of support.
5021, North 12th Street, sign a letter of support. And then one of the streets that we intersect
And then one of the.
is Camac, and we have many letters to support of people that are behind us on Camac Street as well.
So that's a total of 10 people that wrote letters to support to this project. And as you can see
here, this is the property. We're on 12th Street. As you can see, we're also Camac. So we really did
try to find the people that would be most directly impacted by this project. Again, I don't know who
showed up to this community meeting. You know, we had 10 individuals show up, four people and support
six people against that. So we were really surprised because my client has made a concerted
effort to meet the neighbors. Also, this is rented properties right now. This is a rented property
right now. So, you know, again, we don't want to have a situation where we have to somehow eject
these people from the property so again this is not something my client created this is something
that he inherited by purchasing this property and you'll see from the configuration of the property
just the two front doors alone show that this is a multi-family structure but anyway long story
short we try to find the people that would be most directly impacted and they're in support of this
project and then again just taking a look at it from a google maps perspective as well
And then photographs of the property. So biggest thing is here, and it's not the greatest photograph ever, but there are two front doors, right? So if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, ultimately.
And you have two front doors here. And if if we were asked to now convert this into a single family structure, it would be it would be expensive and devastating to my client.
In addition to the tenants who live who are there now as well.
So but again, before the community, before the hearing, because our pitchers didn't do it justice, I did look and see and confirm that there are multiple properties with this type of configuration with two front doors.
Again, these are how these properties were built many, many years ago. And even the community in their letter of opposition stated there are 15 other instances where there are multifamily structures.
They're tired of it, but the problem is that these properties were built this way.
And to convert them, not legalize it back to single family, but to convert them to single family would be cost prohibitive.
So here's again, there is no basement use for this property at all.
This is just to show that there is like emergency access, not emergency access, but access for the actual owner of the property.
You know, there's a rear entrance there as well.
North 12th Street to the right of the property, North 12th Street to the left of the property.
And there are plans and drawings.
Again, we're not doing any renovations to this property.
We're merely legalizing this property.
You can see just based on these plans, there are two entrances, which are labeled 101 and 102.
And then just the floor plans, just to really be specific about it.
So you go up the front porch.
There's two units.
Unit number one is the first floor and second floor.
That's a bi-level unit, right?
So here's the front door.
You come in.
There's a living room.
There's a dining room.
There's a kitchen.
There's an interior staircase.
and you go up to the second floor where there are three bedrooms and a bath.
Instead of going into unit number one, which has its own entrance, you go into unit number two.
Again, neither unit has access to the basement.
You go up two flights of steps.
You hit the third floor.
You go into a common area, excuse me, an entryway where you have a kitchen, a dining room, a bath, and two bedrooms.
There's no roof deck.
There is ample room in the backyard to store trash, so it's a responsible way to maintain and store trash.
And, you know, we sent notice of this community meeting on November 1st for a November 14th community meeting.
100 addresses were notified.
Only 10 people showed up.
Again, we don't know the addresses of those individuals.
I only know the addresses of the people who are nearby neighbors who are in support of this project.
But these are the addresses.
And all the people who signed the letter, actually, I don't want to say that.
I know that those are the people who are nearby.
I don't know if they're on the address list, but I would assume, given that they're right next to us, they would fall within the 250-square-foot radius.
Proof of mailing to those addresses, proof of email to the RCOs, as well as relevant parties, our application for appeal that we filed to the ZVA, along with the notice of refusal,
along with the notice of refusal and our project information point,
and our project information point.
our deeds of the property showing that 2035 Silver Street LLC is the owner of the property,
Our DTIP
and our certificate of tax clearance.
The only thing I would say is that it shows a balance for 2023,
but that's not due until the end of the first quarter of the year.
So with that being said, I'm going to unshare my screen.
I'm going to ask that Mr. Silverstein virtually raise his hand so he can adopt my testimony as his own.
and I would be more than happy
to take any questions from the board.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
I'm sorry, Chair.
There's no hands up at this time.
Mr. Nackamson,
you're an officer of the court.
We'll accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments
from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
High Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Board Members.
David Fecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, sir.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
However, there is a documented history of two-family use at this property.
This is consistent with the pattern on this block.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the use variants be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2021-005-233-5018 North 12th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Going to number one, MI 2022-004-354-3701-03 North Broad Street. Michael Phillips is the attorney. We have letters of support Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team.