which are really inappropriate in this location, given that there is no retail or commercial use
on this block. It's residential. It also permits, you know, permanent single-family living,
but as I'll show you, this is a really diminutive kind of tiny space for a family to try to live in,
and in fact, there are sort of essential appliances and utilities in the basement, which
per the DeGran's understanding, in order to replace, they potentially have to remove a
portion of the first floor floor to get things into that basement it's a very challenging unique
home so let me walk you through that I'm going to skip ahead in my exhibit packet here to some
interior photographs so here's the first floor when you walk into the home this is the front
door and you'll see on the left the spiral staircase this is the only way up and down from
the basement all the way up to the third floor. Because of the difficulty, if you take a look at
this photo, a close-up of climbing these stairs, Heather and Joe do not allow children or pets to
stay in this home because it really takes a coordinated adult person without any physical
mobility issues to be able to use these historic stairs. This is the bedroom upstairs. A couple
quick photos of that. And this is a living room that is on the third of the three floors and a
bathroom. That's the entire house other than the basement. You just saw it there. As I mentioned,
Heather and Joe have been renting out the building since they purchased it earlier this year.
They have very, very good reviews. This is the first portion of their listing
on airbnb.com. It has almost the perfect score from the 26 people who had reviewed it.
As I mentioned, some of these rentals are longer, so there's only been 26 guests who have left to review as of the time we captured this image.
As I mentioned, some of these rentals are longer, so there's only been 26 guests.
I also wanted to show you, one second here, a few of the letters of support that we gathered.
That's the letter that you already saw from CCRA and the councilman.
So here are, I was going to scan through really quickly the letters of support. We have 16 letters from folks who live in the immediate vicinity, two of whom are from the two similar trinities right next to this.
This I'll highlight as an example is the next door neighbor of 43403, pardon me, South 17th Street.
So, you know, this is our evidence that she, Ms. Preeti, supports are continuing to use the building for the purpose for using it.
And again, I'll just sort of quickly go through these letters on my screen.
That is essentially our presentation.
I have Heather DeGrantz here to adopt my testimony and also to take any questions you might have about the operation of the structure.
Why don't we have her raise her hand?
Heather, could you raise your hand using the raise hand button on Zoom?
I have.
Could you state your name as spelled for the court reporter, please?
My name is Heather DeGrantz.
First name is spelled H-E-A-T-H-E-R.
Last name is D as in David, E-G-R-A-N-D-S.
Heather DeGrantz.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Heather, were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony today?
I did.
And was it true and accurate?
Yes, it was.
And would you therefore be willing to adopt it as if it were your own testimony?
I do adopt this testimony.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
the proposed variance is not necessary to enable viable economic use of this property
therefore the planning commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance
thank you so mi 2022 003 848 405 south 17th street i vote yes with temporary variance to expire 12-1-24
Harold Tineri my vote is yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you counsel. Thank you.
number i think it's number 12 12 yeah mi 2022 003 725 2301 east cambria street
ellen knockamson is the attorney there's an opposition from the south port richmond civic
Association. Mr. Chair, this is, sorry, Mr. Chair, I just want to note that we did also
receive a letter of opposition from Council Member Squilla. Okay, so this one, this was vote 18 in
opposition, 14 in support. The applicant did present support and non-opposition signed by
approximately 35 neighbors. Mr. Nockmson. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street,
Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Could you identify your client in relationship to the
property please uh yes my client is still vertota and he's the owner of the property okay our vice
chair has a few questions hi mr knockamson do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter uh yes in all respects
uh yes in all respects okay great you may proceed and can you begin to share your screen all right
okay great you may proceed and can you
great thank you all right so i'm here to present 2301 east cambria street uh this is an important
richmond section of philadelphia in my presentation packet you'll see the notice of refusal so this
is a CMX1 property. Correspondence from the Southport Richmond Civic Association. I heard
the chair indicate that there were 18 people in opposition and 14 people in support. We will
review that letter. It does say that it's a letter of opposition, but it was a tie of 14 of 14.
I believe of the 14 people that were in opposition, four of them were nearby neighbors.
and I was involved with the community meeting I think if that would have happened maybe we would
have had a different result at the community meeting but I just want to just make sure that
we understand it was a 14-14 tie when my client hired me you know we indicated to have outreach
because no one you know nearby four people voted only four people voted against it you know that
were nearby neighbors. So we made a concerted effort to reach the nearby neighbors and find
out if that was an anomaly. And my client got a petition of a significant amount of
seniors. I believe the trend said 35 seniors. And we also have online, I believe, at least we spoke
to them today. They said they would be online. It's been a rather long hearing schedule. But as
officer of the court I would represent that the owner of 2303 East Cambria, which is to the right
of us, which would be most directly impacted by the proposed variance project, is in support of
this project. So we did make an effort after that meeting to find out, again, why, you know, some of
those neighbors who did not show up, what their, you know, ultimate position was, and they were
overwhelmingly in support of this project uh we also as you know as part of our presentation
because we have three refusals which we'll review one of them deals with law coverage
and again you'll see that it's not out of character to have the amount of law coverage
that we're requesting by way of variance uh first of all if you go on the atlas um this this used to
have a building structure on it and if you look at what atlas has based on those measurements
it was a non-conforming lot when there was building structure on there um it's now a vacant
lot and we'll explain why um but the other three corners of tulip and east cambria all those
building structures have essentially full lot coverage they're non-conforming and we're asking
for a similar type of use and again 2303 east cambria which is next door to us which would
most be would be most directly impacted by any alleged loss of light and air has no objection
to this project and actually is in support of this project. After we review the nearby corner
properties with full log coverage, we will then review the maps of the area, photographs of the
property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice, the application
for appeal that we filed with this EBA, our deeds to the property showing that deliverance
that is the owner of the property and our certificate of tax clearance, showing that
he has, he's current with his real estate tax with respect to the property. All right, so our notice
refusal. So this is a CMX1 property. We're proposing to put three dwelling units in this
property. So we're allowed as a CMX1 property to have two units, one commercial, one residential.
And we have three refusals due to the nature of our project. The first of which is roof decks
must be set back at least five feet from the extreme front building line closest to the front
lot line the proposed roof deck opposite cambria street above the first floor does not does not
provide the required setback from two of streets uh after we met with the community group you know
and i was hired by my client you know we always try to you know strive to have the least amount
of variances as possible to we try to strive to meet the zoning code when possible and so we have
a revised proviso plan form that we submitted to the zba prior to today's hearing that if the board
is inclined to grant this variance they granted with the proviso of that revised plan that would
eliminate that one refusal uh the second refusal uh has to do with the fact that we're proposing
three dwelling units on the CMX1 property which will only allow one commercial unit and one
residential units. The reason why we're asking for that is there is no economic viable use of
uh economic viable use of this property without it being three units mr tover purchased the
this property without it being a three unit.
property in july of 2021 and uh the following month and it was a building structure there
of uh you know for commercial use and for residential use and that was his intention
in august of 2021 while he was visiting family in albania after he came back he
discovered that the building was completely demolished. So he only owned the property for
one month. It was his intention to completely rehab and renovate that property after his vacation
with family. When he came back, he came back to a vacant lot where there was a demolition lien of
over $30,000 and no building structure. So first of all, again, this is not to blame the city,
but the demolition lien is way above what a reasonable demolition lien would be of
approximately $10,000 for a structure this size. But he did not anticipate spending several
hundreds of thousands of dollars putting any building structure up there. He expected to have
some work done to the building structure at the time to have a commercial and one residential.
But because now he's in a position where he has to pay the $30,000 demolition lien to the city, plus he has to erect a building structure of some sort, which, again, in this day and age of rising interest rates, construction loans, and just the cost of construction materials will be several hundreds of thousands of dollars, the only way this can be viable, this property now, is to have it as a three residential dwelling conditions.
And for that reason, we're asking for that variance to be allowed.
And then the third variance has to do with, again, the open area, where under the code, because this is CMX1, requires open area of 20%, where 6% is proposed.
And it requires a rear yard of 9 feet, where 4 feet is proposed.
again you'll see from one of um one of the well the pictures of the nearby properties but also
the map we took off of atlas the other three corner properties in you know of on east cambria
and tulip streets uh also have run afoul of these zoning requirements and the previous building
structure was that was there also ran afoul of these building requirements uh and the fact you
So that's 2303 East Cambria, which would be most directly impacted by this project, has no issue with that.
We ask that the board allow that variance to occur as well.
And then here's the Port Richmond letter.
Again, if you look at it, all meeting attendees, including affected addresses, 14 in support.
All meeting attendees, including affected address, 14 opposed, which included four affected addresses nearby.
I don't know what those addresses are. We did not get the list of addresses, but I will say that 2303 East Cambria, which is nearby or directly adjacent to us, is in support of this project.
So based on meeting with the community, my client hiring me, looking at the situation totality, we believe that eliminating that first refusal regarding the deck is a reasonable modification of this project.
And that's why we did that by way of these revised provisor plans.
So we did eliminate one of those refusals that's not necessary under the circumstances.
Would it be nice to have a deck?
but we're eliminating that aspect of the project. Now the petition. So my client, again, this has
been very devastating for him. He's not a big time developer. He's just an investor who rehabs
properties. He had, again, there's 26 addresses. One of them is ours. Green is us, right? So this
is us on cambria we looked at the addresses that would be most directly impacted that are within
the affected area and based on based on my client diligently reaching out to the community after the
community meeting he received 25 signatures of nearby properties uh and we put that on the map
so you can see that that like it wasn't just random people that were reaching out to
most if not most of them are within this close proximity there are a few down the street on
east cambria there are few on tulip it's the same 100 block but we just wanted you to see that
my client worked diligently i mean again this is pretty devastating for my client if this
variance is not granted this would be a bad rather bad day for him
this would be a rather bad day for him.
And then the petition, as you can see,
these are the signatures of the individuals
based on that map.
And then here's the nearby corner properties
with full lot coverage.
Again, this is Tulip Street.
This is East Cambria.
We just blew it up here.
So I did first, and this is our property, and according to Atlas, they're still recognizing the building structure that was there.
The rear yard has a rear yard setback as little as like five and a half feet and as large as 6.68 feet.
So, according to at least the Atlas map, based on those measurements that I took off of Atlas, this building structure that was previously there would run afoul of the open area requirements as well as the rear yard setback requirements.
Then I also looked at the other corner properties on the corner of East Cambria and Tulip Street.
And as you can see, for all these properties, they're completely shaded in.
That means there's full lot coverage for these properties.
There is a little bit of open area, like right here, for the one that's number three for 2276, but that would not have open area of 20%.
And it would definitely not meet the rear yard setback requirements of nine feet, nowhere near that.
So what we're proposing is in character to the other corner properties on the corner of East Cambria and Tulip Street.
Now, maps of the area, as you can see, we're, you know, corner of East Cambria and Tulip Street.
And again, as you can see from this depiction right here, there is full lot coverage essentially, or almost, not 100%, but almost essentially for each of these properties.
And it does show the former building structure that was there at 2301 Cambria.
And again, I did the calculation just based on doing the calculation on Atlas.
But you can see there's full lot coverage at 2,300 East Cambria, 2,276 TULIP, 2,227 TULIP as well.
And then this is just a Google Maps perspective of where we are in the neighborhood as well.
And then photographs of the property.
Mr. Alckmin, let me ask you a question.
How's the rest of the block for multifamily?