add one unit to existing 10 units the refusal only notes that it's being refused overall as
multi-family in a district that does not permit that use. There's no reference to the other 10
units being legal. I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention.
Well, one of the exhibits, the last exhibit that we have here,
the last two exhibits, are the approvals from 1960.
I understand, but however the board is going to decide, we might want some
clarification from LNI as to whether they consider those prior approvals, whether those uses were
abandoned or how they exactly what their refusal was based on. Was it based on all 11 units or
simply the addition of one unit? And it might just be a matter of clarification, but I suggest
that get that before voting.
Thank you, so noted.
All right, okay, Mr. Perkis,
does the board have any more questions?
Yes, I would like to see a section
Yes, I would like to see a section through the unit that they're proposing
through the unit that they're proposing.
so we can establish the distance departments out of the basement.
Okay, we don't have that at the moment.
However, Gary, can you zoom in on the top of that drawing right there?
So if you look at the, and this is typical for all three units,
there's stairs that are coming down on the left,
and then at the bottom of those stairs, that sidewalk grade level
is the same as the apartment on the inside.
But if you count the rises on the stairs,
your architect would know is well below the legal limits
for the height of the room
to be out of the green.
I'm not sure what code section
you're referring to exactly.
In my experience,
the code is primarily concerned
with egress,
which is what we're providing
with the window.
So I'd have to look at the code.
If you check with IBC,
Chapter 10, Section 2,
it'll tell you that.
okay but chapter 10 is egress and as i stated the code is in my experience and i'm not saying
you're wrong i'm just saying i don't know the specific code section you're referring to
but the impetus is for people being able to get out of a sleeping space and that that requirement
is being met as the window is on the back of the side back of the wall and it has easy access to
be able to get out of that space i see a chapter five of ibc
i i don't have access to the code right now i'd have to look it up so okay
uh any other questions from the board
no no anyone else anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
yeah we have senator john sabatina jr please unmute yourself senator and please wait for the chair
good morning senator please spell your full name for the record and i'll square you in
good morning chairman uh state senator john sabatina j-o-h-n-s-a-b-a-t-i-n-a
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Just based on several complaints about the apartment buildings and given their questionable legality and safety, I would join in opposing this application.
just and there's certainly no hardship to the property that I've seen and you know I
I think it's unnecessary so thank you. Thank you Senator. Anyone else would like to testify in this
case? Please raise your hand. Chair we have Lane Horn. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning. Please identify yourself. Spell your full name for the record.
Good morning. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
My name is Lee, L-E-E, Horn, H-O-R-N-E.
Where are you from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
I am the zoning chairman for the Rawhurst Civic Association.
We generally stand in opposition to any addition of multifamily properties in Rawhurst.
and we did hear from many community people
who stood in opposition to this
and we did send the letter of opposition
from our meeting.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Anyone else?
Yes, I would like to address if I can.
Just one second, Mr. Perkis.
Anyone else to testify?
I see no more hands-share. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Perkis. Yes. I hadn't finished my
presentation, although I didn't really have much more to show other than go through the
rest of the exhibits. However, I have been given no. I have not received any complaints
at all whatsoever from any of the neighbors uh neither has my client um in all of the and and
my client is is here to testify will testify that that they have not received any complaints in in
the uh 14 years that they've uh owned the property um from any of the neighbors
14 years that they've owned the property from any of the neighbors. At the RCO meeting that Mr. Horn
testified to, there were only two attendees other than seven board members. They did not raise any
objections during the meeting. There was no discussion of any issue because they didn't
bring it up. And I was told afterwards by Mr. Horn that two of the neighbors were concerned about
parking and and because two of the neighbors that attended were concerned about parking
the board the seven member board who was not from this area it just takes the position that
they're going to follow what what what whatever the whatever the attendees position is that are
in the neighborhood as far as parking goes there are 58 parking spaces at these properties and if
it would be possible for me to go back to the screen share, I can show you that pictures in
the evening and in the morning that show that the lot's not full. My client can testify that
they have not received any complaints about parking whatsoever in the 14 years they've
own the property. And so we are at a loss to understand what these complaints are and
to be able to address them. We'd be happy to address any complaints that anybody had.
If the board needs more information concerning the IBC code, we're happy to address that. If the
board thinks that would be helpful in rendering a decision. And if that's the case, we wouldn't
have any objection to continuing the hearing to a later date so we can resolve these issues.
All right, with that, I will ask the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair DiCicco. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to RM1 at this location to reflect
the longstanding multifamily use on the site. And the proposed variance conforms to the
proposed RM1 zoning district. Assuming that the issues with building code can be sorted out and
that this property can be deemed compliant with all relevant building codes for the City of
Philadelphia, the City Planning Commission would recommend that the Board grant this variance.
I'm going to suggest that the record be closed and the Board discuss this at next Wednesday's
executive session. Chair, this is Sharon. I would also like to request clarification from L&I in
that time because, again, the refusal lists this as an application for 11 dwelling units, not for
the addition of one dwelling unit. I think it would be to the applicant's benefit to have that
clarified in advance of the vote. Thank you. Okay. As I said, this, the record will close,
the board will discuss this, but you'll, Sharon, you'll, you'll follow up on the L&I issue.
I will. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you. I think the next case is Sean. Number eight, MI 2020-001-568-5039 Worth Street.
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist okay Mr. Ward has been sworn in okay thanks Mr. Chair
please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name Mr. Ward
Good morning, Madam Vice Chair, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
Good morning.
Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant, that's S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D-331 East Street Road,
Trivos, Pennsylvania, 19053, on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
Okay, thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you very much.
okay can we see my screen
yes but can you make it larger yep thanks uh this is my typical exhibit packet uh in this matter
yes but can you make it larger
i represent peter mirabelli he is the owner of 5039 worth street uh for today's hearing uh a1.1
is the original notice of refusal and a1.2 is the amended uh notice of refusal the expediter
I prepared an application. However, an expediter filed the application in my stead, and he incorrectly listed it as equipment and material storage as part of the construction of a new garage at the rear of this home.
So that resulted in a refusal for equipment and material storage. Buildings are not permitted in the zoning district.
pursuant to leave to amend and a request by the RCO to do so, we obtained an amended notice of
refusal for construction of the garage for use as accessory personal storage and which would include
personal items and a personal vehicle. That refusal resulted in the two-dimensional refusal
stayed the same 144 square feet for the rear yard and a nine foot rear yard depth whereas according
to the plan zero is proposed but i can address those issues additionally accessory structures
cannot exceed 130 square feet nor 15 feet in height that's very typical shed this isn't actually a
garage and obviously you couldn't fit a vehicle in 130 square foot structure so in any event we're
here to seek four-dimensional variances today. A2 is the ZBA application. A3, project information
form. A4, proof of ownership. A5, tax clearance. A6 are the site plans and elevation plans. A7
are photographs. A8 is the original RCO letter from the last hearing at which time they requested
that the matter be continued pending the correction to the refusal. A9 is my request for leave to
amend and an email thread to Ms. Sunket which she graciously granted and we obtained that
amended refusal as previously indicated. A10 is correspondence to and from the RCO regarding
the amended refusal. A11 if it was there would be the district council letter but
so if if Sloan does submit a letter I would ask that that be marked A11.
As always I look for relevant zoning history but none was found on this property.
A13 is the zoning map and A14 is the aerial photograph. So quickly you'll see the original
refusal was dated 813 of 2020 followed by Mr. Higgins and it was for equipment and material
storage. So that resulted in equipment and material storage refusal in addition to the
aforementioned dimensional variances for rear yard and rear yard depth. The revised refusal
dated March 17th of 2021, corrected the refusal for the accessory structure for use as personal
storage. That resulted in another dimensional variance, as previously mentioned, 130 square
foot and 15 feet height. The 144 square foot rear yard and nine foot rear yard depth
remain the same. So quickly, the application of appeal, project information form, copy of the deed.
Many pages to that. We also have the proof of tax plans. All taxes are paid through 2021.
With regard to the site plan, let me switch to this one.
Can I rest at this one?
This is the existing single-family dwelling which fronts on Worth Street.
The existing garage sits all the way to the rear of the property.
The property is shaped like a flag.
The house and most of the yard being the flagpole.
And in the rear yard where the existing garage is located would be the flag.
The applicant calls for the demolition of the existing small garage and for the erection of a
newer larger garage in which he could store his personal items and his vehicle.
It's accessed by a garage door at the back. Along the back of the property there is an access
way I would call it. It doesn't appear to be a paved or city street. I believe it's part of the
Amtrak railroad right away but it is used by all of the neighbors on Worth Street.
so there would be a garage door and a man door at the rear of the property another man door
into the rear yard and so again you would have the garage door with a man door and then
So, again, you would have the garage door with a man door and then the door into the rear yard leading up to that home.
So, going back to my packet, with regard to the rear yard dimension, although the rear yard is technically here,
there is ample room in between the garage and the house open area that could be used as rear yard space.
As a matter of fact, on the plane, you'll see there's 1,134 square feet of open area
between the garage and the home.
So I believe it meets the intent and spirit of the code by providing ample yard space.
However, it is not at the very rear of the yard.
So we're going to ask that the board consider that.
So again, we have the elevation plans.
Photographs, this is a picture of the front of the structure, the zoning poster.
The front of the house here is the one with the red copula or cornice.
Here's an aerial view from the rear.
This is the existing garage right here.
This is the yard leading up to the house.
As you can see, other lots on the block have substantial sized rear garages.
Here's another one. You can see here there's a garage, there's a garage. Here's our existing
garage and this gentleman down here also has a larger garage at the very rear. You can see the
alleyway or path for vehicular access to the rears. The property would be accessed through
Howarth Street off of Worth, and it would go around to the back of the properties.
At the last listing, the Frankfurt Neighbor Advisory Committee raised the issue with regard
to the use for personal storage and park the vehicle as opposed to what was stated in the
refusal. And then they asked that this case be continued until the refusal letter was corrected.
So that we did. Thereafter, I asked Ms. Sanket as moving party, I would relist the matter once the
refusal was amended, which was done. And then with regard to the correspondence between us and
um frankfurt uh we we answered all their questions regarding the use of the property
um my responses are in red then thereafter i confirmed that the use was for personal stores
that mr mirabelli confirmed that there be no commercial use thereafter we obtained a revised