Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Case number 11, MI 2024, 005-518-370 East Eleanor Street. Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
Richard DeMarco will be rejoining us as a panelist
Good morning, everyone
Mr. DeMarco, could you state your name?
Richard DeMarco, last name spelled D-E-M-A-R-C-O
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. DeMarco, could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Yeah, the client is Donald Kohler.
He's the owner.
I believe he's still with us.
And I notice you have a letter of unanimous support from the 42nd Ward RCO.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with his accuracy?
I stipulate.
I don't agree with the accuracy, but I'm not going to belabor the point.
I'll be very brief.
We had a nice meeting with the neighbors.
There's support.
And so it's really not a big issue.
Why don't you share your screen and proceed?
Will do.
All right.
So I'll just cover.
Oh, wait a minute.
There we go.
You should be able to see my screen now, Mr. Chairman.
So the issue, the only reason I don't stipulate to the refusal, I believe that.
So this is a rebuild of a demolished home that was a curbside demo by L&I.
And the particular section of the code that deals with that allows you to rebuild as long as you don't increase the nonconformity, a nonconforming structure.
That is the case.
I guess the examiner was just thinking that there was some fault by the owner, but there's really no indication of that.
There were no violations prior to the curbside demo, but L&I determined that because there was a collapse in the rear, that the building had to come down.
And that is what happened.
Really, Mr. Kohler did not have any prior knowledge that there was a severe problem in the rear.
You would think he would, but he swears he did not know that.
And there are no violations to show that.
And the only refusal is rear yard, and I'll show you the plans in a moment.
You'll see why it really, really has to be built to the original footprint.
That's all we're proposing today, Mr. Chairman, is to rebuild the demolished home to the exact footprint as it was.
And let me just show you the original structure via some Google images.
This is the home right here.
It's a corner property.
As you can see, it looks pretty good.
This was four years ago.
And let me just show you why the rear, there's an easement in the back that really impacts how these properties are built.
They're all at similar depth.
I'll show you in the next photo.
You'll see what I mean.
So here's it.
Let me move this here.
This is the property here as it stood at the time.
You can see it's completely a flush with the easement in the rear, which, of course, you can't build on.
It's a shared driveway.
This is the original property.
It went all the way to the back.
So we are only proposing to do that.
Matter of fact, we're not including these bay areas that were on the original property.
That's not even proposed with this.
So it will go to the same property line.
So let me show you the plan.
So you can, obviously, this is the posting for today's hearing.
This was the posting for the RCO.
I mean, we had a very nice meeting in December with the RCO.
They fully understood what we were dealing with and agreed to support.
So let me zoom in for you so I can show you where the refusal originates from.
So let me, there.
That's the rear yard.
So this is why we have the refusal, Mr. Chairman.
But as you can see from the prior photos, this is where the line was prior.
And we have a very large front yard setback, which matches the other properties.
We are fully in context with the other properties.
It's just this small, tiny piece here that constitutes our rear yard that required the variance.
And we actually own out to this line.
We actually own the easement.
So we have plenty of open space, but that one and we have actually have rear yard depth, but we rear yard, excuse me, area, but we do not have rear yard depth.
So obviously, if we were to do a rear yard and comply with the code, we would not match the name.
if we were to do a rear yard and comply with the code we would not match the neighborhood we'd be
well out of context and it would really shorten the property since the front yard setback is so
significant it would really cause a hardship if we were actually trying to comply with the code
this is the elevation i'll keep the zoom in so you could see where our basement is not really
a basement. It's fully above grade, and it's walkout in the rear, so it's not really a
basement. I'll show you the floor plan so you can see. There's two means of egress for the,
and there's, of course, windows above grade, and this is the floor plan. I'll go to the basement.
You can see there's walkouts, two means of egress within the basement. One note about the,
Oh, and this is the RCO. We had a really nice meeting with the RCO. They obviously want the building to be rebuilt, and we had unanimous support.
One item on the tax clearance, Mr. Kohler is fully up to date on his taxes.
And by the way, if you're curious, this is the code section, which I believe indicated it should not be refused.
But let me go ahead and put this on the screen. I'll zoom back out.
This is the tax situation. As you can see, he's got a charge for the demo, the curbside demo.
They charged the property owner. But when you see his real estate taxes, it has a credit.
So he's fully up to date on his taxes. The insurance company is supposed to be dealing with this charge.
this is the demo charge, but the real estate taxes are paid. So we think that this does meet
the code's intent that the person be up on his taxes before getting a variance, but the variance
is really necessary to actually deal with the charge because he needs to get the property built.
It may be paid any day. There's some issues with the insurance company and there's an adjuster
involved and they're trying to get it resolved, but that it's still there, but that it's expected
to be taken care of shortly. But I think he meets the code requirement since his taxes are up to
date. So hopefully, Mr. Colt, that's it, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, Mr. Kohler is still with us.
I'll ask him to be promoted so that he can accept my testimony.
Mr. Kohler?
Donald Kohler if you are in the virtual audience please raise your virtual hand
I see no one with their hand up at this time chair
Your officer of the court will take your time
Yeah I spoke to Mr. Kohler at length yesterday and that is his testimony as I
So Hillary how do we stand with the taxes on this
um we're we're fine mr church the real estate taxes that we look at and those are clearly paid
we with the lni bill is is not related to the real estate thank you very much questions on the board
here i have a hand up by the name of zone user i'm not sure if this is donald kohler
that might be him please let him on then
They have been promoted to panelists.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Don, if that's you, please speak.
You can speak and identify yourself.
I'm Donald Kohler, D-O-N-A-L-D, Kohler, K-O-L-L-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Don, very briefly, were you able to hear the presentation I gave to the board just a moment ago?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate, and will you adopt it as your official testimony in this matter?
Yes, I would.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Don.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the audience?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Dan Powers with the City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single family zoning at
this location the proposed dimensional variance for rear yard depth would match the character of
the homes on this block face the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the
proposed dimensional variance for rear yard depth thank you thank you so mi 2024 005 518 370
the East Eleanor Street, I vote
yes. Michael Johns, my vote
is yes. Cheryl Gaston,
my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my
vote is yes. Ty Owen, my vote
is yes. Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
Everyone have a good afternoon.
Everyone have a good afternoon.
So number 12, MI 2024-005-519-401 Lindley Avenue.
So, number 12.
Brett Feldman is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the 42nd Ward and petition of opposition provided from a protestant, David Paz.
There's approximately 164 signatures.
okay thank you um mr feldman could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes brett feldman b-r-e-t-t feldman f-e-l-d-m-a-n right do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do um could you identify your client
a relationship to the property. Absolutely. I represent the pastor Gino Jennings and the church
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the owner of the property, and he's the pastor.
All right. Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with this accuracy?
I do. Share your screen and please start your presentation.
can everyone see my screen we can sir great great okay one other request can can the pastor uh gino
jennings be elevated as a panelist now um i just want to make sure he's he's out there uh he's been
waiting and then there's a medical emergency um if i could just see if he's if he's out there now i
I just have not been able to confirm his presence yet.
Dino Jennings, if you are in the virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Thank you.
I see no one in the audience with that name, and I see no hands raised at this time.
I know he was planning on meeting and attending,
So we'll keep an eye to see if he's here.
So, again, I represent Pastor Gino Jennings in the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let me just move this down here.
It's really a great story.
This is some images of some of the work that the church has done, both domestically and internationally.
But unlike a lot of other churches, this is a flourishing church in the only part of the city, surrounded by Lindley, 4th, Duncannon, and 5th Street.
The pastor and the church purchased the property, I believe, in 2016-17.
And at that point, it was one of the decommissioned Catholic churches that were falling into disrepair.
the church involves that it's it's a whole complex this is the uh church building there is then a
school uh that was that was open for many many years that it also would close the rectory and
then a gym and then a massive parking field and when they purchased this property the church and
you'll you'll see the exhibits as we'll go through here um the archdiocese one of the reasons they
they closed was not only just dwindling membership and families in the neighborhood
But there was massive upgrades that needed to be done to all the systems, the inside, the outside, to keep this property operational.
And step one for the pastor and the church was this upgrade of the church itself.
And you'll see pictures how they've completely—let me just get right to it here.
This is the outside. It's just a remarkable edifice that was falling into disrepair.
And after this massive investment, here's what it looks like now.
It certainly could be designated historic. It is just stunning inside. You could almost eat
off the floors. I was blown away when I had a chance to visit this. So this was step one,
was to rebuild this facility in the inside and make it something that would be a showpiece for
the pastor and for his congregation. We're now on to step two, and let me just go through the
EXHIBITS QUICKLY. RIGHT HERE, THESE ARE EXHIBITS, EXHIBITS 1 THROUGH 13 WHICH I'D ASK TO BE
INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD. AS YOU SEE THERE'S A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY GROUP.
WE ALSO HAVE, I BELIEVE, THE COUNCIL PERSON IS IN SUPPORT. BUT STEP TWO OF THIS IS THIS BUILDING
RIGHT HERE, AND LET ME JUST FOCUS ON THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY, IS THIS SCHOOL
building, which was a 57,000 square foot school building, which was also empty and vacant.
And as part of what the church wants to do is provide senior housing.
And as part of what the church wants to do is provide senior housing, over 55 senior housing for church members who have provided service to the church within this facility here, within this 57,000 square feet.
There'd be 28 units, a mix of one bedrooms and studios, and these would be provided at a very subsidized rate.
They're looking at actually providing this at no cost, but going back and forth on whether it be a small rent, just so everyone feels that there's some obligation on a monthly basis.