And is it true and correct?
Yes, I agree.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
All right, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
i don't know
yeah i most certainly can sir thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions from the virtual audience
yes chair we have a odessa tate they have been allowed to speak
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hello it's odessa tate o-d-e-s-s-a-t-a-t-e do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am the rco okay please proceed thank you
um there are several uh issues when it comes to this development
One, adding a non-conforming structure for a duplex, tearing down the already existing shed
one um adding a non-conforming structure for a duplex tearing down
kitchen and rebuilding the first floor and second floor to accommodate making the second floor an
apartment unit. The neighbors expressed concern for the extension because they have seen failed
attempts with other homes that have become locked spaces. And we are seeing in Philadelphia just how
much construction is causing threats to adjoining properties. Number two, there was confusion
concerning who this property is for. The lawyer stated that the owner agreed to make affordable
housing units and will accept vouchers for subsidized housing, and the cost per unit would
go for $1,100 and $1,250. Later in the meeting, the neighbors asked the owner, who are you renting
to? Is PHA a demographic, Section 8? He said no, and that the units are too small for Section 8
and will be fair market rate, which contradicted the lawyer's initial statement.
Number three, I want to make mention that this home is currently structured for single family
use. I asked the owner why he's choosing to divide the property into a duplex rather than
keep it a single family home. His response was because there are already other duplexes on the
block. The lawyer said in an earlier statement that he wanted to give perspective of nearby
duplexes to make their case. I want to make case that everything seen is not legal. According to
the record, the next door duplex 2024 West Glenwood Avenue has a rental license for one unit and not
two. Four, there is no development hardship. There are no topographic challenges, irregular shaped
lots, no unique site conditions. Making the conversion more financially viable is not a
hardship. When the neighbors were asked are they comfortable with the duplex or would rather have
a single-family home development, the neighbors agreed to a single-family home development.
The lawyer exclaimed that it would be almost impossible for the owner to completely renovate
as a single-family home. He can't afford to do that, saying the problem is that a single-family
home is not feasible to build given the condition of the property. Then the lawyer was asked how is
it feasible for the duplex his response he's getting two sets of rent rent uh for unit one
and rent for unit two he cannot build something where he doesn't get the rental income to pay
back the loan he has to take out we all know that tyranny on the shed kitchen rebuilding it and
adding an addition to the second floor is costly we also know that separating utilities and adding
kitchens and bathrooms etc will drive costs that's the last thing i want to make comment about
the zoning petition. Firstly, all the neighbors are a couple of doors over from the project.
They objected to this project. They do not support it. Neighbors or other blocks do not have priority
over their objection. As noted in the meeting minutes, I have the gays who are the property
owners of 2034 and 2036, West Linwood Avenue as opposed. On the petition provided, we have the
support of Terrell Brown, who is listed at 2036 West Linwood Avenue. So this didn't make sense to
me. I personally went to the gays' home to ask about Terrell Brown. The gays let me know that
Terrell is not 18 or over and does not live at the address. So for future reference, when these
positions are circulated, we need to ensure that the information received is viable. Thank you.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would like to respond because, again, the one thing that was not referenced is the fact that we initially made this presentation to the same community and the same community group, and we made a presentation on adding a third story, having a duplex.
We were told that the community had no objection at that point to doing a two unit, but they wanted us to extend outward rather than upward.
What I'm hearing from Ms. Tate now is all the issues about extending outward.
I feel like it's a very frustrating situation where my client spends a lot of time and money in trying to meet the needs and the requests of the community.
And then we're told, no, we don't want it.
And now we don't want it because of these other reasons.
that were not disclosed to us at the time okay all right is there anyone else in the virtual audience
planning commission
do you have anybody else no chair there's no hand all right thank you i appreciate it go ahead peter
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5 single-family residential at
this location we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship accordingly the planning
we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship accordingly the planning commission
commission recommends the board
recommends the board deny the variance thank you MI 2023-004-623-2022 West Glenwood Avenue
I vote no James Snell my vote is no Ishmael Shahid my vote is no thank you counsel we're
We're going to move on to number 7, MI-2023-004-798-4140, Pennsgrove, letter of opposition from the Belmont Civic Association.
Applicant provided a form letter of support from the neighbor at 4136 Pennsgrove.
Mr. Knobbson.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Do you identify your client and relationship to this property?
yes uh it is ycy 314 llc okay our vice chair has just a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal stipulate to his accuracy
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Hi. So I'm here to present 4140 Pensgrove Street.
This is in the Belmont section of Philadelphia.
It's at the corner of Holly and Pensgrove.
It's a lot that's 1,535 square feet.
It was advertised to us at the time that that was an RM1 property.
It was an RM1 property. When we entered into the agreement and when the deed was originally signed, the zoning changed on us.
So my client's here to ask that the board allow him to build a four unit dwelling.
This is this would be otherwise a by right project.
I had my client do revised plans, which if so, if the board so inclined, you know, I would ask that they grant it with the revised plans.
they repositioned the roof deck access structure. So now this would be a buy right project other
than obviously the use of four units. So first we'll review the notice of refusal. Then we'll
review the correspondence from the Belmont Alliance Civic Association CDC. If you look at
that letter, I don't really think they had an issue with the use of four units. I think the
issue had everything to do with the roof deck. And we changed it up to make it a buy right
situation where the roof deck is allowed by right. So I don't know if there would be any issues now
in that respect. We have the ZBA revised proviso plan form, which repositions the roof deck. So now
that that refusal would go away. We did do a petition of nearby neighbors. I gave the Redfin
listing to show that, you know, it was advertised to be allowed for four units to build four units,
as well as it shows as an R1 property at the time of advertising.
Also did give you Philadelphia Bill 230034-A, which shows that the original zoning was R1.
It changed RSA 5.
And, you know, again, at the time of advertising, at the time the deed was originally signed, that was an R1 property.
It was only after my client closed that he hired his architect that he discovered that the zoning changed on him.
This is in an RM1, essentially zoning district. Otherwise, the history of this property is multifamily use, and there's other multifamily structures, four units at 4132 Penns Grove, 4134 Penns Grove, 4122 Penns Grove, 4124 Penns Grove, and 4126 Penns Grove are all four-unit dwelling structures on that block.
This board granted a four-unit variance nearby at 1910 North 41st Street, which is our Exhibit 8.
There is a letter of support from the nearby neighbor next door.
I will then share maps of the area and then photographs of the property in the surrounding area.
Again, we're a corner property. Trash will be able to be stored outside.
Our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notes, our application for appeal, our deeds of property, and a certificate of tax clearance.
Again, Mr. Katz is in the virtual audience. He is a member of this LLC. I would ask that he
virtually raise his hand and be sworn in. So our notice refusal is this. Yes, we're an RSA 5
property. When my client purchased the property, it was not. So we're asking for the granting of
this variance for that reason alone. My client purchased the property at a price point where
at a price point where it should be RM1. And again, we have two variance requests. First is
it should be R&M 1.
And again, we have two
for the amount of units. This is a 1,535 square foot property. So, you know, that's allowed,
but with four units. And then the other refusal has to do a technical height variance, but really
not because it was a position of the pilot house. We are repositioning that pilot house to make this
as though this would be an azure bright project.
Correspondence from the Belmont group,
you can see it was a close vote.
It was four people in support, 12 people opposed,
six people in non-opposition.
So that's 10 to 12, really.
If you look at the letter itself,
which I can get,
like the explanation of the letter
has to do all with the roof deck.
Really nothing else.
And they said, you know, at the conclusion, you know, the eligible participants before voting asked the applicant if he would consider altering the building plans by removing the roof deck, whereas the plan may have been deemed acceptable.
They mentioned this, the overlay, I believe, in the Brewery Town-Shardswood area that recently passed that eliminated the use of roof decks as well as Strawberry Mansion.
There's no such overlay here.
We are allowed the roof deck as of right. You know, we repositioned the roof deck, you know, after that meeting to make it an as of right project with the roof deck, just where it's positioned on the roof, the pilot house, where the pilot house is.
if this board feels so inclined to eliminate the roof deck from this project, we would ask that
they still grant the four units with a proviso, no roof deck access structure. We think that it's
important to have a roof deck. It provides an opportunity for people to have a place, you know,
to congregate, but we understand if the board does not feel that's appropriate in their circumstances.
this is our revised plan form which says again we removed the second pilot house we
repositioned that second pilot the other pilot house so now it's a conformity to the code
this is our plans you know for that showing how we are repositioning that pilot house before it
was hugging over here which was ran afoul of the philadelphia zoning codes
here's our petition oops you know we you know we try to get property occupants on uh on pence
grove again the people that would be most directly impacted 4109 pence grove 4152 pence grove 4156
Penn Grove, as well as people in close proximity to the project.
And then this is the Redfin listing, specifically right down here. The zoning classification on
the Redfin listing showed that this was an RM1 property. My client detrimentally relied on that.
Again, even in another part of that listing, it says that zoning is RM1, and it was multifamily.
And then here's the bill, which shows that originally this was RM1, and it changed to RSA5.
So it was RM1 right here, changed to RSA5.
they did keep the rm1 zoning classification for a portion of this block but not our section of the
block here's the the bill history um it wasn't in effect until april of 2023 this is a property
history showing that the you know this is a vacant lot the last known history was multifamily
here's a you know this board considered a similar zoning request for variants on october 25th under
calendar number MI-2023-002189 at 910 North 41st Street. Here's the next door neighbor
is in support of this project or not next door 4136 but two doors down. Maps of the area again
as you can see like they did keep the multi-family structure a part of that block just not our part
of the block. Photographs of the property. This is a vacant lot currently. It's been a vacant lot
for some time. Proof of posting of the hearing notice. Then Pence Grove to the right of the
property, to the left of the property. Holly Street to the right of the property, to the left
of the property. Our plans and drawings. As you can see, we're a corner property. We have multiple
forms of egress. One, two, three on the first floor.
And then, again, we're not asking for any dimensional variances here, especially since the reposition in the pilot houses where there was a technical refusal.
This is just a use refusal.
We have, again, multiple forms of egress.
Unit number one and unit number two are bi-levels on the first floor or lower level.
Unit three and four are also bi-levels on the second and third floors.
we met with the community on December 14th
132 addresses were notified of that meeting these are the addresses proof mailing of those addresses
application for appeal that we follow on behalf of the property owner
the deed to the property
and the certificate of tax clearance.
So there is a small balance due,
but that's really because of the 2024 taxes.
I would ask that.
Bring your client on.
Yep, that's right.
Mr. Katz, can you virtually raise your hand?
Hello.
Could you state your name and spell, please,
for the court stenographer?
joseph katz j-o-s-e-p-h katz k-a-t-z do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth is
nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel yeah mr katz you heard everything i had to state
today about your zoning matter yes yes yes and do you adopt as your own testimony yes
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Betty Ferguson.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and board. My name is Betty Ferguson, and it's spelled B-E-T-T-Y-E, last name Ferguson, F-E-R-G-U-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm within 250 feet of the said property.