the conservancy i i believe sharon has it in the file we have the large file together and if not
we'll make sure we get a hold of it. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that. Mr. Primavera,
do you want to summarize? Yes. So clearly, in a city where we have a typical lot size of less
than 1000 square feet, and now we have a minimum lot size in this very desirable area of 10,000
square feet. We have Dr. Bazzana with 58,000 square feet. The petitions, as you'll see from
Mr. Feynman's submission, signed by Protestants, say that they are opposed, quote, to squeezing
new high-end housing into space intended to remain natural and undeveloped. Now, remember,
the original estate, and I believe Mr. Snowden, who you just heard from, his family was one of
the original owners of this very large estate. It was subdivided. So we even have Miss Jacobson
and her husband living in our former carriage house and others because they were able to
subdivide. And here they are saying, as are the Protestants, that, well, Dr. Pizzano bought a
58,000 square foot lot. He should not be able to subdivide it. So what they're really trying to say
is, you know, a pox on your house. Because if we tear down three feet of a portion of the stone
house, which they all say is a dramatic part of the fabric of the community, then we could free
up the land. Or if we were to go in, not intentionally, but to try to be heavy-handed
with regard to cutting down trees and stormwater and putting the house up closer, I think ultimately
people will say they've cut off their nose to spite your face. So we go to the law, and I
submitted two cases, which you'll see in the file. But basically, the one case talks about
dimensional variance, how it's different than the use variance. And it says, quote, unquote,
reasonable adjustments when the use is otherwise compliant. So it's a single family home
on a lot that's multiple times the 10,000 minimum. So reasonable adjustment. I think we've presented
reasonable adjustment. Second of all, there's the minimus dimensional, which the court and it's
called Lynch, which is in the file. It says that there's no set criteria for determining the
minimus dimensional relief. It's up to the context of each case. All right. And it says
that where you're otherwise satisfying the spirit of the code and you're creating something which
doesn't adversely impact the community. And here the community association is on record saying
the so-called as a right plan is going to negatively impact everybody. So everybody has
their own sensitivity. I think most people would love to live on a 10,000 square foot lot,
a 20,000 square foot lot. I think that there's a sense here with both the conservancy
and the near neighbors that they want to freeze everything in time. And I get that. I'm sure that
when the subdivision happened and the Jacobson Golden House was created in our carriage house,
people were probably very unhappy they said why are you taking the carriage house and putting a
new family in there um but that's the way it works and a petition that says we're squeezing homes
and taking away the natural condition to me it sounds a little bit over dramatized i think that
this is a lovely plan it's going to be fine there's no adverse impact and i think the hardship
is there as evidenced by the testimony. So thank you for your time and we would rest.
Mr. Feynman, the case that Mr. Primavera gave you talked about four inches, four inches.
talked about four inches, four inches, four inches being what would be de minimis.
Let me read to you what the court says normally.
The de minimis doctrine is a narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof generally placed on a party seeking variance.
The minimum applies only when a minor deviation from the zoning ordinance is sought, and rigid compliance is not necessary to protect the ordinance's public policy concern. Not always the people, but the ordinances.
We've previously held that a five-foot variance from an eight-foot side yard requirement in a Philadelphia, this is from the Commonwealth Court, R-10 residential district was not the minimus.
ultimately in a case that we've cited in our brief the court determined that a 33 percent
deviation for a year for a year a rear yard in requirement and a 60 percent deviation for open
air requirements was not at the minimus numerically the court in Leonard another case
held at a deviation of 6.25% from the required lot size on a percentage basis, as specified by
the ordinance, was not de minimis. Likewise, a 13% deviation from the required wide was not deemed
to be de minimis. The case that he gives you from the Supreme Court dealing with dimensions,
What happened in that case was there was a large property in Pittsburgh that needed to be demolished in order to make it appropriate.
And the court goes on to say, in that case, the owner of a vacant lot in a multiple family residential residential zone saw use in dimensional variances because the owner was precluded.
from developing apartments on the lot similar to some cases that I saw you heard today
due to financial difficulties and was further precluded from selling the property.
He was precluded from even selling the property because of environmental testing showed that the
site was contaminated with petroleum and other carbon. As a result, the potential health risks
and prohibitive remediation costs, the owners sought approval from the Pittsburgh Zoning Board
to use the property as a parking lot. Neither one of these doctrines apply here.
Quite frankly, it's hardship. They have to show you that they have a hardship.
And the only hardship here seems to be that Dr. Pisano,
for all of his reasons, wants not to sell his home and move somewhere else. He wants to sell
his home and build a second home and move into that second home. That isn't what this board
was designated to do. This board was designated to look at cases and determine whether
there was a hardship. We've submitted briefs. I've told you about these cases. And quite frankly,
if he wants to build another home there with maybe one garage, remember, he's not building
just a home. He's building two garages on this property. If he wants to build another house,
we wish him the best he can do it he's told you as a matter of right
that's what his architect testified to let him go do it
thank you Mr. Feynman questions from the board uh yes Mr. Chairman could we that's Mr. Holliman
oh yeah could we uh hold the vote until we okay i want to make sure there's you don't have some
questions you want answered now and i'll get to that in a minute oh no none at this time
ishmael any questions no mr chair not at this time we had a group of people that we took from
the virtual audience is there anyone else in the virtual audience that wants to testify or say
something. Chair, we have Ms. Shoshana Bricklin. Ms. Bricklin, you can unmute yourself and wait for
the chair. Hello, I'm unmuted. Ms. Bricklin, stay-
hello i'm unmuted hi miss brickland uh state your name and spell for the court reporter
shoshana brickland s-h-o-s-h-a-n-a brickland b-r-i-c-k-l-i-n right i'm a near neighbor on
the other side wait wait wait wait one minute wait one minute do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed so i'm a near neighbor
on the other side of uh not on prospect but i'm within the i got a notice to that i am a near
neighbor i'm an 84 23 anderson my husband and i both signed the the petition in opposition to
this project so we just wanted to put that on the record that we also oppose this project thank you
so is there anyone in the virtual audience that has anything different they want to present
chair i see no hands at this time planning commission good afternoon chair bergman david
facto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential detached zoning for this property the applicant is already
deriving value from their land the proposed subdivision into two lots is not strictly
necessary to enable the applicant to continue doing so. So the city planning commission
recommends the board deny them dimensional variance for lock width. Thank you. So what
we're going to do, we're going to take everything that we heard and every petition that was sent
to us, go over to the executive committee next week, and we'll vote next week, probably next
Wednesday morning. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your thanks, everybody for their time.
okay how we're gonna go into the afternoon meeting yes mr kelly okay
i am sure thank you everybody else is okay right here we go my name is bill bergman
chairman you just want to confirm there's no other two o'clock out there
i'll double check but i'm almost sure anyone waiting for the two o'clock
cases there are no hands at this time i i track that pretty well is my name is bill bergman i
will be chairing this afternoon's 330 zba hearing with me is ismail shaheed our board secretary
here mr chairman thomas holliman our board member present mr chairman our executive director
Tanya Sunkett's here, and our attorney, Sherman Compton.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting our board administrator,
our executive board administrator, Tanya Sunkett at phil.gov.
Two, for the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. Three, if you're
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six
to unmute. To enter an appearance date, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and your address
of the property in question. And lastly, please note the question answer box is not for testimony
or comments. Any comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpton. Now let's
look at continuances for this afternoon's cases. I'd write with you.
Number two, MI 2021-004460-1508 West Deidre Avenue.
number three mi 2021 004540 2038 north phillip street
and number five mi 2021 004541 251 rifka street anyone have any comments in the virtual audience
about these continuances?
Chair, we have no hands at this time.
No hands?
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have a hand for Keith Olkowski.
Keith Olkowski.
Mr. Olkowski, you can unmute yourself and wait for the Chair.
Mr. Olkowski, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm Mr. Olkowski.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Keith Olkowski, O-L-K-O-W-S-K-I.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right.
Do you have a continuance?
mr okowski do you want to continue your case i would like to request 30-day continuance
on this matter well here's what we'll do we're going to continue your case i would like to
continue yes all right i'm going to continue your case and then our executive director will be in
touch with you or you'll hear when your case will be continued we'll do the best we can to
get it back on but she'll be in touch okay
thank you that's the case number one mi 2021 004536 1212 south second street
anyone else with a continuance
chair we have a joseph estrada mr estrada you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair
hi Mr. Estrada could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter yes Joseph Estrada
j-o-s-e-p-h-e-s-t-r-a-d-a you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth I do do you have a request for a continuance yes what case
uh my rco guy wasn't able to um give me my letter what tell me what what's the location of the case
oh i'm sorry 3516 north a street okay so so you're you're but you're not the owner right
correct well who who are you sir i'm the tenant and applicant okay are the owners here no
okay so he's the applicant slash tenant so okay okay so so you need a continuance yes okay your
case will be continued it's going to be marked must be tried thank you okay any other continuances
there are no hands at this time chair okay
MI 2021 004528 2333 East Allegheny Avenue no RCO letter as of yet from Harrogate Civic Association
Sean Ward.
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Ward, state your name is spelled for the court reporter, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
sean ward on behalf of the applicant joseph kelly esquire my name is spelled s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d
my address is three three one east street road trevos d-a-1-9-0-5-3 right do you swear for him to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i uh yes i do mr hallman has a few questions
for you good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy yes i do according to our records there are some required documents
not submitted such as the roc letter please respond it is my understanding that the rco
did submit the letter i have a copy of it with me today i will share on my screen in addition
i have a letter from councilman squilla of non-opposition on this matter pursuant to the
meeting with the RCO. Thank you. Please proceed. Do me a favor. Sean, make sure both letters
go to Sharon or also Tanya. Yeah, as a matter of fact, Sharon sent me a copy of Councilman
Squilla's letter and I forwarded the hurry copy of the RCO letter when I got a copy of it. Thank
you. Okay, can everybody see my screen?
Yes. Excellent. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my typical exhibit packet at least five days in
advance of this hearing. I represent Joseph Kelly Esquire. He purchased the property at 2333 East
Allegheny Avenue, and he seeks confirmation of the use of the property as a business and
professional office on the first floor with a one existing apartment on the second.
with a one existing apartment on a second.
So A1 is the notice of refusal.
A2 is the ZBA application.
A3 is the project information form.
A4 is proof of ownership.
A5 is proof of tax clearance.
A6 is a parcel map.
A7 are photographs.
A8 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing.
A9, I would mark as the RCO's letter of support
from Harrogate Civic Association.
A-10 would be Councilman Squill's letter of non-opposition. A-11 is the relevant zoning
history. Back in 1986 a variance was in fact granted for this property for use as a law office
and one apartment. I think possibly the attorney that owned the property may have retired
and therefore the property wasn't used and therefore was deemed discontinued. A-12 is the
zoning map and A13 or as the aerial photograph. So again, there's one refusal for the property.
The business and office use is not permitted in the RSA5. So that's a copy of the refusal.
We filed our notice of appeal. We have the project information form, my transmittal letter
to Tanya Sunkit for the filing of the appeal copy of the deed as you can see attorney Ronald
Cheson sold the property of Joe Kelly and his wife back in June of 2021
not to belabor proof of tax clearance through 2021 March is not due yet here is a parcel map
from the city's atlas website showing the property on Allegheny Avenue between Aramingo Avenue and
memphis street here is a photograph of the property as you can see it has historically
been used since at least 1986 as a law office and so that is a photograph here's an aerial photo
aramingo avenue would be to the right memphis street to the left this property is third door
in from the left from the memphis street side just a view of aramingo avenue facing east
I mean Allegheny Avenue sorry and then Allegheny Avenue facing west a copy of our notice the
address lists that's good of mailing went out to 115 homes in the area on February 1
and then again the board did grant a variance back in 1986 for use as a law office