And this, well, we basically wrote in our letter all of the issues we had with this property
because it had a fire many years ago
and it was renovated without permits.
So that was a big issue, a safety concern
that this building was not renovated properly
and again, had no permits or licenses
and has been operating for some time.
Okay, Mr. Chair, I have no cross-exam.
I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page.
Yes, to the extent that there is an overlay,
their refusal was generated.
We had two meetings, which is required.
And of course, before a certificate of occupancy
can be had and a valid rental license for upstairs,
my client will not only have to go before this board
And if you're so inclined to grant the zoning variance, she will then have to get a certificate of occupancy, which will ensure that the property is, in fact, compliant with the International Building Code, which will require, of course, an engineer and an architect.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
Mr. Richardson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
All right, Mr. Richardson, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Richardson, can you please put your hand back up?
There we go. Charles Richardson.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Yes, Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N.
Do you swear from tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
As has been indicated, the councilwoman is opposed.
The place is open illegally, has been opened illegally for quite some time.
The renovations were done without any permits or anything along those lines.
We don't believe in rewarding folks for doing bad deeds. And unfortunately, this is one of those situations where this individual has decided to move forward without needing to, without fulfilling the rules and regulations as set forth. So the councilwoman's opposed.
Mr. Chair, I have no cross-examination on that. I do want to make sure that it's noted for the
record there are no open L&I violations. The rehab that was done needed no building permits to be
pulled. There are no open 311 call tickets. There are no open 911 call issues. And with that,
i'm i'm gonna rest thank you question when was the fire years ago uh yeah many years ago uh and
you know it's just sat there uh you know a disinvested like uh seven other properties on
the block. Anyone else in a virtual audience? And by the way, Mr. Chair, my client did not
own the property when the property was caught fire, by the way. Just want to make sure you
understand it. Yeah. Planning Commission. This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. While this property
is currently indicated for residential and city plan. Given the physical circumstances of the
site, we recommend that the requested variance for mixed use be granted, provided no more than
one dwelling unit. MI 2022-006-305-165 West Seymour Street, I vote yes with proviso, only one
dwelling unit. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes with
proviso. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you very much. Thank you. Number
two, MI 2022-002-951-2683 Roberts Avenue. Brandon Sabran is
2683 Roberts Avenue.
Brandon Sabrin is the attorney.
Thank you.
Letter of support from the East Falls Community Council.
Chair, Mr. Sabrin is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I think I already swore you once today.
Do I remember?
So just state your name for the record.
Brandon Sabrin.
And could you identify your client in the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Michael Powell.
He is the owner.
He is not here today because he is employed as a guard in a correctional facility and unfortunately had to go before the case was called.
So if it's all right, I'll be I'll be testifying his behalf.
All right. So our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Mrs. Averin.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Okay, please. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay, thank you.
Okay. Good afternoon, members of the board.
So I will be brief and just walk you through our exhibits to explain the project.
This is our notice of refusal from L&I. It's exhibit 1A in our packet.
It provides the scope of the project as the erection of an addition with a roof deck above the existing structure.
And the finished building with the addition would be used for two-family household living.
So the only refusal we have is because we're proposing two dwelling units.
The addition is completely by right in terms of the dimensional aspects of the zoning code.
Exhibit 1B is our application for appeal.
Exhibit 1C is our project information form.
I'll kind of skip over those.
Exhibit 2 is our tax clearance information.
We used a screenshot from the Philadelphia Tax Center's website site.
to show that Mr. Powell's property taxes are current.
Exhibit three is our deed.
Mr. Powell bought the property at sheriff sale in 2018.
He, I believe, spent part of his childhood on this block,
but does not live there now.
Exhibit four, this is the zoning map of the property.
So peculiar area.
I'll show you some other photos in a second,
But behind the block is an active warehouse, huge warehouse that I would estimate is about 50 feet high.
That sort of wraps around the block and the property.
And across the street is a what may be an abandoned sort of train line here and then some commercial grounds.
And here's an aerial view of what I'm talking about.
So on the opposite side of Roberts Avenue is really nothing.
It's vacant space because it's this abandoned railroad.
And then here is the roof of the warehouse that I mentioned.
Directly behind the property is a vacant lot.
So in terms of impact of the third story addition, although I'll remind you, the height is by right.
It will be, you know, 38 feet or less, not including the roof deck access structure.
There's really no parties other than, I suppose, the immediate neighbor from whom we've heard no objection about this project.
There's no one to be impacted by the addition in terms of light and air.
It's kind of just like a very spacious area in terms of the width of Roberts Avenue and then the lack of anything across the street.
Here are photos at Exhibit 6 of the zoning posters that my client hung, one on the front Roberts Avenue, one on the side exposure, which is King Street.
Exhibit 7 is the zoning code relevant table.
Exhibit 8A is the mailed notice for the RCO meeting that was mailed.
Exhibit 8B shows to whom those notices were mailed.
Exhibit 8C is the coordinating RCO's decision letter.
So the RCO is East Falls Community Council.
The letter describes the project.
The letter describes the project. It notes that the owner has committed to replacing the crumbled sidewalk adjacent to the building, which is important because it's on a corner.
It notes that the owner has committed.
The letter says that the committee supports the investment in a vacant building in need of major repairs and reconstruction, end quote.
it notes that there were no community members present in the meeting other than the eight
people who attended. So I'm going to take that to mean that there were no immediate neighbors.
There were eight people other than my client in attendance who all voted in support. My client
claims that he's familiar with the folks who live on the block, has spoken to some of them,
has tried to speak to as many as possible and really has not heard any opposition to this.
I wrote a memo of law at Exhibit 9, which explains the hardship. I will certainly not
read that to you, although I'll address the hardship in a moment. And then Exhibit 10
is our zoning plan, which really doesn't have much of interest on it because it's purely a
vertical addition. The site plan just shows that we'll be building a new egress window well at the
rear. No other earth disturbance work. And here's a side elevation of the planned addition.
Exhibit 11 has some tentative elevations that would show what it would look like when the
project is completed. So these are sort of more detailed elevations, if you will, over the zoning
plan. Here is on the right front elevation of the finished product. And here are side elevations of
finished product. I'm sorry, the top one is here. And my client had floor plans made of the upper
two floors, which would sort of be the bigger of the two proposed units. Just wanted to highlight
for you that my client purchased the property at sheriff sale in 2018. I'm not sure whether that
was a tax reason or a mortgage reason that sent it to sheriff sale. But regardless, what I do know
per L&I's records is that in 2016, a violation was issued against the prior owner for the property
being vacant without a vacant structure license. And then at exhibit 13, I have photos. So this is
a photo of the property in 2011. So we're way before my client's ownership, but you can already
see in 2011 that the grass is overgrown. There's sort of like a failed or fallen awning structure
that's sitting in front of the house. And the second story's front window is boarded. That's
not a proper window. So it might have already been vacant in 2011, although I'm not positive
of that. We know from L&I that it was vacant in 2016. And then my client's ownership began in
late 2018. And here's a photo of the property at that time. You can obviously tell based on this
image at exhibit 14 that the property is vacant. There are plants growing out sort of into, I
suppose, the house in the rear. And you have, again, the boarded up windows, just lots of
signs of disinvestment. And then real quickly, I'll show you, this is the warehouse I was talking
about. It's both behind and to the side of the property. These were taken, I believe, in 2019.
And then the event shows you sort of the context. So I don't believe a third story,
although it's to code, is out of context here based on the towering warehouse across the street.
It's not as though there's anybody really to bother over there. And living on the third story,
because I think my client plans to put bedrooms up there, will allow the resident a better chance
of light at more hours of the day. You can see the shadow that the warehouse is casting here.
is pretty severe. So in short, you know, we have evidence that the property without question has
been vacant for seven years at this point. And I believe that's why the RCO concluded that major
investment in this property is needed. And my client's hardship is that he has been trying
earnestly to finance a renovation of this building since he bought it. And he's been unable to do so.
And as you know, the lending environment has just gotten worse in the past year and having a second unit and having a space for the second unit via the buy right addition is what is going to allow him to attract financing.
Nobody wanted to back him to, you know, fix this house in its current form as a single family. So the minimum necessary relief is a second unit. And that's the only variance we're requesting. And I believe that.
is a second unit, and that's the only variance we're requesting, and I believe that explains
our hardship. As I mentioned, my client is not here, unfortunately, but I'm happy to take any
questions that the board might have. Are there any other multiple family units around
in that area? So this was a block, like many, Mr. Chair, where virtually none of these properties
have zoning records. Now that, that may indicate that many of them are single family homes,
but it may also indicate basically lack of recent investment of any sort, because if anybody was to
do work requiring a building permit or a zoning permit, that would have been noted in L&I's
archive. And on most of these properties, there's just nothing of the sort. So I can't really answer
the question definitively good thank you questions from the board no no mr chairman
questions or comments from the questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning this property
is indicated for residential on the city plan given the physical circumstances of the site
we have no objection to the granting of the variance. MI 2022 003 951 2683 Roberts Avenue I
vote yes. Thomas Holloman my vote is yes. James Snell my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahi my vote is yes.
Thank you counsel. Thank you. All right number three MI 2022 002 962
4213 Germantown Avenue.
Darlene Trent is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from the 13th Democratic
Ward. Letter of opposition from Councilperson
Here, Ms. Three is coming back in as a panelist now.
All right.
you're muted
you're muted
we can't hear you you're muted
Ms. Threatt, can you unmute yourself, please?
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
You're good now.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can now.
Thank you very much.
Could you just state your name?
You've been sworn today already.
Darlene Threatt, T-H-I-E-A-T-T, 45 East City Avenue, number 496, Ballack-Hinwood, P-A-19004.
Thank you. Could you identify your client or relationship to the property?
My client is Ms. Nikita Mathis, who should be on the line presently.
Okay. So my understanding from counsel is that we do not have a signed lease from you.
Commissioners, the old lease, which Ms. Emerson pointed out to me, had expired. It turned into a month to month. I wasn't aware of that.
i did obtain a new lease but i could not get all the parties so here so here's what we're going to
do we're going to hear the case and we will not vote until we receive a signed lease thank you
very very much so our vice our vice chair has a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to his accuracy yes i do have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing with the exception of the lease yes