Mr. O'Hara
i'm sorry i was unmuted uh mr chair just for the record state your name again you're already sworn
certainly it's jack o'hara j-a-c-k-o apostrophe h-a-r-a all right proceed sir uh the note that
councilman o'neill pointed out uh that this petition obviously was circulated uh prior to
the presentation that was made on June 28th. I see, I just see the top dates of June 18th. So
this was all prior to the presentation that was made at the RCO on June 28th. I don't know what
was said to the people who signed that. They were not present at the June 28th meeting. And
like I said, and Councilman O'Neill said that it was a unanimous vote after their presentation
on how the business was conducted and how much traffic it was going to attract.
Mr. Chair, the collection of the signatures took several days, and the application is very clear
on what we sought support for from the immediate neighbors. It's a business professional office
for the Home Health Care Agency with training of the existing staff still there.
Nobody coming in and out.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning.
David Fechtow with the City Planning Commission.
Chair and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This property has a documented history of use as a medical office building.
And Chair, if this were a drop-in clinic, we would be concerned about traffic congestion, but the appellant has stated that it is not such a facility.
So the proposed business and professional office and personal service are in keeping with and complementary to the existing use on the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed use variances for a business and professional office and personal service.
Council, we've had a lot of testimony
Relative to this
I'd really like to spend some time
With the entire board
To discuss where we stand with this
We will vote on this next Wednesday
At 9.30am
Thank you very much
Thanks for everyone's testimony
Okay, we're going to go back to number
We'll be out here
Let me see here
Number 11
MI 2021-004-390-7120, Wissahickon Avenue.
James McLeod is the owner applicant.
No RCO letter.
There was a meeting held 1522 by the Westmount Area Neighbors.
Mr. McLeod will be coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Good morning, Mr. McLeod.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
James McLeod, J-A-M-E-S-M-C-L-E-O-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, so this is the pro se. For the erection of a detached private residence parking garage containing three parking spaces accessory to an existing single family household size and location as shown.
Private resident garages with a gable, hip, or gamble roofs are subject to a maximum height limit of 15 feet. This is 21 feet. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
yes good morning sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are
needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes i have thank you thank you please proceed and share your screen
oh am i speaking now yeah you can show your show your documents put your your documents up
hey i'm computer literally that's okay
there should be a share screen button on the bottom it's green
i got it so we have them you're up sir you're coming up
this is the denial okay
did you ever receive a letter from the rco sir
sorry my name is
let him answer please
yes I believe so
you have the letter
I see the appeal
application
the project
I have that, yeah.
My deed.
Right.
Tax clearance.
The plans.
You had that?
That's fine.
You had a plan?
You posted the property.
You had to post a letter.
The interior pictures.
is the exterior pictures okay
what's that there these are all the requests these were requests for the rco the meetings
with the okay okay and it took it took some time so that's why
these are all the letters okay and here's the original the original plans i mean original
permits
and these are pictures that i took of my neighbor's garages which they the pictures are actually
flip i don't know how or can you figure it out um if you do you need me to flip the picture so you
got you can um i think we understand what you're talking about with the pictures yeah they've
actually shown us like garages you believe in yeah right and my immediate area like right
literally down the street from my house okay um and that's about that that's the gist of it and
And just, I would like to say a few words on my behalf for the variance.
I am the owner of 7120 Busaken Avenue.
I would like to thank the board for the opportunity to present the case to obtain a zoning variance for my freestanding garage.
The construction of my garage was started in 2016.
L&I issued a permit for it.
I believe the permit for the garage was issued around May of 2016.
of of 2016 after submission of the drawings and paperwork by engineer Robert Rosen
After the submission of
of SNE engineering LLC and my expediter Harold Murray of Murray drafting and design service
both men are now deceased but the final but the final drawings which contained the plans for the
garage that I used were supposedly approved by L&I and both individuals confirmed the drawings
for the finished garage. As I completed the construction for my garage myself, I did not
finish the garage until 2019. I was visited by L&I only two or three times during construction
with no mention of being out of compliance with the zoning regulations until I was 80%
finished with the project at that point i finished the project in order to protect
the work and everything else that i had done which was already completed and apply for a zoning
variance to comply with that i had done and also paid all fines that were levied regarding
construction of the garage in addition as i required with the request of the variance i met
with the local community organization west mount area neighborhood association i believe the
meeting went well to my knowledge there were no complaints or objections to the finished project
by the neighbors as it did not affect anything in the area as to the letter of opposition by
the board only it is my understanding that they were more concerned with how it got built as
opposed to finished project finished product again i have tried to explain why this happened
as regretful that it did i have submitted pictures as you've seen i submitted the pictures
of of which i know garages exceed of the 15 feet by six 15 feet by six feet the reason for the
extra height is storage of materials needed for the care of my four antique cars finally as a as
i am a novice at this process i would like the board to know that i trusted the direction by
the people i hired who were licensed to direct me and i apologize and in addition in considering my
I would like you to know that not having it would create a terrible financial hardship for myself and my family.
Thank you.
Hillary, do we have a letter from Westbound Every Neighbors?
I have not seen one, Chair.
Mr. McLeod, do you have a letter?
unless it was sent in a long time ago but I have not how they voted well when we had it was no
there was no voting against it the only thing we had got back which was I think about it was like
nine months nine months after I received was it nine months or a year it was even longer than that
it was like she like the um the woman just said um it was a very long time we're gonna try and
fined in there.
Are there questions from the board?
It was
a very long time ago.
I mean, it took a very long time to
respond, and then
the correspondence that I had
with the head of the board,
he said
they wouldn't issue a vote until
I took care of the fine.
Until I paid the fine with the city.
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any hands mr chair cleaning commission thank you chair bergman and good
morning david facto with the city planning commission chair and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location
this building appears to have been built without the benefit of permits the appellant has not
presented evidence that the variance is economically necessary, which is required for dimensional
variances. The city planning commission recommends that the board deny the variance for additional
height. Hillary, we can vote without this letter, or do you want to hold it? Because the meeting
occurred so long ago, I believe that we can vote since they've had ample time to submit the letter.
Right. Thank you. MI 2021-004-390-7120 Wissahickon Avenue. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman is yes.
is yes jane snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you sir you have your votes thank you
James Snell, my vote is yes.
thank you very much thank you all sure thank you we're going to go back to number one
mi2022 005 552 36 east colter street and we're right
that we were joining as a panelist sir okay
good morning mr chair hi mr wright thank you uh you've already been sworn um just a few questions
from our vice chair good morning mr wright have you emailed in all the required documents and
exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes i have thank you um please proceed and share your screen
okay so good morning mr chair and uh everyone else um today i'm prepared to present for my
hearing uh in front of the board which is for a variance for a semi-detached structure for
for uh two-family household living and the property is currently zoned as rsa five single
family uh here is the uh here was my denial my initial uh refusal um okay uh the reason
for variance requests or the hardship so this is a property that purchased from the previous owner
after i've been abandoned uh and the city demolished the property for l and i violations
so i've been looking for a good size lot to build a duplex in which
I and my family would reside as my current home is fairly small, 870 square feet here in West
Philadelphia. So the current zoning of a single family on the property on 36 East Coulter Street,
the property that I acquired, it hinders from constructing a duplex in which I can provide
housing security for my older children and where I can try to provide them with the opportunity to
save money and build wealth and then possibly become homeowners themselves without the worry
of the rising cost of renting. And having a second unit, it will help me alleviate this
hardship for myself and for my children while still allowing them their own privacy and their
own independence. The proposed design layout for 36 East Coulter Street will allow myself and my
wife and my younger children to occupy the larger bottom unit while my older children, some of them
more in college. Some of them, one of them is a truck driver. They're independent. It would allow
them to reside in the apartment above. And due to the current dimensions of the parcel, I can't build
two separate single family structures to accomplish this. But however, attaining a variance for a
multifamily dwelling will allow me to accomplish this. It would allow my older children a separate
dwelling, giving them their privacy as college-aged adults, but still allow me to see them
Delhi to provide them with guidance and assist them as they transition into a new stage in life.
Before I share my documents, I just want to mention something about the RCO meetings that we had.
I've had three RCO meetings as it relates to this variance. The first was on December 15,
2022. The second was February 9, 2023. And the last one, the final one was last week,
September 5, 2023. For each meeting, letters were sent out to the community, which included
around 56 addresses initially. Some of those addresses belong to one property, St. Luke's
Church, which is located across the street from the property, and also expands down Germantown
Avenue, the 5300 block. Other properties may have been vacant or lots, so the total number
of addressees considered near neighbors were 46 to 48 addresses. So about eight to 10 addresses
were returned back to me from the letters that I sent out. So the first two RCO meetings,
Mr. Chair, we had two non-votes. The reason for this, sir, was because of a disputed walkway
between my property and my neighbor's property on 34 East Coulter Street.
The previous building that settled on 34 East Coulter Street was not connected to