the refusal comes by virtue of the fact that the spots each span two different properties.
properties.
Okay, we'll take note of that.
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance this
a copy of the...
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes everything great you may proceed
and begin with sharing your screen okay
that work yes it's up all right so uh joe consul here as previously mentioned uh for two properties
on loriston street uh the angle that i have on my my screen right now is actually uh monastery
avenue uh this is the back of the two properties that we're here for uh before i actually get into
my docks. I just wanted to orient everyone as to what we're here seeking. So this is Monastery Ave.
The two parking spaces that you're looking at here with the gray pavement are the two spots
that we're seeking to legalize. There's a spot next to it with a Subaru in it that's not related
to our property that's a legalized spot for um the the property here on the left um but we're
trying to legalize these two spots here uh similar to um this property this subaru property here
uh that's the front of the two properties and again this is the side um so as i had mentioned
earlier we're here on 4353 and 4355 the the packets are effectively the same because
everything um exists in both and what we're trying to do is create and file an easement
on each of the properties which grants the use of that portion of the backyard to each other
as parking spaces because the the backyards um because the way you park goes over each property
the neighbors are going to give each other permanent easements to allow for the parking
spaces in each of their respective yards. But in order to do that, we need approval today.
So as I had mentioned, the refusals are, you know, one, and, you know, the one that I believe
is more relevant, surface parking spaces are prohibited in required rear yards for RSA 5.
The bit about the undersized spaces on each of the refusals is in the notes to the ZBA that say the spaces are actually 9 by 20 each, and they're compliant in terms of parking space size, but just because they span two yards, technically each yard has a non-compliant spot, but they're the right size spot each.
as mentioned we went in front of the roxborough civic association and we got support uh there was
very little if any opposition uh these spots have been being used um for uh for a long time
they exist my clients just wanted to legalize them and put their heads together to come up
this plan with the respective easements and getting approval from the ZBA.
Proof of mailing and some photos.
We'll get to the plans in a second. That's what we already saw. It's a
sort of a different car park there or the same car but from the front of it instead of the back.
Here's another shot.
And here's the actual plans itself, showing the parking stalls are 9 by 20 each, which
is what the code would require if these were allowed, if there was, you know, a small alley
they could pull off of to park in.
But you know, we're coming in the rear yard off of Monastery Avenue.
the deed and the required documents uh follow and then finally we have the driveway site
distance as required um we we filed we filed this with with our application showing
there's no issue with the turning radius or getting in you know getting into the parking
spots in in any way uh also submitted site tables required for that and then finally the deeds and
all of our other tax data and compliance certificates so that's sort of the extent of it
That's sort of the extent of it. We have the easements drafted, ready to be filed. We just are seeking approval today, and hopefully that'll come.
we have the easements drafted ready to be filed we just
The fence itself here actually will be moved a little bit to make those spots compliant, but both properties still maintain very adequate sized backyards, consistent with a lot of the other properties' backyard sizes that are around here.
So we're hopeful that this will be satisfactory to the ZBA.
With that, I'll call my clients.
I believe they're both on, both owners are on the same Zoom, and it should be under Kristen Scudder.
Ms. Scudder, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could both of you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. Kristen Scudder, that's K-R-I-S-T-E-N-S-C-U-D-D-E-R.
Right. Frank DeSara, F-R-A-N-K-B-A-S-A-R-A.
All right. Do you both swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Frank and Kristen.
did you both have an opportunity or were you both listening to my testimony today yes yes do you
adopt it as your own yes yes okay is there anything you'd like to add to the board
no okay okay questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing RSA 3 single-family zoning at this location. These off-street parking spaces
were created illegally in violation of several zoning code requirements. Because of the configuration,
the curb cut here that's required here is significantly larger than is permitted in the
Central Roxborough NCO overlay. This condition is exacerbated by the adjacent another 10 foot wide
non-conforming driveway which was also created illegally and then legalized by the board
directly to the east on Monastery Avenue. In aggregate the width of these driveways is roughly
30 feet and we feel that this proposal directly contradicts the intent of the curb cut provisions
of the Central Roxborough NCO overlay. We find the hardship to be self-created since the parking
area was created by the applicant without permits and finally ultimately an off-street parking space
while desirable is not necessary to make a viable economic use of these properties
so given these facts the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the variances for
both addresses thank you um mr council you want to respond uh well the regarding the 18 foot
versus 12 foot bit uh i i don't see that as an issue um several neighbors testified that uh and
that there's not actually uh any more than one spot uh lost by the the use of the driveway
as you see it here uh those two cars are easily able to get in and out um using only the what
you're seeing on the screen there um and we we don't believe that it would add uh if if we were
to shrink the actual drive aisle uh down to 12 feet we don't believe that it would add any spaces
based on the amount of parking that's available on the side here um and the other property that
was legalized um you know we looked around if you look at the other side of the street here
uh there's all these uh parking spaces um
And there was no complaints or issues about any parking issues related to parking on Monastery Avenue here.
No neighbors came in with any complaints of there being any issues specifically with ever finding parking.
And folks believed it was actually a net benefit to have two spots accessible from one drive aisle.
All right. Thank you, Council.
M.I. 2022-002-845-4355, Larson, and M.I. 2022-002-843-4353, Larson, I vote yes for both.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes for both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes for both.
All right, thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Number eight, MI 2021-004-675-5122 Haverford Avenue. Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
5122 Haverford Avenue, Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
Letter of support from the 44th Ward RCO, Democratic RCO.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Lynn Nichols, L-Y-N-N, last name N-I-C-H-O-L-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
There should be a Fatima Conti on the call, and she is the owner.
All right.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I just want to make sure that we're all clear.
We had submitted an amended refusal, and when reviewing the ZBA calendar this morning, I noticed that it referenced our first refusal, and we have an amended refusal from January 26th.
I emailed it to Hillary just to make sure that we're all in the case.
Okay, that's Hillary.
Hillary? Yes. So I'm a little bit confused now because the refusal in your packet is from
January 26, 2022, and it has business and professional office on it. Correct. That's
the correct one. That is the correct one. Yes. Okay. So that was amended? No. No, the first
refusal, we amended it. So the one that's in our packet is the amended refusal. Right, right. So
it was okay so but so what you're saying is there was a different refusal originally
that had a different use okay so we'll need to have the board grants will will need to note that
the decision is per amended refusal dated january 26 2022 correct thank you for letting us know
thank you so yes yes okay so yes yes thank you have you emailed a separate packet with proof of
ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes. Okay, great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen. Yes, and may I have
permission to turn off my video so that it doesn't create an issue with the presentation?
Oh, absolutely. Thank you.
good morning members of the board um this presentation is for 5120 can you see my screen
by the way yes okay this presentation is for 5122 havinford avenue we've previously uh requested a
continuance so that we could work with the rco in order to address some of their concerns and
we were successful in that we were able to make sure that we addressed all of their concerns here
you will see the zoning permit use application that was submitted for this project. We also have
an application for appeal that was submitted with regard to the project. The next, we're showing the
project information form. In this packet, you also have the deed, which is for Fautamata Conti, who's
the owner of the property. We also have the certificate of tax clearance. Here are some photos
showing the front of the property. Now you see the corner and side view of the property.
This is a view looking to the right of 5122 Haverford, a view looking facing 200 North
Paxson Street. Here's a view looking across from 5122 Haverford. We included a photo of the rear
yard of 5122 Haverford. I could email it to Hillary. The RCO was concerned about trash in
the yard and it's been cleaned up. These are the neighbors that were impacted and we were able to
notify with regard to this project. This is the notice of proof of mailing, the zoning notice that
was also posted. Here's the refusal that I indicated was the amended refusal from when we
initially submitted the project. This is the site plan which shows the drawing for the project and
I'll now turn it so that you can make sure that you're able to see it. If there are any questions
with regard to this site plan, just let me know. Well, right now I'm not able to find my
to turn it. Do you need me to turn it so that you can see it or is it okay if I
leave it like this i think we could see it okay um and here's the letter of support from the rco
And here's the letter of support from the RCO.
their concern was to make sure that this
Their concern was to make sure that this was a professional office, auto, and tag title agency to operate only during the time stated in their business plan.
And this is the proviso.
I emailed it to Hillary this morning, which shows their hours of operation Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturday 8 to 2, and they're closed on Sunday.
Before I call my next witness, I would like to state to the board that this property, the variance that we seek represents the lease modification of the code to provide relief.
It will not increase traffic congestion in the public streets or place an undue burden on the water, sewer, or other public facilities.
It will not substantially or permanently harm the neighbor's use of their properties or impair light and air to the neighbor's properties.
It will not increase traffic congestion in the public streets or place an undue burden on water, sewer, or other public facilities, and it will not create an environmental damage, pollution, erosion, or increase the danger of flooding.
At this time, I would like to call Fatamata Conti.
Is Ms. Conti, has she raised her hand?
No, but she's been allowed to speak.
You may unmute yourself, and please wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Patumata Conte.
F-A-T-O-U-M-A-T-E-A-C-O-N-T-E-A.
C-E-E-A, yes.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Conti, would you please tell the members of the board, what is your relationship to the property at 5122 Haverford Avenue?
It's my property.
So you're the owner?
Yes, I'm the owner.
Did you hear my presentation here today?
Do you agree with and adopt the testimony given here today for your property at 5122 Haverford Avenue?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just had a quick question.
Ms. Nichols, just on the proviso form, it has Monday through Thursday 10 to 6 and Friday 1030 to 6.
That's correct.
Okay, so there's slightly different hours on Friday.
Yes, I said 10 to 6.
It's 1030 to 6 on Friday and 8 to 2 on Saturday.
The hours on the form are correct.
Okay, all right.
Thank you.
miss nichols leave that up so i can read from it oh i'm sorry chair thanks um questions or comments