We still see the same original photo.
I'm sorry?
we only see the original photo you put up oh okay let me
let me get out of here real quick
there's your pet here's your package right okay
so that's that's the original um this is this is the d to to the initial property
It basically was to have 736-738 as one parcel of land.
So my client basically was able to get the lot subdivided into lot A, B, and C.
And that's the drawing that showed a lot as it was.
And he got the permit to get all that done.
And I believe there's an engineering report here as well from the city for the subdivision.
for the subdivision. So the subdivision now is an A, B, C lot.
That's the new description of 736 that was approved by the zoning.
And this is the D now to 736.
Counselor, do you have pictures of the property?
Yes, yes.
That's the next one I'm getting at.
Just building already separated into duplexes. Both of them.
Yes. Yes, they are. And we we have we have the support of the community.
I'm just trying to show you what.
sorry i always got to minimize to share my screen that's it there now okay so that's what it looks
like now correct okay is that up yeah just better so that's what it looks like now we basically
maintain the two separate driveways. 738 is on this side and 737 is on the other side.
They both have their own separate backyards.
Apartment A is on the first floor. Apartment B is on the second floor.
well it's a three-story building right
correct so um apartment two is um takes over the second and the third floor and i believe the
third floor again my client will speak more to that the third floor is more more as far as um
access fire escape and everything is back there as well
And it's the same similar package. This matter was previously scheduled and it was rescheduled. So I'm resubmitted a package that have
basically given the one letter that covered both 736 and 738.
And I recently submitted the tax certificate that showed that my client property tax is up to date.
Do you guys have that in a package or do you want to put that up on my screen?
just make sure our council has copies of it okay i believe
this is the letter from from the rco basically saying that um the support letter it's going to
be for both for both properties is that on the screen commissioner yep okay and these are the
posting for this meeting. It was posted September 15. Posted again on the 22nd. And I guess the
last day he took that photograph. It just had today's date on it. And this is the tax
clearance. And the same package is the book. This one is for 736, 738, 738. 736 has a
similar package and
similar attachment.
How long
have both
these buildings been duplexes?
When my client purchased it, he noticed
it when he made the
purchase that it was a
duplex. The issue came up
when he tried to get a renter's license
for a duplex.
That's when he was told that it was a single lot.
And actually it wasn't, it was coming up as it was just 736 or 738.
How long has your owner, how long has your client owned the properties?
Okay, let me just look at the initial D was received.
back in 2020 no yeah purchase it back in 2018. thank you
why don't you bring your client on to adopt your testimony yes
can you bring your
Mr. Jaber
can you hear me
yes good morning sir
good morning sir
could you please state your name
it's spelled for the court stenographer
Nader Jaber
N-A-D-E-R
J-A-B-E-R
where or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
please proceed counsel
Nader good morning
Good morning.
Did you hear the presentation I just made to the board?
Were you adapted as your testimony?
Is everything that I said, is it accurate and, excuse me, true and accurate?
Is there anything else you would like to add to the board that you believe might help
or make a decision?
No, I think you got everything.
Questions from the board.
i'm sorry i um i uh uh i'm having a noise issue out here okay sure all right so um question do
we have i i saw some steps are there any other interior photos of this well let me go back to
my first question. Am I getting this correctly that when you purchased this property, it had
the two addresses and they were already four units within these two properties and that you then
subdivided the lot so that now you have those same four units, one with one address, 736A,
another one with the 738. Is that what I'm given to understand from the testimony here?
Counsel on mute, please. Yes, yes. As you see from the previous picture,
there were actually two separate houses, two units each. Both units had their own separate
driveways um but the master d had it as 736 dash i'm sorry 736-38 and once once my client finished
you know fixing up the property he goes for a rental license and they're looking at the
the initial deed as as a one unit
okay so you didn't really answer my question when he purchased it where they're already
within that 736 through 738 property where they're already four units within correct
yes i'm i'm sorry board member yes okay all right thank you other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
Hillary Emerson
not at this time Mr. Chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time Chair
Planning Commission
Amy Boeber the Planning Commission
so this will be for 736 and 738 Maple Lane
the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single-family RSA 5 zoning at this location.
The plan has shown that there are unique physical conditions
or circumstances of the property that would prevent it
from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant
the requested variance for two-family household living.
Thank you.
So, number eight, MI 2024-000076-736-38
Maple Lane, Parcel A. And number nine, MI 2024-000102-736-38, Maple Lane, Parcel B. I vote yes for both.
Michael Johnson, my vote is yes for both.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes for both.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes for both.
Iowyn, my vote is yes for both.
Thank you. Thank you, Council.
Thank you, members of the board. Appreciate it. Everyone have a good day.
5458 West
Burke Street. Vern Anastasio is the
attorney.
Vern Anastasio is coming in as
a penalist.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Counsel. Could you
please state your name and spell for the court
sonographer. It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of property owner, Mr. Leroy
Wichett. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.
We do not have, at this point, an RCO letter or summary, but we see that the neighbors did
received proof of the mailings. Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal
and do you agree with this accuracy? Yes, sir. Please proceed, sir. Thank you.
yeah we're up
took me a little while for some reason
Berks Street is
a pre-existing
non-conforming use here
the history of this property
is it was converted to a two
family dwelling 60 years
And page 49 of my 65-page exhibit packet clearly demonstrates 1960, went from a one-family physically to a two-family.
I was not kept up with rental licenses.
And at some point, the RSA 5 classification went into effect.
as a result my client purchased this in 2022 when he tried to get a rental license he learned that
the two-family dwelling was expressly prohibited use and that's when he contacted me to go through
this process so this is for the legalization of a pre-existing non-conforming two-family dwelling
I want to try and pull something else up for a moment so you can see.
Prior to his purchase in 18 months ago or so, he saw this ad.
This is the MLS listing.
54-58 West Berks.
Opportunity for the owner to invest in a multifamily property.
Right down here, two to four units.
It is, in fact, a two-unit building.
You end up purchasing the property for a whopping $280,000.
So just under $300,000.
We'll put on evidence and testimony that it's impossible
to turn this property into a compliant single-family home
without laying the whole project to waste.
So with that...
I'm going to go back to my binder.
So after seeing the ad, he purchased the property in 2022.
As I said, he went through the process of trying to secure a rental license.
And, of course, that is when he found out that the...
the property was zoned for single family.
Here is the plot plant for the site plan
for the existing two-family dwelling.
And here is the interior layout.
Again, all existing conditions.
This is a basement with no habitable space.
It's just what you have there are the two heaters,
the two water heaters, the two gas meters, and, of course, the two electric accounts.
All in there, all pre-existing. The first floor, as you can see here, is a two-bedroom unit.
And the third floor is, I'm sorry, the second floor is a two-bedroom unit.
two-bedroom unit.
I'm going to show you some photos.
As the plans show, there'll be trash storage underneath the fire escape stairs.
And as you can see here, there's photo evidence of the two-family dwelling being recognized
not only by PGW, but PECO as well through the years.
As I said, the property was purchased for just under $300,000 to convert this two-family dwelling to a single-family home now would lay it to waste.
And there are really no more bedrooms than there would be if this were a single-family home.
the community meeting was held rco letter here and my client also provided proof of mailing
he did this by himself we have the poster and we have proof of posting
and then we have the history again that shows the long history from 1960 of the conversion
there are no current violations on the property
and with that i'm going to ask my client to raise his virtual hand
bernard could you tell me what happened at the rco meeting i didn't attend the rco meeting my
client put his presentation on and then the meeting was dismissed uh we don't know their their
disposition
sir which it yes how you doing today good could you please state your name and spell for the