court stenographer sure leroy l-e-r-o-y which it w-h-i-t-c-h-e-t-t
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Wichit, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Is it true and accurate?
Is it true and accurate?
It is true.
I do have one other.
yes what what do you want to add mr wichett was that i did have the uh community meeting
yep we're aware of that and there is no disposition as of yet
do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony sir
yes there was a presentation there was sir please listen to my question carefully
do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony yes thank you mr chair because of the reliance
interest and the vested interest uh in this property uh by mr which i respectfully request
the granting of the variance thank you questions from the board i have a question how uh when did
the applicant buy the property? About 18 months
ago, 2022. And how long had it been
used? When was it last used as a duplex?
It was converted in 1960, and it was
consistently used as a duplex.
Do we know if the owner received, got a title report?
A title, my client
Got a title report.
A report prior to closing on the property?
Yes, of course.
The title report didn't show that it was a duplex?
The title report only reports on liens and encumbrances.
What about review of L&I?
The title report doesn't do that.
It was presented by the realtor as a two-family dwelling throughout, as the evidence shows.
and they went to settlement under the guise that he relied on,
that it was a legal to family dwelling.
What's up?
I have another question.
So the realtor and the owner never checked the zoning on the property?
Because I'm looking at the list.
I'm looking at the list. I mean, the listing on Zillow shows it as RSA 5. I feel like anybody buying property in Philadelphia knows that RSA 5 is single family. And you just told Mr. Johns that it's been continuously used as a single family since 1960. But the notes that we received from our attorney said that it was not, that it's been single family since 1994. Do you have proof that it's been used as a duplex?
I mean, the listing on Zillow shows it as RSA 5.
I feel like anybody buying.
yep uh the evidence is in the photos of number one uh the photos just mean that i mean the owner
could have converted it right before sale and attempt to try to push up the sale price so
no uh well even if that's the case my client would still be prejudiced because he relied on it
uh but but my client did not check the zoning he went with a realtor who produced materials that
it was a legal two-family dwelling. And then he proceeded with the purchase. The notes that you
have show that someone in 1990-something filled out paperwork for a single-family home, but there
is zero evidence of any building permits that converted that duplex to a single-family home.
This property was converted legally in 1960 into a two-family dwelling.
Therefore, it's a pre-existing, non-conforming use that predates the code.
And the only question that this board can ask and have answered is, is there a unique physical condition to this particular property that renders compliance,
which would mean gutting and turning it into a single-family home, impossible or impracticable.
That's your opinion.
No, no, that's the law.
That's the standard by which this case has to be reviewed, right?
So I would submit my opinion is that it is impracticable because, again,
he just spent close to $300,000 on a duplex that he believed was a duplex.
and for him to convert it now would lay the property to waste completely upside down so
there is a unique physical condition to the property it is that it presents itself and it has
for 60 years as a two-family dwelling
and it's never been converted to a single family regardless of the paperwork that was filed 30 years
The other question?
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 Boyd with the Planning Commission.
A comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single-family zoning at this location, RSA 5.
The zoning of this parcel dates back to 1967.
The appellant has shown that there are unique physical conditions
or circumstances that would prevent the property
from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the proposed variance for two dwelling units.
Vern, I'm going to hold this for two weeks
to see if we can get a letter from the RCO.
so that would be the two weeks wednesday whatever that date is i'm not sure and then what we'll do
is whether the rco third mr chair october 23rd whether the rco sends it or not we will vote on
it then okay vote on that morning you won't need yeah we won't need a resumption hearing or anything
like that no no no everything's closed very good thank you all thank you yeah
Number 12, MI 2024-000179-1514-16 Church Lane.
Tameka McCoy is the attorney.
An email from Oak Lane Worcester Community Coalition confirmed that the meeting occurred and indicated it was taken in a position of non-opposition.
tamika mccoy has been promoted to panelists
good morning counsel good morning good morning everyone
you state your name and spell for the court sonographer
sure tamika mcc capital k o y where or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes indeed could you identify your client the relationship to the property
Sure. I represent the consultant group on behalf of Julia Bradley, the owner of the property located at 1514-1516 Church Lane.
dash 1516 church lane you simply to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy
You should play to the reading.
yes your honor yes i do all right um please um share your screen and start your presentation
sure if i may just have a moment
it's like a raincoat
like a gray raincoat
a silk gray raincoat
one room is yours
Gaspin Webster
mute yourself
yes okay here we go all right um thank you for the opportunity to present i am
showing the packet that had been previously submitted in reference to the property at 1514
Church Lane. The application is to seek a variance to legalize a three-unit apartment
that had been existing as a three-family unit since 1933. As of right now, it's a 9,000 square
structure where my client, Ms. Bradley, acquired the property by virtue of it being bequeathed
to her from her deceased brother. This property essentially was bequeathed in 2022.
And when Ms. Bradley went to get a rental license, she learned that there was a need to have this
property legalized as a three-unit structure. As of today's date, there is zero balance with
regard to the taxes. The property I'm going to show you, a little out of order.
What I'm showing is a document from 1955 that shows that the property has been used essentially
as a three-unit apartment structure since that date.
This was a variance that was applied for in 1955
that was approved.
It has been in consistent use since that date
as a three-family dwelling.
And the intention is to have it continue
the use as a three-family dwelling. Actually, there are two long-standing residents inside
of the unit. The third floor unit has been occupying that premises for 30 years, the
second floor for 20 years. It's my understanding as well, there is historical documentation
to indicate that there are other properties on the same street that has been allowed variances
for the same purpose. I'm showing here photographs and information relative to the structure.
It's a 9,000 square feet structure.
What we're looking at here are the floor plans for each of the unit.
The basement is unfinished.
It's where all of the utilities are kept.
And the first floor, second floor, and third floor units are depicted, each having a kitchen,
a designated space for a living area, and designated bedroom spaces.
The first floor does have laundry equipment within the property.
There were 98 area neighbors that were notified with regard to the request for the variance.
Mailings were sent to each of these residents.
There were two RCO meetings. One was on September 20th, 2024. The second was October 1st, 2024. On the September 20th date, none of the residents appeared to express any objection. So we redid it, held another RCO to give the area.
Redid it, held another RCO to give the area community another opportunity to voice their concerns or expressions with regard to the request.
Again, no one showed any opposition. The RCO did send an email to the board indicating that they do not have an objection to the request for the granting of a variance.
i will go back uh this is a copy of the deed and the deed essentially shows that uh robert bryan
and his executor essentially um had the property conveyed to miss julia bradley as of august in
2023. So this is a recent acquisition by Ms. Bradley, but the property has been in the family
for over 40 years. There would be a extreme hardship to essentially modify the existing use.
And at the present time, it doesn't appear that the use poses any hindrance or harm to any of
the neighbors or neighboring property. There are no environmental concerns in terms of damage,
pollution, or any destructive qualities with regard to the property being used for
its current and pre-existing purpose. Included in the packet are also photographs. This shows
the view if you were standing on the porch looking across the street. The photograph that's shown now
shows as if you were looking to the right of the property.
This is a photograph standing across looking, facing the property.
And this next photograph shows if you were standing in front of the property
with your back to the property and you look to the left,
you would see the corner depicted in this photograph.
This is a photograph of the rear of the premise.
And we also have interior pictures.
The third and second floor units, as I said, are occupied.
They're occupied by longstanding tenants that has been there 25 and 30 years, respectively.
What I'm showing is the interior of the first floor unit that is currently vacant.
This is a notification that had been posted on the front door of the property,
letting the community know of the impending application for the variance. Also affixed
with this packet is the trash plan, which has been essentially in operation for 30 years.
Basically, the trash is stored in the rear of the property until trash that is brought
to the front of the property. With that, I would ask that Ms. Julia Bradley be admitted into
the meeting so that any additional questions can be addressed.
Bradley? Yes. Yes. Could you please state your name and state it and spell it for the court
stenographer? Julia Bradley, J-U-L-I-A Bradley, B as in boy, R-A-D-L-E-Y.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Bradley, did you hear the representations that had been made to the zoning board this morning?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt them as your own, as truthful and accurate?
Is there any additional information that you think would be necessary for the board to hear,
or have the information been provided in such a manner
that it explains the full history of the property?
Yes, it does.
I would submit on that.
Questions from the board.
Question, how long is this currently occupied?
Yes, sir.
It's occupied by two tenants.
There are three units in the building.
The second floor and the third floor are occupied by tenants.
One had been there for 25 years.
The other had been there for 30 years.
The only portion of the premise that's vacant right now is the first floor unit.
Are there separate utilities?
In the basement, it basically shows that the utilities are broken apart.
Question, how many bedrooms are there?
Question.
How many bedrooms are there?
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, it's a little small.
it's a little