ZBA Hearing - April 30, 2025

All right, I got a phone.

Number 16, MI 2024.

You're going to have to go out, okay, and come back.

MI 2024-007-354-1432 South 49th Street.

Zen Jin is the attorney.

Let me come in back as a panel for shortly.

Sure, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Good morning.

Good morning, counsel.

Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Yes, my name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I do.

Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?

Yes, my client is Hashel Partners LP.

They're the owner of the property.

Right.

And do you waive the reading of the refusal?

Do you agree with this accuracy?

I do.

And I would say there's a letter of unanimous support from Southwest Philadelphia District Services, nine votes total.

Yes.

and we're going to need a corrected refusal am i correct hillary not for this i i don't believe

for this case there is a need for a corrected yes so mr jinn when we were reviewing this the

so it's um the examiner unfortunately made an error and put they did not put the description

of the project where it needed to go and listed the refusal twice so i've already spoken to l and

i they'll we'll just hold it for a week they'll issue a corrected version of it and then we can

both okay but the refusal item should be the same yeah the refusal items are fine it's just it does

not give a description of the project where it's instead it just listed the refusals twice

understood understood so thank you thank you uh if i may i will share with the board what would

submit it as exhibits thank you i'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted can

the board see my screen on theirs it's coming yep we see it now sir great thank you so this is

an application based on a refusal for a RSA 3 zone district. The proposal is for a single family

dwelling. However, in RSA 3, there's a requirement for one accessory off-street parking. In this

situation, this particular case, in order to meet what the consistent look to the neighborhood,

and also it would be kind of a hardship to put in a parking, which in itself would trigger a

separate refusal. We're asking for a waiver of that requirement. This is a roll home block

on South 49th Street. As you can see from our photos, existing properties and properties in

the area, there's simply no off-street parking available for the individual buildings. They're

available for the individual buildings they're all set back with a front yard as our building

All set back with a...

will be as well but the front yard really isn't large enough nor are there curb cuts available for

the purpose of getting I'm going to zoom in a bit for purpose of getting a parking spot there's no

rear access roadway as well so there's just simply no way for us to meet that requirement

under the code. So our position would be there is a hardship to the land because of the

situation of the land itself. The proposal is for, again, a single-family house. It will be

set back to have the front yard and therefore matching to properties next door. The design is

a three-story structure, although everything dimensionally is all within code requirement.

The block does have a lot more two-story buildings, but the neighbors understand that the newer

buildings coming to the area are all three-story structures.

Again, it's laid out as a single family.

I'm going to move to the floor plan, show the board quickly, the setup within the building.

it's a living room kitchen on the first floor a bedroom two bedrooms on the second floor master

bedroom master bath set up on the third with a smaller setback roof deck and a utilities and

open space essentially for basement use and that's essentially our application before the board we're

asking for a waiver of the one accessory off-street parking space and that concludes my testimony if

the board has any questions

or want me to redirect to any part of the plans.

Why don't we bring your client in first to adopt your testimony, okay?

Sure.

Isaac, can you raise your hand

and be identified?

Should be

Mr. Katz.

Okay. Do we see him?

Jason?

I do not see that name in the virtual audience this morning.

Counsel, you're an officer of the court. We'll gladly accept your testimony. Questions from the board?

Yes, I know you said that you have unanimous support from the RCO and that the neighbors understand that this is the nature of new construction, but currently it's an all two-story block and it's primarily two-story for two, three blocks in each direction.

Do you have evidence of other buildings at this height, including the pilot house coming in the vicinity on that block?

I do not have evidence with our evidence package today.

So, no, I do not have any evidence to present at this moment that would verify that.

Okay.

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 you should be on the southwest i'm not seeing any further

answer mr chair planning commission good morning chair members of the board michael gall with the

philadelphia city planning commission m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-l-l do you swear or affirm to tell

the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do so firm please proceed the comprehensive plan

recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location the proposal's

parking provision is appropriate for this location as most adjacent properties also lack off street

parking spaces the appellant has demonstrated that the required parking would not be feasible given

the physical circumstances and condition of the property the city planning commission therefore

recommends that the board grant the proposed parking variance thank you um if i hold this

isn't that correct? If I may, to answer board member Wynn's prior question, I'm looking at

the Google map. It looks like, yes, the residential properties are mostly two stories,

but there are some three-story structures, I think a block away, although they are more of

a commercial mixed use in nature. But as far as on the available documentation, I could pull up

right away, I cannot see specifically a three-story structure on that block.

Okay.

Hillary, are we going to hold this to next week?

Just for one week, Mr. Chair.

We're going to hear this next Wednesday.

We'll vote, I'm sorry, at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you.

Sure.

Number 17, MI 2024-007-370-2646 North 17th Street.

Ernest Anastasio is the attorney.

There's a letter of opposition from all in the family and a letter of opposition from Councilmember Young.

There's a letter of opposition from all in the family

and a letter of opposition from Council Member Young.

I'm making as a panel, sir.

Morning, Mr. Chair.

Morning, Council. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Sure. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A.

SIO.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do, sir.

But you identify your client, the relationship to the property.

Yes, I represent Mr. Hodge Pei, owner of 2651 North 17th Street.

He is in the courtroom today.

Do you waive the reading of the refusal, and do you agree with its accuracy?

I do.

Let's see here.

we have tax compliance with this story am i correct

yeah we do it we have everything and do we have a proof of posting yes sir okay yes that was all

yes thank you thank you

mr chair 2646 north 17th street's property my client purchased in 2019 you're going to hear

testimony today from my client as to how he discovered that the property was not zoned for

the three-family dwelling sort of in the middle of the transaction. And at the time, he would

have lost his good faith deposit at that point if he pulled out of the transaction. So he proceeded

and bought the building for the full market value of the three-family dwelling, even though

it was zoned for one family.

He proceeded to, once purchased, hired my firm, and we pursued the three-family dwelling.

And we based that request on the sides of the building itself and the various multifamily

dwellings on the block and the immediate neighbors in support so with that i'll show you the uh the

plans here's just the the plot plan and here are the interiors

uh each apartment by the way is in excess of five or six hundred square feet

the basement is just for mechanicals and washer dryer

and that's for the benefit of the first floor unit when you come on the porch you enter you

can go up the stairs to the second and third floors or you can make a right into the first

floor unit which has got an eat-in kitchen full bath living room and a bedroom

up the stairs. Oh, by the way, there is trash storage in the rear. And then we have on the

second and third floors, you've got your living room in the front. You've got your kitchen,

full bath and a bedroom. There is a ventilated trash closet on both the second and third floor

apartments. And the entire building is just three bedrooms, which is akin to if this were in fact

a single family home. And I want to bring some photos into here so you see. It's a handsome

block, all with front porches on one side. The other side, not so handsome, boarded up and

vacancies abound. Here's the interior. This is the letter that was mailed to all immediate

neighbors to invite them to both the community meeting and to the hearing today. Here are all

the addresses that were mailed and we have proof of just under 200 individual

households received our notice from the Vista company we've got our tax cert and

we've got our deed and I also want to show you this is an aerial here's a

better aerial to show you some of the, you know, large chunks of disinvestment and vacancy

with the vacant lots on the block.

with the vacant lots on the block.

So some density is not necessarily a bad idea

when it comes to redeveloping that block.

We also have an email from my client,

and I'd like to actually call him now to the stand.

Sure.

I should be coming back in as a panel shortly, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Hello?

Hi, sir.

Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Jaquan Hardfay.

Jaquan Hardfay.

Jaquan Hardfay.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes, sir, I swear.

Please proceed, counsel.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hodge P. The email that I'm showing the board right now dated 25th of February.

Did you write this email, sir?

I did.

I did write that email, sir.

Okay.

And can you please explain to the board your experience in purchasing this property and how you found yourself in this difficult situation?

Well, I was led to believe that it was a multi-unit.

And the owner told me that.

And I looked online on the Atlas and said it was in process of getting zoning.

And so I had the idea that it was.

I see.

So the Atlas program system that the city uses mistakenly noted that 2646 was undergoing the process of legalization of a three-family when, in fact, it was not.

Is that right?

Correct.

It was actually 2651.

Understood.

And, Mr. Chair, just for this board's information, this zoning board approved a two-family dwelling for 2651 on that same block, just a few doors down.

It was initially submitted as a three-family dwelling, and this board approved for the two-family and not to exceed two families at 2651.

And Mr. HodgePay, you paid the full amount of what you believed was the three-family dwelling.

Is that correct?

Yes, I paid the full amount as if it was a motor unit, correct.

I understand.

And then you've also spent, in addition to the full amount of what a triplex would cost,

you've spent another $50,000 since.

Is that right?

Yes.

no one more time so i'm sorry you spent another fifty thousand dollars

absolutely yeah because i had violations and for me to clear up the violations it cost me

another 50 grand and the but and the violations uh you learned about after purchase is that right

yeah it was at the purchase and it was more like structural problems right i love the active

purchase correct understood and but you were able to secure the property and clear those out is that

right yeah i got everything cleared up okay and this is the last one the well i guess there's no

violation yet on on this one but okay so now you're pursuing the three family would you be

willing as 2651 on the same block was to uh accept a variance for um a two-family dwelling instead

okay anything but a one family will at least help you break even is that right

yeah one family will be beneficial for me understood thank you very much