and by the way mr chair did you i'm sorry mr hodgepade did you hear my presentation to the
board today yes i did is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes do you adopt it as
your own testimony yes okay and mr chair members of the board we have six immediate neighbors
uh 2651 isn't even on here uh all in support of the variance that my client seeks again we
We understand that the council office is not pleased with the three-family dwelling option.
As such, we would ask that the least minimal variance would be the duplex.
What's that side of the street look like for multiple family units, that side of the street?
This side of the street, again, has two-family dwellings and single-family homes.
on your side of the street, right?
On your side of the street, right?
On our side of the street, that's correct.
On our side of the street, that's correct.
Okay, all right.
Okay, all right.
And then we have the six immediate neighbors
all surrounding the property
who are in support of the, I'm sorry?
What happened at the RCO meeting?
They didn't want the three-family dwelling.
They wanted it to be a single family home.
We explained the financial issue under Hertzberg
that he would be, you know,
So that this is, in fact, a real hardship.
And also, you know, here's the other thing.
He's willing to do this and put these units up through, you know, affordability with Section 8 vouchers, which we explained, you know, as a public policy with the city and the city hall asking us to produce 30,000 affordable units.
Well, here's here's two that we can add to that list right now.
So because of the financial difficulty here, making it impossible for him to come out in the black unless there's something other than a single family at this point, just because he overpaid for this thing.
We're respectfully requesting some sort of relief.
Again, if a three-family is an overbilled, then we respectfully request the duplex in this case, as other duplexes on the block.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, what year was the property purchased?
2019 and uh were any i'm sorry was any research done prior to purchase to check its lni violation
status before closing yeah he went on atlas and didn't see anything other than he could not have
because there were seven violations before he purchased the property including unsafe property
and leaks at the roof um so one i think that there's been a lot of violations on this property
since it was purchased in 2019.
I think my question is like,
what has been the plan for the past six years
since the property was purchased?
It looks like it's been a continuous nuisance property
in that neighborhood.
Well, it was prior,
there was violations on this property
prior to purchase as he testified.
When he looked on Atlas,
I don't, you know, he's a layman.
So I'm assuming he didn't know where to look for those.
But Mr. Hodge P, again, this property was a distressed property prior to purchase.
Is that right?
Mr. Hodge P?
Distressed property and-
The property was distressed with major violations prior to and during purchase.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Right. And you then spent thousands, tens of thousands of dollars in eliminating those issues. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And then just for clarity, what were, what led you to believe that this was a multifamily at sale?
i think it was marketed as such but i mean i'm looking at the marketing from it right now on
zillow and on redfin and in trend and it's not listed that way anywhere it's listed consistently
as an eight better owned single family house so i just want to know like what what led you to
believe that mr hodgepee i can answer that question for you so when when i when i like
You said, why did it take six years?
No, Mr. Hachpi, Mr. Hachpi, listen very carefully to the question.
The question was, what led you to believe that you were purchasing a multifamily dwelling?
Because it was marketed as a multifamily dwelling.
And the reason why I look single now, because I posted it single when I couldn't do nothing with it.
But I saw it online as a multi-unit, and I was told it was multi-unit.
You did see it online
and was told by the realtor that it was
a legal multi-unit
and they had the zoning, correct
that it was getting the zoning, correct
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 do not see any planning. Hold on, sir. I have a hand up from 3552. This must be Adrian Fernandez. Okay. I'll have him speak.
Hello? Good morning, Adrian. How are you? Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Adrian Fernandez. My last name is spelled F-E-R-N-E-N-D-E-Z.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed okay um along with the council district and also um the affected rco
along with the council district and also the affected RCO All-in-A-Family who served as RCO coordinator for this address.
own a family who served as
Swampadu is also opposed to changing this family from single-family to multifamily.
This address has been denied multifamily variants on at least three separate notices of refusal since 2014 or 2015.
the improvements that the owner is claiming are not supported by permits on Eclipse it's just
showing that a bay was fixed I haven't been there recently so I'm not sure but I will look at it
when I'm in the area so there's been no renovation the neighbors next door had to move because they
were very involved in all the previous zoning hearings and the house was a nuisance to them
next door they returned to their house next door as a retirement home and had to go back to mount
area because of the long-term nuisance from 2646 we're opposed to this being changed and when it
used as a single family rental was fine there are multiple successful single family rentals on the
block and even the block captains there's two co-block captains um they want single family
single family homes to be maintained to bring in more families into the area and not like party
type occupants um also there's three overlays um that do support the renovation of the single
family homes in this area um please vote to oppose this variance all right counsel do you have any
questions of her? Other than the objections on hearsay, next door neighbors moving and all that
stuff, I have no cross-examination. However, sins of past owners should not be at the feet of my
client. My client bought it in good faith. He testified under oath. He was told and even saw
online that it was multifamily. He purchased a price that is a multifamily price and is willing
to, you know, even if he can get a duplex, something that would, you know, if 2651 on
the block and various, just recently, a few weeks ago, was approved by this board, and
various other homes on the same block, on the same side, are two and three family dwellings
as well.
Question.
I think this is a really good example of where relief would be appropriate, at least
some sort of relief.
Vern, you said how many properties on this block have been converted to duplexes or triplexes?
The ones that I've, well, I know just several weeks ago, this board approved 2651 North 17th, no more than two family.
And then just walking down the block, I saw at least another four or five, which look like two and three family dwellings.
Yeah, I think the concern that I that I have is that and I understand the desire for folks to want single family houses.
This is a six bedroom house. This is huge. It's too big. That's the problem.
work for for a single family to to kind of maintain and manage it's just a huge property
so um a duplex probably makes in my opinion in this location probably makes sense the way that
you've laid out the three bedroom three unit apartment doesn't work at all because you have
to go through that bedroom to get out to the yard in the first on the first floor so that doesn't
make sense. But that is my concern, that they're huge properties and single-family,
six-bedroom houses. It's a lot to maintain. It is. And I think that exact challenge
is illustrative. If you walk on the block and see so many vacant, either boarded up properties
or vacant lots, because the properties just haven't been able to be maintained. And perhaps
that was one of the struggles of previous owners um okay but my client has all right let's let's
let's see where the planning can planning commission michael gall with the philadelphia
city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommended a change to the previous zoning at
this location and the property was intentionally remapped to residential single family attached in
2014 pursuant to the recommendation of the lower north district plan there is no unique physical
condition or circumstance of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance
with the zoning code proposed use as a multi-family residence has a higher density level than
appropriate for this location city planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed
use variance for multi-family residential use thank you i appreciate mr chair i just if i may
just briefly just i say that i appreciate the planning commission's input uh i think uh board
I think Board Member Johns was very articulate in demonstrating and communicating the unique physical condition here.
Remember, John was very articulate.
These properties are just too big in today's market at 2025 to sustain a single family home.
Thank you.
MI 2024-007-370-2646 North 17th Street, I vote yes with Proviso. Maximum two units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you all.
Let's go back to number six. MI 2024-004-752-1923 East Allegheny Avenue. Mark Feynman is the attorney.
let's be coming back in as a panel shortly sir
good morning again and thank you very much for the uh courtesy just for the record state your
name you've already been sworn yes it's mark fyman case number six all right could you please
share your screen I am sharing now can can we confirm whether or not it's being it's able to
be seen we cannot see it sir
um mr feinman i'm listening yes we're going to have to continue this if if you can't get one
yeah my apology oh i beg your pardon okay i think i think i found so let me
okay now if i can bear with you if i can ask bear with him for a few moments here so i can get
retrieve the documents i just had them
while i'm retrieving these documents if i may give a brief overview yeah but i i i i want
to make sure you retrieve the documents.
I understand.
IT, have any suggestions?
Mr. Feynman, any luck?
One last moment here.
Okay, Mr. Feynman, we're going to have to continue this.
Understood. I understand. My apologies.
Hillary, can we give this a resumptive date?
We didn't give anything yet, a resumptive date.
If you want to just continue it and then we can see what's available.
So instead of giving a date because the scheduled date's pretty far out, we're going to continue it and then we'll get back and figure out when we can hear this case.
OK, well, I appreciate that.
I will get you back as soon as we can.
I appreciate that. And I will also work to get the RCO letter. It was my understanding.
So, okay. Thank you. So thank you so much. You're welcome. Is there anyone in the audience whose
case has not been called? Mr. Chair, I just have a brief additional announcement. There was one
add on this morning that we forgot to add on. It was MI-2024-004765, 1624 North 26th Street.
We will vote on this matter at 2 p.m. today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
I do not see any hands raised.
All right.
Thank you, Jason.
See everybody at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
The ZBA hearings.
I will be chairing the CBA hearings this afternoon.
ZBA hearings this afternoon.
Present is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present is our vice.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our Attorney, Hillary Emerson,
our Zoning Board Director, Ian Haggerty,
and our Board Administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website
by participating you consent to be recorded this is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities
whether remote or in person if you're called to speak you must state and spell your name
and then wait to be sworn in once you've been sworn in please state your name each time
before beginning your testimony any person may enter their appearance to become an interested
party to a case there are three ways to enter your appearance you can identify the case property
address on your Zoom webinar. You can see a staff member, or you can call the ZBA appearance line
by the close of business tomorrow. Call 267-270-5548. Leave a message that includes
your email address and the address of the property of the appeal. The following guidance is for