Confessor, please proceed.
Listen, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We do.
Thanks. Thank you. Members of the board, just for clarification, this should be ZP.
This is the ZP number, not the MI number. But nevertheless, the application before the board
is for the erection of a two-story addition to this property at 327 South 16th Street and for
the use of the property as an eight unit uh living household living um we did meet with the
with the rco and i will get into that at the moment we have a letter of opposition from their
zoning committee but i'll detail that after i explain and describe the project um the refusal
is stipulated to as well as its accuracy again we're just in terms of refusals the a two-story
addition is by right but what we were refused for was the number of units allowable in this square
footage with the footprint that we have geographically to get the bearings we are between
spruce and pine street along south 16th right between right by delancy and a little bit better
from an aerial view for you for those familiar with the neighborhood the yards of these properties
are kind of critical in the rear for this two-story addition because while it's by right,
it is our position that the RCO's concern is mainly with the addition and not actually with
the density of the project. We do have Kevin Kaminsky available to discuss a few things,
the architect, as well as Anthony Massiri for the applicant appellate. As you can see from this
cross-section the two-story addition would be placed at the rear of the property and it adds
a significant amount of square footage to allow the uh the additional units to be placed zoning
wise this is again in an rm1 zoning district we have a few photos of the location and a little
bit better of a rendering so you can see the the layout of where the properties are located or
where how it's situated with its neighbors this is a picture of the front facade of the property
although work has been and will continue to be done the applicant is a local and present developer
who has done several projects in this area and and has a very good track record of addressing
the concerns of neighbors as well as historic obligations this is the first floor rear of the
property and the addition would go above this portion of the property right here
and then as far as floor plans go this is this shows you the eight units that we are seeking to
put in and most notably is that these additional square footage to make these units a little bit
more comfortable and not as crowded these two stories on the second floor rear and the third
floor rear is the additional space that we are proposing during our meetings with the neighborhood
Association, there were discussions about possibly obtaining different square footage or additional
square footage without the addition on the back, although, again, by right. We explored expanding
the fourth floor at their suggestion, but Mr. Kaminsky will explain why that is really not a
viable option. In addition, during our meetings and discussions, we first met with the RCO in
December where the neighbors did attend and there were some some community
members available the subsequent meeting where the vote was taken was
the subsequent meeting where the vote was taken was simply the committee no additional neighbors
simply the committee no additional neighbor
attended or voted on that project my client has did propose at one point the combination of these
two um these two studio units into a bi-level single unit reducing it to seven but the application
we are seeking is still for eight because the decrease in units did not seem to be again the
concern of the RCO, but more so this idea of this addition. So here's an existing
cross-section of the rear yard, and then here is the proposed with the buy-write addition.
And again, just a little bit more about the historic facade that's being corrected.
What I'd like to show you now is basically a plot of similarly situated six to 10 unit buildings within a two block radius that are all of smaller, most of which I should say are of smaller square footage, but have also been approved for multi units in this area, despite the RCO opposition.
location this shows you the number of six and seven unit apartments in that area and our subject
property being the red property down here you can see there's quite a few and this is just within a
two and a half block radius there are even some scattered nine to ten unit buildings and then
I'm sorry this is the nine to ten unit buildings a few of them scattered around and most notably
these are the seven and eight unit buildings that are also within the area some most some of which
I should say again most of which have smaller footprints and similar number of units so what
we are proposing is the eight units in an approximately 7,000 square foot building
when you when you include the two second and third story additions what my my applicant in
this case actually did obtain approval for eight units at 1707 Rittenhouse Square which is a smaller
footprint of this building. They obtained that within the last year, again, despite the RCO
committee, zoning committee's opposition. We do have three at this time, three letters of support
from your neighbors. And my client will speak to, if necessary, his efforts with the immediate
adjacent neighbor who would be the most impacted by the additions. But again, the additions aren't
really in our opinion the issue and that the density albeit not the issue of the CCRA is why
we're here for a refusal. At this time here's some pictures of the zoning posters that have
gone up the first page of the deed and the rest is available on public record and or if necessary
any tax clearance certificate. So at this time I'd like to have Kevin Kaminsky who should be on
to explain a bit about the square footage
and why the additional square footage
is not as viable on the fourth floor expansion
versus the second, third story edition.
Mr. Kaminsky, if you could raise your hand,
if you're there.
Yes, I am here.
Hello, everyone.
Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record first and last name.
Spell your last name.
Kevin Kaminski, K-A-M-I-N-S-K-I.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
So once we jump to four stories, we run into two means of egress,
and that is pretty much eliminated the need or the ability to fundamentally develop this into a meaningful footprint in terms of space.
so we kept it to the three stories with a mezzanine which is shown on the uh on the fourth floor and
that's about it and just for the board's clarification as well in our in our lower
level we do have egress windows as well as other air and light to all the units
and and living spaces um thank you mr kaminsky uh at this point i would like to have
my client Anthony Massiri adopts testimony and then also if there's any questions or statements
he'd like to make regarding his experience in the neighborhood as well. Morning sir please
identify yourself with the record spell your last name. Anthony Massiri. M-A-S-C-I-E-R-I.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you Mr.
Mr. Crick? Yes. Mr. Massiri, before I ask you any further questions, have you had a chance to hear
my testimony to the board today? Yes. And given the opportunity, would you adopt my statements
And given the opportunity, would you adopt my statements as your own testimony is true?
as your own testimony is true?
Thank you.
Mr. Masiri, just wanted to ask you, have you developed other properties in this area, in this immediate area in the past?
Yes, we have.
We have an eight-unit building that we developed at 1707 Rittenhouse Square, as well as an eight-unit residential plus one commercial space at 238 South 20th Street, as well as a six-unit building at 1602 Spruce Street.
And is it your understanding that the buildings that you have developed, as well as the others that you have researched and plotted in the area, that your building actually provides more square footage for the number of units than similarly situated properties with eight units?
Yes, actually, the most recent project we completed at 1707 Riton L Square had a smaller footprint, and that was approved for eight units, with some of the units being partially below grade.
this building would be noticeably larger with the same intended use with the with eight units.
Okay thank you and and just I wanted to ask you do you have any other final comments that you'd
like to make for the board's consideration? Just that our experience with working in the
neighborhood working with the historic commission you know we have we have the a lot of experience
in in doing this and all we're asking for is a a use that is very very common as you can see by all
the other properties as plotted on the on the plans in very similar sized four story your typical
four story townhouse in the Rittenhouse Square neighborhood and not just the neighborhood but
just on that street alone other buildings with the exact same number of units thank you members
of the board that concludes our presentation other than just finalizing and saying that we
believe that there's a hardship based upon the consistent allowance of similarly situated if not
smaller properties in the area and seeking the equal treatment on those thank you thank you
questions from the board no no one else would like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand yes chair we have a wade albert morning sir please identify yourself with a record and i'll
swear you in good morning my name is wade albert um last name is a l b e r t i'm counsel for the
center city residents association good morning and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed thank you so and i'll try to keep
this brief um just to to distill the the nature of this that um this is basically a a matter in which
the applicant is uh seeking to build uh enough to have a number of units uh in this property
and in relation to the square footage, the only way to have those units is to build an expansion
in the back, which was discussed above. The problem that the Center City Resident Association
had with this, excuse me, was that none of the other neighbors that are next to this property
have built up their backyard uh to uh to um uh the dimensional um uh properties that we've
that we've seen in this and there there's an image in the applicant's materials which i think are on
page it's actually page seven um if we can we can see that real fast on the the bottom left-hand
corner you can see that uh in all all of the neighboring units they uh that there there's a
fair amount of open space um in in the back of their properties and so the the the ccra zoning
committee believed that as i said allowing this would change the character of the of the block
and it is not consistent with those other properties um and you know while i appreciate
that they were they were willing to reduce the number of units you know we still have the same
problem and we think that they could have explored other ways in which specifically either reducing
other the units or changing the plans in some way or another that would have made this much more
palatable for the neighborhood and for these reasons i just want to point out that the that
that the burden on the applicant in this case is they're requesting a use variance
the burden on the applicant in this case is they're requesting a use variance
which means that they need to show among other things that there are unique physical circumstances
particular to this property and i don't believe that there are this this property is very similar
to so many other properties um in the neighborhood um where um they're able to do whatever they want
to and there's there's nothing special about this property that suggests that a use variance would
be appropriate and on top of that another element is that use variances if authorized will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood and as i discussed earlier we believe that the changes
that they're requesting in connection with with building the addition in the back will actually
change the the characteristics of the neighborhood in relation to the neighboring properties and for
those reasons, we are against it. And we request that the ZBA oppose this application. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
If I may speak to that, Chair, if there's no other hands.
If there are other hands first, please.
Yes, we have Mr. Pierre. Mr. Pierre, you can unmute yourself.
Pierre please identify yourself for the record first and last name and state your address
I'm sorry I don't know where he just went
anyone else
French you can unmute yourself and speak
Good morning. Can everyone hear me?
Yes. State your full name, please.
Yes, that's France Pierre from Councilmember Johnson's office.
France, okay. Thank you.
Yeah, you finish. I'm sorry.
No, no worries. That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I certainly do.
Please proceed.
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow board members.
Councilmember Johnson joins the CCRA zoning committee in their opposition to the appeal.
Thank you. Anyone else?
No more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Crick, you had something else to add?
Yes, I just wanted to clarify that, again, we don't believe that there's any issue with the actual refusal for a variance.
It's just the addition, the two-story addition, which is something that the applicant intends on doing one way or the other, respectfully.
That is a by-right addition.
Plus, the applicant has spoken with the immediate adjacent neighbor and taken agreement with him and made arrangements with him to account for privacy and other items of the neighbor's concern, who notably was not present at the vote and did not oppose this matter.
As far as the character of the neighborhood, you know, I can't speak to why other individuals or other neighbors have not expanded their property in the rear, but they are all able to without further variance or dimensional or otherwise from the city.
So that doesn't mean that they could not do it or will not do it in the future.
And again, it is something that my client intends to do with the property, regardless of the granting of the variance.
The variance being that the similarly situated properties have been approved for this with
smaller footprints, and we would like to receive that same treatment.
The next door neighbor that you reference, is he a property owner or a tenant?
He is the property owner.
Is there a restaurant next to that or not?
I do not believe we have a restaurant next door.
Thank you.
All right.
Anyone else?
planning commission thank you chair to chico in 2019 the zoning map was amended in this area in
accord with recommendations from the district plan and with the support of the community
this parcel was intentionally not changed from rm1 the applicants claimed hardship has to do
with nearby non-conforming uses whereas we feel that use variances should require the applicant
to demonstrate that development is restricted by some unique physical circumstance.
We also believe that the proposed variance is not necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property, and so the City Planning Commission would therefore recommend
that the Board deny the variance. Thank you. I'm sorry, Chair, if I could just interject
the thought. Mr. Haggerty, if you could identify yourself and name and Planning Commission,
identify himself identify yourself and name and planning commission every time you give a
and every
recommendation we have my mistake thank you ian thank you uh mi 2020 that's zero zero two five
seven zero three two seven south 16th street my vote is no my voters no my vote is no my vote is no
Thank you. MI 2020-002567-419 North 33rd Street.
Rachel is coming in as a panelist now.