Kalanet Street
Dietrich and Sharon
Rose the applications
for use as a two family household
living in an existing structure
excuse me Mr. Chair I'm sorry
there was a couple other cases that we need
to hear next due to scheduling
concerns
where do you want to go
I'm sorry, give me one second
It's number 14 and number 10
10 and 14
They can be heard together
That's Allen's, right?
MI 2023-004-797-1938 North 22nd Street
And number 14
MI-2023, 004-796-1940, North 22nd Street.
Recommendation of support from St. Elizabeth RCO.
Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Nockamson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson.
Just for the record, Alan, I mean, we all know.
Just spell your name for the record, please.
A-L-A-N, last name is Nochumson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yeah, both of these properties are owned by Crud LLC, and in the virtual audience should be its member, Kevin Matheson.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
So do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh yes we have thank you council
Yes, we have.
please proceed and share your screen thank you um i'm gonna do i i submitted these separately
the presentation materials i do have a combined presentation material just to streamline this
process so i'm here to present to you 1938 and 1940 north 22nd street i think this is a pretty
straightforward process. Hopefully we get the CBA back on track after that first matter. That was
rather long. So I have a couple notices of refusal. So this is a property my client purchased as an
RM1 property, turned into RSA 5. It's actually now, it is now being proposed by the 2035 plan
to be RM1. These are rather large lots. The only refusals we have, and you'll see through the
notices of refusal is the use of the property. If these were R&1 properties, these would be
uses as of right. Then we met with the St. Elizabeth's RCO, like they coordinated the
community meeting. We have unanimous support. I think that speaks volumes about the project itself.
Then the property history, we'll just quickly go through the property history showing when the
zoning changed on our property as compared to when we owned it. And you'll see that, again,
my client's attention was always to build a multifamily structure and um the you know
unfortunately there's only changed on him and you know now uh i guess because of marking conditions
and and the composition the neighborhood uh there's a proposal uh to have that reconverted back
to rm1 um and we'll review that and then it's not enough character to have uh multifamily nearby
with these rsa5 properties and we'll just quickly go through all of the properties that this this
board has approved under similar circumstances. Quickly review the 2035 plan. Look at maps of
the area, including the zoning map, which you'll see that we're nearby RM1 properties. Photographs
of the property, our plans and drawings, our meeting notices. We had a very well-attended
meeting where we had unanimous support or applications for appeal that we filed on behalf
of CRUD LLC. Deeds of property showing that they own the property and our certificates of tax
clearances. So again, you know, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Matheson
virtually raise his hand and be sworn in, and then I'll have a few questions for him. So notices of
refusal, these are both RSA 5 properties. For 1938, we're seeking to put four dwelling units.
The size of the lot is 1,763 square feet, so this is a rather large-sized lot. Again, I guess that
would be allowed as a fright. We're not asking for any dimensional variances, and we'll review
The renderings would show that we're trying to put together a property that would mimic the other properties in the neighborhood, not just from a use standpoint, but aesthetically as well.
And then the second refusal for 1940, we're asking for five dwelling units.
And again, the square footage for 1940 North 22nd Street is square footage of the lot is 2,130 square feet.
So that's another rather large size lot, which would accommodate five dwelling units.
if this was an rm1 property so we met with you know the community by way of us at the
saint elizabeth's organization and it was six board members voted in support of this project
and 12 community members voted in support this project
and then the property history i just want to give you a flavor of this this is 1938 this is a six
unit dwelling that was there so both properties has a history of multi-family use but here 1938
38 previously had six dwelling units at one point. We're only asking for four here. We think that's
a more appropriate use of those circumstances. And then the legislative history, as you can see,
in 2014, we purchased the property in 2013. In 2014, they changed the zoning from RM1 to RSA5.
And what I wanted to do was also show you the map of where we are in the neighborhood.
This was where we are, and that was RM1. And by way of that legislation, we became RSA5.
And then it's not uncommon, you know, even in spite of the 2035 plan, other property owners nearby have sought variances to convert their properties to multifamily use.
So for 1832 North 22nd Street, this board granted six dwelling units.
1836 North 22nd Street, they granted six dwelling units.
1914 North 22nd Street, they granted four dwelling units.
1800 North 22nd Street, they granted six dwelling units.
And then the 2035 plan, we point out that under the 2035 plan, the proposal is to convert this back to RM1 zoning.
the proposal is to convert this back to rm1 zoning just my client is was patiently waiting
Just my client.
for that to happen and it hasn't so that's why we're probably are availing ourselves of this
process and then maps of the area as you can see we are rsa5 but you know the next block over
is rm1 so again given the large size of lots given the history of the property
giving given you know how the zoning changed on us where we bought the property is rm1 and
it's being proposed as RM1. We think there are grounds for this variance request. And then just
this map of the area from Google Maps perspective. Photographs of the property, there are vacant
lots. Again, proof of posting for today's hearing for both properties. And then our property to
left and right on North 22nd Street. And then our plans and drawings. What we try to do is really
mimic the traditional uh philadelphia row home from a multi-family sense you have a cornice line
you have lintels you have like you know a brick a flat brick facade um you know we really hope to
add value to the neighborhood by way of this uh construction project and again we're not we don't
have any like dimensional refusals. Again, 1938, we're proposing four dwelling units. In 1940,
we're proposing five dwelling units. And then these are our hearing notices or community meeting
notices. We met with the community on January 24th at 6 p.m. We have two separate notices.
For this property in 1938, 110 addresses were notified of the community meeting,
listed the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses 1940 there are 111 addresses
the addresses that we mailed the notice to proof of mailing to those addresses
our applications for appeal on behalf of our client
our deeds to the property showing that they own these properties
and then finally our tax clearance so 895.87 is due for 1938 but that lines up with the 2024
taxes which are not due yet same thing with 1940 north 22nd street 942.06 or two but again lines
up with what would be due for 2024 which is not due yet I will stop sharing my screen I would
and ask that Mr. Matheson virtually raise his hand.
They've been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Kevin Matheson, K-E-V-I-N-M-A-T-H-I-S-E-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yeah, Mr. Matheson,
you heard everything I had to state today
about each of your properties.
Is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you.
Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair.
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 further answer, Mr. Chair. Planning Commissioner.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. A good afternoon. David Vecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, I'm going to give my testimony for both 1938 and 1940 North 22nd.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from residential single
family to residential multifamily. The zoning maps in this neighborhood were changed in 2014
and a community-supported map change. Most multifamily dwellings on this block face have
between two and three units so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant their
proposed use variants for multi-family dwellings but with a maximum of three dwelling units for
each property thanks sir chair can i just respond uh sure i think this is actually a rather
straightforward one um in that given the large size of lots like we're you know again for the
four unit, the lot size is 1,763 square feet, which if you took the RM1 calculation, that would
be four units. And the same thing with 1940, that's 2,130 square feet, which would allow for
five units. So I think under those circumstances, given its history, prior to my client purchasing
it, given the change in zoning, given the proposed change in zoning, I think it's perfectly fair and
reasonable to ask for those unit counts. Thank you. Hillary, I'm going to vote them
both together. That's fine, Mr. Chair.
10 MI 2023-004-797-1938-North 22nd Street.
Number 14 MI 2023-004-797-1938-North 22nd Street.
And number 14, MI-2023-004796, 1940 North 22nd Street, I vote yes to both.
Number 14 MI 2023-004-797-1938-North 22nd Street.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
Dishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel.
Hillary, do we have anybody else has a problem?
No, Mr. Trey, I think you can go to the one per se case we have. Thank you.
Okay, that's number five.
Okay, number five, MI 2023-005-120-3538, Cal and Med Street.
Dietrich and Sharon Rose are the owner applicants.
This application is for use as a two-family household living in an existing structure.
The proposed use of two-family household living is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the East Falls Community Council.
Mr. Rose.
They'll be rejoining shortly.
You're here.
My name is Dietrich Rose, D-I-E-T-R-I-C-H.
Right.
Do you swear or refer?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
I bought this unit 2005, and it was used at the time as a two-unit apartment with the certifying adjustment to be used for that.
But as you can see on our proposal, this unit or this property has two of everything.
It has two entrances, two separate boilers, electrical panels.
Do me a favor, Mr. Rose.
It goes a little slower so we can see the front of the property.
All right.
these are the entrances these are the panels right and gas meters stoves or heating units
and these are domestic hot water units separately right and you bought this property in 2005 you
said that's correct it was a duplex it was a duplex then it was duplex yes okay thank you
and i also paid uh
and the east falls community council sent you a letter of non-opposition am i correct that's correct
These are the licenses you had on the place?
That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
That's your notice of violation.
Evaluation.
Evaluation.