about this this board approved it last time and due to a miscommunication prior counsel
So it's already been established, that use.
So the hardship is the fact that to have to recreate it back to two units would be a hardship
to my client.
And here's the paperwork showing the zoning permits, the previous notice of refusal, the
notice of decision, again, just showing the licensing for this property.
and again you know this is an rm1 property it's a corner property
This is an RM1 property. It's a corner property. Photographs of the property from 13th Street
from Carpenter. Zoning hearing notice postings. 13th Street to right, to left. Carpenter to right,
to left. Interior photos. He's purposefully kept one of the units empty because we're allowed to
two units as a right so he didn't want to have an illegal use he he honestly did not realize
what happened here and he was shocked so just a couple things there's no uh living
there's no living in the basement it's open you just basically go through the front door
you go down steps there's some washer and dryers but there's no living down there and and go oh
sorry garbage is stored in the rear back here so everyone has access to it but you know there's a
unit on the first floor and that's a two bedroom one bath two bedrooms uh and the baths here and
then you have the living room here and then you have two other units partly one and they're by
levels um so uh you see here it's a it's a living room in the kitchen and you go up to
the third floor is two bedrooms. Here, this one. On the second floor, you have a living room and a kitchen, and then you have one bedroom.
Then we met with the community. It was a very well-attended meeting on August 18th.
Proof of mailing, our application for appeal, along with the notice of refusal in the project information form.
Here's the deed showing that my client owns the property.
And our certificate of tax clearance.
I would ask that David be sworn in.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
David Krupnick, K-R-U-P-N-I-C-K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
David, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Is it true and correct?
and do you adopt this your own testimony yes specifically oh all right
uh yes yes yes all right thank you 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 see no hands share planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive
the plan recommends no change in zoning from the current RM1 residential multifamily zoning.
The property was granted a variance for three units in 2018, and the three-family configuration
is existing. The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their requested variance
for three dwelling units. MI 2025-002-576-933 South 13th Street, I vote yes.
John's, my vote is yes. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Iowa, my vote is yes.
Thank you, sir.
All right, so we're going to first hear a...
Mr. Nockman has a complaint against Del and I.
Leonard?
Leonard, we waited for you.
He wanted to start without you.
I said, I'm not starting without you.
Exactly.
I could.
Mr. Knockerson, just state your name for that.
Alan Knockerson.
Right.
And, Leonard, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Of course.
Leonard R. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I understand, Alan, you also have a variance case relative.
Do you want to handle this first?
Yeah, I believe this is appropriate, Mr. Chair.
Why don't you go?
Yeah, the board does not grant the L&I appeal.
Then we'll go to the variance appeal.
So Mr. Reuter told me this is actually a case of first impression in front of the zoning board, where 1835 Diamond Street is a historic property.
It's in a historic district, corner 19th and Diamond Street.
And because it falls within the confines of the historic designation incentives in the Philadelphia Zoning Code, where if you have a property that's historic that has a prior use that's non-residential of at least 2,500 square feet, basically by rehabilitating it, reviving it, having some residential use, you will convert the zoning here, which is RM1, to CMX3.
where it's based on far this property is the lot size is 2500 square feet if
this property is the lot size is 2500 square feet if we're under base zoning for this property we
would have five units as of right no parking the issue is that we're in the north central
philadelphia overlay district where there's two requirements of us in generally in this
overlay district where if it's an rm1 property the unit count is based instead of the first
1440 square feet you get 361 unit per 360 square feet and then 480 thereafter it requires 425
square feet per unit so we would be allowed i guess we would be allowed four where if under
the base overlay under the base zoning we'd be allowed five we're seeking six but we're trying
avail ourselves of this historic designation incentive program within the Philadelphia
zoning code. The second portion of the overlay is when you have more than three units, then
going forward you would have a parking requirement such that we now have two parking spots required
of us. There is a conflict in the Philadelphia zoning code where I think that the historic
designation incentives should apply over the overlay um again i gave a very detailed brief
here and and you know you if you read it you would see that like it the the code these code
provisions for the historic designation incentives were designed to give uh value to people who want
to like revive these historic properties such as this and it's this property is not just a historic
property on its own and i think it's been historic since 1986 it's also in the the diamond street
historic district which you know you'll hear time and time again we we've presented matters before
them where they're they're very proud of that district and um to encourage this type of double
element we've we thought we were shocked that we were actually not going to get it i actually
thought that this these provisions in the code which basically converts an rm1 property to cmx3
zoning where we would allow six units and because we're not expanding the actually building envelope
we wouldn't fall within the cmx3 requirements of parking of usually three to ten there is no
parking requirement and if you look at the pictures that on you can go on google street view
you know on the 19th street side there's this beautiful like stone stone like fence so the
again for the variance point of view the only way we can get that parking back there is to destroy
that stone fence which the historic commission would never let us do anyway so that's our
hardship there um so we think that if you read the code this is essentially an overlay and this
overlay the historic incentive designation overlay should override this overlay given
the intent of the legislation thank you letter so uh this is kind of a a little again it is a case
of first impression in the sense that um you have heard actually not that long ago the uh
the house that was owned by the hara krishnas where this provision came into into play yeah
um but this is the first time where this uh you know alleged conflict between uh the section so
it's the exemptions from the use tables uh which is just for the record i'm not going to bother
sharing my screen i think i can just cite the provisions this is um 14602 sub
seven so it's used tables sub seven and it's the exemptions exception to use tables for certain
historic structures so um everything mr occamson said for the most part is is correct the property
is historic it is uh contributing to the diamond street historic district since 1986 it's actually
the first historic district um in the city first historic district that was created in the city
because we weren't able to designate districts until the mid-80s when we put it into the code.
The property definitely qualifies.
I believe they actually even, and they went to the Historical Commission.
Dr. Farnham, the Executive Director of the Historical Commission,
confirmed that the property was historic and that it had the certified prior use
that would qualify it for the exemption.
All that's correct.
the problem is uh again what mr notkinson pointed out is that the overlay provision
uh in 14501 of the so 14500 is the overlay is a chapter of the code dealing with the overlay
So 14500 is a chapter of the code dealing with the overlay districts, and 501 is the
general provisions, and under 2, sub 2, it says that the overlay, basically it says that
the overlay district, when, so all applicable zoning code regulations apply in overlay districts,
except that when overlay district standards conflict with standards that would otherwise apply under this zoning code,
the regulations of the overlay district govern.
So, as Mr. Nockamson alluded to, the overlay in this case is the North Central Philadelphia overlay district,
and it basically has a restriction on the number of units per lot size.
And it was L&I's position that that provision, because of 501, sub 2, that the restriction of the overlay takes precedent, that it preempts, and because there is a conflict, the overlay provision governs.
And honestly, we wish, in this case, especially with historic property, we agree, the purpose
of that provision was to incentivize adaptive reuse of historic structures so that people
wouldn't need to come in and ask for a variance to potentially demolish a building or build
something else.
And again, there's some discussion about whether we would try to change this in the
future.
um you know again there's there's arguments on both sides where you know certainly communities
may still want their overlay provisions to predominantly you know to take precedent over
the exceptions for for historic properties but it's the city's position that as much as in this
case we may uh want the historic the exemption for the exception from the use tables for historic
properties to apply the overlay provisions dealing with the interpretation of the overlay
and basically you know if there's a conflict who wins clearly states that the overlay provision
wins in this instance and the ncp just won't won't allow this as a permitted use we don't think just
Just to address one of Ms. Narkinson's other arguments, as of right now, the exception
for historic properties from the use tables is not an overlay.
It's literally just what it says.
These are exceptions to the use table.
So it wasn't intended at the time to constitute its own overlay.
I mean, you could argue like historic districts themselves are kind of quasi overlays.
But as of right now, we don't have overlays for historic properties per se in the code.
But so, you know, the city's position is that, unfortunately, we believe that the language of the code is unambiguous and that the overlay provision has to prevail here.
Alan, do you want to respond?
I just think if you look at this special form of legislation that was passed, I do believe that the spirit of this legislation is that it would trump the base zoning and that an overlay, an unintended overlay would not affect the benefits of that legislation.
That legislation applies to every single property in the city of Philadelphia.
It was meant to live above the base zoning and the overlays, and I think the intent of the legislation, maybe not artfully drafted, and maybe they didn't think of that consequence, but still I do think that the intent is to allow this project to go as of right and that the L&I appeal should be granted.
right so mi 2025 002 399 um appeal denied all right thank you and then we'll go right to the
well get the vote first
my vote is appeal denied michael johns my vote is appeal denied
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is appeal denied.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is appeal denied.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is appeal denied.
All right, so then we're going to move right to the variants.
Thank you.
MI 2025-01-001-580, 1835 Diamond Street.
1835 Diamond Street. Mr. Nockmson, just for the record, state your name.
Mr. Nockleton, just for the record, state your name.
Alan Nockmson.
And I would say there's a letter of non-opposition from Strawberry Mansion Community Concerns with enforceable provisos.
I am glad that we do have the non-opposition of the community.
I think that this project, whether it should be through an LNI appeal or a variance, it should proceed forward.
with taking a historic property.
Could you identify your client
in relationship to the property?
My client is 1835 W. Diamond, LLC.
And to my left is Nicholas Payton,
who's one of his representatives.
So why don't you start your...
All right.
So as you can see...
Before you start,
I noticed that our attorney is leaving
and Ryan McShary will take over
as our attorney.
All right, great.
And then I think I have to have Ms. Graham ask me some questions.
Sure, Ms. Graham.
You've said it an awful lot, but go ahead.
Good afternoon.
Did you know your documents five days in advance in this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do with reservation of right as to my L&I appeal.
Thank you.
Got you.
Thank you.
You may share your screen and proceed with your case.
uh so you've heard a lot about the case i think we don't need to look at the refusal
um you know we're looking to do six residential units and this historic property
um we actually had a really productive meeting with the strawberry mansion uh community concern
we have no objection to any of the provisos so there is no basement use there no issue um
everyone has access to it so in terms of trash the trash will be stored in in the basement as