of the basement yeah so the just to be clear the other property hasn't been developed yet
uh and we've only done 23 the one that you showed us the photo of that's down the street that's
already occupied oh i see the one that's down the street i believe that one was a duplex i believe
No, this one's a triplex, Nathan.
Sorry, this is 1127 South 20th Street.
So that one is a tri-thot.
I thought we were talking about 1006 South 19th Street, which is a little bit closer to this property.
I believe this one was the basement did have living space at the lower level.
And then are you managing, are you doing your own property management?
Yeah, all my property management, assuming this is kept as a rental, would be done in-house.
We don't hire any third party management and we don't do any management for any third parties as well.
So everything that we manage is owned by us in-house.
OK. And are you opposed to commercial trash pickup?
Am I? I honestly don't know enough about it. I guess in theory, I am not opposed to it.
I typically do smaller multifamily development, so I've never had to have to cross that bridge.
um but i i mean i don't i don't i mean i i pay the city of philadelphia fee i don't mind paying
a commercial pickup a fee okay i think my concern is just this is a corner property we're putting
six units back next to a commercial use it's a lot of density on a site that's currently
open parking and trash storage so i do want to be aware of like there is an impact that's
happening in this neighborhood at the street level questions from our attorney no chair
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Murray Spencer with their hand up.
Chair, we have a Murray Spencer with their hand up. They're coming back in as a panelist.
They're coming back in.
I'm unmuted. Hi. Yes, you are, sir. Could you turn your video on?
Hold on a minute. Sure. Yes. All right. Hi. Mr. Spencer, could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer uh murray spencer m-u-r-r-a-y s-p-e-n-c-e-r you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do mr spencer you're from the rco right
correct i'm chair of the zoning committee yep please proceed sir so the primary objection to
this application is that we had i've been on a zoning committee for 15 years and chair for seven
and this is the first project and all the time i've been on the committee that has basically
They refused to just show us elevations.
They're building or they intend to build 923.
They had no elevations to show of that.
And I had emailed the attorney several times before the zoning meeting that, you know, that's a requirement.
It's listed on our website.
We want to see elevations and plans of all projects that are seeking variances.
And she came to the meeting without them.
We usually only allowed people to come to the meeting without them.
But I thought that maybe she would bring some with her because we didn't get plans at all right before the meeting.
And the first part of the meeting basically was with all the committee members.
And there were five of us present, you know, having the same complaint.
And two of the architecture review committee members were also there with the same complaint.
You know, she mentioned elevations in some of her presentation.
But, you know, all the stuff that I've seen today and I've been on since two o'clock, everyone who has requested anything has had elevations along with plans.
And that's all we asked. So that's the primary reason for the refusal. The parking lot was discussed, but that's not the primary reason. There was just not enough information for us to make a determination as to what kind of buildings it was going to be, what material was going to be in the exterior. And that's something that, you know, we have been mitigating for, like I said, the 15 years that I've been on the board. And even before that, when I had to present as an architect at the board, I always show plants and elevations. And that's all we asked. We didn't get them. And that's why we're opposed to this.
okay mr mr mr what wait mr spencer i did notice quite a few people voted for it
yes they just didn't care about the plans or well they were i think they'll be their tenants or
people that live nearby okay okay yes but i mean zoning committee we have four zoning committee
members who live within you know with or in the night down the block of carpentry street one on
20th street so and they were all opposed just because of the lack of information okay thank
Thank you. Meredith, do you want to respond?
Do you want to ask any questions?
No, I don't want to ask any questions.
I just, you know, again, with all due respect to Mr. Spencer and to Sazna, you know, typically elevations are really effective when you don't have a real life example of what is intended to be built.
And so in this particular case, L&I only requires a section, which is what is included on the plans.
And that's why we included the photograph of a development that was just developed by my client to show exactly what is intended in terms of the exterior elevation.
So providing an elevation would have essentially just been a black and white two-dimensional version of what you see here.
So we certainly respect that position, but, you know.
But you're going to build the same building next door, and you don't even have drawings of that either.
I mean, I just want to say, I'm an architect.
That's how I base everything.
Listen, Meredith, we're not going to, you know, are you done with your comment?
I am done with my comment.
Mr. Spencer, thank you.
We do appreciate you calling in.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have George Leon. They are coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is George Leon, G-E-O-R-G-E-L-E-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Leon, are you a neighbor?
All right. Please proceed.
Okay. I am in your neighbor. I'm directly across the street at 918 South 20th.
I also happen to be on the SOSNA board and was at the meeting.
I want to first point out in the attorney's testimony a couple of mischaracterizations.
In fact, the block is not predominantly multifamily and commercial.
and commercial. It consists of seven single-family homes, three two-unit condo buildings,
It consists of seven single-family homes, three two-unit condo buildings.
one three-unit condo, which is on the corner of 20th and Montrose, so the corner property can be
three, plus two apartments over each of only two commercial properties on the block. That is what
the block consists of. So it's actually predominantly a single family on my side of the street all the
way along the line. Our problem, the other issue, you know, the attorney mentioned that,
geez, you know, the lot is 16 by 66. And, you know, because it's only one foot short on one
side, then it's, you need a variance for three. Yeah, there's a reason for that. Every lot on
that block is 16 by 66, including my own. So that if we permit that unit there at 16 by 66 to go
for three units, then it really sets a precedent that each and every property on that block could
be converted, right? In other words, on the SOSTA zoning committee, we are extremely careful about
setting precedents that can boomerang. And this is a classic case of that. And it's one of the
reasons that I'm surprised the attorney didn't mention that. That was one of our main objections
was a precedent that it sets. So then why can't I subdivide my property into three units
and request a variance and do it? Why can't virtually every property on that block
be converted to three units.
There was also mentioned that the applicant
had no relation to the pizza shop.
That's not really true.
He's purchasing the property from the pizza shop owner.
And you can see that that building is rather old,
the pizza shop.
There's two apartments over top of that.
There would be absolutely no reason
why the pizza shop owner
who was selling the parking lot property
to the applicant can't come back and say, you know, we want to demo that property. And since
the property next door at 921 has received a zoning variance for three units, we're also going
to apply for three units for each of those. So that would give us potentially a total of 12 units
between from 9-17 to 9-23, South 20th.
So again, the problems.
So you think the pizza shop's going to?
Well, I mean, there would certainly be an economic incentive to do so
if they had a fair degree of confidence that they could develop it to six units.
I just want to be clear.
We're not purchasing the lot from the owner of the pizza shop.
We're purchasing a lot from the landlord that has a tenant that is a pizza shop and he currently has a lease.
All right. I appreciate your comments. Good. Mr. Leon, please proceed.
Yes. So, in fact, there was there was a number of objections besides the the parking.
But I also want to comment on the the what the attorney noted about the curb cut.
You'll notice even from the photo showing there that there are cars parked on the 20th side, 20th Street side,
even though there's a curb cut there, that is legal parking. There is signage there.
So it's not like that's currently not parking. The concern of the parking is not only would
the cars from the parking lot and the pizza, that's understandable that even if somebody
built a single family home there, it's going to eliminate that parking lot. The concern is
we're going to have that parking on the street plus from six units, right? From six units
and potentially over the years from 12 units.
So what we really see, even though it's characterized as a de minimis variance,
it, in fact, through precedent setting, gets us down a slippery slope
that could potentially change the character of that entire block.
From a relatively low-density block right now, like I said,
seven single-family homes, three two-unit condos.
I'm sorry, three two-unit condos, one three-unit condo.
And the two apartments, it's relatively low density. We could see that density triple over the years if this if this variance is granted.
And and I also just want to mention that NOAC, in fact, is a co-coordinating RCO for for this neighborhood and that their third letter should carry as much weight as as the letter.
So that's all of my testimony.
All right. Hold on. Hold on. Yes, sir. Meredith, you have any questions?
George, you mentioned a lot about the potential precedent setting effect of,
you know, granting a de minimis variance in this case. But of all the properties that you've
mentioned on South 20th Street, are any of them currently vacant lots? No, they are not.
are any of them currently vacant lots no they are not okay that's that's my only question all right
Got that.
thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience chair we have madeline she's coming
back in as a panelist now do we have any other hands up all right thank you no chair we have no
more hands. Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Ms. Shacumba, please unmute yourself.
Chair, I don't know if she's having technical problems or not.
It looks like she's unmuted.
Try one more time.
Madeline Shacumba, please unmute yourself.
I think she's on the other RCO, am I correct?
All right.
She's not coming on?
No, Chair, I don't hear anything.
All right.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change in zoning from the current RM1 residential multifamily.
The requested deviations from the land area per dwelling unit and occupied area requirements are de minimis.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variances for land area per dwelling unit and occupied area.
Meredith, I'm going to hold this and I'm going to talk to the Board about it, and we're going to vote on it October 1st at 2 p.m.
Noted. Thank you very much.
And thank you for everybody who got involved.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience who their two o'clock case has not been called?
Let me see.
Anybody in the audience?
I see no handshare.
All right.
We're going to take a five-minute break because I think we're going to get a little bit of a change in planning, right?
So take a five-minute break, and then we'll come back, and we'll go through the list.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be sharing this meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is
Tenetta Graham, our board member.
President, Mr. Chair. Board member Michael Johns.
I'm sure he's there somewhere.
He'll be back. Board member
Ty Wynn. President, Mr. Chairman. Board member Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our attorney, Ryan McSherry, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
A recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you can 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 an appearance to the interested party in the case.
There are three ways.
You can identify the case property address in your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member, or you can call the ZBA 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.
Following is for our remote attendees.