And 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, I have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we actually have a letter of support.
Thank you. Please feel seen.
May I share my screen?
All right. As I indicated, my name is Alan Occamson, and I'm representing the owner at 2316 North 10th Street.
I have a packet of materials, which include Exhibit 1, a deed to the property, showing that my client owns the property.
Second, Exhibit Certificate of Tax Clearance, showing that my client's a good standing with the city of Philadelphia with respect to their real estate taxes.
Exhibit 3 is the notice of refusal.
You'll see this is a CMX 2 property on the corner of 10th Street in Dakota.
All we're looking to do is swap out the commercial component and put a residential component.
There are other refusals, but that's the gist of this matter.
We have our application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area,
architectural plans and drawings, and most importantly,
the letter of support from the 37th Ward Executive Democratic Committee,
where we received unanimous support at a well-attended meeting.
where we receive unanimous support at a well-attended meeting.
First, deeds of property showing that NYG LLC is the owner of the property and just so the board
knows in the audience is Isaac Katz, the member of NYG LLC who will adopt my testimony.
Second exhibit is the certificate of tax clearance showing that we're in good standing.
uh third exhibits the newest refusal uh so we have a refusal uh first uh in terms of the amount
of units uh under the code we're allowed three dwelling units uh we're asking and one commercial
and we're asking for five dwelling units given that this is a corner property and the given the
way it's situated we think that this is a fair reasonable use of the property and the neighborhood
unanimously agreed with that. The second refusal has to do with the fact that we're swapping out
the commercial component with residential and actually the neighborhood isn't fully in support
of that. They don't believe that commercial is a good use of this set part of the neighborhood and
they would prefer residential use. Third refusal has to do with the configuration of the lot and
our requirement to have two staircases given that we're four stories. We're having our roof
deck access structure is not set back five feet but you'll see from a safety perspective we still
fall within the spirit of the code and then the fourth refusal just has to do with we're providing
some off-street parking and a curb cut where no parking is allowed anyway and the neighborhood's
glad about that as well our application appeal to the zba along with our notice of refusal
and our project information form.
Maps of the area.
Again, this is a very highly dense area of the city of Philadelphia.
You'll see we're surrounded by orange, which is RM1, as well as I2 and then CMX2.
Again, they prefer not to have full residential to support the commercial corridor on Germantown
avenue rather than bringing commercial component to a really just a residential neighborhood
photographs of the property this is a corner property again on the corner of 10th and dakota
views of the property from dakota street views from the right of the property on 10th street
to the left of the property on 10th street as you can see there's really no commercial component
here to see what by the playground it's a family oriented neighborhood uh to uh the right of the
property in west dakota to left of the property in west dakota and just examples exterior of like
what mr captain his company is have done this is a family-owned business that's been in business
for well over a generation so they're very good about you know finding properties uh and really
developing them responsibly and in a good and workmanlike manner. More examples of interiors.
This is the type of work product that he's going to do for this project as well. More example
interiors. And then our plans and drawings. I will reduce the size of this. Obviously,
I'm just trying to fit my screen. If we need to enlarge it, I will. But you can see from this
site plan. We're taking one parking spot, which is the one of the refusals, but there's no parking
allowed on that side on Dakota. Another refusal has to do with the roof deck access structure
not being set five feet. We'll see from the floor plans that this one pilot house, which is the
roof deck access structure, is not set back five feet, but everywhere else around it is set back
five feet. So no, there'll be no chance of injury where anyone's falling and we'll comply with the
code in all within the spirit of the code. So you can see that the reason why we need this roof deck
access structure because we have a four-story building, we need two forms of egress. One is
going to be on one side of the street and one's going to be on the other side of the street.
Units one and two are bi-levels, the first and second floor. Unit three is on the is which is
unit C is on the third floor by itself, excuse me, it's on the second floor by itself. And then
units four and five are by levels on the third and fourth floors. Everyone has access to the
roof deck, which was also important to the community in the sense that everyone had some
outdoor living. Here's just a side view of what we're planning to do with red brick to kind of
match the character of the neighborhood. There's just another elevation kind of showing where we
There's just another elevation kind of showing where we are in terms of a side view in the floor plans.
are in terms of a side.
And then again, most importantly, we met with the neighborhood through the 37th Ward Executive Democratic Committee.
And as you can see, 10 people were in support of this project and zero people were opposed for this project.
So with that being said, I would ask that Mr. Katz virtually raise his hand so he can adopt my testimony.
And then I would take any questions that the board may have.
Mr. Katz, please spell your full name and I swear you in.
Isaac Katz, I-S-A-A-C-K-A-T-Z.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Yeah, Mr. Katz, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
All right.
I have no further questions.
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Counselor, what is the...
Mr. Holloman.
Mr. Holloman, go ahead.
Tom, you're muted.
You're muted again.
Tom, you're good now.
You were muted.
What is the hardship for the additional units?
Well, the additional one unit.
Again, it's just a way there is not a hardship, so to speak, but more of how it's situated.
This is a corner property.
It was important to the neighborhood in terms of affordability.
We're trying to make this affordable product.
By having that additional unit, we can make it more affordable.
And in terms of it being a corner property, from a safety perspective, we have access on two streets.
Also, did you fill out the affordability code requirements?
we well I'm not we're not seeking as a zoning bonus is that what you're asking yes no we did
not seek we did not seek a zoning bonus thank you and I think under the current
legislation we couldn't because we're under 10 units thank you any other questions from the board
no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
i see no hands chair thank you planning commission thank you chair to chico ian
hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing commercial mixed use zoning at this location we recognize the difficulty with
ground floor commercial use requirement at this location however no unique physical conditions
prevent the applicant from adhering to their requirements for dwelling unit count roof deck
location or parking access affordability is not a hardship in this case the city
planning commission recommends that the board deny these variances
am i 2021 that's 001 760 2316 north 10th street my vote is yes professor plaza my vote is yes
thomas halliman my vote is no
john munlock my vote is
on you you muted we didn't get your vote john
John Munlock my vote is no okay so it's a split and we'll have to get one of the other board
board members who are not in attendance to read the transcript and we'll have a vote
going forward thank you next case number four on our list mi 2021-001
Frank we lost you
can you guys hear me secretary plaza it seems like um the chairman might have bounced out if
You can continue, please.
Will do.
Calendar number MI 2020, I'm sorry, 2021-001755234-36 South 4th Street.
234-36 South 4th Street.
It looks like we have Attorney Messimer.
If you can promote her, please.
She's coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you, Kylie.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Can you please identify yourself for the breakfast?
Catherine Missimer. It's M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Okay. And do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
We agree to waive the reading. However, I will note for the record,
a rear yard refusal was issued in this case. However, there are three street frontages
and the fourth side is connected. It's attached. So we're not required to provide a rear yard in
this case. Okay. And 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, sir. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I'll share my screen now.
Thank you. Good afternoon. As mentioned, Catherine Missimer representing the Foreman Family Realty LP and 234 South 4th Street LP. Owners of the property located at 230 to 36 South 4th Street.
This is in the Society Hill neighborhood of Philadelphia. We're here today with an application
to restructure the lot lines to create one lot from these three existing lots, the partial
demolition of an existing structure, and the new construction of an addition to the existing
structure for use as a single family home. With me today is owner's representative Mr. Michael
Foreman and project architect Ming Wan. As you can see from your packages, we do have a letter
of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla, as well as a letter of support from the Society
Hill Civic Association. This lot has three street frontages. This is the zoning plan.
I'll shrink so you can see. We front on 4th, Locust, and Leithgow streets.
And our intent here is to preserve the bulk of the current historic structures located
along 4th Street to use the reconfigured structure along with a new addition as a single family home
with two off-street parking spaces. Those would be access from Leithgow Street. This project has
taken a long journey to get here. We completed the Philadelphia Historic Commission process
to authorize the partial demolition of one of those structures and the preservation of the
two remaining structures. And we've gone through a redesign as well as COVID. So this is a two-year
process in the making society hill civic association has been extremely responsive
and supportive throughout that process um i will just note as we walk through the plans
we did make some changes throughout that period that has allowed us to open up and provide a
little more green space you'll see here this is a locust street that you're looking at along the
front edge here and this is fourth this is the project site we'll be preserving these two historic
buildings and this is a current vacant parking lot and that's where the addition would go and
this is the view along locust street you'll note the fence in place as well as this curb cut here
this will go away parking will now be accessed via leaf gow and this is the current condition
on this portion of leaf gow street you'll note that there's already parking access from leaf gow
and this is a series of views of the project site from the neighborhood.
This project, as I mentioned, does generate two very technical refusals. The first for
the rear parking. In a typical situation, this would have not generated a refusal being that
this is an RM1 property. However, given that we're on three street frontages, each street is
considered a front. Therefore, although the parking is accessed from Leif Gow, it's technically
creating a refusal because that's a technical front rather than a rear. As you'll see, the rear
yard would be here on this fourth side where we connect to the existing buildings. And this view
allows you to see the existing parking along Leif Gow Street. It's essentially an alley in this
location, and there are no front doors fronting on Leif Gow here. So there wouldn't really be any
conflict with pedestrians or the like. There's also no on-street parking at this location.
There's also no on-street parking at this location. And then the last refusal cited would be the fence
height. This is an existing condition. We're proposing to put it back. It's exceeding in
height. It is a seven foot high fence. It's wrought iron. There will be landscaping. However, this is
the condition in the neighborhood. As you can see from some of the several surrounding photos,
um it's also the condition on site today um there are several locations here where this type of
ornate fencing is included in the properties specifically at brigham court directly across
locust street from the property um they have a red brick wall that does have the same height
and similar landscape so those are the two refusals that we believe should have been
In RAISE, we have discussed all three with Society Hill Civic Association.
You do have their letter of support.
This proposal will not impair the development of neighboring properties.
Again, it's more consistent.
The RM1 by right zoning would allow for multifamily up to about 19 units.
Both the Civic Association and the owner felt that that density is inappropriate here,
and all are in support of the single-family use.
We also feel that this will be less impactful to the neighbors and is in conformity with
the neighborhood context.