It's almost been more of a nuisance than anything else.
Raccoons, people dumping trash.
There's folks who've been using some of the nooks and crannies around that neighborhood
as shelter, creating obviously unsafe environments for the current neighbors.
So, you know, we've done our best so far to clean up.
Neighbors have reached out to us, including Scott Sperry, who's involved in the RCO there.
And as soon as we hear from them, we've gone out to make sure things are cleaned up.
I think what we're proposing is going to bring much needed housing.
It's going to contribute to the overall improvements coinciding with the work from the Delaware River Waterfront Corp.
You know, they're doing all that stuff along the sort of Delaware River walk there.
That promenade, Penn Treaty Park is looking better and better every day.
So I think it's an opportunity to take something that's been neglected, turn it into something that really fits where the neighborhood's going.
I can speak to community engagement as well. I don't want to be too long winded.
But look, David, I got you. Let me just ask him. Let me ask him a couple of questions.
Sal, regarding the appraisal report and the statements that I made regarding the need to what the appraisal report stating both that the project, the project.
The the need to what the appraisal report stating both that the project, the property, we need to develop 950 in this way in order to make 1212 viable and also the inability to develop the property for strictly for single family use.
When you first went through the CDR process, you first developed 1212, 950 was proposed just to be the building to be left how it is presently and to just use it for the offsite parking to meet the parking requirements for the number of units that you were proposing at 1212, given that it was CMX3.
you originally proposed for it to be left that way but then is it not true that as stated in
the appraisal report market conditions changed and 12-12 just wasn't going to happen unless
you guys had to do 950 the way it is is that not correct that's right yeah and you know yep
and and is it true like initially when we went to fishtown some of the neighbors had had an issue
Well, questioned, why didn't you tell us about this before?
And we did communicate to them that this was never in the original cards to develop 950.
It became necessary as market conditions changed in order for 1212 to get developed.
950 had to be developed in this way.
Is that not correct?
Sure, that is correct.
Not only at those F&A meetings, but myself and my partner, we spent time canvassing that neighborhood.
We did hold Q&A sessions outside the property throughout the fall and winter over the course of several weekends.
And we discuss some of these questions with the local folks there.
Thank you, Sal.
And Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, it seems that we somehow lost the appraiser.
He is not able to, he's not responding to our text messages.
You're an officer of the court.
You've already testified to what the appraiser said.
Right.
And I think Sal has substantiated what's set forth in the report.
They commissioned the report.
They are familiar with the report.
Um, they, they understand the content and that, and he adopted that.
So thank you.
Questions from the board.
And with that, I would move all my, my documents and my presentation.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
Mr. Chair, I do not see any hands raised for the matter.
Planning commission.
thank you chairman and good evening david vecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential
single-family zoning at this location the city changed the zoning maps in fishtown in 2015
and a community requested map change at that time this property was zoned i2 general industrial
This is a 6148 square foot lot. Assuming the appellant could meet the dimensional requirements of the zoning district, there would be allowed six dwelling units, not the 26 that are proposed. The State Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variance for 26 dwelling units and the associated dimensional variances.
Okay, thank you. Hillary, are there revised plans with this?
yes there are two pages of revised plans two pages yes and just real quickly for the record
mr mr chairman because of the lot frontage lot width requirements and the configuration of this
lot lot can't be developed as six units with frontage on marlborough street it would only
be four units and these two pages are stamped today hillary
M.I. 2024-005-731-950 Marlboro Street, I vote yes, proviso. Revised plans, two pages, stamp 4-2-25.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, I'm abstaining.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso
Iowen, my vote is yes with Proviso
Thank you
Thank you, may be excused
Yes, number 8
MI 2024
005 841
4010 Palmetto Street
Sean Ward is the attorney
There's a letter of support from Juniata Park
and a letter of support from
Council Member Lozada
now we're coming back in as a panel
good evening
Mr. Chairman and members of the board
and God bless you guys
yep we're still in a
yep we're still on a two o'clock list um uh if i may i'm seated next to your friend churl and
yeah okay thank you um i love churl she's she's the best i mean i've known her for years
but god bless you not that you had to do this could you please state your name and spell for
this stenographer in case somebody doesn't know me my name is sean ward s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d
attorney for the applicant or do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i certainly do do you waive the reading on the refusal and agree with its accuracy
mr chairman i'll do whatever you want at this point in time in the night
then could you identify that's the case could you identify your client relationship to the property
My client is Michelle Cordell, and she is the owner and applicant in this matter.
So why don't you start your presentation?
Thank you.
In my usual capacity, I've prepared and submitted my exhibit packet.
I got a small screen just so you can see that it's the full thing.
um uh but i represent michelle cordell she owns 4010 palmetto street and as the chair uh indicated
uh calendar number ending in 5841 uh my exhibit packet includes a1 notice of refusal
uh it's an application for the erection of basically is a residential garage on her property
And we'll get to that
But it resulted in two refusals
One, a non-accessory parking
Structure is not permitted
And there were side yard setbacks
Included
So we see two variances today
One use, one for dimensionals
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal
A3 is the project information form
A4 proof of ownership
A-5, proof of tax clearance.
A-6 is the elevation plans.
A-8 are photographs, including copies of the posting that was posted four times at minimum.
The subject property, street views, aerial views.
A-9 is my RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing.
As mentioned by the chair, Juniata Park submitted its letter of support.
Councilwoman
Katsy Lozado issued
a letter of non-opposition
I could not find any zoning
history with regard to Palmetto
Street and then
A13 and 14 are the zoning map
and aerial photographs so
I am not going to waste the board's time because
I know you
have your photographs and the drawings
Sean is this a
legalization is it already built
Yeah, it's built.
Thank you.
All right.
So when looking at the – all right, real quick, let me – I just want to explain.
When she purchased the property, it was premises A, as you can see, is Palmetto Street.
Premises B is 4009 I Street.
That's where her residence is.
So she bought – you know, premises B is her house.
Premises A is the lot behind it, and in between, and I'll show you on the plans, is a common driveway in between the two streets.
Just to be clear, she paid her taxes yesterday because last time this was listed, taxes weren't due, but I had her do that.
But I think this will really clearly show what we're looking at, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
over on the left side is i street back here is palmetto street which is a back street with
nobody there's no rsa5 properties fronting on palmetto street they're all the back
of everything that's owned by people on i street so uh it has two entrances one from palmetto
one from I and then there's the common drive in between the properties there's a you know a common
easement her house is out front on I Street she erected a one-story prefab garage at at the rear
the garage door faces the common driveway so she can you know exit the rear of her home and you
know park a vehicle here and then get into her garage all right so let me blow that back down
I would like to teach everybody how to use the control 0, 2, and 1, so that way you can blow stuff up and shrink it down.
I would like to teach everybody how to use the control 0, 2, and 1.
So the structure is 15 feet wide, and it's 32 feet long, but it's wholly within her property line.
Again, if you hit control 0, it brings the photo into.
Again, the multiple postings of this property for all the hearings that we've had and continued.
Just a distant photo of that same shot.
Right here is her home on I Street.
This is Palmetto Street, both directions.
As you can see, there are no RSA5 residential structures facing Palmetto Street.
this is a google earth photo of the property before the garage was
erected and it would be right here right now
here is a picture of the newly erected garage which is directly behind her house across
the common driveway another photo of same palmetto street being in the rear
just a couple photos of the interior it was a prefab uh you know reconstructed uh you know
structure uh here's her house uh facing i street back here is the lot as you can see
the only structures along palmetto street despite all these lots being uh zoned rsa5
uh there are only accessory structures which are uh and i would point out i i did a quick
search through atlas and opa there's 12 properties on high street that own the 12 properties on
palmetto so nothing on palmetto is owned independently or operated in any other
fashion other than being in common ownership with the residential properties on high street
uh the zoning meeting notice that was mailed out the addresses certificate of mailing went up to
98 different properties the letter from juniata park which the board has the letter from ketsy
lozato's office non-opposition uh again the zoning map and you know again i point out all these
from this point here
these 12 properties
own these 12 lots
above is a different zoning
classification so I'm not even going to get into that
again this is the deed map
from Atlas
another aerial photo
another aerial photo
but as you can see there are
accessory structures
with regard to the residential properties
and you know we're
We are not looking to do anything different other than an accessory residential garage.
When she bought the property, if it was sold to her as a consolidated lot, we wouldn't be seeking the variances we need today because they'd probably be permitted by right.
So that's all I have.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to waste the board's time.
Michelle is on the line.
But as an officer to court, you know, I know that the day is dragging long and, you know, I can confirm that she has reviewed my exhibits and she would verify everything is true and correct and adopt it as her own testimony.
And, Sean, you can't get into that garage from Palmetto Street, am I correct?
Correct.
It's only accessible.
You have to go down that driveway and go in right.
The common driveway.
Right.
So you come out the back of her house, and then you go across.
All right.
Questions from the board.
Would you guys object to a proviso requiring a certificate of occupancy?
I think we need a residential certificate of occupancy because it's not for-
A certificate of occupancy for the structure that was built without permits.