And I could just say, Council, if you can provide a letter from the SOSNA and the letters and petitions that you mentioned, we don't have this.
Yeah, I'm gonna upload this whole package that I have here presented today, so you'll have that.
Okay, thank you.
yep we have murray there murray wants to talk
yes hi could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer uh murray spencer m-u-r-r-a-y
s-p-e-n-c-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
uh yes i do let me turn on my video please proceed sir are you a neighbor i am the chair
the software zoning committee thank you very much i've testified before this committee several times
so um two two things earlier you wanted to know if this was a block that the 610 system
move you were questioning was on no that was the 2300 block 2300 block of st albans place
i lived there when i was a student at penn uh grad school um uh but but to this property 2119
st albans so we had a meeting uh in august about this uh with the architecture view committee who
was totally against it. And we had a meeting with the SOS, I mean, with the zoning committee.
And basically the SOS and the zoning committee is totally against it too, except for one member.
You know, I testified last year for, against, I'm sorry, a property that
wanted to add four stories plus a roof deck. And at the meeting, I mentioned that
that there was a letter from the engineering company, I believe, that maybe David referenced
earlier, but we were supposed to receive a report. And the report that he referenced,
we have not received. And the gentleman that did testify said that he's done three and
four stories, but this is three and four stories plus a roof deck. So that's really like three
extra floors on top of you know but a hundred year old foundation and i testified left last
year against a certain i mean a specific property that came up and david was the attorney and nothing
gets david but i mean it's just i'm an architect i just you know not saying that it can't be done
it's just you know questionable whether it can be done safely um but more importantly the four
story block plus roof deck on a two-story block house even with three stories this is is really
a bit much and um uh really though i can't testify for she did ask me she's the representative
noack to mention that she she did not get the report the engineering report that that was
mentioned uh by by mr orphanese earlier and when no act was totally against this project
We only wrote the letter of non-opposition because of the 24 people at the meeting, there were 16 that went in favor of it.
And that's the only reason why it's just numbers, not basically common sense.
and that's the only reason why it's just numbers not basically common sense and that's you know
that's i'll just leave it at that i just don't think it's a good idea and and the zoning committee
and the architecture committee don't think it's a good idea either all right murray thank you very
much you're welcome a couple questions hold it it has a few questions murray you're aware that in
2012 the zoning code changed from regulating stories and height to just right with the new
code the current code is not new anymore to just regulating height correct and no longer
regulate stories 38 feet right so but before that used to be three stories and 35 feet right so they
stopped regulating the number of stories correct right right all right and i'm just kind of in a
second we have zach just to talk about just not talk but does this testimony include roof decks
above the fourth floor but you've also i'm i'm flashing something up on the screen now this is at
22nd and cater so this is a this was a modification to an existing two-story building
um where what what ends up happening is when you do the taller third floor instead of doing upper
floors that are in context with the floors below you're familiar you get a you get a top hat kind
of abe lincoln stove type still like hat type of look for a building you're familiar with this
building murray right i am yeah and then another option that we often see is that where they
completely demolish a building and what they do is they then build to 38 feet new construction
here now this is the end of a block which doesn't have the same same restrictions that a mid block
does but you can see how the ground floor is out of the ground and they've built to 38 feet here
which even mid-block it could be this height with the with the the front door that high out of the
ground as long as the third floor and any floors above that were set back correct i did yes and
there's a precedent and there's a person that will taller buildings on corners of any any block no
matter two or three store i mean three or four stories um so i mean i'm from philadelphia right
and you see that all the time but i guess what i'm saying is this building with the third floor set
back with the front door five feet out four feet out of the ground is something that could be done
as a matter of right but in this case my clients have maintained the front door exactly where it
is right now maintain the second floor exactly where it is now but you you acknowledge that this
is a building that could be built at this property as long as the third floor was set back eight feet
and then the fourth floor was also set back eight feet as long as it was below 38 feet in height
correct yes okay that doesn't mean we like it but yeah and and and again i apologize for that i just
got the structural letter today the final letter and we had intended to get it to you sooner so
that wasn't intentional and i'll be forwarding to you guys afterwards any other questions and
then if i can just just have zach if he's done can zach just testify that whether he's done
root decks on top of the third and fourth floors that have not had structural you want to bring
back yeah just for a second please david pick it up come on zach
hello hi zach you've already been sworn just state your name for the record
zachary winters go ahead zach real quick uh murray brought up uh murray spencer brought up
the question or the issue of whether the four store the three and four story editions above
of existing two stories included a deck above the fourth floor and any of those that you referenced
that did not that you said none of them had structural impacts upon the properties either
side did any of those have decks above the fourth floor uh yes all but two of them okay thank you
okay um planning commission good afternoon Liz Fuseli on behalf of the Philadelphia Planning
commission we are going to hold um um because if we were not apprised of the new information
right okay so um so we're not going to vote on this yeah we're going to hold this uh take it
on the kit how much time we want to give this uh do you want to give two weeks yeah why don't we
go two weeks and we'll vote on that uh do i say 21st that is 28th 28th 28th we'll vote on the 28th
at 2 p.m thank you you're going to submit then i'm just going to upload this package everything
is there any other information out there did you get a letter from cessna by the way i'm sorry
murray i did and i included it with my package that i submitted the other day
i'm at the zba i'm sorry he did not oh no he did not we got no whack we got no whack we did
we got an acknowledgement from zba that you know you got the letter i'll have it reset
yeah i have it but you're right they send it after
two weeks it was less than two weeks ago all right so thank you thank you thank you mr knockamson
Mr. Nockamson, MI 2026-004-174-1221 West Wing of Hawkins Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Mr. Nockamson, I think I remember you were here this morning.
Yeah, I'll try to be a little bit more pleasant.
Could you please, just for the record, state your name?
Uh, Alan, did you identify your client in the relationship to the property? Yes. Reduced, uh, price, real estate, LLC, and in the virtual audience, uh, should be it's member. Dante Reeves.
Council, we have anything from here relative to updates. Yes. We get a letter because I didn't get one.
No, we got your tax compliance. Okay, good. Alex did that. We do not have a letter. No, we do not. Okay.
Great. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have. And do you wait to know your refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
I do. All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with your case.
Yeah. Just so you understand, what I try to do is limit the amount of amendments to our
presentation materials. So after we file it two weeks from today's hearing, I was waiting for the
letter from the community group so that's why we submitted it last second for the tax
clearance certificate no alex told me that the the only difference was the tax compliance so yeah
um so hold on let me get the let me do this
okay so 1221 uh west wingo hawking street um this is a very technical refusal
We have a parking easement in the rear, and because of that, we have a rear yard setback refusal where really we have 25 feet, but because of the easement area, it's counting as though it's being occupied.
And then the second refusal we have is because of the required rear yard size or open area, which is required of 144 feet.
But again, it's considered zero because of the easement area.
But we really have an open area of 455 square feet.
So we did meet, this is a long drawn out history, Logan Community Enterprise Center, Inc.
uh, elected to appoint Tina Marie Russell, um, as their representative to have a meeting.
We did, we had it outside. I think we had it around the corner from the property and we showed
it. And based on what Mr. Goldberg told me is that the community members understood that this
was a technical refusal. We were providing a rear yard. We were providing, you know,
we were providing a rear yard and it was just a technical refusal. So we weren't asking for more
units out loud like and we're doing what everyone else has honestly um so if you look at here we're
at the corner of camac and wingahocking we're just building a house with the same setbacks as
everyone else it's just there's a parking easement by the way we're the only one that doesn't have a
garage in the back or parking but everyone else does and everyone else benefits from it
but because of a technical uh terminology within the zoning code when you have an easement area
here is considered occupied area even though it's not physically so maps of the area where
arm one property we're asking for five units which is allowed as of right uh are you sharing
we're not seeing anything if you think i thought i was sharing hold on i hit share so hold on
let's see do i hit it all right well let's go back
huh that was strange
all right well sorry about that i thought i hit it well here's the rm1 let's uh photographs of
the property so this is from west wing o'hocking uh this is property has been vacant for some time
it's a 2200 square foot lot uh this is from north camac these are our hearing notice posters
a little bit of a close-up so you can see you know that we put you know this for this property
on this date west waco hockey street to the right to left north camac to right to left
our plans and drawings again we're not asking for any refusals we're not taking rsa5 property or
any other zoning classification that would not allow that use so you come into a common hallway
you have unit number one which is in the front you have a living room you have a
uh you have a living room you have a bedroom the bathroom's right next to the bedroom and you have
bedroom the bathrooms right next to the bedroom
one more living area uh down there with a bathroom down there we're five and a half four and a half
feet above ground the ground and five and a half feet below i would say the ceilings are nine feet
high here's the second unit here living room kitchen uh we have bedrooms down here the
bathrooms are next to the bathroom is next to uh the uh bedrooms and then we have three egress wells
on the side instead of the two units here we come up this is a single unit on the third floor it's
a one bedroom bedroom bathroom all of them have washer and dryers open floor plan instead of that
unit we have unit number four living room kitchen washer and dryer bedroom bathroom right next to
it. And then you have a fifth unit on the third floor, which is three bedrooms. So you come in,
open floor plan, washer, dryer, kitchen, living room, two bedrooms, one shared bathroom right
next to the bedrooms, and then another bedroom, which has its own bathroom. There's no roof deck.
We met with the community on September 14th. According to Mr. Goldberg, it was a well-attended
meeting nearby neighbors everyone was trying to understand why we're getting a refusal and we kind
of explained the technical aspects of the zoning code that we weren't seeking a variance for the
amount of units we mailed it to 93 addresses these are the addresses we mailed it to proof
of mailing to those addresses or application for zoning variance along with the notice of refusal
and the project information form the deed to property showing that reduced price real estate
LLC is the owner of the property. Certificate of tax clearance, we did show a balance due
when we made the original submission, but we showed proof just now that that was paid. I would
stop sharing my screen now. I would ask Dante to raise his hand. I have a few questions for him,
and then we can answer any questions the board may have. Dante has been promoted to panelists.
all right sir could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer
dante reeves d-a-n-t-e-r-e-e-v-e-s right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel dante you heard everything i had to state today
about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes sir and do you adopt as your own
testimony yes sir i think i i think i omitted one thing about garbage uh storage that would
be in the rear dante correct thank you alan could you go back to the drawings sure questions from
the board it looks like your your pro your uh project sits sits back from the adjacent um
property so i wondered why well it's um no i mean we're set back our building facade
matches is in line with that so it's so it's the porch that it doesn't it does not have a
i don't believe it has the porch lines up with the main facade of the adjacent property
so i do yeah our facade amazing i'm sorry yeah dante you can speak you're the client so
Yeah, no, no. I'm saying our facade will be the same. The porch that the neighbor has is an illegal porch and part of his porch encroaches on our property, which I've already made an agreement with him that I'm going to fix that, bring it back to his property line. It's only about a two or three foot section in the front of the porch. It encroaches on our side. And we already made an agreement that I will repair that at my cost.
I guess that so so I guess my what I'm trying to get at is that you're you're so you're building
aligns with the face of the adjacent facade um but you don't you don't have a porch they have
a porch and all the other houses on the block have these sort of enclosed porches that sort
of run along the front and we don't you kind of you kind of don't match that so I'll just
kind of wondering why you're so far back but now i see the only i guess the concern that i have is
that um because this block is so intact in terms of the architectural style that you're building
is so different that it it it's it's jarring when you get to the to the corner of this block because
the block is so intact so i don't so that's that's a that's that that's
so i don't so that's that's a that's that that's a concern for me from a building standpoint looking
at it i feel like our building is going to help the integrity of their building um they have
they're exposed right now their stucco is exposed and once we've erect straight up next to it um
our roof seam line is we're going to bridge all those gaps there where the water is running in
proper drainage so it's not sitting on his roof and it's penetrating that side wall right now
where he just has stucco on the wall i'm not i'm not talking about the integrity
of the of the structure i'm talking about the overall character of the block
your your your structure is so different in terms of the of the overall character of the block and
the block is intact so when you look at that block they've got these eight frames sort of
going down the stone the stucco and your your building on the corner is just sort of this
straight out of place structure when it comes to the end unit and we're only going up um probably
eight or ten feet higher than their building so we're doing three stories and our building is
flat on the front with an even facade and we're just trying to ask that we make the
building even on the back so it doesn't look awkward
yeah but it does that i don't know how else to put it i understand this doesn't match the block
this is that's basically what he's saying your building does not match
yeah and i don't know that necessarily has to but it's it doesn't on the next block they don't match
they're flat roofs and so it's so different that it doesn't work right it conforms to the to the
code and we're just trying to comply with what we're allowed to do about right okay let me let
let me let me talk to your attorney now you hear some of these comments do you want to
resumptive this or do you want to go along so i always leave it to the board um and i always
know how the board feels about architecture and design and fitting within the community
this is a by right project essentially it's technical in nature because because of the
parking easement but if the board feels strongly about it i i i i think it i think i've heard
comments that it's as strong as it could be yeah i guess what about this project are we
saying is by right because it's not by right to do five units well it is five units by right that
that is by right the the only variance uh council i keep saying council member board member when
is that we have a technical refusal in terms of occupied area in the back because there's
a parking easement back there but if if you basically eliminated that parking easement