Essentially, you have, let's see,
you have one on the first floor,
one on the second floor,
and then you have, it splits between two,
there are two buy levels,
one on the third and fourth floor
and another on the third and fourth floor.
And then our RCO meeting notice, we met on May 10th, 87 addresses were notified of the meeting, proof of billing to those addresses or application for appeal that showed us that 1521 W Oxford LLC was the applicant, the notice of refusal, our project information form, deed to property showing 1521 Oxford LLC as the owner of the property, and then finally our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, with that being said, I would ask that Mr. Malik virtually raises his hand.
Malik, could you state your name as spelled, please, for the court stenographer?
Yeah, we don't have an Emily. We have someone with the last name Malik or Malik.
Yeah, please send him, put him through.
Christian, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, as bell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Krishan Malik, K-R-I-S-H-A-N.
Last name is M-A-L-I-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Prasheed.
Yes, Mr. Malik, have you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter?
And is it true and correct?
Correct.
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair i see no hands at this time planning commission thank you chair bergman and board
members david effecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential multi-family zoning at this location the appellant has allowed three
dwelling units under the terms of the north central philadelphia zoning overlay the appellant
seeks a fourth dwelling unit but has not shown that an economic detriment will accrue if they
were held to three units. The city planning commission recommends the board grant the
proposed variance from the parking requirements in the code, but deny the proposed dimensional
variance, which would enable a fourth unit. Mr. Chair, can I respond? Sure. Yeah. So again,
you know, Mr. Malik did look to see if, you know, even if, you know, having three units
you know, having three units is economically feasible. And, you know, he would testify
is economically feasible and, you know, he would test.
that he couldn't. That's why he's part of this process. It's not just a parking requirement.
It's not economically feasible to build, given the current conditions of, like, high interest rates
and loss of construction. And that's why he's seeking the relief on those home imports.
okay um mi 2023 001 118 1521 west oxford street i vote yes
thomas hall my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
we're going to go on to um number three and number seven
Number three, we're going to hear them both together, Mr.
Nocklinson.
So number three, MI 2023, 001-050-3220 West Norris, and MI 2023, 001-051-3222 West Norris
Street.
Letter of Opposition from Strawberry Mansion on both.
Mr. Nockamson, just state your name for the record.
Oh, yes, Alan Nockamson.
You've already been sworn, and our vice chair,
and could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, it's Reese & Riley, LLC, and Mason Edward, LLC,
and they're the owners of the property.
In the virtual audience is Kevin Matheson, its representatives.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed to share your
screen
All right, so I'm here to present 3220 West Norris Street and 3222 West Norris Street, which are separate zoning matters, but for economy purposes, I'll present them together.
During my presentation, we'll review the notices of refusal.
Essentially, we're doing this.
We're looking to put a duplex on each property, where each of these properties have a long history of multifamily use.
Actually, the history is triplexes, not duplexes.
You know, we thought it would be better to have them as duplexes to make them larger units.
We do have correspondence from the Strawberry Mansion CDC.
We've been asking them for that correspondence since our meeting many weeks ago.
And we'll discuss that letter at length.
I think there's some discrepancies in terms of the voting process, as well as what they're saying in a letter is not incorrect.
I respectfully disagree with them.
Our property history.
You'll see that, you know, the history of triplexes on these properties and then nearby recently granted variances.
So it's not of character for this board to grant variances under similar circumstances.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, which are going to show that we mimic exactly how things look on that block.
So we're matching the history of that property where there were triplexes, but now we're doing duplexes, but multifamily in nature.
And then you'll see in the property, we mimicked what the properties look like.
And then we were very mindful of many other requirements of the Strawberry Mansion CDC,
as well as the residents.
And we'll go through that as well.
Our RCO meeting notices, we had two notices because we had two properties with separate
appeals, but we met with them twice.
And we'll discuss that as well, where we met with them the first time.
and they were very complimentary of the fact that we met a lot of their aesthetic requirements
and they acknowledged during the first meeting that of the past of this being triplexes it was
actually asked upon us well why can't you just make them triplexes and we stated it didn't make
sense you know given what we are seeing in marketing conditions to make them three units
we rather prefer to make them for two units make them larger make them more available to people in
community. After the RCO meeting notices, we'll look at the applications for appeal, showing my
clients, you know, filed the appeals, the deeds of property, showing the clients own their property
and then the properties, and then the certificates of tax claims, showing the clients a good standing
with the city of Philadelphia with regards to real estate taxes. Again, the virtual audience is Kevin
Matheson, the representative of the companies that own these properties. And then the notice
And then the notice of refusal, right?
of refusal right so these are straightforward these are
So these are straightforward.
These are RSA 5 properties.
But again, we'll look at the history of these properties.
We're not asking for refusals that you wouldn't normally see in this part of the neighborhood,
you know, for the multifamily nature, given the history of the property is refusal number
one, because we're asking two-family dwelling.
The second refusal has to deal with the maximum occupied area.
And you'll see from, you know, maps from the city, all the lots on that block that have building structures on them are non-conforming in this respect.
That's 3220.
3222, we have, again, two-family household living.
We have refusal as to the multifamily nature.
We also have a more unique refusal is to say that we're that whereas the neighboring setback of the property is zero and we're proposing four point four feet, three inches.
So what's that saying? Someone filled in a porch area to the right of us.
We're not filling in our porch area. We're having a porch like everyone else has a porch.
So that's a very unique refusal, which I think the board should, you know, again, I think even the community would acknowledge is not the reason why they're for or against this project.
And then the correspondence from the Strawberry Mansion CDC.
Again, we just got the letter like probably like an hour or two ago.
We've been asking for weeks.
Like we met with them on May 25th and they didn't take a vote.
So it was very strange.
Like they didn't take a vote after we left.
there was another project they said they were going to take all the votes at the end of the
meeting and maybe they just forgot to take the vote i you know we do a lot of work in strawberry
mansion the people there are you know good people the board members they're honest um but i think
what happened is just they just got to take the votes and you know we had one the first meeting
everything was great you did porches this is a porch neighborhood you did a brick facade you did
You have cornice lines that match the cornice lines of the neighboring properties.
You have flintels where the windows are.
You don't have an egress well in the front.
And that's misstated here, saying that we do have one of the reasons why they're in opposition, saying that we have an egress well.
We do have an egress well in the back.
We think it's important to have an egress well in the back.
You know, again, we think that it helps when people are able to have room to live.
And we envision that people in unit number one, which is a bi-level on the first floor and the lower level, we envision those people to have a place where they can have an office, an extra living area, like a living room, and, you know, and have the laundry facilities down there.
And the board and the community were like, well, we don't like egress wells.
We fought hard about egress wells.
Aesthetically, it's not in our community.
I reiterate it, it's a safety concern.
So I understand if you don't want the egress well on the front,
whenever I have clients who are looking for variances in Charlotte Mansion,
I indicate no egress wells and no roof decks because they fought hard for those things.
No egress wells, excuse me, in the front.
But in the back, for safety reasons, it's necessary to have an egress well.
But another thing which was not brought up during the meeting was that they have a concern about us converting this into rooming houses, which is not my client's business.
So anyway, a vote was never taken.
I asked multiple times where the letter was.
Eventually, I was told that one of the board members canvassed the neighborhood.
I don't know where he went.
I believe he's online.
but I don't know who heard of those votes of 15 against and to and support. I don't know how many
of those people actually heard my presentation. So I think that's unfair to not take a vote and
then to take to canvas the neighborhood where some of the members of the community may not
have heard my presentation. And then I just think there was some misinformation about like the fact
that we're trying to convert this
or there's concern
of us converting it
into a rooming house.
If we were doing group living,
we would have to come back here.
This would not be allowed
as a right.
This is an RSA-5 property.
And I would have told them
at the community meeting,
if they asked me that question,
I would have presented that to them.
But to make matters worse,
within an hour before the hearing,
my associate, Alex Goldberg,
got a frantic phone call
from a community member
stating, oh my God,
you're having a community meeting today at two o'clock I can't attend and they mentioned the
And they mentioned the fact that it was it was being stated to members of the community that they should come oppose this project because they want to prevent rooming houses from being built in this neighborhood.
fact that it was it was being stated to members of the community
Again, that's what we were told. So, again, I think that misinformation is there.
I think it's really important to be able to take votes when when after the presentation at a community meeting with people who show up or verified, like who I can present information to and hear our presentation, the pros and the cons and the debate back and forth.
that's what the RCO process was made for. And that's why L is codified. Anyway, so this has
a history of significant history of multi-family use. Again, 3220, triplex. 3222, triplex.
Then it's not uncommon for this board to grant variances otherwise. 2009 at North 31st Street,
around the corner was approved for variants.
Same thing with 1942 North 32nd Street for variants.
And then maps of the area.
Again, there's a mix of zoning,
diversity of zoning, even as neighborhood.
Yes, we're RSA 5,
but you can see that we are surrounded by R&M 1.
And then again, we're near a park
and typically near parks,
you have more density from a planning perspective.
And then you can see here the other variants
with the lot coverage issues.
So you can see this prop.
So this is on Atlas.
Atlas hasn't taken the city,
I guess according to the city records,
they haven't taken off the fact that we demolished
or these properties haven't,
the building structures have been demolished.
But you can see the building structure