Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Larry Friedman.
Mr. Friedman, please unmute yourself.
The chair.
Hi, Mr. Friedman. Could you mention, state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Larry Friedman, L-A-R-R-Y-F-R-E-E-D-M-A-N, the zoning chair for Northern Liberty, 700 North 3rd Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
As was stated, we are Northern Liberties.
um when when uh second street was rezoned or remapped cmx 2.5 uh on this on the east side
they went all the way to hancock street and instead of carving out just for second street so
this goes all the way up uh all the way up to laurel we're currently working on that so these
two properties, 150 and 152, were always single family dwelling, RSA 5 and before that R10A.
So when we saw this, we immediately had to get that going. In the meantime, it's what it is. We
got this. This is what we're looking at. We were okay with 152, not requiring the commercial first
floor because, as you can see, it's as is. It blends right in. The problem we had with 150
was it became one of those cherry-picking situations where 55 feet is allowed, but
CMX 2.5 requires commercial. So, we attempted to work out a compromise position, which was
You could have the residential on first floor, but abide by what would be a multifamily RM1 concept on that end, so it would blend in with the other houses and also maintain a nine-foot setback because the house right behind that is pretty much right up against this.
So if you go up 55 feet, it's way too close to that other house.
So that was our compromise request.
We feel it's fair.
It allows for two units, just like 152, but it doesn't jut up and look semi-ridiculous
because this was never meant to be CMX 2.5.
So, Larry, say this again.
Ken, you don't like the height of this?
Yeah, we would like it to blend in with the adjacent houses.
Again, CMX 2.5 is an incorrect zone for this.
It was always single family.
So we're working that out.
But in the meantime, you know, we feel a compromised position would be, yeah, you can have the residential on the first floor, thus having a duplex.
But let's bring that down and let's have it blend in with 152, 4, 6 and all those the houses next door.
And also maintain nine foot setback because because you're right up against that house behind you.
OK. All right. Thank you, Larry. We appreciate it.
You're welcome.
Am I able to come back? Yeah, please.
I was trying to find the raise the hand thing and I couldn't. As I mentioned in the beginning, the proposed 150 is only one foot five inches higher than 152 legal building height. And the five foot backyard, I feel is necessary with the layout with building this new construction property.
and the rest of the block is the ground floor is a hundred percent built on so i would actually be
the only yard that has a backyard the only building that has a backyard on that block
and we are providing it's a corner property so i'm trying to find the uh the ground the first
oh yeah first floor here it is a corner property so there is means for egress egress well there's
stairwell coming out the back and then there's also going to be a fence here with a door just
show the show the uh show the one uh drawing you have above yeah where it shows no no show me the
which one's there yeah keep going no i'm gonna i want the one that shows
how this is going to look compared that's it there okay yeah are you are you saying that's
how this is going to look compared that's it there okay yeah are you
like an optical illusion there that it it looks a little higher but basically because there's a
42 inch parapet wall but it's on a slant and on an angle to kind of conform with that so it
it's not an act it's a rendering it's not a the i guess it just looks a lot bigger than it really
is but you're saying that's only a foot bigger than the the rest of the of one foot five inches
is for legal building height.
And then you would have the parapet wall
that goes on an angle and makes it look
a little bit higher than it is.
But yeah, it just looks like a lot higher it is.
But architect's on line here somewhere.
He might be able to chime into that,
but the legal building height.
Why don't we bring your architect in?
Mike Armstrong, he's on here somewhere.
And then I'll bring up the legal building height over here.
Mr. Armstrong, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair.
Mr. Armstrong, state your name, please.
Michael Armstrong.
And spell it for the court reporter.
M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
Last name A-R-M-S-T-R-O-N-G.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yeah. So this section drawing is a good drawing to show.
So the building height for zone-in purposes measured to the top of the roof would be 43 foot four, where the height to the peak of the adjacent buildings was roughly that one foot plus that Justin was talking about, lower than that.
And then you can see we're providing a 42 inch parapet for the roof deck, but no pilot house. It's an unenclosed stair up to the roof deck to keep the height as low as possible.
And then we're also angling kind of like a little mansard roof at the parapet wall to blend in with the other sloped roofs design wise and also kind of help with that additional height of the parapet up there.
Questions on the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments besides Mr. Feldman from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Okay. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
the applicant has shown that the current zoning creates a hardship that would prevent the applicant
from building a residential property which will match the character of the block
city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed variances
i 2022-006-215-150 fairman avenue i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
thank you
Let's move to number three.
Thanks, guys.
Thank you.
M-I-2022-006-191-835 East Ontario Street.
Alan Ockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Impact and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
The applicant also provided 10 neighbors on the block, a petition from 10 neighbors on the block.
Mr. Nockamson is back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockamson.
Spell your name for the reference.
Yes, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Digno Valio, and he's in the virtual audience.
Thomas, could you do a couple, few of the follow-up questions for me?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required?
All right, five days in advance to this year and did you meet with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
thank you all right so we're going to go talk about 835-37 ontario streets uh first we'll
Thank you.
review the notice of refusal uh then we have a letter of support from impact cdc the coordinating
rco for this matter as well as a letter of non-opposition in the district council member
We also have a petition from nearby neighbors as well. Then we'll review the user registration permit, 16971, which shows that this property has been previously used as a triplex, and that's one of our refusals.
Next, we'll review nearby RSA properties with non-conforming rear yards, which is another one of our refusals.
And then the third refusal talks about nearby RSA accessory parking, because that's what we're seeking as well.
Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings.
Our RCO meeting notice, where we met with the community at a well-attended meeting.
Our applications for appeal that we filed with the ZBA.
Our deed to the property, showing that Family Home Development, Inc., is the owner of the property.
And again, Mr. Vallejo is in the virtual audience, who is the member of that organization.
And he'll, at the conclusion of my presentation, be sworn in and adopt my testimony as his own.
And then our Certificate of Tax Claims.
So notice the refusal.
So this is an RSA-5 property, but this property has a long history of multifamily use.
And what we're trying to do is combine these two properties at 835 and 837 East Ontario streets, having a building structure, which is on one of the properties and legalizing that triplex, which has been in existence for some time, and then using the side yard for parking.
Again, not uncommon for that to happen. In addition, we're building a structure on top of the existing first floor already, and because of that, the non-conforming use of that, the minimum rear yard requirements not being met, but all, again, it's not being met currently on the first floor.
All we're trying to do is build an addition on the upper floors. So again, none of this is uncommon in the neighborhood, and we'll show that through our presentation.
First, we have a letter of support.
As you can see, the impact CDC supports our application.
Just a little bit of background.
The way that Mr. Valio found the property is his mom lives next door at 833 East Ontario.
This has been an eyesore and it's his property for some time.
So he purchased this property with the hopes of revitalizing it in a way by having this triplex and off-street parking.
So it's really important to him to make sure that this property is no longer a nuisance to his mother.
And then here's the letter of non-opposition, or actually says support here, from the district council member, you know, because the community was in support of this project.
and here's a petition again you know mr you know my my client as well as his mom uh you know are
very familiar with the neighborhood his mom lives next door so he was able to generate a petition
easily from nearby neighbors who would be most directly impacted in support of this project
and then use registration permit again as you can see as of 1941 this property was used as a
triplex. And that's what we're trying to do. And then one of the refusals has to do with
the rear yard depth of the property. And so we just did an analysis based on nearby properties
within a one block radius. And you can see there's a number of properties which would not conform to
the zoning code as well. And as you can see for our property at 835, we do already have full lock
coverage and we're just building on top of it so it's not like we're expanding the building
structure outward just on top but that non-conforming use is creating a refusal
for that reason alone and then nearby accessory parking so 3401 g street
has accessory parking 817-19 east ontario which is on a block has accessory parking
and then 827 east ontario street has accessory parking and then next door to us at 839-41
one has nearby accessory parking. And then maps of the area. Again, all we're trying to do is
combine these two lots, have the structure as a triplex, basically have a side yard as off-street
parking. Trash would be stored outside as well. And then this is just from a Google Map perspective
where we are. We're between H&G and Russell and Thayer streets. And then photographs of the
and uh russell and uh fair streets and then photographs of the property as you can see this
property.
property is in desperate need of tlc and that's what my client hopes to do by reinvigorating this
property uh and again his mom lives next door right here and then just you know the zoning notice
posters showing that we did post the property well in advance of today's hearing again you can
see from two different angles we posted both properties and then east ontario street to the
right of the property east Ontario street to the left of the property and then our plans and
drawings again showing that there's an ample side yard for allowance of parking and for storage of
garbage outside and then you can see this is the addition right here and again we're not increasing
the depth of this property this property already has a depth on the first floor which in which is
is a non-conformist that Philadelphia zoning codes.
And then this is just the consolidation plan for the property.
And then this is just our floor plans.
As you can see, there's no living in the basement.
And then the first floor has the unit number one,
and then unit number two is a bi-level in the rear.
And unit number three is the front portion
of the second floor.
Our RCO meeting notice, we met January 12th at 6 p.m., 166 addresses were notified of the meeting, a list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal, Family at Home Development, Inc., you know, it was the client we filed on their behalf, one with the notice of refusal, our private information form, our deed to the property showing that they're the owner of the property,
as well as a certificate of tax plan
showing that they owe no money
to the city of Philadelphia
with respect to real estate taxes.
With that being said,
I would ask that my client, Mr. Berlio,
virtually raise his hand to be sworn in.
Mr. Nockman, one quick question.
Was that a garage next to where you want to park?
Yes, exactly.
That's exactly my example.
Can you show that photo one more time?
Oh, yeah, sure.
so that's a garage right yeah i mean you can see the garage here
and you want to park to the left of that exactly here's the garage right here that's 839-41
and there's another instance at 827 east ontario in 817-19 east ontario so there's there are three
instances on this block alone