My client is the property owner of B2 Properties Entity 4 LLC.
And then the virtual audience is one of its representatives, Papa Dimbale.
Okay. Mr. Hallman has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the refusal and stipulate this accuracy?
Did you meet with all of the exhibits and documents as required? Five days in advance of this hearing? Did you meet with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
uh yes uh in all respects and actually i do uh object to the accuracy of the refusals in one
respect and remind me of this um but there's an existing curb cut for both properties one of the
properties actually the streets department recognizes the curb cut the other uh property
they don't recognize the curb cut and that goes to the crux of our argument um and as far as
providing all materials five days beforehand we did the only thing is is that we just received
the amended refusal so that and then that was within the five-day period those materials were
handed to Ms. Emerson and the ZBA within the five-day period we would like to present this
matter by reviewing the amended refusal and to for the board to hold for a vote hold a vote so
we can present the amended refusal to the community. Thank you. Please proceed and share
the screen. We've had conversations about that. We will have a resumptive hearing and we have a date
once you go through, okay? Great, thank you so much.
All right, so I'm going to present 242 Kalos Street parcels A and B. These are combined materials.
I did submit separate materials for these separate zoning matters, but for purposes of the presentation, I figured we would streamline the situation as much as possible.
242A Calo Street is actually going to be known as 240 Calo Street, and 242B Calo Street should be known as 242 Calo Street.
During our presentation, we're going to review the notices of refusal, the original ones.
Our request to amend our zoning appeal by taking into account the community input, and we'll explain what we ask to change, and then we'll review the current revised notices of refusal.
um the coordinating rco wissahick interested uh citizens association better known as wicca
did send correspondence to the zba uh regarding this matter but i believe that was based on the
previous drawings they have not seen the current drawings um we'll review maps of the area photographs
of the property example of interior photographs again v2 properties is a pretty well-known
developer in the city of philadelphia they've twice been recognized as developer of the year
by the philadelphia inquirer um at one point they they sold more units than any uh developer in the
city of philadelphia um so they're well known and recognized and acclaimed um so you'll see some of
their interior photographs you'll then we'll review the original plans that we had versus
now the revised plans are RCO meeting notices because we had separate notices sent for each
of these zoning appeals because each property has its own appeal or applications for appeal
as well as the deeds of the property and then our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, Mr. Dembale is in the virtual audience. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that he would virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and then I'll ask him a few questions, and then he can adopt my testimony as his own.
Again, Mr. Dembale is in the virtual audience at the conclusion of my presentation.
And then at the conclusion, again, we'll just ask the board to hold this matter so I can appear in front of the coordinating RCO in the community and make the same presentation to them.
All right. Our notices of refusal, I mean, straightforward is this. We're not trying to increase density here. We're trying to put two single family homes here. We're in a more suburban part of Philadelphia, you know, Wissahickon area. And, you know, we have a curb cut on each property.
and what we originally tried to do was just put a single family home with a front-loading garage
and leveraging those curb cuts and we received a couple refusals so there's a mix between parking
pads and porches in this neighborhood and it was really important you know for the community to
have porches where possible and there's an overlay in that respect and that's kind of where we ran
afoul of some of the items here um and then the other thing is we have like a not exactly a steep
slope but it's the slope is steep enough where we have to be careful where we put the building
structure and it's not the biggest lot you would expect in was to hicken either so we've got a lot
of things to balance off we have a curb cut we want to like repurpose it um one of the refusals
references the existence of the curb cut. This one, 242 Kalos Street A does not, I don't believe,
but 242 Kalos Street B does recognize it. So again, we have a lot of things going on here.
So the first refusal for 242 Kalos Street, again, A, single family, we're not being denied because
of that we're being denied because um we have to have a front setback of at least seven feet to
match the adjacent property to the left of us again you'll see they have a parking pad so we're
trying to match that parking pad but they don't have a porch so that's an issue we're required to
have a porch so and it's not the deepest lot to begin with so originally we were just going to do
a garage
to leverage
the land that we do have
because again, it goes really steep
in the rear too and we want to have a functional
backyard as much as possible
so we moved the building structure
as close to the front as possible
so that was one of the first refusal
we moved it to the lot line
we're not matching
the building facade to the left of us
and then there was something about
the building height we don't need to worry about that we fix that in the next you know round of
revisions and then in the overlay if you see the third refusal for this property we didn't have a
porch where a porch is required for new construction we fixed that as well and then the last thing is
about the accessory parking this one does not recognize her curb cut the other one does and
then here's the other one and this is 242 calo street b uh which is really uh 242 the other one
was 240 same thing trying to put like front loading garage here uh we only got two refusals
for that and that has something to do with the building facade which we don't really need to
worry about but we got no other refusals uh we had nothing about the front yard because the front
yard wasn't to the media left of us wasn't like set back with a parking pad it was all by itself
so um that's where we are with that and then so we met with the community uh honestly they didn't
really like our project too much because you know and i agree with them they felt insulted because
we didn't recognize the overlay in terms of putting together porches having it looked within
the character of the neighborhood and you'll hear me say over and over again if you walk by the
property filters users propose does it stick out like a sore thumb or is it something that fits
with the fabric in the neighborhood so we decided to you know scrap the plans with the front loading
garages because that would be out of character and um these are the things that we asked for
permission to go back to l and i for removal of interior accessory parking added an accessory
surface parking to the front of the building structure which you'll see for 246 in the whole
row that's exactly what is there um adding a front porch to be in conformance with the overlay
now we have because we did the front porch we had to push the building structure back a little bit
so we reduced the backyard depth from 28 feet to 13 feet and we'll talk about that as well if we
did notice or refusal because the notice refusal saying we're not doing 13 feet we're really doing
five feet where nine feet's required
five feet where nine feet is required, but we are because of how steep it goes in the back,
but we are
because
in order to have a functional rear yard, we put a deck there so they can at least have something
to congregate in the back, but that's occupied area. So we did create a refusal with that,
but there's a rationale behind that that's unique to the property itself.
And then we did a walkout basement added to the rear of the building structure. Again,
because of the steep slope we're able to get through the rear through that walkout basement
and then the deck was added to the rear of the building again to have a functional backyard which
kind of goes to one of our refusals so and then we've got the authorization letter from the zba
and then we you know and this is for both properties um and then we got a revised refusal
right and this is for 242 calo street a uh which is uh which is really 240 and we got these three
refusals uh whereas parking in the front and we put porches on whereas the parking in the front
yard shall be prohibited well well first of all um park there has been a curb cut there before
and all we're trying to do is repurpose it and what we're trying to do is mimic what's still
left of us at 246 kilos and all along that street so what we're offering is not out of character
then the next refusal you guys where it stands from the ground level to the deck are prohibited
in the case of an attached building again because of the slope we needed to create steps you know
for our deck to in order to go down um as well as because we have a basement level that kind of
slopes down so that makes sense and then the third thing is about the parking again all we're trying
to just repurpose the existing current cut there now as far as 242 oh and then we have the the
front yard setback um because we're sending it back we're sending it back um beyond what the
setback is for the property to the left of us part of the issue is that we have a porch which
is being required upon us where the porch with the properties to the left of us is not being
required of us. And we want to have a legal parking pad there. So that's why we have the
setback there. And then in terms of the rear yard depth, we're nine feet required, we're in five
feet proposed. We really have 13 feet. It's just the fact that we have an occupied area with the
deck to allow the rear yard to be functioning. And then the same thing is going on with 242
calo street b which is 242 again same refusal this time when they when ellen i evaluated 242
calo street b they have a refusal now about the parking in the front yard being prohibited even
though we have a legal curb cut there where before the parking issue was knocked right up
same thing about the steps with the deck again same thing we have a pretty steep slope
and we need to have a functional rear yard and the rear yard depth as well.
Now, we did get correspondence from Wicca, and again, this really has to do more so with the previous plans.
They did reference the fact that, you know, we are trying to get a parking pad in front.
I referenced it during our meeting. I never stated I was going to do that.
you know, when I since met with them and before this hearing, I said, well, we kind of want to
conform to the overlay requirements of having porches, maybe putting a man's sort of roof on
here, making it fit more within the character of the neighborhoods, but leveraging the curb cut,
the existing curb cuts with parking pads. And then in this letter, they referenced the fact that,
you know, they've been opposed to off-street parking in the past at 241, 247, 249, 279
Rochelle Avenue, which is a completely different block, which, you know, again, I looked at it
online just before the hearing. That's not a block where, like ours, where to the left of us,
there's a whole line of parking paths. So we're trying to, we're mimicking what's there already,
as opposed to those other properties in Rochelle, where it is out of character to have parking
pass. So again, this is the vote based on the previous presentation. Again, we're hoping to
meet with them after today's hearing, and then we'll report back to what they have to say.
But regardless of whatever the community input is, we're trying to really do something that fits
within the character of this neighborhood and the past use of this property with off-street parking.
And then just maps of the area. Again, we're not trying to increase density in any way. These are
rsa5 properties and all we're trying to do is make them single functional single family homes
and then this is just kalos uh street you know from a google map perspective
and then photographs of the property as you can see there's a mix of again we'll see from a better
and then photographs of the property as you can see there's a mix of again we'll see from a better
angle but here's some porches here as you can see this house is set back you can see from here the
there is beginning of the row of off-street parking and parking pads you can also see from
this picture these this is the curb cut right here so it's one existing curb cut that's long
and we're going to leverage it by hopefully having these two homes on it with off-street parking and
then you can see again, this is the posters that we posted prior to today's hearing in conformance
with the code. And then again, you can see that these properties have been vacant lots or of some
sort, not usable lots since 2008. This is as far back as Google Earth goes. So we're hoping to make
these functional single family homes, you know, and I keep stating this over and over again, we're
in strange economic times here.
Interest rates are really high.
Construction costs are very high.
You know, prices are at best stagnant,
if not going down for single family homes.
It's really hard to do these projects
without everything working out the best it can.
And we really do need these off-street parking spots
to make this an economically viable project.
And then you can see,
here's Cale Street to the right of property you can see there's a whole line of off-street parking
and then you can also see there's porches so we have like a friction between trying to match the
character of the neighborhood with the porches but also recognizing that there's off-street parking
to left of us and a whole line of them it looks like there's at least four homes with off-street
parking, which we're trying to mimic. Plus, our past has off-street parking, where it is an
existing curb cut. And then Calo Street, directly across the street from us, there's an apartment
building, which has a parking lot across the street. Not saying that it's apples to apples,
but again, it's not out of character to have off-street parking in that respect as well.
And then this is Calo Street to the left of the property. And you can see that's a little bit of
the parking lot, but also, again, the porches. And then this is just an example of B2 properties.
You know, they really do care about high-quality product and good customer service.
And I always try to give you examples of what bathrooms, living rooms, kitchens are going to look like.
And then these are our plans and drawings.
Again, originally, we were going to put the building structure at the front of the lot with an interior garage.
That did not play very well in front of the community.
And I acknowledge that was probably not the best way of handling the situation.
But we're trying to pivot and fit something more in character.
But the most important thing is, is we're trying to, under the circumstances where you have a steep slope, where you're trying to mimic what's still left of us with off-street parking and the existing parking and trying to get the porches in there.
There's a lot of moving parts here.
And we're trying to do the least modification possible under the Philadelphia Zone.
So again, this is just the first set of drawings.
And you can see this is like, again, the front loading garages, which we do not play well in the front of the community and for good reason.
Now, we switch things up and we have a very solid porch here, which is going to mimic what's in the neighborhood.
We have our deck back here.
And as you can see, we really, our rear yard step is 13 feet.
It's just the occupied area with the deck because, again, the slope, deep slope, if you want to actually have a functional backyard, we needed to create a deck back there, which created some issues with our rear yard setback.
And then this is just the other property as well.
And then just the floor plans, just very, very basic floor plans.
You've got a front porch, you have a living room, you have a dining room, you have a kitchen.
we because of how we had to push the property more forward it's not even that big of a building
structure but it's a nice building structure and then you know we have a lower level where we have
a family room down there um and that's for both units and these are twins essentially and we try
to mimic that twin feel and then you know for the second floor we have two bedrooms a bath a washer
dryer. And then the third floor is a master bedroom that you would expect with a roof deck
on an upper level. And then you can see here, we really did try to mimic the more historical
feel of the Wicca, where we have a porch, brick facade, mansard roof with dormers. We really did
try to mimic that as much as possible. And then we met with the community on January 4th, and
you know on january 4th and there's two sets of uh notices with proof of
And there's two sets of notice.