I think really what's the most important thing is just tax clearance certificate I would ask
Mr. Campbell virtually raise his hand to be sworn in Mr. Campbell please
Mr. Campbell, if you're in a virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Is it Patrick?
Yes, that is correct.
I'm going to promote them to panelists.
hello one issue right what the one issue that's the only one actually yeah sorry could you please
state your name and spell for the stenographer uh this is patrick campbell p-a-t-r-i-c-k
uh campbell is c-a-m-p-b-e-l-l you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes i do counsel uh yes patrick you heard everything i had to state today about
your zoning matter yes i did and is it true and correct yes and do you adopt this your own
testimony yes i do specifically you purchased a property thinking that you owned it originally
got permits from a zoning and commercial uh building permit perspective built it almost
to completion and then found out that the property was previously taken by the previous property
owner or predecessor by way of combination correct yes many years prior they uh the city
take a combination from this uh the owner i purchased it from and they they had no idea
um and that's what happened and then it's taken you multiple years to get not only this property
back to but to get in front of the zoning board to hopefully legalize it such that you can continue
construction yes i've been back and forth with um the city for years over this property but they
finally let it me purchase it back from them yep thank you questions from the board
Yes. The rooftop, well, first of all, can you show the floor plans again?
So the rooftop is only for the third floor unit?
I believe so. Patrick, is that correct? Did I state that correctly?
Right now, it's open, like, through the staircase. Anybody could get up there.
Okay, I misstated then.
Yeah, I mean, I could just say it's for the third floor, but I haven't really thought that through if everybody could use it or not.
no that would be nice because i was thinking of the second floor unit uh because at least the
first floor unit has access to the rear yard correct it does yes okay and and the third floor
would at least and bare minimum have access to the roof deck so it's just that second floor unit um
bare minimum have access to the roof deck so it's just that second floor unit um
needs some outdoor space as well so i would suggest you keep it open for everybody um
need some outdoor space.
that would be fine is um how how much below grade you said the we're two feet one inches
below grade and six feet above grade okay all right so that okay that's it thank you
all the questions right uh trash question trash would be stored in the rear
for the first floor unit, and then there's ventilated trash closets in each of the upper floor units.
Questions from our council?
Sorry, none at this time.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location
from the current RM1 residential multifamily to RSA5 residential single family.
The appellant has demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions of the property
that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for roof
deck and roof deck access structure.
Thank you.
MI 2026-001-769-1313 North 22nd Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Layla Beebe, my vote is yes.
Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Thank you.
Number 14, MI 2026-001-782, 1528 South 2nd Street.
Marissa Ferliger is the attorney.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Certainly. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Could you identify your client, their relationship to the property?
Client is S-K-S-K-L-L-C, which is the owner of this property.
That entity is represented today by Kirk Shepherd.
And we do have a rather long letter of opposition.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with your case.
all right good afternoon board members and welcome new board member before the board today
is 1528 South 2nd Street which is in the Pennsport neighborhood the application today is to legalize
four dwelling units in this property, which was lovingly known on the first floor as
Dee's Pub for many decades. Specifically, there is no question as to the legality of
two of the units. This request pertains to two other of the units. My client's mom owned and
managed this property for many decades before her recent passing. Upon taking ownership in
recent years due to her old age, Kirk quickly completed necessary cosmetic repairs to the
property that you'll see in the photographs. It was only recent that he became aware of the
zoning discrepancy, which is ultimately what brings us in front of you today.
We were quite surprised, as I expressed to my colleague over there from Pennsport, that we
were quite surprised to receive a letter of opposition from them, and I will address that
at the end of the presentation we did provide tax clearance in your exhibits at exhibit two
as well as a copy of the deed at exhibit three just to set some context here you'll see here
at exhibit eight that this property is a corner property on south second street which is right at
the corner of greenwich street and just looking from another view here you can see the property
from the front fairly uniform three-story block here the zoning map at exhibit exhibit seven
shows that this property is owned cmx one which is consistent with three of the four corners at
this intersection I have also included photographs in your exhibits at exhibit 15 which show the
existing exterior of the three-story building as you can see here the
As you can see here, the building itself has three entrances, one in the front here and then two along the side, and two of them serve the commercial first floor, which is noted on our zoning application as a planned office space.
building itself has three entrances one in the
That commercial space is ultimately in transition and the long term plans are unclear since the restaurant bar is no longer operational in this location.
The commercial space is ultimately not before the board today.
As you saw in the aerials and as you can see in the photographs, the block here is a fairly uniform three story block of mostly multifamily, which I will show you a little bit later in the presentation.
The context here is fairly similar along the Greenwich frontage as well. And again, you can see the predominantly three-story brick structures.
And then just from a few extra views here, again, you can see the view down North 2nd Street.
And then looking again at the intersection here, you can see the two opposing CMX1 corners.
And then looking down Greenwich street again, this is the side of the building and the residential entrance is the furthest entrance here.
And we did also provide evidence of the timely posting on both of the frontages.
at exhibit five let me walk you through the existing floor plans here so you can get a
sense of the existing layout of the property I will also show you photographs of these
which are all occupied again on the first floor here you'll see the commercial space
which is not the subject of today's request as it exists today it is still just set up
as a bar the basement is also connected to that commercial space as well on the second floor
are two units unit 2-1 is an existing one bedroom one bath unit in the back
and then unit 2-2 is an existing studio in the front
on the third floor you will again see two additional units in the back is unit 3-1 which
is a one bedroom one bath unit and then the front similar to the second floor is also another studio
unit and they're occupied now they're all occupied i'm about to show you photographs where you'll
you'll see their existing conditions uh so like i said at exhibit six i'm going to walk you through
some photographs just to get a sense of what this looks like so the first photographs here are just
showing you to establish as i mentioned earlier that my client did cosmetic renovations you'll
get a sense of what those cosmetic renovations looked like so you can kind of see here on the
left uh the condition that the property was in and then again some paint and some improvements
to flooring that is consistent throughout this presentation so this is as you would walk in the
entrance from the outside on the side you would walk down the hallway and then this provides
the stairwell to that second floor where the residential units are this second set of
photographs is taken from that second floor landing so this is directly outside of that
front studio doorway entrance and then this is the stairwell that moves up to the third floor
so like i said you can see here photographs of the existing units they are all occupied
so this is unit 2-1 and again you can see this is the one bedroom one bath unit on that second
floor rear and again you can see here the kitchen living space bedroom bathroom the next photograph
The photograph here shows unit 2-2. These photographs were provided to us by the existing tenant. This is that studio unit that is on the second floor front.
Then moving to the third floor again, this is unit 3-1, which is the third floor, one bedroom, one bath unit again in the rear.
and then unit three two this is the studio on the third floor and as you can see these are all
occupied uh and and with very comfortable and happy tenants for good measure i did also throw
in pictures of the commercial space but like i said this is not at issue before the board today
now regarding the refusal the property is zoned cmx1 and is adjacent to rsa5
AND IS ADJACENT TO RSA 5, SO THE APPLICATION WAS REFUSED FOR THE MULTIFAMILY USE.
so the application was refused for the
NOW AT EXHIBIT 9, LET ME FLIP THROUGH THE FIRST PAGE, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE HISTORICAL PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHICH SOME ARE A LITTLE BIT INTERMINGLED WITH 1530 SOUTH 2ND STREET, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR.
from what i've been able able to gather at least in terms of public records as far back as the 1950s
it was zoned for a restaurant with two dwelling units above now my client is not entirely certain
when mama dolores made the physical change here uh he's lived overseas for about the last 20 years
but at some point many decades ago uh we presume sometime around maybe the 80s or 90s
it was converted into four dwelling units and has remained that way ever since.
From what he understands from some of the history, as he can express,
his mom did speak with L&I at some point.
We're not sure whether those discussions resulted in any form of filings
or ultimately what happened in terms of permitting.
The history itself is somewhat discombobulated for the property,
so it is unclear if permits were simply never pulled
or if they are just indexed elsewhere. In any case, CMX1 would prohibit anything other than a
one-family dwelling in this location. Now, despite this, the city has issued at least two permits for
this property since 2010, and at no point in any of that permitting was the unit discrepancy
identified by L&I. In fact, as you can see here on the screen, as recently as 2025, the city granted
an electrical permit noting electrical for three apartments since one unit already had a meter and
was not included in this permit request. When was that? This was 2025. So they just got the meters
in 25? That's correct for the three of the units and even at that point the unit discrepancy wasn't
identified. Now aside from the physical conditions of the property, the property itself suffers a
clear hardship in that it has never maintained a single family use and has consistently maintained
tenants in the four units including current day as i mentioned my client does live in japan
so he employs a full full-time property manager that handles all aspects of maintenance trash
disposal and ensures that the property itself is kept clean it would not only be a considerable
hardship to return the structure to a single family use given its long-standing multifamily
history, but it would be a further hardship to attempt to convert it back to two units at this
point, which has not, to my client's knowledge, existed for many decades. Now, even beyond the
history and the physical condition of the property itself, as you can see up on the screen at exhibit
10, this multifamily use is entirely consistent with the context of the density of this block.
Which are either 3 and 4 units with a commercial building on the opposing corner.
This side of the block of South 2nd street only has 1 non multifamily use.
The adjacent property on Greenwich street is also multifamily.
As always, I did include in my memo of law, several references to confirm that it would be unreasonable and not the least minimum variance.
TO ASK A PROPERTY OWNER TO CONVERT A STRUCTURE BACK TO A SINGLE FAMILY USE AFTER A LONG DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF MULTIFAMILY USE, AND IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP TO REQUIRE PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS TO REDUCE BY TWO UNITS TO RENDER IT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAST PERMITTED HISTORY IN THE 1980s.
We also submit this is not a self-imposed hardship, as my client purchased the property from his mother through the estate process and is undertaking this process voluntarily to ensure that the property has all of the up-to-date permits and rental licenses in place.
No violations were issued for this request, and my client understands that a certificate of occupancy is going to be required following the board's hopeful approval.
we also submit that the proposal will not increase congestion harm neighboring properties or impair
light and air now as i mentioned and with complete respect to my my colleague in the room here the
rco's letter of opposition did come as quite a significant surprise as we left the meeting with
an impression that the community members in attendance not only had no issue with the
multifamily, but also had sort of alluded to the fact that they knew that there were four units.
but also had sort of alluded to the fact that they knew that there were four units in this building.
Community members also acknowledged during the meeting that the property is uniquely situated
compared to others that have been reviewed in the past, given the significant multifamily uses on the block.
This is also validated by the RCO's letter that was submitted to this board,
which acknowledges that the neighbors were not opposed to the multifamily request.
So, as a result, we were quite caught off guard when the letter was sent last week, and I know my colleague here will certainly give his perspective on it as well.
Now, admittedly, there were concerns raised regarding the first floor commercial tenant, which is currently occupied by a mummers group for their office space.
That is being addressed by my client and is not subject to today's request.
As a result, we would, with complete respect to Pennsport and to the board, we would respectfully
request that the board assign appropriate weight to the letter in light of the evidence
presented today, and especially since it does conflict with the stated view of many members
of the community in attendance that they were not opposed to the multifamily, which is ultimately
the request before the board today.
At this point, I would ask if the administrator could locate my client, Kirk Shepard, and ask for him to be promoted.
Kirk Shepard has been promoted to panelists.
Could you put the drawings up again?
Oh, the floor plans, yes.
Can you guys hear me? Can you guys see me?
can't see you I don't see there you go all right all right could you please state your name is
spelled for the stenographer yes my name is Kirk Sheppard k-i-r-k Sheppard s-h-e-p-p-a-r-d
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do yes sir counsel Kirk have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that I offered in front
of the board today yes uh do you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you
adopt it as if you had given it yourself yes is there anything in particular uh you feel
compelled to add before we conclude and turn it over for questions uh not at this time thank you