okay um questions from the board yes what's the square feet for the studios the studios
are the second floor is 320 square feet and the third floor is just about 300 square feet
that third floor is a little tight you think i mean for two minutes i mean i'm just curious i
mean i'm not disagreeing what did but yeah it's a little tight i i mean with with respect you
know there are there are and have always been tenants uh living in there um you know i think
people need we didn't even put electric up there i mean we only had one meter right up to 25
why the the meter the electricity was just paid uh in common sure yeah um but i you know again
there there are very happy tenants here i i you know i i believe that the smaller unit that you
are identifying uh is a is a um single older adult that you know the space is exactly what
they need and i think you know they're having some flexible unit sizes is is really beneficial
I know that the RCO is going to come on. What do you think happens?
I will leave it to Patrick to share. I mean, again, I think from my perspective, they don't want to create a precedent.
And I fully understand that. But this is a unique property. It is on a multifamily block.
You know, folks were not opposed to this, and they seem to understand that it's always been four units.
So I think there was maybe some distraction because of the commercial space.
If I had to write other questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney.
None at this time.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
I see no hands at this time, too.
What's that?
She said she saw no hands.
Come on.
i swear you in one time today earlier earlier today so actually that was a long time ago right
earlier today so actually that was a long time ago right there was one in the morning and there's one
there was one in the morning and there's one now
now get around just for the record please state your name sure uh patrick fitzmaurice p-a-t-r-i-c-k
f-i-t-z-m-a-u-r-i-c and i've already swore you in so please start your testimony yes um good
afternoon board my name is pat this is your document too right dude yes i authored that on behalf of
the board and then it was approved by our board all right thank you so i'm the president of the rco
So as you noted, you already received our letter.
It's a little lengthy, but I think it tries to encapsulate where we came down on this
and what was under consideration.
So I don't want to waste time reiterating it.
I just kind of wanted to respond to some of the things that were said earlier.
The first thing is I wanted to make sure, you know,
my understanding is that this is owned by an LLC or a business.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I just wanted to note that, you know,
references to the the owner and you know his mother who's passed away that's not entirely
accurate this is an investment property owned by a business um the other thing i would want to note
is you know there was a couple comments about surprise here um the applicant didn't say that
anything in our letter was inaccurate um and the points that were raised in the letter were raised
at the meeting um so i'm not really sure where the surprise comes from um i would want to comment
that while the neighbors that were in attendance conveyed they did not oppose a request for the
apartments, the overwhelming focus was derailed to discussing the first floor. So in my experience,
what happened here was the neighbors were more akin to saying, we don't really care about the
apartments. What we really want to talk about is the first floor, which I can appreciate is not
before the board today. I've lived in Pennsport and the adjacent neighborhood Whitman my entire
life. I'm not aware of any building that approaches the level of density that's being asked for this
three-story row home the applicant talked about a number of the surrounding
buildings to my knowledge they're all triplexes they're not five uses that are
being asked to be in three floors the applicant noted that the apartments are
currently occupied as I noted in our letter I would respectfully say the
zoning code doesn't contemplate an advantage or a presumption because an
owner illegally operates multi-families there. I listened pretty intently to the entire presentation
trying to hear what the hardship here is. I think I heard an attempt at two. The first I heard was
that this was never a single family and has had tenants. I agree. It's a multi-family. All the
other places that are around that are multi-families, but they're triplexes, three uses on three floors,
not five uses on three floors. The other potential hardship I heard was that it would cost this
business too much to comply with the law. I respectfully disagree that it's a hardship.
We've had a number of presentations in Pennsport over the time that I've been on the board.
We often hear this, that someone either can't rent something out and make a profit or that
they can't sustain the loss. Our board has taken the position that that's not a hardship. You can't
just circumvent the zoning code because you made a bad investment or your investment's not going to
pan out the way you thought it would um the only other thing is like i said um i would just note
that this is like the applicant said it's already a multi-family with two units upstairs up top um
so to now allow this to be four units just opens the door for every place that she's talked about
and that she has up on this map
to then come into us and say,
well, now I should have four units
and I should have four units
and why not five units?
And I don't understand where to draw the line
other than say what we've traditionally said,
which is if you want to have a triplex on three floors,
let's have a talk about that,
but certainly not five uses on three floors.
I mean, that's egregious.
So thank you.
Meredith, do you have any questions?
No questions, but I'm happy to respond.
Okay, is there anyone else going to testify?
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure, Ryan Fraschella, last name F-R-A-S-C-E-L-L-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
live across the street. Um, so I'll let Pat's testimony comments, um, stand for themselves.
And really the only point that I want to hammer home here is the opposition to the density,
just the pure density of what this is asking for. As Pat mentioned, you know, five uses in a three
story building is a lot. I mean, we walked the neighborhood and by our estimation, this would
hood and by our estimation this would be one of the densest parcels in pensport i mean there are
be one of the densest
not many others where you can point to five uses on one parcel and so today my comments i just you
know were opposed to the density thank you i do i do have a brief question for him
so you mentioned that you live across the street is that right were you aware that there were
four apartments in this property yes um and how long have you been aware of that
probably five years that's that's a half right thank you thank you
yeah you wanted to respond yeah anyone else in the virtual audience
but just just very briefly um
It's extremely common, even when somebody inherits a property that they own it in an LLC for protection that does not change the fact that Kirk inherited this property from his mom.
So I I did want to just correct that the other thing I wanted to to clarify is that I I think my colleague here alluded to the fact that this is 2 units being converted to 4.
and that is not the case that we have presented to the board nor is it consistent with what we have
shown the board in terms of photographs and this board has recognized in many of these similar
cases that a hardship does result when somebody either inherits a property or purchases a property
in a condition that is not to their own creation and as i mentioned kurt has lived in japan for
about 20 years now um so you know the the conditions of this property that he has inherited
are in no way to his own doing he is here voluntarily as i said there are no violations
on this property uh and he is simply trying to ensure that the permits are consistent that rental
licenses are up to date and that the certificate of occupancy reflects the actual physical
conditions of the property uh and as you heard from from the neighbor even they were aware that
was four units here okay good job yeah thank you um planning
amy boy with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in
zoning at this location from the current cmx1 commercial mixed use the city rezoned this
neighborhood in 1999 in a council supported map change the property has a documented history of
two dwelling units and a commercial use they requested four dwelling units would constitute
an overuse of the property the planning commission recommends that the board grant the request
adherence for multi-family but with max two units um council i'm going to take this under
consideration we'll vote next wednesday at 9 30 a.m i just want to make sure i talk to all the
board members and we see where we are noted okay thank you mr chairman i just want to put on the
record that the records closed oh thank you the records closing well you know we're except for
the vote we're going to vote that's noted thank you um we have the 3 30 list could we take
a four and a half minute break
i was last again a four and a half minute four and a half minute break please
Bill? Thanks, Bill. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman. I am chairing this
meeting for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is our Vice Chair, Tanetta Graham.
President, Mr. Chairman. Board Secretary, Cheryl L. Gaston. President, Mr. Chairman. Board Member,
Ryan McAdams. President, Mr. Chairman. Board Member, Leila Beebe, who was our newest board
member and doing a wonderful job, and I think she's having a good time today personally,
but that's besides the point also president our sorry attorney lynn royer uber also um our zba
director ian haggerty our board administrator lakeisha dandy this hearing is being recorded
and will be posted on the zba website by participating you can you you consent to be
recorded this is an in-person meeting with remote participation whether in in
person or on zoom if you're called to speak please state and spell your name
wait to be sworn in and after that each time you testify please state your name
to enter an appearance statement indicate the property address on the
zoom webinar speak with a staff member call the zba office by close of business tomorrow
call 215-669-2429 and please leave your name email
2429, and please leave your name, email, and the case address.
Remote participation.
Raise your virtual hand when directed so that we can call you to speak.
Before you speak, make sure you click the button, join as a panelist.
Use the Q&A for procedural questions only, not questions about the eventual cases.
If you are joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
In-person participation.
If testifying, get close to the mic so that the court stenographer and everyone else can hear you.
No talking, eating, or drinking during the hearing.
Aggressive behavior will not be tolerated.
In an emergency, follow the staff instructions.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear, and the stairwell is to the left.
If we evacuate, please go to Love Park, which is directly across the street, and remain there so we can account for you.
So let's look at our cases that we have this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2023-002-607, 3836 North 17th Street, that case is continued to August 19th at 3.30 p.m., right?
Actually, we're going to hear it?
Well, no, no.
In this one, the case of MI-2023-00267 is actually a duplicate case.
It's a what?
It's a duplicate case.
The 23 is a duplicate case.
The other matter, MI-2025-006634, was continued from April 22nd and was announced to be heard today but didn't get added to the calendar.
So that this appeal, the MI-2023-002607, can be dismissed.
But the newer appeal, the one that's MI-2025-006634, will be rescheduled to August 19th, 2026 at 3.30 p.m.
And it must be.
Oh, thank you very much for doing all of it.
All right.
All right.
Sean, Sean, are you here, Mr. Ward?
Yes, Chair.
I'm going to allow Sean Ward to speak.
the other one i am here mr chair i'm mr ward could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer john s-h-a-w-n ward w-a-r-d 34 applicant do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i most certainly do you heard what our council said uh
Where do you stand with this case?
Yeah, I am fine.
There are duplicate appeals filed on this matter.
I'm not sure why that occurred.
I filed the original appeal, and then I was provided with a refusal for the second application, which was refused.
However, I would ask that a later date be given or this be a turning moving party because I need to schedule.
I mean, here we're in July, and you're scheduling after August.
I still need to meet with the RCO.
So I don't know. I don't know that I can get that in before the August listing.
So, counsel, this is Lynn Riedelhuber, board counsel. You're okay with the 2023 case being dismissed?
Yeah, I had sent a email or a request in the past that they be consolidated. And so a dismissal of one.
All right. Let's start with that. MI 2023-002-607-3336, North 17th Street. That case has been withdrawn, right? And the next one will make attorney moving parties?
Yeah, that would be great.
All right. So MI 2025-006-634-3336, North 17th Street. Cases continue to turn a moving party.
and mr chair do i see the karima is back who karima cantana isn't she uh
no no oh okay uh a different a different thing okay thank you thank you thank you for all right
she she never
All right. Number two, MI 2026-000449, 1233 South 58th Street.
No exhibits, first listing. Herman Newsome is the...
No exhibits. First listing. Herman Newsome is the listed owner. And also Daniel Davis is the listed applicant. We don't have any. Why don't you take a seat? Okay. Why don't you get close to the mic. All right. Turn on mic. Is mic on?
All right, great.
First of all, could you state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Yes, Daniel Davis, D-A-N.
You've got to get closer.