Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Derek, you heard the statements that I made to the board this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they are.
And would you adopt them as your own?
Yes, I would.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and members of the Board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
This project completed its Civic Design Review in February 2023.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals.
regarding zoning variances special exceptions or other discretionary approvals associated with
this proposal the comprehensive plan recommended this property for industrial 2 medium industry
however in several later zoning map changes the zoning was negotiated down to industrial
and commercial mixed use the applicant's proposed ground floor commercial units comply with the
existing zoning the current zoning does not allow dwelling units the applicant also requests more
height than the zoning code allows. The city planning commission recommends that the board
deny the use and dimensional variances. Thank you. So we'll close this. Everybody correct Hillary
until we hear from L&I. Yes Mr. Chair I just need to clarify the address of L&I. That should
that should take a chance we could have this for next week Hillary. Yes I think we could have it
for next week, and the record is otherwise closed. Okay, counsel, it looks like we do,
Mr. Chair, it looks like we do have a hand raised. I don't know if that's someone related to the
project. Okay, sure. Hand raised, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Yes, hi, my name is Florence Morales, F-L-O-R-E-N-C-E-M-O-R-A-L-E-S, right, and I actually
live across the street. Wait, wait, wait, wait, one minute. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Oh, yes. So proceed. I actually live across the
street from the factory. I live on Oriana. I've been living there for 56 years. I was born and
raised there and I've known the fact I've been right there near the factory forever.
And I oppose. I say, I think that they should knock it down. I think that what they're planning
on doing is a beautiful thing it'll be a good for the neighborhood and good for the people
um and i really really i really love the project i love it and i think that they i think that they
should do it and all the all the neighbors in our neighborhood um all feel the same way
um and we all are for each other so we think that it's it'll be a wonderful idea
well thank you very much for calling in we appreciate that thank you ma'am your testimony
will become part of the record all right thank you so hillary we're thank you so hillary we're
closed right yes we are mr chair counsel you're okay with this yeah i mean i i've i mean i have
no problem with getting the addresses clarified and corrected so that there aren't any issues i
appreciate Hillary uh you know bringing that up and being okay thank you very much thank you
have a good day all right number nine MI 2022-005-460-633 Diamond Street um
Alan Nockamson is the attorney letter of opposition from APM attached
Mr. Nockamson is being promoted to panelists okay thank you
Welcome.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson, 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, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is ABDPH LLC, and then virtual audience should be Dimitri Gord-Odesky, its representative.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits into our offices since five days in
advance to this hearing uh yes i have thank you please proceed thank you very much
hi so i'm here to present 633 diamond street uh in our presentation packet we will review
the notice of refusal, the correspondence we receive from APM, letters of support from nearby
neighbors. Some of the refusals have to do with log coverage and rear yard setback. So we're
going to show you nearby properties with full log coverage, including close proximity to ours.
Nearby RM1 multifamily variances. So this is an RM1 property. We're slightly short of the
requirements for triplex here, which we are seeking, we're at 1037 square feet of lot size.
uh we're at 1037 square feet of lot size so basically we're 43 square feet short but it's
not uncommon for the zoning board to grant variances of this type in this neighborhood
so we'll have examples as well maps of the area photographs of the property in the surrounding
area our plans and drawings our rco meeting notice it as well as proof of mailing of that notice to
the effective properties, our application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA, our deed to
the property showing that ABDPH LLC is the owner of the property, and our Certificate of Tax
Clearance. Again, in the virtual audience is Mr. Gorodesky. At the conclusion of my presentation,
I will ask for him to virtually raise his hand. He'll be sworn in. He'll adopt my testimony as
his own, and we'll be more than happy to take any questions from the board. So notice of refusal.
or RM1 property. So this is not a situation where we're taking an RSA 5 property and trying to
increase density for multifamily use. This is already allowed for multifamily use. And as the
board knows, when you have a multifamily structure like this or a proposed multifamily structure
like this, and you do the math for RM1, it's one unit per 360 square feet of lot size. And when
you have uh when you're in between numbers like we are here uh you and we're much closer to i
didn't do the math and i will but where you're almost at three but you're not exactly at three
unfortunately they round down not round up so we're a hair shy of three units we're exactly
43 square feet of lot size of three units. And so we're asking for the de minimis variance under
the circumstances. Now that's refusal number one. Refusal number two is maximum lock. 75% of the lot
can only be occupied where we're asking for 84.47. Whether this is a two unit or three units,
Given the dimensions of this property, you know, in order to have a proper turning radius for the staircases from floor to floor, we need that additional lot size.
And it's not out of character to have an occupied area which exceeds the confines of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, and you'll see a photograph which shows that even on our block.
The next refusal has to do with the rear yard area where 144 square feet is required under the zoning code while we're proposing 110.83 square feet. Again, not out of character to what's on that block.
In addition, whether it's a two unit or a three unit, because of the configuration a lot, we would require that de minimis variance.
And then the fourth refusal, which the second through four kind of go the same, the minimum rear yard depth is required is nine feet, where seven feet is proposed.
Again, not out of character to what we're asking for, because we'll see a photograph of a much, much smaller rear yard depth.
And again, whether it's two units or three units, we would require this variance under the circumstances to have a functional floor plan.
So we got correspondence from APM. It is a letter of opposition.
I would say that there was irregularities, from my understanding, during the vote counts, but it was four people in support and five people opposed.
My understanding is that there was one community member who owned property in the area who was refused to, they would not accept his vote because he owned a vacant lot in the neighborhood.
And they stated that someone who owns a vacant lot is not allowed to vote.
My understanding, too, is that it was basically 4-4 when that individual was going to vote and that some community members who were not present or allegedly were community members were asked to vote and come on without hearing our presentation at the conclusion of our presentation.
So that's the first thing is I think there was some issues with the vote count and how the vote was taken.
The second thing is that I don't think they understood the project.
We're not rehabilitating, and that's in the letter, too.
In the letter, it says, developer plans to rehabilitate an existing structure into a three-unit dwelling.
That's not the case.
What we're trying to do is we have a vacant lot, and you'll see in our presentation materials, this has been a vacant lot for a very, very long time, and you'll see from our photographs.
we're looking to build a new family a new structure there and you know originally my
client was hoping to build with two units but because of market conditions increasing interest
But because of market conditions, increasing interest rates, cost of construction, he's unable to get a loan because it doesn't pencil correctly with the banks.
rates cost of construction
The only way he can build this building and to utilize this property is to have a three-unit here.
Two units don't work under the current market conditions.
So it's not to rehabilitate an existing structure into a three-family dwelling.
It's to build a new structure, and we're hoping to build a three-family dwelling.
uh the next repeat the next reason that they refuse this project is at least some members
not all the community members who oppose the proposed project express that the rent structure
is not affordable to community residents or those low to moderate income and that the area has been
saturated with new multi-family construction that does not meet our needs of the residents
again we're not taking an rsa5 property and trying to increase the density which is not
allowed under RSA 5. We're taking an RN1 property which allows for multifamily use. We're asking for
a de minimis variance to allow us to use a 1,000 of 37 square foot lot where 1,080 is required for
three units. That's a de minimis variance under the circumstances. And I think that's the second
reason why this letter is incorrect and not applicable to the circumstances.
So, Mr. Nockamson, could you do me a favor? Could you go back a minute? We're a little unsure of
your numbers. We're seeing 1440 and 1037 now. So that's a lot more than what you're saying.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I think that required for three family dwelling is 360 square feet.
Per unit.
Where did this 1440 come from?
Mr. Chair, that's my error.
I was calculating it based on the 480.
I didn't calculate it based on the 360.
So that's what the confusion is.
All right.
360 is correct.
It gave me a little skip in my heart. I was like, did I miss an overlay or something? So yes. So okay, good. So we're still on the same page. So it is 1080. So it's really de minimis. So good.
So the third the third issue they had was just in terms of general construction, saying that, you know, residents were concerned with hours of construction.
Obviously, there's regulations regarding hours of construction that L&I has, and we're going to follow those construction hours.
But whether it's a two family or three family, it's it's the same thing.
And obviously, we would buy by the of those construction hours.
Yeah, it would be a different story, Mr. Chair, if we were trying to seek a four family, just because, again, we're just short of a three family.
So that would be a greater variance request. That's why this, we believe, is a de minimis variance request.
And then letters to support. So we actually then independently reached out to other property owners in close proximity to ours.
And we have three property owners. And one of them is Andrei Yifimov. I understand him to be one of the individuals who tried to vote and was unable to vote. And he owns a property in the neighborhood at 2119 North 7th Street. And again, one of the cross streets that we are at is on 7th Street.
And then Sanjeev Nadu, which is on North Marshall Street, he owns a property.
And that's one of the cross streets as well on Diamond Street.
And then nearby properties for full-off coverage.
And I bring this one, this is more than nearby.
This is our property.
This is 637 Diamond Street.
You can see, like here, I mean, I haven't done the math, but they don't meet the nine-foot rear yard setback.
They don't meet the maximum occupied area.
So what we're proposing is not out of character for this block.
And then, again, just as an example, we have other multifamily structures or zoning designations where this board grants similar variances where you can see for lot coverage issues and for the use of the property.
Here it was 1,053 square feet of lot size where 1,080 was required.
So we're under similar circumstances at 2120 North 7th Street.
And then you can see this is a multifamily part of the neighborhood here.
Germantown Avenue, it's the commercial corridor.
We're not taking an RSA 5 property to make this multifamily to a triplex.
were allowed two point something, like really close to three, you know.
two point something like really close to three uh you know so unfortunately the zoning code
rounds that down and then you can just see from a google maps perspective where we are in the
neighborhood and then photographs of the property uh this is a vacant lot as you can see this is our
uh proof of posting of our orange notice poster and then so google earth only goes as far back as
2007 for most properties. This is our property in 2007. So this has been a vacant lot for
well over 15 years. And so it kind of shows the hardship we have because now, even so,
it would be impossible for us to even build a two-family dwelling given the market conditions.
And it's been an issue for some time with this property. And this is Diamond Street to the right
of the property, diamond street till left of the property. And then our architectural plans and
drawings. Again, pretty base. Oops. This is our site plan here. Pretty basic, you know, brick
facade, flat, you know, new construction. And then, you know, typical, you know, first floor
and lower level is unit number one. Second floor, it's its own unit. Third floor, it's its own
unit. Again, there's an alleyway here where all the units, excuse me, there is a trash plan where
the first floor unit has, you know, access to rear yards. The upper floor units have
ventilated trash rooms. And then just, you know, proof of mailing. We had a meeting on January 5th.
131 addresses were notified in the meeting these are listed the addresses proof of mailing to those
addresses our application for appeal that we filed with the zba along with the notice of refusal and
project information form our deed to the property showing that our client is the owner of this
property and then filing a certificate of tax clearance it does show a technically a balance
of 1,087.64. But that's only for the 2023 tax year. As this board knows, real estate taxes are
not due until March 31st of this year. With that being said, I would ask that Dimitri virtually
raise his hand and then we can take any questions from the board. Sir, could you please state your
name and call for the court reporter? He's allowed to speak. My name is Dimitri Gorodovsky.
hi could you spell your name for the court reporter please sure first name d-m-i-t-r-y
last name g-o-r-o-d-e-t-s-k-y right do you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i don't proceed counsel oh yes uh dimitri you heard everything i had to state
about your zoning matter yes uh is it true and correct yes absolutely and do you adopt it as
your own testimony yes all right thank you very much oh counsel i know it's an rm1 what's the
rest of the block look like oh it's all multifamily okay okay all right thank you um questions or
comments from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chair questions or comments from
virtual audience planning commission thank you mr chairman and members of the board david effecto
city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multi-family zoning at this location this is a 1073 square foot lot which by right could
accommodate two dwelling units the applicant seeks a third hand relief from rear yard area
rear yard depth and occupied area there is no unique physical condition or circumstance that
would prevent this lot from being used in conformance with the zoning code the city
planning commission recommends that the board deny the use of dimensional variances thank you