Council has been talking about nearby precedents and examples so we want to clarify. The Zoning
Board denied essentially the same use variance in March of 2021 on this block, the 700 block
of North Shedwick Street. I believe about essentially four weeks ago I believe the address
was 726. So five properties to the north I believe. We oppose that for the same reasons
as we oppose this. We do not see a demonstration of hardship, and I think calling a subdivision a
Catch-22 is not entirely accurate because it still allows the applicant the opportunity
to build, according to RM1, multifamily on the 35th Street side, and then RSA 5, which is a
viable use on the Shedwick Street side. This is a uniquely skinny block relative to other RSA 5
blocks in the neighborhood. And in fact, just earlier this year, city councils made citywide
changes to the zoning code that now creates an entirely new zoning category for this type of
skinny residential block for these types of, you know, characteristics and reasons and physical
challenges. But that hasn't taken effect yet and wasn't at the time of this application. So here
we are. So in the meantime, we oppose this and other variances like it. Thank you. And I appreciate
i appreciate your comments andrew right i i i admire your work but again you just made our
hardship argument uh again we will have to subdivide right this property is not the it's
not the others that were submitted um because this property it's lot it fronts on two streets
And because the fronts are on two streets, again, you just said that subdivision is not an issue. Anytime a property has to physically do something in order to comply, that creates a hardship in itself.
And to suggest that it's not a big deal in order for us to seek a subdivision, that in essence creates a hardship.
That's what it does.
Now, it's not that we're seeking to be an adversary with the community.
it's not that it's because we did sit for a whole year to try to to try to do the necessary outreach
um but and i understand about parking and and and if if and i i sense that the applicant is
being penalized because it was literally just just a few months late when he initially submitted his
application. Thank you. Does the board have any other questions? No. No. I have one. Where is the
trash going to be stored? Omri? Backyard. On the backyards. And you'll use city trash or will you
have commercial trash pickup? Commercial trash. We always use commercial trash in our multiple
Commercial trash. We always use commercial trash in our multi-family.
of multi-final
Okay. Calendar number 0386716 North Shedwick Street. My vote is yes with commercial trash pickup.
Yes for proviso. Yes for proviso. My vote is no.
I'm going to go back to 12 to see if Tariq is able to get on calendar number 3267-6900 Chester Avenue. Is Tariq here and able to speak?
Yes, I'm here. You guys can hear me.
Yes, I can. Yes, I can hear you.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. Tariq Ryan, 1242 South 20th Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
Okay. Present your case.
so i'm um i'm presenting the case for the subdivision at 6900 chester avenue
um i purchased this home back in 2012 um um what attracted me to the property in the beginning was
the two lots um but as the zone decoded was not subdivided nor it was just a single family home
sorry Mr. Ryan may I interrupt for a second are you going to present on the screen yes I can
screen share thank you are you guys able to see the screen
did you hit the screen share button at the bottom okay now that's coming up
okay perfect we have it now thanks
okay so this is the property at 6900 Chester Avenue
this is the actual um structure right here and here is the proposed lot and this is the aerial
view to my right is south 69th street and to my left where i'm following the mouse is chester avenue
this is my this is the home that i own right now and this is the proposed subdivision lot
you're proposing to put two residences there yes two guys two single family homes
Okay. Have you met with the RCO?
I have. I'm sorry. And I have met with the RCO. I've presented all of the documents that you guys
request for to be compliant with meeting before you guys. And it was more than five days before
my meeting with you guys. Okay. Do you know what the position of the RCO was?
they were all um they weren't in support they weren't in opposition they all abstained
excuse me this is Sharon um madam chair we received a letter at I think 4 30 this morning
or rather an email from the RCO saying their position was one of deferral I did forward that
email to the board members one of deferral okay uh you may continue Mr. Ryan yeah if I may the
the reason for the deferral, from my understanding, is I'm a restaurant owner in southwest
Philadelphia. I'm an owner of three restaurants in the city. I'm sorry, one in the city and a few
in Delaware County. I actually sit at a lot of seats, you know, trying to, you know, benefit the
southwest community. So, you know, my mom is a member of the southwest CDC, which is an RCO. So,
of course, she, you know, couldn't be in support of, you know, my project. So, it's a lot of,
So there's a lot of things like that that, you know, kind of played into the RCO abstaining or not supporting the project.
Okay, just continue with your presentation. I understand.
Sure. Okay, so here's the rendering from the architect, and here's the survey limit.
Again, this is the property at 6900, and here's the proposed subdivision.
The project summary I proposed in the sub-divide a lot from one deed of parcels into two deed
of parcels.
The Department of License and Inspection has refused the project due to zone code compliance.
the project due to zone code compliance. The minimum lot area RSA 5 is residential and it
the minimum lot area are
requires 1,440 square feet. The two lots proposed are 1,269 and 1,229 square feet.
Okay, we have all that to read, but go ahead. Can you show us the block?
all right so again here's uh here's photos of the block okay can you keep moving
are these all single family homes
can we get on to another
Can we get on to another picture, please?
Today's a tough day with technology.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
That's okay. It's not your fault.
Okay, so here's the zoning posting, part of you guys' requirements.
More photos.
This is another aerial photo.
Do you have any photographs of the inside architectural renderings of this proposal?
The inside?
We have an esteemed architect on our board and I'm sure he'll have questions.
Could you blow it up some?
Okay, thank you.
No problem.
So yeah, so as the rendering showed, he did a survey limit of my parcel and the proposed
parcel.
What does each unit consist of?
1229 square feet and 1269 square feet the average lot size on this side the average
lot size on this side of the street is approximately 1190 square feet so we do meet the
i'd like to know about the interior are they two bedrooms three bedroom homes i do have some i do
some photos of the interior it's not a it's not an architectural rendering but it is um
it is photos that we have for the inside of the property
yeah the application was just to subdivide the two lots
but you purchased this as a one family right single family correct okay
does the board have any questions no no um planning commission
thank you madam chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
uh 2019 the zoning map was amended from rm1 multi-family to rsa5 single family at this
location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan. We believe that the proposed
lot dimension variances are minimal and that they're consistent with the adjoining lots on
this block face, and so we would therefore recommend that the zoning board grant this variance.
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to speak?
If so, please raise your hand.
no hands at this time chair
thank you calendar number three two six seven sixty nine hundred chester avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
i think that completes the 9 30 hearings is that correct yep all done chair okay thank you see
yep all done chair okay thank you see everybody at two so i'm the chair of the zoning board of
everybody at two.
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair miss carol
tenere our board secretary slash administrator confessor plaza and board members mr thomas
halliman and mr james snell board administrator mr kesha dandy and our board attorney ms sharon
letter are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat.
Sorry, Beth. Excuse me.
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i would also like to remind everyone please do not attempt
to testify in the chat any comments should be directed to our board administrator miss
with that i will read off the list of requests for continuance for this at the two o'clock
hearing today on the add-ons request for reconsideration mi 2020-002760 and mi 2020-003315
Edgley
and 2035
North 19th
my vote is no to reconsideration
and rehearing
my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing
no to reconsideration
and rehearing
no to reconsideration and rehearing
no to reconsideration
and rehearing
on the
first case which I
jumped over I apologize on the add-ons MI 2020-001289-2901 Grant Avenue the request for a
continuance has been asked by both Councilman O'Neill and Mr. Klein so that continuance is
granted. The following case on our regular list, number one, MI 2021-000579-1115 Unruh Street is
withdrawn. Number 10 on our list, MI 2021-000591, 817 Ellsworth Street. That case is also being
continued. If anyone disagrees with the cases that we just read in to be continued, please
raise your hand at this time. No hands, Chair. Thank you. Would anyone at this time like
to request a continuance or withdrawal? If so, please raise your hand. Chair, we have
Allen. Allen, you can unmute yourself. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the
board. Alan Nockamson of Nockamson PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Would you please spell your last name for the stenographer you saw on the O from earlier?
Yes, last name Nockamson, N as in Nancy, O-C-H-U-M as in Mary, S-O-N as in Nancy.
please proceed uh yes uh we are requesting a continuance of 3919 ridge avenue number nine
on our list mi 2021 that's 000632 3919 ridge avenue is continued thank you thank you
3919 Ridge Avenue is continued. Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for continuances or
withdrawals? Raise your hand. Yes Chair, we have Mr. Ryan. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Please
identify yourself with the record, name and address, spell your name. Ryan Boland, that's B as in boy,
O-L-A-N-D, 1801 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yes, this is on 1718 Fairmount Avenue, which is MI 2021 620.
You're requesting a continuance?
Yes, we represent the RCO, who's the Spring Garden Civic Association.
We made this request and it was joined in by Council President Clark.
We sent a letter to the board on Monday, but if I could just briefly take the board through the reasons for our request of continuance.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. If we could first call the appellant's attorney.
Thank you.
As she's been promoted, Ms. Catherine, you can unmute yourself.
Thank you. Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400-19013.
You swear and affirm the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. There is a request by the RCO for this case to be continued. What is your position?
We oppose the request for continuance, Chair. As you know, we typically like to work with the
community and think there's value in community process. But in this case, it boils down to a
non-zoning issue that involves a rear exterior fire escape. We've received written context from
the RCO, and I'll quote, they will vigorously oppose the proposed project, including any
proposal that includes an exterior fire escape or the possibility of an exterior fire escape.
Again, it's a non-zoning issue. It's a building code safety issue. My clients went so far as to
offer to remove it to see if LNI's building examiner would require it to be installed.
They even offered to go through and seek a Board of Building Standards variance if that
would appease the neighbors, and they have reiterated their refusal to allow us to seek
that process.
So I'm not sure that a continuance really gets us anywhere here when they've already
come out and said they're going to oppose the project regardless of whether my clients
do any additional, you know, work or discussion. They're requesting 3D renderings, additional plans,
et cetera, but given their adamant opposition to a rear fire escape, which is, again, a building
code issue, a safety issue, we're happy to speak to, you know, the hardship caused by the existing
structure and the size of the lot, but if they're not willing to allow for that, I'm not sure what