okay so this is my um closing statement and it has my name right here with my address
and then this attachment is the picture of my house this is my house right here
this is the side lawn and i didn't know i wasn't supposed to park cars there but these are two of
my cars. So I was asking for a curb cut so that I'm able to park my cars there.
Ms. Rodriguez, can you hear me? Yes. It appears from these photographs that there are other
similar properties that have driveways. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. So I just wanted to share
that the neighbors all my neighbors have driveways except mine so this is in front of my house they
have a driveway this is my next door neighbor 305 right here they have a actually sorry I got
confused because these houses look the same yeah this is my twin neighbor like my house is on the
other side. They're 307. They have a driveway. 303, they have a driveway. 306 has their driveway
here. And this is just a letter from my mom that she thinks that this is just a letter
recommendation so that i can your mom supports your application yes okay um and this is the
notice form refusal right yes and um it was received on last year july 26 2019
this is the project information form that was received on the same date and this is
the second page of that one and this is the application for appeal do you want
do you want me to read the question no i think we can see that thank you all right okay all right
me to read the question I think we can see that thank you all right okay all
you can summarize we'd appreciate that all right so um i would just like to have a driveway well
just a curb cut i don't i can't afford to um hire a pavement company yet but i do want to have some
sort of curb cut that way i can park my cars it will not damage anyone anyone's property um it
not endanger anyone in fact it will decrease the congestion congestion of cars parked on the street
so i just think it's just unfair that my neighbors have um driveways and i don't so i would really
like for this to get approved if possible okay thank you okay chair we do have hillary emerson
here for this case okay you are allowed to speak
mr emerson can you hear me yes please identify yourself with the record name and address
sure um good afternoon mr chair members of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilman
sherelle parker um room 577 city hall 19107 um the councilman is not opposed to the request
in this case as the applicant noted there are driveways from you know front access driveways
along along many of the houses on the block the community did not have any opposition
to the applicant's request therefore we have no opposition thank you Hillary
anyone else tanya no chair you can continue thank you questions from the board no planning commission
chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive
plan we have no objection to the granting of the variance well thank you very much calendar number
38167 307 friendship street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck thank you
so much everyone have a good day bye calendar number 39889 423 north 62nd street
Mr. Bertil, you have been promoted to panelists.
You can go forward.
Hello again, member of the board.
Good afternoon.
It's time.
Good afternoon.
Are you attorney for this proposal?
Yes, I am.
Good afternoon.
You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Name an address for the record, please.
Steve Bertil from Claire Harrison Harvey in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street, 14th floor 19103.
Thank you, Mr. Bertil.
You've already been sworn in, so please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I'm here with the owner, Mr. Mark Schundler, who should be here as well,
who at a certain point I'm going to actually adopt in my testimony.
So, Mark, if you could raise your hand so that they can be ready to click you over.
Members of the board, we're here to present regarding 423 North 62nd Street.
Essentially, what we're requesting is a variant approval to return the property
to its historical use as a two-family home. I'm going to share my screen now.
Can you confirm if you guys are able to see the PDF screen that I'm sharing?
Are you able to see the PDF screen that I'm sharing?
Okay, great.
So, as I stated, we're here, the variance requests that we're here for is for a change
of use we're requesting to return 423 north 62nd street back to um a two-family home uh the
property is currently zoned as a rsa 5 uh single-family home uh it sits on the 400 block of
62nd Street between Noble Street to the north and Cowell Hill Street to the south.
As you can see from my PDF, this is a photo of the exterior of the property.
As you can see from my pdf, this is a
Here's it looking down or looking up from Callow Hill, and here it is looking down from
Noble Street.
So as we stated, the property has historically been used as a multi-family home.
Exhibit that I'm about to show you is a prior zoning permit dating back to the late 60s,
I believe it was 1968, that shows that at one point the property was utilized as two units, an upstairs apartment and a downstairs apartment.
At some point, one of the prior owners before the applicant decided to stop using it as a multifamily home and started using it as a single family home.
And so we're trying to convert it back to that.
In addition to the historical context of the individual property, as you can see from this aerial view of the block that the property sits on, there are multiple multifamily homes and a commercial use on the street.
In fact, I believe there are six multifamily uses, some of which are actually three families.
so say that to show that the property is actually within not only within the
context of the individual property in its historical context but in the
context of the street itself all the all the work that we anticipate to
convert it back will be interior there's we don't anticipate any exterior work
essentially what we're doing is just converting converting the second floor
bedroom back into a kitchen so you can see the floor plans of the existing
layout of the property is here basement first floor second floor with the middle
room that was converted in the top bedroom and now I'm showing what the
post conversion of the layout would be is essentially identical the only
difference is that middle bedroom would be changed back into a kitchen and there
would be doors installed where at the bottom of the stairwell to divide the
units from each other. We met with the Registered Community Organization on May
31st virtually via Zoom. The community attendees voted in support of the
change of views as you can see by the meeting summary form that I'm presenting
on the screen now. In addition to the vote of support by the community
attendees, we also obtained signatures of support from near neighbors on the
block so you can see 422 424 420 415 425 436 and 446 excuse me north 62nd street are all
in support of this project
so in terms of refusal as i stated the refusal is just for the use only um then the proposed use of
a two-family dwelling because it's prohibited in this zoning district.
We believe that the requests of variances are de minimis and appropriate for the neighborhood.
As you can see from the context of the street, the fact that it's historically been used
as a two-unit multifamily home.
We also don't believe it will create any congestion on the public streets or transportation system
or really have any adverse effect on the adjacent properties in terms of supply of light, air, and
etc. Because as I stated, there is no exterior work to be done here. The only thing that we're
doing is converting the interior room back into a kitchen and installing some interior doors,
thus restoring it back to its original footprint. For all these reasons, we're requesting that the
guidance approval is appropriate. I have the owner Mark Schundler here. I would ask if he is raising
his hand if he can be selected and unmuted. This is Mark Schundler. Name is spelled M-A-R-K-S-C-H-U-N-D-L-E-R
and I'm at 4043 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104.
sir do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
So do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes thank you uh mark have you heard my testimony this morning i have for this afternoon i should
say uh do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own i do
and with that uh with that uh mr chair members of the board i conclude
thank you uh questions from the board
planning commission
chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential use on the
comprehensive plan we have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you calendar number
423 North
62nd Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
All right. Confessor, before you call
the next case, Sharon.
Thank you. Sharon, I think you said
we skipped one?
I don't have a calendar number for that one.
I don't see it on
my list either.
Calendar 36978, 1708 Tioga Street, number four on the summary list.
I don't have that.
The one on our summary list was Powerhound Road, number four.
I don't have Tioga here.
I'm sorry.
No problem.
What is it again?
Calendar 36978, 1708 Tioga Street, attorney David Orfanides.
1708 Tioga.
thank you is this the one uh this isn't the swamp poodle one is it
no oh yes no okay no all right
is mr orphanetes available
Mr. Orphanides, you've been promoted to panelists.
You can share your screen as you need to.
Mr. Orphanides, you agree to wave the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I'll go through those during my presentation if you would like.
But I do wave the reading of it.
Can you hear me okay?
i heard it again we missed you huh can you hear me okay now yes okay so i waived the reading there
were there's some minor um minor inconsistencies in the notice of refusal that i can go through
if you'd like um during my presentation first of all do you swear to firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i absolutely do all right uh we're running into
a times issue because we are required to uh cease having a hearing at one by 1 30 correct tanya
yes chair so mr orphanetes please don't take up until 1 30. don't misunderstand my
my comments i got all my talk i got my all my talking done over the last two hearings
i appreciate that thank you can we ask too that before you start mr rafanidis i believe this case
went through cdr and that um the planning commission representative would usually start
by reading the letter into the record that that is correct that's the reason why our last original
hearing was continued i think back in uh david you're breaking up really huh one second let me
see something can you hear me better now a little better yeah well now you went off again
can you hear me okay yes and then when you begin to talk it seems like you fade out
i don't know i'm sitting at the same desk with the same computers as i did last week
well you wore it out last week i know apparently i guess i guess so i guess so all right let's
yeah i'm not i'm not sure what to do so but um so the planning commission needs to read the
read the report into the record first um chairman we were actually not going to we were going to
just say that they had completed the cdr process but we were also going to offer our recommendation
okay yeah the applicant has completed the civic design review process and but the Planning
but the Planning Commission indicates that this property is indicated for residential use on the
Commission indicates that this property is indicated for residential use on the conference
Conference of Plan. Even though the number of units has been reduced, this is still a single
family twin home district. While the applicant has mentioned mixed income, there is no enforcement
of that promise as they are not going through any city, state, or federal programs that would
enforce that number. We would recommend that if the ZBA grants multifamily at this location that
it would comply with the spirit of the RM1 zoning district, which would have a 38-foot height limit
and allow for approximately 28 units we would also ask that they put a deed restriction on
the property ensuring that there will be mixed income units as the community was promised
thank you all right and um just so everybody knows um exhibit 25 of my exhibit book which is
page 285 of my exhibit book is the CDR approval letter dated June 9th. As I indicated, we originally
scheduled for a hearing on 212, and that hearing was continued to allow us to go through the CDR
process. Because of COVID, that hearing did not happen, did not only happen remotely on June 9th
of 2020 as indicated in the letter you can see here with the mouse so we did complete that process
so i'm going to head back up to the beginning again my name is david orphanetes d-a-v-i-d
orphanetes o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s i'm with the law firm of orphanetes and toner and i'm here this
early afternoon on behalf of Two Eyes LLC which is the owner of the two
properties we're here for 1708 West Tioga Street and 1710 West Tioga
Street. In our exhibit book you hear our notices of the zoning hearing posting
and the notice of refusal. We have our taxpayer certification at Tad 2 for both
properties our deed showing two eyes llc as the owner of both of the properties
at tab scroll back here
so at tab four we have aerials of the subject property and the area surrounding it
our property they are two vacant two vacant lots in the Sanborn maps which I
can show you which are included later in our exhibit book for the benefit of mr.
Holloman they show that the properties went vacant sometime between 1989 and
1992 they are long and narrow lots you can see right here on the left on this
aerial image um they are each 25 by 250 feet in length um so each has a area of 6 250 square feet