Thank you.
Coming. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the meeting of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is our board member, Shel L. Gaston. Present, Mr. Chairman. Our board member, Tenetta Graham. Present, Mr. Chairman. Our board member, Taya Nguyen. Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our alternate board member, Leonard LeBaron Palmer.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Also President, is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director of the zoning board, Ian Haggerty.
Please be advised that meetings be recorded, and your participation in this meeting indicates your consent to be recorded.
The video will be posted on the ZBA website approximately one week following the meeting.
This meeting is being held in person with remote capabilities, meaning that individuals can participate either in person, at the hearing, in the one parkway building, or remotely over Zoom.
When you are recognized to speak, the board, please state and spell your name for the court reporter, then wait to be sworn in.
If you're in the hearing room, you must speak into a microphone so that everyone in attendance, including the court reporter, can hear you.
If you're participating remotely, please turn on your camera and unmute yourself when you're recognized to speak.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before testifying, whether you're in person or remote, so that the court reporter knows who is speaking.
Please mute yourself or turn off the microphone when you're not speaking.
If you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
if you're participating by phone please call 267 -270 -5548 to register your appearance
by the close of the business day after the hearing if you must provide an email address
and the address of the property you are interested in all others can enter their
appearance through the zoom registration for individuals participating in purpose
in person, a QR code is available to register your appearance. For assistance, please see a staff
member at the back of the hearing room. If you have any questions about how to enter your appearance,
please contact RCOZBA at phil .gov. If you are in the hearing room, please refrain from talking or
engaging in conversation while the hearings are proceeded. Please note that eating or drinking
in the hearing room is prohibited in addition verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated
if you're participating remotely remember the q a on the zoom platform is not for testimony or
comments any concerns any concerns related to the hearing operation should be directed
to the zba executive director at phil .gov before we begin our executive director
Ian Haggerty has an important safety announcement. Ian?
Morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. This is Ian Haggerty, Executive Director.
The safety of our meeting attendees is our highest priority. In the event of an emergency,
please pay attention to announcements on the loudspeaker, which will provide detailed
information. If no announcement is heard, please follow the directions of security officers
or ZBA staff members. The main exit is through the double doors located at the rear of the room.
If an order is given to evacuate this room, the nearest stairway is to the left outside the main exit from this room.
Follow the exit signs to reach the stairway.
If an order is given to evacuate the building for any reason, the rally point is at Love Park directly across Arch Street from the public entrance to this building.
Please remain at the rally point so that we can account for you.
As a reminder, restrooms are located right across from the elevators, and a water fountain is located just outside the double doors to the right.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Let's look at our schedule for today.
Number five, MI 2024 -004 -456 -5300 -18 Winfield Avenue.
Tameka McCoy is the attorney.
Is the counsel in the audience?
Good morning, Chair. This is Nadia and I'll be your co -
Good morning, Chair. This is Nadia, and I'll be your co -host today. I see nobody with their
hands raised by the name of Tamika McCoy. Mr. Chair, we may need to come back to her.
I know she was running a few minutes late. Okay. So we'll come back to that one. Thank
Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2024 -006 -055, 1832 North Van Pelt Street.
Mr. Nocklinson is the attorney in this case.
There's a request from the RCO for a continuance.
is a member of the RCO in the audience.
And this case is also connected to MI 2024 -006 -103 -1846, North Van Pelt.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Mr. Nockamson, let me see if I can get somebody from the RCA.
Is the RCO member present?
strawberry mansion and community center please accept your promotion as a panelist
uh yes we're here okay
good morning
good morning can you hear me yeah i can could you please state your name and spell for the
sonographer bonita cummings b as in baby o -n -i -t -a cummings c -u -m -m -i -n -g -s do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do you're requesting
continuance in this case. Could you give us your reason why? In the meeting, there were three
matters addressed, 1832, 1846 North Van Pelt Street, and we also heard 1826 North 24th Street,
which is scheduled for tomorrow, which they did ask for continuance. There was
concern from the community, and they were requesting that we ask for continuance for
all of these locations to be able to meet with the councilman's office as well as really
get their concerns around these locations addressed. So we appealed to the attorney
in that regard, and they did ask for 1826 North 24th Street, but we were not granted
an opportunity to support what the community is asking us
for 1832 and 1846 North Van Pelt Street.
Thank you.
Mr. Nockamson.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, we are always willing, ready, and able
to work with the community on continuance requests.
We did join their requests for tomorrow's hearing
for one of the matters.
The two matters that are today are rather straightforward.
One of them, there's already approval
for a five unit dwelling with building permits we're seeking reduction in the amount of units
to three units so we're actually asking for a lesser density and then the other property where
we were asking for four units originally after we heard the community input we reduced that to
three units to mimic what is you know what we're requesting across the street also there's like
five or six instances where there are three unit dwellings we believe based on those modifications
that we made and based on the what is of record right now with one of the properties we feel it's
appropriate to proceed forward okay we're going to proceed with that we're not going to do it
right now of course we're going still going through the list all right miss cummings we're
going to go on with that you will have an opportunity to express your concerns at the
meeting. Thank you. And number nine, MI 2024 -007 -402 -1409 North 17th Street. That case is
continued attorney moving party. Number 10, MI 2024 -007 -403 -1441 North 17th Street. That case
is continued attorney -moving party. And number 11, MI 2024 -007 -404 -1624 Jefferson Street,
that case is continued attorney -moving party. Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands in a virtual audience. Okay, we're going to go to number two to start.
MI 2024 -004 -4237 -2826 -28 Belgrade Street, Sean.
237 -2826 -28 Belgrade Street. Sean Ward is the attorney.
Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant S -H -A -W -N last name Ward W -A -R -D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our board member, Tannetta Graham, has several questions for you, sir.
Good morning. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal, and do you stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. You may receive.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to share my screen.
And so I want to thank you for your courtesy this morning.
I'm attending a conference, and they extended me a courtesy to proceed with this hearing.
Can we confirm that my screen is shared?
Your screen is up.
You might want to make it just a little bit bigger.
Will do.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, yeah, you're welcome.
Thank you.
This is my typical exhibit packet that I prepare and submit on every hearing.
The applicant is Michael French.
The property is 2826 -28 Belgrade Street.
Calendar number ending in 4237, as mentioned by the chair.
A1 is the notice of refusal.
This is an application for a permit for vacant commercial space at the first floor front.
equipment and material storage garage at the rear, and a three dwelling units, first and second floor, in an existing structure.
This involves interior renovations only. There are no additions to the subject property.
Resulted in two refusals, one for the vacant commercial space and for the three dwelling units.
Accordingly, we seek use variances today. With regard to the vacant commercial space, I spoke with Board Counsel Hillary Emerson yesterday, and we have agreed that the commercial space will be used as a business and professional office.
Mr. French is a contractor. He will use the rear space for equipment and material storage, and the first floor front will be basically his business office.
So I know the board does not grant blanket variances for commercial space, so we did have that discussion, but I'll defer to Hillary to advise the board with regard to that.
um a2 is the zba application of appeal a3 is the uh project information form a4 is proof of
ownership copy of the deed a5 is tax clearance a6 is the zoning site plan a7 typical floor plans
uh a8 are photos of the posting subject property to street views and an area of view
A -9 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing.
A -10 is the letter of support from Southport Richmond Civic, which is referred to as SOPO.
That is attached.
I believe that was unanimous.
A -11, if submitted, would be district council person's letter.
I believe Jen from Councilman Squall's office did submit a letter.
We have the letter.
Yeah, I would ask that that be marked as A -11.
A -12 is the relevant zoning history.
Going back to 1951, there was a permit for direction of a one -story garage and a two -story addition for a one -family dwelling.
In 1957 and forward, it was one family and a bakery, and the rear garage was used for storage for the bakery.
1981, 2826 was a two -family dwelling.
2828 was a one -family and an electrical contractor and storage garage, which fronts on Miller Street.
and in 1985 there was another permit confirming the the two apartment use and the storage garage
and the storage garage a 13 is the zoning map a 14 is the aerial photograph so very quickly um
A13 is the zoning map.
let me vote i don't know again mike french uh who is a long life a lifelong resident of fort
richmond is the owner of the property this property is located located on belgrade street
just above Somerset, around the corner from, you know,
which most people in Port Richmond know, Teccanelli's Pizza.
It's RSA5, but it has the existing mixed uses.
The existing conditions, it's a newly fully interior renovated
and front facade restored structure.
It was configured as a three -family with an office and a garage
at the time of purchase um one second my cursor's freezing up here um
okay so he he purchased the property and he renovated interior and he restored the facade
uh it consists of a commercial storefront commercial garage and warehouse in the rear
Three one -bedroom apartments.
Apartment number two is a bi -level apartment.
All are separately metered.
All units have new heating systems, washers and dryers in each unit.
There's a new roof and the second floor roof decks not visible from the street.
There's new electrical, new plumbing, new appliances.
All the concrete sidewalks have been replaced.
And it was actually renovated. He actually renovated the adjacent garage, believing he purchased that, too, much to his dismay.
So the seller of that of the property did receive a huge benefit by Mr. French renovating the adjacent garage as well.
um uh as far as the commercial tenant uh at at the time of the meeting uh we didn't have anybody
identified but mr french has uh indicated that he will occupy the office uh for his current business
um the the the rear garage has existed for decades and um uh again when we met with
SOPO, it was
clearly indicated and
acknowledged that he was the
long -time Port Richmond
resident.
So, briefly,
we have the notice of refusal
from May of 2024,
the application
of appeal, project
information form,
my transmittal letter, copy of the
deed from October of
two. There is a tax balance due, but it's not payable until March 31 of this year.
All other taxes are clear and paid for. This is the site plan and elevation plan.
Again, properties loaded on Belgrade Street, just above Somerset.
As you can see in the rear, there's a garage in the rear towards the front of the first floor would be the office space with one dwelling unit, separate entrance for the dwellings, separate entrance for the office space.
It was raised by Councilman Scuola's office that we install an access door, a man door, right where my cursor is indicating, connecting the office to the garage area.
Yeah. And I think a lot of the concern was that was dealt with the fact that a lot of times and the board sees them where first floor commercial space is converted into a residential dwelling.
That that would not be the case here because the space in and of itself is so small and it only has a powder room so that that could never be used as a dwelling unit.
and on the plane you can see there's a window right you know on this wall so it'd be easy
enough to put a man door in so that the office space can be directly connected to the commercial
space in the rear.
um uh again it's a uh there is a a third floor section uh which is part of uh unit two so it's
Again, it's a
a bi -level unit uh we're we're not making any additions to the structure and um and between
the two of them 28 and 26 they've been used as a three -family dwelling historically so we're not
We're not creating anything new.
This is a Google angle photo showing the front of the property here.
In the rear, as you can see, fronting on Miller Street is the garage.
Again, a wider view, but this is the Miller Street frontage.
As previously indicated, he installed new concrete sidewalks.
He restored the facade of the structure and actually did a nice stucco facade on the commercial unit.
To the left is the three -story dwellings, a copy of our zoning notice.
Again, front and rear of the structures, as you can see, again, on the Miller Street side, all new concrete.
um interior photos of the garage space these are typical photos of how he fit out the
uh interior uh typical of all three uh dwelling units new flooring cabinets appliances
is. Again, same fit and finish. This is a picture of the roof deck. Again, it's not visible from
Belgrade Street. It's at the top of the first floor behind the second floor dwelling units.
this is a google photo of what the property looked like prior to his renovations
again the the miller street frontage notice to for the meeting the addresses
certificate of mailing this is a SOPO's letter uh as you can see 23 in support zero opposed
all the zoning permits uh evidencing the zoning history of the property and again our aerial
photograph as you can see uh these are the train tracks down there lehigh avenue
Belgrade Street running northeast and we are located just above Somerset and below Cambria.
That is the sub and substance of my application, Mr. Chair. If there's any specific questions,
I'd be free to answer them. I either have Mr. French or Mrs. French on the line as well as
Why don't we bring your client one and adopt your testimony?
Very good.
Whoever is here, please raise your hand and we will verify and adopt.
Michael French has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
like you have to unmute yourself
uh miss oh there we go did it work i yeah it does mr french could you turn your video on please
um yeah i'm gonna bear with me here please i'm uh okay
all right good sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
uh yes sir uh michael french m -i -c -h -a -e -l f -r -e -n -c -h you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed counsel
Fair. Mike, you've heard my representations to the board today?
I did, yes.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, they are.
And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
I would, yes.
Thank you. That's all I have, Chair.
Questions from the board?
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just briefly mr chair i just wanted to confirm um what mr ward said earlier that we
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to confirm what Mr. Ward said earlier that we spoke and instead of having a vacant commercial use listed and having to come back later for potentially another variance, he would like the use of office business and professional on there instead.
So the board, if it grants, would be granting a variance for that in addition to the multifamily household living.
I don't know what the other use that's listed on here, the equipment and materials.
It's not listed as a variance.
I don't know if that was previously approved and also if there was previous approval for multiple principal uses on a lot.
But if any of those approvals were not previously made, then the board will be granting those approvals with this application.
Thank you.
Questions from the audience.
You want to respond to that?
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.
Apparently, the three -family use has been in existence for decades.
And the rear equipment and material storage has been, you know, been inspired by the bakery, which had been there for decades.
So the only variance or refusal noted was for vacant commercial space at the front.
And we've agreed that that should be business and professional as opposed to a blanket commercial space variance.
Thank you for your comments. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning. David Vecto, City Planning Commission. That's F -E -C -T -E -A -U.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential single -family zoning at this
location this property was rezoned in 2015 in accordance with the recommendations in the
comprehensive plan this property has appears to have been converted to three dwelling units
without the benefit of permits by a prior owner the property is not located in a commercial corridor
the city planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variance for three dwelling
units and deny the proposed use variance for ground floor business and professional offices
okay thank you um number two mi 2024 004 237 28 26 to 28 belgrade street i vote yes
with proviso approved use for vacant commercial space
fronting belgrade street is office business and professional
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with provisos.
I win, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Number one, MI 2024 -000898 -5153 Y Lusing Avenue.
so yeah hold on sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer okay my name
is lawrence on your okay my name is lawrence on your l -a -w -r -e -n -c -e my last name o -n -y -i -e -o -r -n -c -e
age. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do.
And, sir, thank you for coming. You were here a bright drill. You actually beat me into the
building. I appreciate that. Thank you. This is a resumptive hearing, and the purpose of this
hearing is for you to present your revised plans, showing your two units, and then we'll have
questions from the board, testimony from the public, and then the planning commission will
make a recommendation and then we'll vote okay so why don't you start and and show us your your
your revised plans well excuse me part pardon the interruption this is the court reporter
could i please ask the witness to get closer to the microphone i'm having all right thank you
all right you hear me now very well all right sir thank you okay uh actually my presentation is short
because I have been here before on the 29th of May last year.
And I had planned, I was seeking four units, and it was turned down.
And however, the zoning board suggested that they might be willing to work with two units,
they might be willing to work with two units, which is what I have done, and this is what I've
which is what I have done.
presented. Map is on the board. We have complied with all their requirements at this point,
and I'm hoping for a short speech and maybe some kind of a sharing of questions at this point,
but the house itself is very easy. We shall not be modifying anything. We will not be adding
anything. Quite to the contrary, maybe we might just have to open up
more doors and create the unit because it's already
actually divided. So it would be easier
to just collapse the floors into units, number one
and number two, as it stands.
Okay, and that's your revised plan, am I correct? Correct, yes.
So questions from the board.
um where will the trash be stored for both units the trash will be stored right in front
at the uh we have a sidewalk have a little uh what not sidewalk excuse me but like a porch
right by the side of the house
okay other questions from the board what's the access currently to the basement the access to
the basement is from the inside. The basement will not be
part of the two units. The basement will be
independent. It will have nothing to do with
either unit. Yeah, either unit.
Yes. And then I'm just because
the access is from the inside.
Why don't you show on the plans
how you get into the basement?
Okay. Well, okay.
If you move towards your left there,
yes, towards the left hand,
right, go down here.
The basement is just right there somewhere
in the corner, on the left there.
The basement goes on there.
it's completely independent
it has nothing to do with any of the units
yeah I'm just trying to figure out
how do you get to that stairwell
because if you're coming in off the existing porch
and you're going up
if you're coming from the porch
you can go into the first unit going up
and then you can make a left turn
because the porch is enclosed
the porch in the house is enclosed
so once you come in you make a left turn
and then you make a right turn
going upstairs
how do you get down
I think it's just...
Into the basement. How do you get in the basement?
How do you get into it? Well, the basement is
to get into the basement, you have to go
from the first floor.
So the first floor apartment
is the only unit
that has access to the basement.
That was what I was
trying to clarify. Okay.
And the intention is that that's just
going to be storage?
Say that again? Is the intention that they'll be able to use
that for storage?
Not really. I don't have any plans for that as it stands to be shut down.
All of their meters are going to still be in that basement, so they're going to have access to it.
The central meter will be in the basement. However, the panel boxes will be on the floors.
What do you mean the central meter?
That is the boxes.
Yeah, for the PGW?
That would be in the basement, but the panel boxes.
And then you've got a mechanical closet listed on the second floor.
What's going to be in that mechanical closet on the second floor?
Maybe a washing machine, washers and dryers.
So where's the hot water heater and the Pico meter going to be for the second floor unit?
They'll all be on the floors.
Everything's going to be on the floor?
Everything's going to be on the floor, yes.
Everything will be on each floor.
Except for Pico.
Electric water heater, everything else will be on the floor.
Other questions from the board?
Yeah, real quick.
So you said the trash will be stored in the front.
I know the porch is enclosed.
So is there a, I don't know if your neighbors would like the trash stored in the front.
Is there a place for trash storage in the rear?
There is a place, it can be done as a little yard.
However, the first floor may not have, the second floor may not have access to that.
However, as soon as you come out of the house, I still have a little piece of land attached
to the wall
that has nothing to do
with the sidewalk.
Can you guys just
zoom out
so we can see the whole
the whole floor?
Other questions
from the board?
Questions from our attorney
Hillary Anderson?
I just wanted to know
briefly, Mr. Chair,
We will need to just hold this for a vote for members to view videos of the past hearing.
But otherwise, I have no questions.
All right.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning david effector with the city planning
Planning Commission.
commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
rsa5 residential single -family zoning at this location there is no unique physical condition
or circumstance of this property to prevent it from being used in strict conformity with the
zoning code. This is a primarily single -family block base. The City Planning Commission recommends
the board deny the proposed use variance for two dwelling units. Thank you. We're going to hold the
vote on this until next Wednesday at 9 .30. We'll vote at 9 .30 a .m. You can come in and listen.
You don't have to come down here. If you don't want, you just listen on the phone.
We're going to have other board members watch the video of the hearings, and they'll vote. So we're
going to vote next Wednesday at 9 30 okay thank you for coming in and we do appreciate you
number three MI 2024 -004 -313 -2649 -South 18th Joseph Vaccaro is the attorney this is a resumptive
hearing. Good morning. Can you hear me? I can, Mr. Vaccaro. Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer? Good morning. My name is Joseph Vaccaro, V -A -C -C -A -R -O,
attorney for the applicant Damien Canelicchio. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes I do. Mr. Vaccaro as you know this is a resumptive
hearing the purpose of this hearing is for you to present additional plans and photos
you'll have questions from the board testimony from the public and the planning commission
will make a recommendation so Mr. Vaccaro could you please start? Yes thank you if I may share my
screen
I'm trying to
expand
increase the
can you see that um we see city of philadelphia project information form okay i don't see that
What I see is a blank, is a blank.
That could be a problem.
All right.
Oh, this is.
Can you see that?
Can you see the project information form?
We do.
And you see me scrolling it up?
We do.
Okay, fine.
Just want to make sure that we're all on the same page.
So just to recap, so we could go through the exhibits.
We have the deed. Damien Canalicchio had purchased the property. He had purchased the property on February 20th, 2024. Damien is married to his wife, Nicole. Scrolling down, we have the deed. We have the tax clearance certificate, the refusal with the application and the project information form, all items and documents that we had reviewed at the previous time.
There was an inquiry about how high the building or the proposed addition of the third floor to this home would go.
We've supplemented the plan starting on page 14.
Just want to make sure that you see that.
We see your plans.
Okay, and I'm just zooming in.
Specific inquiry was made as to how high the proposed addition would go.
On page 14, we have grade, sidewalk level, first floor, 10 feet high, second floor, 20 feet high. The proposed third floor would go up to 30 feet high, with the proposed pilot house, 8 feet high.
So, total, it would be 38 feet high.
Scrolling down, this would be the rear view of the property, front view of the property.
Here's a side view of the property.
Scrolling down.
The existing first floor, there would be no changes to the first floor, which is 665 square feet. No changes to the second floor, which is 668 square feet.
On the existing first floor, there would be no...
And the proposed third floor would be 670 square feet, with, again, approximately 68 square feet for the proposed pilot house.
By way of background, additionally, Damien and his wife, Nicole, they grew up in the neighborhood. They went to school in the neighborhood growing up. They live in the neighborhood. All their families, both of their families, they all live within a five -block area of the current home.
Damien and Nicole, they live with their daughter, Deanna, as well as Deanna's two children, ages three and five.
And their stepson, Santino, he comes in from Penn State every weekend.
Mr. Vaccaro, I was understanding, under the impression you were going to show us additional photos, too.
Could you show us the photos?
Here's the front of the house.
Here's the front of the house, the rear of the house, here's across the street, there's the Dunkin' Donuts, here's up the block.
And by way of comparison, we have 2439 South Bouvier. For comparison, this is on the next street over about two blocks up, by way of comparison.
So those are the additional photos with the revised plans that we've included into the packet.
By way of background, the family, it's a growing family, and the family needs additional space.
Currently, the house is about 1 ,300, a little over 1 ,300 square feet.
He's trying to bring it up to about 2 ,000 square feet.
um he basically wants to keep living in the neighborhood with his growing and expanding
family um he just doesn't want to go into the into the suburbs he grew up in the neighborhood
he lives in the neighborhood with the family that's growing and and he needs the extra space
um beyond that um if the board has any other questions of me uh we have we do have the
support, which was reflected
here on page 26 from
Gerard, a state area residence, where they support the
project. And there was also, the neighbors had
a petition was put around
the neighbors and they support it.
And here's the poster.
so if any members of the board has uh any questions this is just a growing trend
that's going on um a lot of homes are trying to build a third floor to try to increase the space
so that they could stay in the neighborhood that they've always been in mr vicario is your client
maybe he would want to adopt your additional testimony gladly uh damian canalicchio can you
raise your hand Damian are you there he's Damian Canaleco I'm sorry I heard a lot of echo
Damian Canaleco please accept the promotion to a panelist
good morning sir
you have to unmute yourself
how about now yes we can hear you okay i'm sorry i apologize damien could you turn on
your video so we could see you all right okay
thank you could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer yes damien
Canelicchio, D -A -M -I -O -N, last name C -A -N -A -L -I -C -H -I -O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Damien, did you hear my presentation?
Yes, I did, sir.
Was it accurate and truthful?
Yes, sir.
Would you adopt it as your own if you were to testify?
Absolutely, sir.
Anything to add or subtract?
no sir all right questions from the board yes one mr
No, sir.
Questions from the board?
Vaccaro can you scroll back up to the plans you were you went through them
quickly okay so the which page of the plans were you interested in not this
one. I couldn't really tell. You went through them really quickly. Not this one. Okay. This
is the proposed third floor. Let's start here. Could you zoom in? Sure. Let me scroll in
a little bit more. Here you go.
okay and then is there an elevation yes new facade yes hold on let me go back to
the first page so here's the facade front and back the elevation you see my
cursor it's over yeah i can read it if you could just zoom out a little bit sure so the whole yeah
uh let me move up a little bit do you need me to zoom out a little bit more
so we could get the pilot house in no oh okay i think i'm good i got that part okay
so here it is grade 10 20 and 30 and you said the right is the back i mean the right is the front
and the left is the back the right no damien is the right the front or the back yeah it looks
like that's like the little breezeway that's the the second window on the right the the right is
the front the left is the front where my cursor is yes yes sir okay it's confusing because the
breeze weighs on the left hand size so it kind of looks like the front too and then the railing for
this roof deck is at the property line on both sides that's my understanding do you like a setback
mine from the way it's drawn yeah let me let me see if i could pull up another drawing on this pack
but there it is on this corner
yeah i don't know what drawing that is though that's not a section yeah and it's a nation and
It's not an axon.
I mean, Damien, do you know where your railing starts for your roof deck?
Yeah, there's a setback of about 10 foot, 12 foot.
And is it from the front or from the rear?
Oh, it's from the front.
The front's a setback.
All right.
Other questions from the board?
Yeah, I have a question. So is this that would this be the only third story edition on the block?
I know you showed another block, but on this particular block, would this be the first third story edition?
I believe so. There's a crosser street. I mean, they're going all over.
I'm not I'm not sure if there's one on my block. I don't I would say I don't I don't believe so.
but behind me there are and in front of me they just built the like townhouses that are like
three stories and then across the street from me there's about two of them
okay and on the petition i saw uh the neighbor from 2647 uh sign a petition but the neighbor
on the other side sign a petition as well or there is no there is no neighbors over there
at Dunkin Donuts and they just built a four -story building at like condo uh sorry townhouses
association over there and they were building that over there you don't have neighbors on both
sides of you no no there's no neighbors at that I got all the neighbors on the back and and then
on the side of me because I'm like the second house from Oregon Avenue they're familiar with
the neighborhood second house in the corner there's a restaurant there and then it's my brother's
house and then me and then up the street I got all them neighbors and they all were cooperative
and sign the paper and of course street they weren't they're like just starting to sell
over there but they they're taller than me they would be taller than me because they're going up
like four floors um okay and the last question is uh can you just explain the hardship for you
not having the uh eight foot setback on the third level please i'm sorry i don't understand the
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
question could you explain uh any hardship that you have for not
Could you explain any hardship that you have for not having the eight -foot setback for the third story?
I didn't.
You're asking me why I didn't want the setback?
Why don't you want the setback?
Well, I didn't really think I needed it.
I don't know.
You're trying to maximize for your growing family.
Yeah, just trying to get as much room as possible with the grandkids and everybody coming and visiting.
And my granddaughters and grandson, they moved in with me for the time being.
Damien, I have one more question.
I need more room in the house, actually.
There's about six people there.
All right.
Question.
How many houses are on this block?
I would say about 15, maybe 20.
You're saying that there are 15 or 20 houses on this block, and there are no other additions like this on your part of the block.
No, my brother's actually thinking of doing when he's next door.
Yes, but there's no no one else has done it.
Up the street. Yes. I mean, there's up the street.
On my street. No.
OK. All right. Thank you.
could you could you explain again where your house is i mean we're having a trouble we're
looking at it on a map and we see three from away from the bar is that right yes yeah it's a third
one in from oregon okay um it's my it's the bar another house then my brother lives next door to
me and then it's my house there'd be three houses from the bar so it's actually just to confirm your
brothers at 2651? Yes. Mark Calico. Okay. And then you talked specifically to the neighbor
because you had a signature from 47. Have you talked to 45 or 53?
Where would that, I talked to every neighbor up the street. My brother's been there 14 years
and we went door to door. We are concerned about your brother because he is the neighbor,
but I think we're wondering like the house next to your brother's house. Yes. Yes, we did speak
to him and do you know if they signed the petition because it just it went really quickly so we're
trying to i'm i'm sure they did i'm i'm actually really friends with with with the people there
we're really close he's been there 14 years and everybody was cooperative and happy i'm staying
they want me to stay because otherwise i would have to move i don't have the room
mr vicaro do me a favor show us the new development across the street
see if i have a
you have it it's you know of course the one across the street you just went by it a couple
minutes ago so they're all three stories with roof decks i'm sorry i thought it was four
so i thought it was a four story up there one two three roof deck and that's actually higher than
what you're proposing to do right any other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Anthony C. with their hand raised, and they have been promoted to panelists.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
We can't hear you.
Are you muted?
Do we see him?
Anthony,
please accept the promotion to panelists.
You're muted.
I'm muted, maybe.
We have no questions at the time.
Thank you.
Anthony, you have no questions?
Thank you.
okay um planning commission
thank you chair bergman and good morning david ecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential
single -family zoning at this location there is no unique physical condition or characteristic
of this property we're prevented from being used in strict conformity with the zoning code
the appellant has not shown that they would suffer an economic detriment if the dimensional
variances for rear yard depth and minimum front setback were not approved the city planning
commission recommends that the board deny both dimensional variances um mr vaccaro uh we we
Mr. Vaccaro, we appreciate your extra documents that you provided for us.
appreciate your extra documents that you provided for
We're going to hold the vote on this, and we'll vote next Wednesday at 9 .30 a .m., and thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024 -004 -456 -5300 -18 Winfield.
Is Tamika McCoy available?
Tameka McCoy will be joining us as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name?
It's spelled for the stenographer.
Tameka McCoy appearing on behalf of Ms. Jenkins at 5300 Winfield Avenue.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel, we're going to have to continue this.
We need to have an amended refusal as scope of the application and the refusal do not match.
And Ms. McCoy, I can give you further explanation.
I will follow up with an email.
But when I didn't realize this case had been rescheduled, we had it noted that it needed an amended refusal previously.
and um uh when i i spoke with lni the original application only had um only had the parking
and the subdivision on it um but there should have been a landscaping plan that was submitted
and reviewed because there was parking um there was landscape landscaping plan submitted to the
zba but it needs to be reviewed by the planning commission and then lni um and it also appears
that there's some things on the refusal
that don't match what you're doing
in terms of where,
that there are actually three parking spaces
that are being relocated and not two,
also the location of the heritage trees.
So I will send you an email with all this information
and ask that you request an amended refusal
and it will be reviewed by planning
and then L &I.
And then once that's issued,
we will reschedule this resumption hearing.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Number six, MI 2024 -005 -928 -2353 -59 East Hagrid Street, Alex Sokoloff is the attorney. Also, this is an appeal against L &I, and Leonard Reuter will also be involved from the city.
good morning chair members of the board chair i i apologize i am as i was being promoted to
panelists i didn't hear anything that you said after after my name is what i said i said you
were the attorney and then leonard reuter will be involved because he represents l and i in this
matter understood mr sokoloff just the record could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer yes oleg sokolov o -l -e -g s -o -k -o -l -o -v do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do mr reuter uh thank you may it please
the board leonard f reuter r -e -u -t -e -r senior attorney for the city of philadelphia um if i
could just make make it clear for the record just as a preliminary matter mr sokolov this appeal i
think was originally filed pro se, but I think Sean Ward had originally been retained for the
case. So can you just confirm that he's no longer representing the appellant? That's correct. We
submitted an entry or substitution of appearance. I could not tell you when, but I know we have to
continue one of the hearings as a result of some. Okay. I just want the record to be clear. That's
fine, thank you. Mr. Reuter, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. All right, thank you. Mr. Sokoloff, could you start, please? Yes,
if I may share my screen, and I will try to be brief as this is an administrative appeal.
All right, is everyone able to see that? We see it. Okay, so I'm going to take the board through
kind of what happened on this project, and I will also go through a few of the
code sections that I believe are relevant and why this administrative amendment should have been
issued by L &I. However, we are here seeking the board's approval for this amendment after L &I
has refused it. So in 2018, a zoning permit was issued, and as the board can see here,
for an erection of an addition to the second and third floor with a deck, a roof deck,
a third story portion access by roof deck, and certain uses to be existing.
and, you know, certain uses to be existent at the property. This was issued and the permit was
applied for when the property was on CMX2. A little later in 2019, a permit amendment was
requested and issued to basically remove the pilot house and roof decks and continue with
the erection of the remaining second and third floor additions. Once work got on underway and
let me go to the plans here so I can illustrate a little better what happened.
okay so originally um none of the the walls were slated to be demolished none of the first floor
walls. During the construction, the front wall was demolished, requiring then two things to
occur in order to be able to continue with this construction. Firstly, a permit for full demolition
was required retroactively. And then as well, the zoning permit, which allowed for an addition as
part of the construction was no longer valid because full demolition would require a full
new construction permit. The amendment was applied for and refused by L &I for a number
of reasons that I'd like to go into now, but I can pull that up right here. What I would
like to to the board to be aware of is firstly there has been as part of other than the amendment
to remove the pilot house and the decks as part of this administrative
amendment application there is no change to the use of the building the floor area the amount of
units or anything in that nature. So a few things. Bill number 17 -0803, which changed the zoning of
this property from CMX 2 to RSA 5, was passed in November of 2017. So while between the time that
the original permit applications had gone in and the time that the original zoning permits were
were issued, and they were issued, as the board can see here, under CMX2.
The LNI has refused this, stating that this no longer qualifies under CMX2 because we are now
applying for a whole, both a full demo permit and subsequently a new construction permit.
My argument is this to the board. Nowhere in the code does it say that permits issued prior to an administrative zoning change are subsequently reviewed with the new zoning designations after a bill changes the zoning designation of a property.
If that were the case and we had not knocked down the wall, we'd eventually be in violation of the RSA 5 zoning classification of the property after the construction was complete, because it was complete after the administrative change, or excuse me, the zoning change had come into effect.
And that's because the final product here is a six -family dwelling. So it's certainly an issue with L &I's interpretation of the language of Section A301 .2 .5, which states that a zoning or use registration permit shall not be required for the following activities.
one and two aren't prevalent for this case, but number three states, alteration to an existing
structure which does not change the area height, floor area, or bulk of the structure, and the
existing use is legal and unchanged. So once again, as part of this administrative amendment,
we are seeking absolutely no change, and the only reason we even had to apply for this amendment
is the technicality of having this front wall knockdown, which would then, according to L &I's
guidelines, necessitate the issuance of a new construction permit versus an alteration permit.
At the time that the demo was done on the outside facing wall and when we originally applied and
were approved the variance, the use of the property was legal and it was being constructed
and intended to be used in conformity with the originally amended approved zoning.
in conformity with the originally amended approved zoning permit that allowed for
the amendment that removed the pilot house. Section 14 .303 .16, as far as administrative
reviews of amendments, states that the recipient of a variance or special exemption issued by ZBA
may request in writing to L &I a minor administrative adjustment to the variance or special exception,
provided the variance or special exception is not expired, which in this case it certainly has not.
Our work began within three years of the amended permit issuance. And just for the Board's clarity,
the project is nearly complete here. This is almost retroactively seeking to ensure that we
have all of the appropriate permits in place. So there's nothing in the code that says a variance
cannot be granted because the zoning designation has changed pursuant to an amendment. I believe
personally this is L &I overreaching and interpreting the code based on something that is not stated
therein and just denying a appropriately filed and meritorious administrative amendment.
And those code sections call for certain notice requirements to community organizations, as well as other parties that entered their appearance on the matter in the original zoning variance, which was absolutely done right here, if you will see via email, with a number of attachments being sent to the RCO, the councilman's office, the board itself.
So we complied with those requirements as well. The council person was alerted and we certified to L &I as part of our original request for the amendment that all of that had been done.
So LNI is able to approve a permit in these circumstances under the language of only if it does not substantially alter the character of the structure originally proposed, only if it does not conflict with a zoning board proviso, and only if it reduces the intensity of the previous approval.
The intensity of the previous approval was already reduced as a result of the first amendment to remove the pilot house and roof decks. And here, an administrative adjustment reduces the intensity of an approval if it makes comparable changes that reduce the intensity of the property.
So that was done in the First Amendment. There's absolutely no change being requested in this subsequent amendment request. And once again, I strongly believe and I think based on proper interpretation of the code, it was improperly refused by L &I and should be granted by this board.
As again, it only occurred as a result of construction circumstances.
It's a technicality.
The building is not changing at all from the original approved and then amended permit.
And I would like to also mention to the board that if the board for some reason is not inclined to grant this, the hardship upon the applicant is immense.
The applicant would have to go back through the entirety of the zoning variance process and would have to do so under the RSA 5 designation to approve a building that was previously approved by this board and furthermore, a building that is nearly complete in its construction.
So granting the adjustment lessens the intensity because if we are forced to apply for a new permit, one, it will be delayed construction of a nearly terminated building, which could cause all kinds of impacts to the building itself, leaving it exposed to elements and not completely finished.
It would be an eyesore to the community. The construction equipment at the property will just sit there taking up space.
The enclosed portion of the sidewalk that was used for construction will remain, and the site will just be a nuisance to the neighborhood and potentially a risk and an attractive nuisance to children in the neighborhood.
So that is all I have for the board. I thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
So before Mr. Sockle, Mr. Reuter takes, gives us his opinion, we note that you didn't send any photos in.
We did not submit any photos of the property.
In our understanding, this is a administrative issue.
And it, in my opinion, it should be, you know, decided based on just the permit history and the applicable code sections.
Thank you very much. Mr. Reuter. Sure. First, can you hear me? Very well. Okay, great. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Mr. Reuter.
First, can you hear me?
Very well.
The position of the city in this matter is pretty simple. The city's position is that this is not
a request for an administrative adjustment in the first place. It's not a question of it not
meeting the parameters in terms of like reducing the intensity or minor change to the footprint
gross area or anything along those lines.
In that sense, we don't disagree with Mr. Sokolov's position.
The problem here is that administrative review is available and the process exists for, and
I'll quote the code 14303 sub 16 sub A, the recipient of a variance or special exception
issued by the zoning board may request in writing to L &I a minor administrative adjustment
to the variance or special exception,
provided the variance or special exception has not expired, et cetera, et cetera.
So the problem is that they're not seeking an adjustment of the variance
that had previously been granted by the zoning board or special exception.
I think it was variance in this case.
They're seeking a new permit application.
It was originally an application for an alteration,
which had been granted and approved by the board
and then granted, and then there was an administrative adjustment to that, and that
administrative adjustment was reducing the scope of the project. What's sought here is basically
demolition and new construction. So on its face, it's not a request for administrative adjustment
in the first place. It's essentially a new permit application, which was the position of L &I,
and that was the position that was put on their response to the administrative adjustment request.
Now, that being said, you know, we understand or are sympathetic to the problem that you have here, which is you have a project that is essentially near completion.
It does have variances.
The wall's already gone.
It's interesting.
If this had been an attached structure, it wouldn't have constituted a demolition.
But this is actually not an attached structure.
it actually does not have party walls uh at least not on the sides i can't speak to the rear of the
property but the sides there's a tiny alley on one side and then there's a larger space on the other
side so the front wall is is a load -bearing wall and it was because of the removal of front wall
and the plans which i think were already part of the plans to remove the roof uh it's a one -story
garage so the roof is basically it's not you know the roof itself is is a supporting so it is
considered by l and i and again i think the applicant uh or in this case the uh uh the owner
and or the the expediter who was handling this matter understood that it would be it would
constitute a demolition i want to know for the record it's kind of interesting the city's never
issued a violation notice that i'm aware of for exceeding the scope of the original permit
um and again i think the applicant or or expediter did the right thing they were correct this did
change to a demolition and new construction and uh i think there you know there had been some calls
to l and i but my understanding is that the l and i didn't actually issue a violation notice for
demolition and new construction without a permit um so in that instance uh again while it's the
position and we would ask the board uh not adopt the argument that this was um an administrative
adjustment request uh you know where the city is fine to defer to the discretion of the board
i would say however we want to caution against um adopting any any position with respect to
hardship or anything like that none of those are really valid considerations for an administrative
adjustment or an appeal against l and i um they could have especially given the time that's passed
since this appeal was first sought, they could have sought a new application and variance in
the alternative. But, you know, we're now quite a few months down the road from when from when
this started. At that at that point, you know, there's it's neither here nor there. But so we
would discount those arguments based on equitable principles or anything like that. But again,
the city's position is that this is actually a new application altogether for demolition and
new construction and therefore the administrative adjustment protocols don't really apply but we're
we'll just defer to the board's decision here in in any event thank you thank you questions from the
board yes a question um it says that there was uh the okay that when they tore down this wall
Okay, that when they tore down this wall, that they required a full demolition permit, as opposed to what had been issued before, which was a partial demolition permit. Am I reading this correctly?
Thank you.
so that's correct yeah so what's the what's the what's what's partial demolition versus
so if what we're really talking about is this one wall how sure if if i i can respond to that
and i i think mr sokolow probably would agree uh pursuing the the cities the distinction between
a complete demolition and a partial demolition really is based upon the international building
codes or the residential code, et cetera, and it really is considered a demolition as opposed to
an alteration or partial demolition if more than two -thirds of the structural members are being
removed. So again, if this were a row home and it had party walls on both sides, the front
facade is not typically reload bearing, and the removal of a front facade by itself wouldn't
constitute removal of a structural member and so you could remove a roof and the front facade and
it wouldn't be considered a demolition but because this is not this is a fully detached structure
or uh it's detached at least on the sides the front wall and it's only a one -story building
the front wall is uh load -bearing uh it's providing lateral support to the side walls and also the
roof itself uh the joists or raptors for the roof uh however it was constructed will also be
structural so by removing the front wall entirely and the roof you've you've removed two two -thirds
of the lni made it presumably somebody at lni at the site uh had made a determination that this
constituted a complete demolition at that point and again in addition to triggering our position
to it triggering the requirement of a new of a permit for demolition and new construction
it would also require you know it would trigger the other protocols for demolition which would
be like you know notification to property owners site safety reports all that kind of stuff
but again i want to emphasize the city didn't actually issue a violation in this instance
so i can't say absolutely that the city itself ever made a determination that this constituted
a complete demolition i believe on its face it does and the applicant themselves uh also
considered and understood that it did constitute a demolition but i have not been able to find
paperwork uh indicating that the city actually went out did an inspection and issued a violation
or did a cease operations or a stop work order or revoke the prior permit um i think it they made a
determination i believe correctly that it did constitute a complete demolition when they
decided to take down the front wall. At the very least, it was certainly a change in the scope of
the original permit application. Even if it doesn't constitute a demolition, it's certainly
a change in the scope of the permit application. So I think they did the right thing by bringing
it to L &I's attention. And if I may, Ms. Gaston, just as Mr. Reuter has stated, if this property
was an attached property, we wouldn't be here before the board because none of this would
have been triggered. And to hold us to a higher standard when we're actually not even
in jeopardy of impacting neighboring structures, I think is somewhat inappropriate. I'd also say
that the administrative change language does not necessarily contemplate this exact
situation in the particular language of it. However, it seems clear that the administrative
adjustment protocols were intended for extenuating circumstances such as this to allow for property
owners to undertake an administrative process versus an appeal process to account for changes
in site conditions, changes in construction protocols on the site, and we think this
is wholly appropriate for an administrative change.
I also want to just mention, while Mr. Reuter is correct that in my research there are no
violations issued, I think in his experience, my experience, the point is that we could
finish this building and have a violation issued at any point and our attempt to jump out in front
of it should be seen as good faith. And again, the bottom line of it is, you know, what
And again, the bottom line of it is, you know, what is the issue to the city to allow for this administrative change in a property that has already been constructed versus requiring us to go back through an appeal process that, as the board knows, is one subjective on a permit that we've already been through a variance on and then would have to, if not granted, demolish an entirely new constructed building.
It just seems wholly inequitable for the property owner.
It seems like a waste of the city's time.
It seems like an inappropriate use of the appeal process.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Yeah, could you explain what triggered the construction team tearing down the original wall that started this?
I, Ms. Wynn, I apologize, as was noted, I was brought into it as a subsequent attorney, I would be making things up. And I don't want to do that. Before you, I also would say, look, it occurred, you know, there have been no construction violations issued at the building.
So I think for whatever reason, the construction team probably made a good call to do so.
And then as you can see, we in good faith and attempted appropriate and proper compliance with all city codes have filed for this administrative amendment once it did occur.
So I apologize, but I do not have that answer for you.
All I can tell you is the front wall is now built, sturdy, no violations on it or anything of that nature.
got it any other questions hillary do you have any follow -ups just the excuse me just a brief
clarification for um mr reuter um mr reuter in terms of of the city's position i understand that
they don't view this as an administrative adjustment you also mentioned that they
don't believe that there's a hardship argument there is but the city is also deferring to the
board is there um what's the city's position on on an equitable argument in this case well
i mean i i think it's probably fair to say that you know there's at least you know a little bit
of equity with the small e that's kind of built into the whole concept of administrative review
I think Mr. Sokolov was right in that sense.
Typical administrative review, which, in fact, like the first administrative review that was granted in this case is a classic example.
They had the property.
I think there was a deck or something.
They went to building code phase, and because of building code requirements, they couldn't have the deck the way it was situated.
So they came back, asked for a reduction in the scope of the variance because it was reducing the intensity of the variance,
intensity of the height in order to respond to a building code requirement that there
was there there wouldn't be relief from so that would be you know so again I mean whether
that's an equitable thing you know I guess you could say that's kind of you know sort
of equity -ish but we're just simply saying that you know the fact that something minor
might I mean I think anybody could argue if they did something during construction and
and now they need to fix it, that it would be a hardship of some degree to respond to that.
I'm just saying that that kind of consideration doesn't go into the determination of whether or not an administrative adjustment should be issued.
What I would ask Mr. Sokolov is, because it wasn't clear, they are seeking an administrative adjustment to the zoning permit to allow the replacement of the front wall.
um but again they would my understanding is that they did have they did get the full demo permit
uh and there would need to be adjustments also to the construction permits that are issued uh i
believe uh so so that's that's why we're here right i mean we're seeking the so though you'll
take the next so as to be able to pull the correct construction because in our attempt to do so you
know we got the comments from lni that it would either be an administrative change or that it
would require um you know a new a refusal to be issued right so again the city's position again
and it's related to the equity question is that equity doesn't really apply but also um the an
appeal against lni generally speaking can't be granted or denied you know on the basis of provisos
But, you know, presumably it's in the record that they will proceed and get the additional permits as they're needed if the administrative review is granted because there would just be new violations.
There would just be new violations. There would be violations later in the future if they changed the scope of the construction without additional permits.
There would be violations later in the future if they changed.
So basically what I'm saying is, you know, again, I think the board can make the call here.
So to go back just a little. All right.
So basically what you're saying is that this is not – this really isn't a minor adjustment if the demolition was for – considered to be for two -thirds of the structure.
If I might –
Just, you know, as a, that wouldn't be a minor adjustment that we will be approving after the fact.
No, and again, I think it's the city's position that the demolition itself, the change from an alteration or partial demolition to complete demolition, at least by definition, technically speaking, it's not an administrative adjustment because the administrative review provisions of the Philadelphia Code, what you're seeking is an adjustment of the variance itself.
So if you got a variance for height and you were allowed to build 60 feet and you want to reduce it to 50 feet, that's what administrative review is for.
So in the case of the original administrative adjustment, they got a deck and some other stuff.
They were seeking to reduce the intensity of this.
I agree that this is not really a change.
I mean, I wouldn't say that it's a reduction of the intensity, but it doesn't affect the intensity.
That's the point.
It's like the removal of this wall has nothing to do with the variance that was granted,
and it doesn't really implicate any of the prongs that would be met by 13 .303 sub -16 sub -B.
It's not really any of these things.
It's just a completely different permit application.
um so but the new permit they need would be for because now the property was rezoned
so if i may miss gas the only five now or what is it that you need in terms of the
we i mean to put it as simply as possible we need for our building permits to say
new construction versus renovation or, excuse me, alteration addition because the demolition
of that front wall caused the nomenclature of this to go from partial demolition to full
demolition. And after full demolition, you no longer have addition alteration, you have new
construction. But for the building permit to say new construction, what do you need in terms of
variants, shall we say? There is no change or request for a change in the variant. Well,
you could use the original variants. So do you see, are you able to see my screen here?
we do okay this is this is the amended permits so the way this says addition to the second floor
if this would then be um new construction and technically since that front wall was rebuilt it
would also be new construction of that front wall so where it's to an existing structure
that structure is no longer existing as a result of demolition of that front wall.
So I do take it back.
There would be some amendments to the variance.
The language that states addition would change to new construction, an existing structure
would, I guess, go away.
Right.
So you still need other things which are not encompassed in this appeal?
That's correct.
I MEAN TO HAVE THE CORRECT LANGUAGE ON THE VARIANCE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THIS
IS STRUCTURED I'M SORRY COULD YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE OR YOU YOU NEED OTHER APPROVALS
WHICH EITHER YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR AND ARE NOT ENCOMPASSED IN THIS AND THAT ARE STILL LIKE NEEDED
WELL WE WOULD NEED THE BUILDING PERMITS UM WHICH WOULD COME SUBSEQUENT TO THIS
But you can't get the building without the variant.
variance. That's what I'm saying. We're seeking an adjustment to this
That's what I'm saying.
We're seeking an adjustment to this variant.
variance so as to be able to pull the correct building permits.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I know it's a bit of a novel situation. Perhaps it's
something that can be contemplated in the next rewrite of the code.
Any other questions? I just want to make one statement. I don't think it's that novel because
I've actually been in this exact same situation before in my life. I'll bite with a single family
home, but this happens all the time with L &I. It's one of the rules around what it takes to
pull a building permit and what constitutes new versus alteration. I feel like we spend a lot of
time in the construction industry debating what that two -thirds percentage means, and L &I has
been pretty clear about what it means, and I think this is an unfortunate and rare situation where
because the roof and that front wall do constitute two -thirds of the building.
This is like one of those rare instances where it triggered it.
And, I mean, it's unfortunate, but this is the process that we've got.
I think you're right.
We could talk about it in the future.
But at this current moment, this is how it impacts this building.
So, Mr. Sokoloff, we're going to vote on this next week at 930 on Wednesday,
and we'll have a chance among ourselves to go over it
and see where we want to stay with this, okay?
I figured as much, Chair.
All right.
Thank you very much.
And Mr. Sokolov, please stay on.
Thank you.
I have another case for you.
Thank you, Leonard.
That concludes my business.
May I be excused?
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
So number four, MI2024 -004 -351 -2420 Wesley High Avenue.
Mr. Sokolov, just state your name for the record, please.
Yes, Oleg Sokolov on behalf of the Applicant Gymnast LLC.
Okay. And Mr. Sokoloff, for the record, there's a letter of opposition from all in the family. There's a letter of opposition from Strawberry Mansion, and there's a letter of opposition from Councilmember Young.
I appreciate that, Chair. I was not privy to the Strawberry Mansion letter of opposition. I just don't have it. I know that it exists, and nor was I from the council person.
I'll send it over to you, Mr. Sokoloff. Did you have a copy of the council office's letter that came in late yesterday?
That's the one I also don't have. I don't have. Okay, I will send those over to you.
Mr. Sokoloff, Tanetta Graham, our board member has a few questions.
Hi, good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of
the refusal and do you stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Oh, thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Let me share my screen, please.
All right, members of the board. Firstly, this one is
Certainly more straightforward than my last one, so I will try to go through it succinctly.
We are seeking a change of use to use an existing three -family structure for the purposes of visitor accommodation.
So I will go through our exhibit packet, and then I'll have my client, a representative of the limited liability company, come on to adopt the testimony.
The property was transferred to the current company in March of 2023. Here's the deed.
So this property was almost completely fully renovated interior renovations to put in new floors, new cabinetry, new tile floor here, as you can see, new appliances.
The owners have been attempting to rent this property as a regular rental for some time with varying degrees of success and certainly other issues that have become prevalent.
As the board may know, this is an area that certainly has a lot of vacancy, as you'll see from one of the pictures of the neighboring properties.
So our belief is that bringing visitor accommodation to this property particularly and this neighborhood, which I will mention does not have any hotels nearby, would certainly be a benefit to the neighborhood, would allow people that are coming in from out of town to have a space of their own, to have a space to come visit family,
families that live in the neighborhood to allow for their loved ones to come in and stay for a
short amount of time, for a long amount of time, for, you know, occasions, graduations, births of
children, things of that nature. You'll see that the renovation was undertaken very well and
completely new bathrooms, kitchens, floors in the bedrooms. These are typical photos of the units.
They have some variability in them to allow for a kind of taste of potential renters.
This property consists of three two -bedroom units, and it was noted, and here's a picture of the property.
you know it was noted and and here's a picture of the property you'll you'll see the you know
You'll see the
boarded up properties next door which are still existing in this condition um gymnast the the
limited liability that owns this property has has expended you know a substantial amount of
funds to bring this property into good condition to allow it to be used um as any kind of property
but unfortunately they were not able to find renters. And it's even stated in the letter from
all in the family. I'd also like to point out that this property, while being RSA 5,
is very close to some CMX 2 and CMX 1 commercial corridors here on Lehigh.
We strongly believe that allowing people from outside of the neighborhood or even out of town
to stay in this neighborhood could potentially revitalize some of these businesses and allow
people to use the businesses that are contained here on Lehigh that may not get as much foot
traffic as they'd like. Our application for appeal, our project information form.
We did meet with the community on October 8th. There were certainly, you know, lengthy discussions
about why this property should be used in the matter of visitor accommodations. The
All in the family, as I'll note, this is our certificates of mailing, just to run through these briefly. And then we have proposed some house rules. These are just proposed house rules about where trash is stored, whether pets are permitted, and things of that nature, no smoking.
And then we have nine letters of support from people within the neighborhood, including three letters from the immediate block, those being at 2430, West Lehigh, just a few doors down, 2426, just three doors down, and 2402, just about nine doors down, and then a number from the 2800 block.
What I would like to point out is, you know, the community organization here on the family mentioned some issues that we discussed in terms of renting the property for long term rentals where, you know, we've had people stay and not pay rent.
We've had people destroy portions of the property.
So our clients are really seeking to use it in a way that would not create these same kind of issues.
And while, you know, certain suggestions were made by the RCO as to how to use the property, I think it's wholly inappropriate to mention, you know, ways that a property owner should use their property while we're appealing for this.
I'd also like to mention there are six bedrooms in three various units.
We had no intention.
Well, yes, I guess in theory you could put two people in each bedroom.
That was certainly not our intention.
Our house rules would prevent that.
We were intending to do maybe three people at the most per unit.
So that would be like a family with a child or even if it's a family with two children.
I don't think that's the same kind of density as 12 adults in this building.
I would also say that, you know, as a long -term rental, nothing would prevent us from having 12 people in, well, I take that back.
There are certain rules within the city code that would prevent that, too, on a lease, depending on their family relationship.
But it could easily be, you know, two adults and two children in each of the unit, which would comply with all sections of the city code and would still raise these same issues raised by the RCO.
And then here are notice letters on the property. And our certificate of tax clearance. If it
pleases the Board, I would like to bring on Mr. Watson, a representative of the LLC.
Mr. Watson, please raise your virtual hand.
Jamon, are you on the line?
They have been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Watson.
Oh, Katrina, I apologize, wrong person.
i don't think katrina i don't think we're able to hear you
do we see the person are they unmuted yeah they appear to be is it just me
yeah they appear to be is it just me or can the board not hear them as well we're not hearing
or can the board not hear them as well
katrina we we can't hear you at all i don't know if you could hear us
are you maybe connected to headphones or something
Mr. Sokoloff, as an officer of the court, we can take your testimony, okay?
Okay, questions from the board.
Can you go back and show me the pictures and do you have a floor plan?
We do not have a floor plan. It's a three -story building with
a two -bedroom apartment on each floor.
So this is what?
The first floor, second floor?
This, I believe, is the first floor unit.
This is part of the second floor unit.
And this is the third floor unit.
IS THE PLAN TO SELF MANAGE THE UNITS OR A PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT?
NO, THE PLAN IS TO SELF MANAGE AND FULL DISCLOSURE TO THE BOARD WE HAVE ANOTHER PENDING APPLICATION
FOR A PROPERTY THAT THIS SAME LLC OWNS ON THE 2800 BLOCK OF LEHI AVENUE I BELIEVE WE'RE BEFORE THE
board in a few weeks on that one. So, you know, the intent is to self -manage and basically be
on this block for the two properties. Other questions? Yeah. Can you walk me through the
history of this property? I'm just trying to figure out, one, how in the RSA 5 zone,
it got to a point that we have a multifamily that's a newly renovated multifamily that's
asking for visitors' accommodations when the last permit on record for this shows from 2016
as a make -safe for a vacant building that was falling down. And so I'm just trying to
understand, one, what has been the evolution of how we got here, and two, how it's a hardship.
Sure. The property was granted a three -family dwelling since the 50s. I think the last permit
for three -family dwelling that I saw was from 1986. I believe the property was obviously
originally purchased in the same condition as you're looking at the neighboring properties
with the number of violations that Katrina and her husband, the owners of gymnasts, undertook
renovations of. I was not involved in the make safe, so I can't specifically speak to it. I know
that it was not as a result of anything that they did at the property that the make safe was
required. It was a result of the pre -existing conditions at the property that they then
pulled the make safe in order to do the repairs. They've owned the property for how long?
It's been in this entity since 2023, but they had it back in 2018. I believe if Ms. Watson can come
back on the line if you're here it looks like they purchased it in november of 2013 so does that
sound about right i i would be i would be lying if i told you i definitively so okay
oh let's see she's any other questions katrina hi can you hear me i yeah please could you state
your name and spell for the course ethnographer yes katrina williams k -a -t -r -i -n -a williams w -i -l -l -i -a -m -s
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you
ms watson um when did you originally purchase the property uh it we got married in 2013 so it might
in about November of 2013. Okay. And what condition was the property in at that time?
There was, we needed to, there was some bricks missing from the back wall. They needed to be
replaced. We hired a contractor. The contractor got it permitted and we had to fix the bricks that
were missing in the back. And that's the make safe permit that was pulled? Yes, sir. Okay. And
And generally, could you give the board an idea of all of the work that you've done at the property since you purchased it?
We replaced the sheetrock.
It's like a total reno.
um new wooden floors all stainless steel appliances i think we did the windows
New wooden floors, all stainless steel.
we did something with the window seals uh i believe he did something with the steps in the front
the porch to make that safe um it's an amazing unit okay and and could you just briefly tell
the board some of the issues you've had with with renters or potential renters at the property uh
for long -term use okay um the we've been able to we've always been able to rent it out um
we try to cater to um those individuals who might have a harder time being approved by a bigger
property management company um we run into a lot of single moms and their kids and things of that
nature um they would pay initially they would be able to pay for a few months then they will fall
off and we wouldn't get paid for quite some time. Then the difficulties with COVID and getting them
out just became like a little nightmarish. Thank you, Ms. Watson. For the questions.
Yes. Was it three units when you purchased it? Yes, it was. Yes, ma 'am.
yes ma 'am the visitor accommodations are you aware of any other that exists on that block
uh not on that block i mean i've heard i've heard there's quite a few airbnbs in that neighborhood
um and everybody was trying to tell us to go about it the wrong way but that's not what we
chose to do i'm a licensed attorney i work in uh you know in my in my area we believe in following
the rules we tried to dot all our i's across all our t's um you know i don't know the exact
addresses but we did our research and we hired people so we can do everything the right way
yeah miss when if i can answer that question because we we did do some research um
there are unfortunately no legalized airbnb's with with variances granted there there are a number of
Airbnb short -term stay uses on the block that we have heard of, but in comprehensively going
property by property on Atlas, we were not able to find any approved, which is a great reason to
allow this one to be a staple and a legal staple in the neighborhood. And I guess, Ms. Watson,
So my last question is, do you have any experience managing short -term rentals?
Well, I have experience, yes, with the rentals that we have.
But with this one, with 2420 and 2821, we're going to bring in a professional management company.
Oh, I apologize. I apologize.
That's okay. That's what we plan to do, bringing a professional management company.
We're just trying to get it all set up.
Questions from our attorney, Hilary Emerson.
just to clarify excuse me just to clarify for the record so all you're proposing all three units
for visitor accommodations at the property is that correct that's correct yes thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands if if i may may i add that as far as we know we've had tremendous amount of support
from the neighborhood.
They always call us if they think they see
anything funny. We've never had any
issues of any illegal activity. No one's been
hurt. There's been no police
reports filed or any
actions at that address. It's been
pretty safe and unproblematic.
Chair,
we have two hands with the hand raised.
Strawberry Mash and Community Services
has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning. Could you please state
your name and spell for the stenographer?
good morning
good morning
just state your name please
Bernita Cummings
and Ms. Cummings you've already been sworn
could you please give us your opinion
of this project
well I just want
everyone to imagine
being dropped off at this location
from an Uber with your children and maybe a husband or maybe a single mother with her children
and being blindsided by the conditions of two vacant properties next door to a place where
you propose to spend some time, preferably you're in Philadelphia for an enjoyable event.
And on Google Maps, this property was intentionally blurred as to prevent people
property was intentionally blurred as to prevent people from being able to see the dangers that
you could, that are, you know, in these two abandoned locations. So I think, and then when
we looked, you know, looked at all of the non -permit processes that were done with this
full kind of gut rehab, three units, a lot of conversation did take place and we are very
concerned that you could injure a whole family here. They could be murdered. They could be just
robbed. You can't determine from the two abandoned properties what access is even into this renovated
property, and they may not even know. So I would say that it would be a shock to someone already
tired, trying to get into a nice location or location that they thought was nice to come up
on a block that there, as you can see in even this photo, the trash that accumulates between
the two properties. So it's a very dangerous block at this point in time, like maybe at some
future date and maybe working with finding out the owners of those two abandoned properties.
But I would say that to put a family or families or visitors in a situation right now in this
property would be putting them in danger. And I would hope that we would not as a city do that
to a family. We would not let them pull up to a property where they have not been able to truly
identify that they're being put somewhere with abandoned windows, broken windows. They're coming
into a space where I don't think any of us would appreciate being put in if we were coming into
another city or a different city. So thank you. Mr. Sokoloff, do you have any questions?
I have no questions. Next hand, please. Yes, the number ending in 3552 has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Adrienne. Hello. Can you hear me? Could you please, for the record,
state your name and spell for the stenographer. Adrienne Fernandez. My last name is spelled
F -E -R -N -A -N -D -E -Z.
Do you swear we're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please testify.
Okay. First, this
refusal seems confusing in terms of
it seems to be for trying to legalize a multifamily
as opposed to visitor accommodations. In the past, I understand that
the owner said that they had problems with renters, and that was probably related to
who they chose to move there, because I imagine that they could have also had some assistance
from Section 8 through PHA to choose better tenants where they could check their history.
Also, we have an overlay preservation, a preservation overlay in this area,
where we want to maintain RSA 3 and RSA residential districts.
we're not an entertainment zone it's a residential district so
hotel hotel living and temporary type visitor accommodations are not
really a good fit for our area there are two elementary schools
and one high school very close by within two blocks one elementary school
on a private Catholic school, St. Martin de Porres, is one block away.
And the occupants, the type of occupants that would be attracted to visitor accommodations would be transient.
In this area, specifically 24 West Lehigh, we just ended a problematic, I don't know what to call it.
They had people who were adjudicated living there, all women, and the neighbors requested.
They did not want it there, and DBA made it temporary.
That temporary permit, zoning permit, has expired.
So the neighbors are very against transient occupants, and also this would not be good near the school.
um and that would include even um you know people cannot be around a school like pedophiles
who could easily come into these type of properties on a frequent basis if they're
known that they can rent there for three months or whatever it is um also there would be too many
occupants in a building and i think that the owner should try to revisit and research even
through a management company how they can have successful three apartments
three apartments, because they've already changed to three apartments, but we do have
because they've already changed the three apartments, but we do have to
successful rentals of single -family homes, many times, RSA -3s, many times with a married
couple, children, and grandparents.
Thank you.
That's everything.
If I may just respond.
Mr. Sokoloff, do you have any questions?
Yeah, if I may just respond.
While we understand that certainly the neighborhood is a residential neighborhood, I would remind
the board that lehigh itself and as i showed in in the zoning map is and especially these two blocks
does have uh commercial presence there are a number of businesses there while some of them are
you know either closed or abandoned these these types of steps and allowing um out -of -towners or
not out -of -towners people to to visit different neighborhoods that are that have families that
that's what I brought up as the first point that this could be intended to
allow for people in the neighborhood to have their family members stay and
have places to be with their family while also being near a commercial
district that little by little needs to be revitalized with different kinds of
uses. So thank you. All right. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the votes for audience?
I see no hands.
Planning commission.
Thank you, chair Bergman. And good morning, David Vecto.
with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the rsa5 residential single family zoning at this location this property was rezoned
in 2014 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan at that time this block face
was zoned rm1 residential multifamily a 2020 zoning ordinance passed by city council which
regulated short -term rentals did not change the basic rule prohibiting full -time use of a dwelling
unit as a short -term rental. This type of absentee management, where the owner does not live in the
unit, has been illegal since the first short -term rental zoning regulations became effective in
2015. What's changed since the passage of the 2020 ordinance is that there is now a licensing and
enforcement mechanism. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use
variance for visitor accommodations thank you mi 2024 004 351 2420 wesley high avenue i vote no
cheryl gaston my vote is no tennetta graham my vote is no i win my vote is no
thank you council thank you members of the board that concludes my business with the
board might be excused thank you um number seven and eight please mi 2024 006 055 1832 north van
pelt street and hillary okay to do both together um let me just excuse mr knockamson is your client
the same for both cases i i see they're owned by two different llcs
i'm sorry i can't hear okay so can you put your mic on and just respond again mr noggamson yes
uh so the principal member is the same for both companies but they are separate companies one
owns one property and one owns the other for presentation materials i do have separate
presentations i filed for to the board but i also for presentation purposes now i was going to do
it in one present okay yes that's what i was verifying i figured it was probably the same
principle for both companies. So that's fine. MI 2024 -006 -055 -1832 North Van Pelt Street and
number eight MI 2024 -006 -103 -1846 North Van Pelt Street. Mr. Nocklinson could, for the record,
could you just state your name? Yes, Alan Nocklinson. You've already been sworn and
And our Tenetta Graham has a few questions for you.
Good morning.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
And do you stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I do not believe I've been promoted to a panelist.
Thank you.
all right we're going to present 1832 and 1846 north band pelt uh these are separate zoning
appeals uh but for presentation purposes and efficiency i put them in the same presentation
1832 reina investment llc owns i mean reina investment llc owns 1832 and grazed property
LLC, owns 1846. So during my presentation, we're going to review the individual knows
owns 1846. so during my presentation we're going to review the individual notices of refusal
we did not get any correspondence from the coordinating rco strawberry managing community
concern we did meet with the community and as stated previously there were three properties
that were presented at that community meeting two with this client to the left of me mr ollie
Dodd, who owns Rayna Investment LLC, as well as Grace Property LLC, and then an unrelated
client who owns another property.
Much of the discussion dealt with the North 24th Street property, which is being continued
tomorrow.
These properties are rather straightforward in nature.
Again, this block, if we'll go through it, has multiple instances of triplexes, and in
actuality 1832 is has a zoning permanent a building permit for five unit dwelling so today we could
build a five unit dwelling we think it's more appropriate to mimic the other properties on that
block which are triplexes in nature and during our presentation we'll also review the history
of not just 1832 but 1846 which has had a history as a seven unit rooming home so again not out of
character for the history of this property, not out of character for the block itself to have
multifamily on this block. We'll look at an aerial view of the property or of the block, which is
exhibit six, which shows that there's a lot of open space here. So encouraging this development
of triplexes makes sense under their circumstances. And that goes to a hardship that is not practical
or realistic to force someone to build a single -family home here.
Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property,
our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notices,
our applications for appeal, our deeds of the property,
showing that we own these properties in different entities,
and our certificates of tax clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation,
I would ask that Mr. Ali Dodd sit to the left of me.
He'll turn on his mic.
the board will have a swear him in and i'll have a few questions for him
um notice there's a refusal so 1832 uh north van pelt street we have two refusals one uh for the
use although again you know we're asking for a triplex here um this property has a current zoning
and building permit for five unit dwelling when mr ali dodd was looking to develop these properties
He looked at the block itself where there's many, many triplexes with lots of equal size, and again, practically fitting five units in there doesn't really make sense from a comfort standpoint for the tenants.
He thought having a triplex would make more sense.
That's why we have that proposal, but because this is an RSA -5 property, we have a refusal for the use.
The second refusal has to do with the rear yard, where nine feet is required and five feet is proposed. This mimics what has been approved by this board previously by way of variance, so again, not out of character.
And then the same refusals pertain essentially for 1846, which again has a history as a seven -unit rooming house.
This is an RSA -5 property.
We have three refusals, one for the use, where you see here we were originally proposing four -unit dwelling.
Again, talking to the neighborhood, our office doing more research on this matter, we thought it was more appropriate to have a three -unit dwelling.
because of all the other three -unit dwellings that are on this block,
and I have a list of them.
1843, 1859, 1811, 1816, 1814, 1812, North Van Pelt Street,
all are triplexes.
All are of equal or, in many cases, lesser size from a lot standpoint
than our property.
And then in addition to the use variances,
And, again, if the board feels so inclined to grant this variance, we would ask we have a maximum three units for this property.
And I think we have revised plans for that as well.
Two other refusals have to do, again, with the rear yard depth and the occupied area.
Again, not out of character to what you're seeing on this block.
More so, we just want to provide functional floor plans, and we need that extra space to do that.
And we would ask that the board also grant those dimensional variances.
Then, again, we usually have a placeholder when we don't have a letter from the community, as my understanding is Ms. Cummings is online.
I'm sure she can summarize the meeting.
But, again, most of the discussion dealt with the other property, which is not the subject of this appeal on North 24th Street.
um you know that will be for another day um again not much much discussion here there was some
That will be for another day.
Again, not much discussion.
discussion with well well you have five units go build it um you know i think that's cutting off
your nose to spite your face in a way because you know what we hear a lot of times is hey there's
too much density like we can't and we want bigger units that's what we're trying to do here and if
you look at it from a from a practical situation we have five units in one building and we have a
single -family zoning classification one for a total of six units we just want to redistribute
the units three and three again makes sense because there's a half a dozen instances on that
block doing the same thing and then this is our revised plans and this is i believe for 1840 it
is for 1846 north man pelt street if this board approves this variance we would ask that you know
reduce the amount of units to three units which mimics what's you know on that block and then we
We made a small modification, we noticed when the plans were submitted to L &I, there was
minor discrepancy, so it's just a little cleanup, which we're changing the location and the
size of the window wells.
And then these are just the floor plans, again, these are both three -story structures.
The height of these buildings are 35 feet high, both are flat brick facade buildings.
and then this is the history of the property 1832 again is for has approval for five family
dwelling there's also a reference to commercial trash pickup as part of their you know of their
zoning permit and again for both properties you know to be fair about it we would ask that there
would be proviso for commercial trash pickup as well and then this is 1846 again the history
as a seven -unit rooming house for this property.
So neither of them has a history of single -family use at all.
And then these are in addition to the properties I mentioned on Vail Pelt Street,
but there is nearby, 1843 North 22nd Street is multifamily.
That's six units.
1800 North 22nd Street, that would be four units.
1906 north 22nd street five units 1904 north 22nd street four units i think we have a picture
yes and then the aerial view you can see there's a lot of mist there's a lot of vacant land here
um it's very difficult you know to build single family homes here and that's why there's really
only triplexes and multi -family nearby and you know mr holly dodd um you know we know that this
is not enforceable but his business model is completely affordable housing it would be out of
character for actually him to do market rate housing so in order to for the numbers to make
sense because of construction costs and rising interest rates he needs you know three units in
1846 and it makes sense to reduce the amount of units to three units in 1832.
and then maps of the area there is mixed zoning here like again on our block is rsa5 but there
again multiple instances nearby on our block and nearby of multi -family dwellings and then we are
near rm1 as well and you know there is a commercial quarter down here not far from it helps always
good to help to support the commercial quarter by increased density and then from a google maps
perspective you can see as well and then again you can see that there's ample you know public
transportation on ridge avenue as well the commercial quarter photographs of the property
this is the front of 1832 north van pelt street the front of 1846 north van pelt street
these are orange notice posters showing proof of posting for today's hearing 1832 north van pelt
1846 north van pelt and then um this is the proper 1846 north van pelt um as far back as
2014 you can see it's been a vacant lot for at least a decade and then this is north van pelt
street to the uh to the right of the property to the left of the property and then that was for
1832 for 1846 this is the right of 1846 this is the left of 1846 our plans and drawings again
pretty straightforward flat brick facade there is a bi -level for the first floor and lower level
for unit number one and then unit number two and unit number three are both uh you know on each
each floor so those are the three units and the same thing for 1846 it's essentially the same we
just swap the floor plans because they're basically twins of each other just across street
Just across the street.
And now RCO meeting notices.
Our RCO meeting notices, we met with the community on February 3rd.
There's additional requests made by this community group that we willingly provide,
making sure that people know that this is not junk mail.
On there we put public community meetings so people know that if they get this notice,
it's not because someone's trying to sell something to them.
We also emailed a notice to the community group
as well as the coordinating or the community group
and the relevant parties at least two weeks beforehand.
So we showed that proof of mailing.
So we emailed that notice to them
and showed that we mailed it to 137 addresses for 1832.
These are the list of the addresses,
proof of mailing in those addresses.
And then obviously this is a separate zoning matter, 1846.
We did the same thing.
Slightly different addresses, but proof of mailing to those addresses are applications
for appeal that we filed on behalf of both entities, our deeds showing that Reina Investment
LLC is the owner of 1832, while Grace Property LLC is the owner of 1846, and then our Certificates
of Tax Clearance.
While there is a balance shown here for both properties, those amounts are technically not due until March 31st of 2025.
I'm going to stop sharing my screen.
I would ask that Mr. Al -Haddad be sworn in.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Michael Al -Haddad, A -L -H -A -D -A -D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
I don't want to leave that. I want to get closer. Yes. Mr. Ali Dodd, you heard what I stated about both zoning matters. Yes, I do. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, I do. Thank you. You're okay with just the one person, right? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board.
yes um looking at the project because this is new construction could you explain for the two
zoning use refusals what the hardship is you mean for the dimensional aspects dimensional and the
maximum occupied area uh so and i i believe our architects on architects representative is online
but it really has to go with the functionality of the floor plans you know you want to make sure
that you have enough room for the bedrooms for the living room the kitchen so that's ultimately
what we're seeking we and and you know that's why we went down from five units to three units was to
provide more functionality there and then with the from going to the five to the three
you still have the same yard depth yes i mean again it's you know two of the units are on its
own floor so instead of cutting up those units and making it dysfunctional we just wanted to
have a straight through front to back and we think that would you know be beneficial to the
occupants in the property. Other questions? Yep. Could you tell me can you go back to the basement
plan and I'm trying to see if there's window wells in the rear and the front and also where
is trash going to be stored for the units? So from a building code perspective we're required
to have window wells in the front and the back because of the living in the basement um so i'll
go through that but we'll clarify the quality of the window wells is what she was asking okay well
there there these are code all i can tell you is they're code compliance window wells
um again mr ali dodd so this is what he does for a living like you know he takes these properties
they're multi -family and a lot of times you won't even see him these are he has many properties in
the city of philadelphia many of them are zoned why don't we see the window okay i know why don't
we do that yeah that's right many of them are zoned appropriately so again this is his his spec
house so but let's take a look at it worth it all right so let me see
let's see window well is here on the front and the window well is here on the back that's just
one i believe that this would be 1846 i would believe that 1832 would mimic that as well
okay and the trash storage for the units so the first floor unit would have access to rear yards
and then the second and third floors would have ventilated trash closets okay at the community
meeting there was no discussion about these projects like did was there any feedback given
Like, was there any feedback given about the projects?
about the projects?
I mean, again,
I mean, again, I'm not, Ms. Cummings is on the line.
So I really think most of the meeting, you know, dealt with North 24th Street, which
is not related to this matter.
There really was, no, honestly, there was more so like, well, this is single family
zoning classification.
We want single family.
Nothing about, hey, we have five units approved.
we would like to go down to three there again there was a comment in there well those are five
then and you know i don't know how productive that is um so i i think again your 24th is a different
story but here it is a documented history of multi -family use and or approval for both of
these properties and there are multiple instances on that block of similar use of three units and
And, you know, again, after hearing from the community, I agree with them with four units would be inappropriate for this property, just like five units would be inappropriate for the other property.
Three units is what makes sense. And that's why we went down.
And honestly, that's why we actually stated our objection to having continuance, because there was there wasn't any like substantive like discussion about like the zoning matters and, you know, anything that would be productive to have a further community meeting.
i but i defer to the board obviously and and the basement living is that a hundred percent below
grade that uh it's uh it's raised out of the ground three feet so it's like set i think it's
seven feet nine inches into the ground and then there's it's raised up to another three feet
on top of it and there are windows like in the front of the back as well i just want to clarify
is this plan accurate because it is showing a different backyard than what is shown in the
refusal um what do you mean by that so it's saying that your rear yard depth is five feet
in both properties that's what your refusal is saying but this drawing is showing it at nine
so i'm just trying to um so the one i have up here shows five so i'm just telling you this
just in front of me. And then I can go to the other one. Let me see the other one.
Actually, I'm just going to continue sharing. Let's see the other one.
Let's see. So I'm assuming that one
was 46. Let's see.
Salutation somewhere.
Is it going to say 46? Well, let's just assume it says somewhere.
my eyes are going. Let's see. Let's see the other one.
The alley. I see it.
Oh, they're right.
I was like, we went too quickly. Yeah. Okay.
Any other questions?
Yes. Question. You said that there were other multifamily uses on North 22nd Street.
Are there any on Van Pelt?
Yes, there are. 1843, three units. 1859, three units. 1811, three units. 1816, three units. 1814, three units. 1812, three units.
Are those the ones that you're talking about, the 1811, is that on the same block?
Yes, our properties are 1832 and 1846.
Okay, and 1811 is on the same?
I let me let me confirm that hold on let me just go on atlas
so that's 1812 let's just see just make sure 1832
yes okay yes I just wanted to confirm before saying but yes all right thank you any other
questions questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um only to know i think it was just so so we may want to vote these separately because uh 1832 did
not have revised plans um right correct so only 1846 has revised plans okay and that one also has
a reduction of a unit so just wanted to note if the board does decide to vote these today
Okay. We'll vote them separately because there are suggested provisos for that one. Also, the commercial trash pickup proviso, that is something we could add. Yes, for both, if the board wishes. Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Strawberry Mansion, and they have been promoted to panelists.
Ms. Cummings?
Thank you.
hello good morning again miss cummings just for the record could you please state your name
my name is bonita cummings and you've as you know you've already been sworn do i do i see
you on the video yet um let me see do we hear okay yeah good you've already been sworn in so
please start your testimony hi good afternoon everyone um i just wanted to indicate that
That part of the assumption here is that this board would just accept that because they want to go from five to three, that it would just be an automatic type of thing.
The community's conversation, including after the team left the call, the community state, and we continue to have conversations.
So, again, one of the concerns was the yard.
Or, you know, like, or even maybe the opportunity to talk about a lesser number of units, but we weren't given the courtesy, again, of a continuance based on some of the things that because we heard three, you know, three cases, and they all are kind of in a similar area.
Some of the comment was that many of the addresses that were given, were they legal three units?
And then some were in places that really were not relative to the block at all.
So I just wanted to add that in that, you know, the assumption just that, you know, the board would say fine just because the indication is that, oh, well, we have a permit for five, but the permit expired.
So you don't have something that you can do.
According to the conversation, the permit expired.
They didn't get that five done in a timely manner.
So now when you're coming back, you're coming back with a reduced number.
So, you know, the community asked for more time.
We weren't granted.
And I just wanted to indicate that because there were some things in looking at the properties,
particularly referencing yard depth and things of that nature that we wanted to have more conversation about.
So thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Cummings.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Vecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, this testimony is for both 1832 and 1846 North Van Pelt Street.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA -5 residential single -family zoning at this location.
These properties were rezoned in 2014 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan.
At that time, these properties were rezoned RM -1 residential multifamily.
there is no unique physical condition of either property that would prevent them from being used
in strict conformity with the zoning code the city planning commission recommends that the board
deny the proposed use variance for multi -family dwellings in both properties and the proposed
dimensional variances thank you we'll do the uh mr chair can this quickly quickly respond sure
um there's a documented history for each property of multi -family use and my understanding is that
the building permit is active for the five family dwelling there's also a documented history on that
block of six other instances of triplexes you know for those reasons i believe the board should grant
the variance thank you thank you number seven mi2024 006 055 1832 north band pelt street i vote yes
with Proviso, commercial trash pickup.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanita Graham, my vote is no.
Iowen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Barron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024 -006 -103, 1846 North Bend, Pelt Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plan, one page, stamped by CBA, February 11th, 2025, and additionally, commercial trash pickup.
And Mr. Chair, would you like to add a proviso, maximum three dwelling units?
Okay, isn't that the revised plans?
That is, but we usually put that in separately as well.
Maximum three dwelling units.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
To the grandma, my vote is no.
My vote is no.
I win, my vote is yes with provision.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone in the audience here or the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
No, it's not.
I see no hands.
Thank you very much.
thank you uh staff thanks everyone see everyone tomorrow at the bright and early at 9 30 a .m
you're gonna be encouraged this week