use the upper floor, we'd either have to do something to just barrier it and say no more use
or actually physically take it out. So we believe that since this property, we believe has been used
as a three-family dwelling for since the 50s, that there is a physical hardship. There is a
hardship created by prior uses. We understand that we, you know, we can't, I can't, I couldn't
find, if you go to the L&I City Atlas file, I can't find anything on the 5328 side. We have found
stuff, obviously documentation, and we've included it for 5326, and also found the documentation
for properties across the way that shows you that this was a three-family dwelling neighborhood.
I know it's been rezoned to RSA 3, but it hasn't been used as RSA 3, this building. It's not
physically laid out. And also we have, as I said, we have those buildings, right, properties next
door that are owned by the city of Philadelphia and have remained vacant since the 1950s. So
So, and if they're Andy Barrios, can you just, he's our design professional, Andy, will you just tell us a little bit about.
Mr. Pollack, Mr. Pollack, I think you've done a really great job of talking about the design and the way it's laid out.
I think maybe you should have your testimony adopted.
We will. Mr. Chairman, if I may introduce and have Mr. Roy Smith or Kim Smith or both of them.
we'll make it a family event
and have them
raised to that level
Mr. Smith could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter
Roy are you on I know you're here
I know he's we've been I know
they're here
and I told them to raise their hand
his hand was up chair but it
disappeared
There it is.
It's back again.
Mr. Smith, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please?
My name is Leroy Smith, L-E-R-O-Y Smith, S-M-I-T-H.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Roy, I have two questions.
You've heard what I've stated on the record.
Do you believe that it is truthful and accurate?
And Roy, do you adopt that as your testimony, as if it came out of your own mouth today?
All right.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Mr. Richardson. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, sir. Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance for this property.
Thank you very much. Thanks for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no hands at this time any commission
good afternoon chair members of the board greg walden planning commission staff the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to existing residential single-family zoning
at this location proposed use is consistent with documented long-standing uses on this property
and is not out of character for the block the planning commission recommends the zoning board
grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2021-003.
Thank you. MI 2021-003-851-5328 Wakefield Street, I vote yes.
Carl Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Pollack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. That concludes my business.
May I be excused? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. So for the board and the staff, I'm going to take this next case, which is two together, and then we'll take a quick break.
MI 2022-001-274-567-Van Kirk Street and MI 2022-001-703-565-Van Kirk Street.
attorney is uh jared klein letter of non-opposition from the coordinating rco
longcrest community association mr klein is coming back in as a panelist chair
good afternoon mr chair members of the board hi mr klein you've already been sworn could you
identify who your client is in the relationship to this property? Certainly. It's actually two.
567 Van Kirk is owned by ASU Properties, LLC. 565 Van Kirk is owned by 2024 East Hazard, LLC.
Both have the same principal, Carlos Giraldo, and I am representing both.
Thank you. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Klein. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents for both of these properties,
consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
Okay, you may proceed, and please share your screen.
Thank you, Ms. Tanari. So here for both 565 and 567 Van Kirk, the applications are identical for each. So I'll speak of them together, but they are separately deeded properties with separate applications.
The refusal for each is identical. We're seeking to re-legalize these properties for duplex use.
The base zoning is RSA 5. The history of both these properties is the same. They have been
duplexes for a long period of time. Prior to my client's purchase of them, the rental licenses
that had been issued had expired. So after it went for three years without active rental licenses,
the zoning that had been in place was considered abandoned and both properties reverted back to
their RSA 5 based zoning, although the use inside and the layout inside had remained the same.
Just to orient the board, this is our property here. I'll try and flip this around. Sorry about
that. These are the properties here located on Van Kirk Street right next to each other.
the zoning map of the area you can see is predominantly RSA 5. Despite that zoning,
there are a lot of multifamily, primarily duplex uses on this block of Van Kirk Street.
And so what we're proposing to do, we believe fits in with the character of the surrounding area,
won't pose any burden on anyone on the surrounding area, and is consistent with the uses that some
other properties have. Showing you some photos of the property as they exist most recently from
Google Images, you can see they're very standard row home style homes. And the application proposes
one unit on the first floor, one unit on the second floor. The only comment we received from
the RCO was that they did not want any residential dwelling in the basement. And they suggested that
a proviso could be entered stating it would be for duplex use only. We're absolutely fine with that
and that matches the intention of the applicant. You can see very standard residential style street
photos of the zoning notices that were posted in the windows of the properties.
To give the board a sense of the interior layout, we do have some sample photos
And you'll see there's relatively modern kitchen that's been installed in each of the units, along with stair stairways to the upper floors and reasonably spacious bedrooms.
And the this is the current layout of each each parcel.
And this is the current layout of each parcel.
They are.
They are, as you can see, currently vacant because the property did not have zoning for multifamily use.
But the units are in good condition and we think will be a positive addition to the surrounding area.
As the board noted in its introductory comments, we did meet with the Lawn Crest Community Association.
Their letter for each of the two applications was identical.
and they noted that there was overwhelming support to not oppose the granting of the
variance. The vote was 40 to 1 for each of the properties. And as I mentioned, there's a note
here that says it provides the building only to use as a two-family dwelling. That is the use
that we're seeking and we have no intention to expand that use. I'm going to ask if my client
Carlos Giraldo is here. I know he was on earlier. He may have had to leave for another commitment
And if he doesn't raise his hand, I'll be happy to adopt on his behalf.
No hands are up at this time, Chair.
Mr. Klein, you're an officer of the court, and we will take your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Happy to address any questions the board has.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair we have dylan mahoney mr mahoney you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
thank you mr mahoney you've already been sworn before to state your name
and we'll take your testimony yes sir thank you mr chair dylan mahoney office of councilwoman
cherell parker we received the letter of non-opposition from longcrest civic and we
are also not in opposition to the to the granting of the barriers thank you mr mahoney anybody else
from the virtual audience there are no other heads at this time planning commission
afternoon chair members of the board this is greg walden planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends no change the existing residential single family and zoning at
this location the proposed use is consistent with documented previous uses on the property
this continued use of the duplex will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood
um city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance with the proviso
that you know um that the uh agreed upon proviso with the community group the no blowing unit in
the basement um so before i vote i would say that our attorney is saying that we don't need to
proviso because if you went to a third unit you'd have to come back anyway that's right mi2022
001274 567 van kirk street and mi 2022 001 703 565 van kirk street i vote yes
harold tenere my vote is yes on both on both on both okay thomas holloman my vote is yes on both
james snell my vote is yes to both
okay you that you have your votes you have your votes thank you all very much enjoy the rest of
Okay, thank you. So I have one more left on this group, and then we're going to move right into the, to the 330.
So why don't, thank you, as you're breaking up. So what I want to do is let's take a five minute break. So Mr. Kelly can be straight and things like that with his, with his notes. So let's take a five minute break. We'll come back. We'll do the one case, then we'll move right into the later.
Great. Thank you. Sounds good. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you, Chair.
We begin recording. All right. Case number 14 from the 2 p.m. list. MI 2022-001-068-601
Gall Street. Daniel Reisman is the attorney. Letter of support from the Fishtown Neighbors
Association? Mr. Reisman? He's coming back in as a panelist, Chair. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. How are you? Could you state your name and spell it for the court
reporter, please. Yes, Daniel Reisman, R-E-I-S-M-A-N, to Liberty Place, 22nd floor, Philadelphia, VA.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My clients are Jonathan and Nicolette Dubrow.
My clients are John
They are the owners of the property.
Thank you very much.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Carol.
Muted again.
Sorry, Mr. Reesman, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed a exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
And I apologize.
I think this mute button is my enemy, Mr. Chairman.
You may proceed and please share your screen.
Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
I think I'm sure.
You are.
You're fine.
So, again, my name is Daniel Reisman.
I'm here with my clients, Jonathan and Nicolette Dubrow.
Our architect, John Weckerly of Boxwood Architects, is also here.
I've handed to the board, and I'm showing on the screen, exhibits A1 through A10.
They include photos with descriptions.
I'm not going to go through each one, but they include the photos.
As the chair mentioned, there's a letter of support from the Fishtown Neighbors Association.
That's Exhibit A-2.
They also include plans.
And I'll just state for the record that the plan is an amended plan that I submitted in
advance of the hearing with an amended proviso.
And I have been in touch with Board Counsel Hillary Emerson regarding that.
and she told me she felt that it could be reviewed by the board.