the used variance for eight dwelling units, the applicant's hardship claims not supported with
evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property. They've cited the
need for vitality and density uh while that's perhaps true it's not a hardship under the law
the adjacent zoning was also cited and that's also not a hardship the adjacent zoning like the
zoning for this lot was established according to recommendations from the plan the comprehensive
plan with respect to the dimensional variance the code requirements do not impose a financial burden
on the applicant either so given the absence of hardship for either variance city planning
commission recommends that the board deny these variances with that if if i may just briefly
ask my client to uh i don't know if she's still available for testimony but to raise her hand
thais are you still there mr rano if you're still in the audience please raise your hand
she's been lucky talk sir can you hear me now thank you mr rano mr rano you understand that
this lot is zoned rsa5 is that correct that's correct okay and if you were to build a single
family home on this on this lot which is relatively large would uh would in fact it be uh marketable
not it wouldn't be buildable yep okay and and that's why since the rezoning by the planning
commission there hasn't been one single new construction single family home built in that
area is that correct that's correct okay thank you i have nothing further okay so mi 2021 002849
1203 north 41st street i vote yes excuse me chair that would be with revised plans with the revised
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Professor Plaza, yes, with Proviso.
James Snell, yes, with Proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes, with Proviso.
Excuse me, this is Sharon again.
Mr. Anastasio, if you could please submit to me the revised plans and the Proviso plans form as two separate PDFs so that I can stamp them for you.
Thank you.
We were already anticipating that, Ms. Aletta, and Kevin is going to be about to do that right
now for you.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Calendar number MI-2021-002651, 1230 Federal Street, the attorney is Richard DeMarco.
And there is...
Oh, wait a second.
Bill, that year's supposed to be doing that, right?
I'm fine.
I'm fine.
I heard you.
I would say the RCO, the Passion Square Civic Association, has a letter of non-opposition.
Councilman's school has a letter of non-opposition.
And the attorney is Richard DeMarco.
I apologize.
Mr. DeMarco, please state your name and spell it, please.
Good morning.
Richard DeMarco, D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
And welcome, Mr. Chairman, to the zoning board.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Proceed, sir.
Great.
Thank you.
I wasn't sure whether the Councilman Swilla's letter was sent directly.
It appears it has.
Thank you.
So I am unaware of any opposition to this matter, so I'll try to be brief.
I'll share my screen.
One second, Rich.
Do you agree to with the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the packet with 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 of the above. We sent our full exhibit packet on Wednesday, part of Thanksgiving.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Yeah, the refusal is solely for use. This is an existing two unit
dwelling property the first floor was it had a long decades long history of commercial use
on the first floor it was a bakery it's actually a permanence and then it was a tailor shop
for my client's father and the tailor went out of business and there was a long history of
vacancy on the first floor. This is a refusal. This is a residential single family, not single
family, but excuse me, a residential row home block. There's next to no commercial use on the
property. So commercial is no longer viable, but the property was built with commercial use on the
first floor. Accordingly, it would be a hardship to try to convert the property back to single
family in light of the long history of multiple use at the property show you some photos these are
plans um there is a room for trash storage in a very large rear yard
see here there's a very large rear yard for trash storage there's also an existing deck that my
clients also inherited which allows for trash storage of the second floor unit and we're not
proposing any changes to the property. It's an existing structure and existed in a two-unit
scenario. My clients did not rent the first floor, but there is a caretaker living there
rent-free. As you can see, the property is existing along with other row homes, and it
is not conducive to any single family of commercial use, excuse me, and there was a long history
of the property. My client Gabe Finnelli is available for some testimony. To accept my
statements is true and accurate. So Gabe, if you can hear, can you please raise your hand and we'll
go through some quick testimony. This, by the way, is the existing structure. You can see that
There's two entrances, as always been two entrances, there's two staircases.
So it would be a hardship to convert the property back to single family in the light of the long history of multiple years.
Gabe, are you with us?
Yes, I'm here.
Gabe, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Gabriel Fennelli.
His last name is F-A-N-E-L-L-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
proceed. Gabe, did you hear all of my factual statements and are they true and accurate and
can you adopt them as your official testimony today? Yes. And do you agree that there was a
long history of commercial use on this first floor and that you inherited the property in that
condition? Yes. And it would be a catastrophic amount of time and money in order to convert
the property back to single family, which would be cost prohibitive to you. Is that right? Yes.
Madam Chair, we met with the RCO. We have no opposition from them, no opposition from the council office, and we just would like to legalize this first floor unit. That's all.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Anyone in the virtual audience have any testimony relative to this?
no hands mr chair planning commission thank you mr chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city
planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing residential single family zoning on this site however the proposed two family use is
consistent with a documented prior use of one store and one dwelling unit city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2021 0026
thank you m m i 2021 002651 1230 federal street i vote yes carol tuneri my vote is yes
professor plaza yes james snell my vote is yes thomas hollman my vote is yes
thank you everybody have a good sure thank you thank you you too
MI 2021 002670 1522 Moore Street East Point Breeze Neighbors meeting the RCO the majority
of the attendees were in support of this the attorney is Vern Anastasio Mr. Anastasio as
you've already been sworn in Carol I have a few questions for you excuse me this is Sharon
if you would like after this case two to go back to number three I did receive the exhibits from
Mr. Young okay we'll go back okay great Mr. Anastasio do you agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy I do have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance refusal 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
I do to all that.
Okay, that's great.
You may proceed.
We're doing 1522 Moore Street right now, and it's for the legalization of a pre-existing
non-conforming use of a two-family dwelling.
This property was purchased as a duplex.
It was marketed as a duplex.
And as a result, we're here before you seeking the zoning relief because it is zoned RSA-5.
here are the plans in question
this basement is just storage and we have you know a nice one bedroom apartment on
the first floor and we have a larger unit on the second and third floors with a laundry facility
and a rear office den. I'm going to take you to a history of
take you to some photos first for the interior.
so there are already two kitchens laid out there are it's actually was a triplex at one time so
as you can see there's four electric meters there are three gas meters or two water heaters
all of this pre-existing
I have
additional materials
for you as well
I have
history of the
property as
going back at least 50
as a three family dwelling
and then ultimately
a two family dwelling
here's a three family 1960s uh there's a three family in the in the again 1960s
it's been a multi-family for quite some time
at one point the second and third floor became one unit
but as you can see history bears it being a three family for
quite a while.
Here's a
recent bill from PICO
for one of the units.
Here's another bill for a second unit.
Here's the RCO letter
that went out.
Here's an affidavit
of continuous use, which I
was hoping uh would have resulted in a permit being issued of course this is akin to being
under oath by my client where he certifies that this has been legally a multi-family dwelling for
decades uh and and has always been consistent uh in in occupancy in fact when discussing this with
the plans examiner she said but for if she saw one permit that had a two-family dwelling on it
and not consistent three-family dwellings, she would have issued the permit for us.
But there was no history of a two-family dwelling, only decades upon decades.
But there was no history of a two-family dwelling, only decades upon decades of three-family dwellings.
Nevertheless, majority, actually everyone in attendance supported the granting of this variance.
Here is the proof of mailing.
224 individual households were mailed.
And, of course, we have the tax certification.
And with that, I'm going to ask my client, Seth DiLorenzo, to raise his hand and be acknowledged by the board.
So will you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes, it is Seth DiLorenzo.
That is S-E-T-H DiLorenzo, D-I-L-O-R-E-N-Z-O.
do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do go ahead thank you mr chairman uh mr de lorenzo did you hear my presentation to the board
this morning i did and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and you adopt
it as your own testimony yes i do thank you i have nothing further questions from the board
no sir no mr chair is there anyone in the virtual audience would have any other testimony relative
to this i see no further hands mr chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for
the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board comprehensive plan recommends no
change the existing single-family residential zoning on this site. However, as Council has
shown, the proposed two-family use is consistent with the documented previous use. City Planning
Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance. MI 2021 002670 1522 Moore Street,
I vote yes. Carol Ternary, my vote is yes. Professor Prowza, yes. James Snell, yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Thank you all.
We're going to go back to number three.
MI 2021-002829, 135 North 53rd Street.
Mr. Young, you've already been sworn.
Carol has several questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Young.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
i'm back in as a panelist okay so we'll start all over
yes i agree to wave thank you have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance refusal 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?
Plans were, and photo and exhibits were emailed.