They were not five days as I stipulated before.
However, I'm gracious to the chair for allowing me to present today.
We do have a letter from the RCO in support of granting our variance.
Thank you so much. You may proceed.
Thank you.
if i can i'm trying to pull up my uh am i allowed to share my screen at the moment
yes please do i'm sorry phil
uh thank you um so again my name is jeffrey young uh 3904 road suite b philadelphia pa
19131. I'm here today representing Omar Edwards, owner of the property located at 123 on North
53rd Street. Mr. Edwards has purchased a property in the name of his LLC, Edwards Enterprises LLC.
Here is the deed to the property. My client purchased a property about a year ago, November 30th, 2020.
Next, we have the refusal. We're here today because we have applied for use of the property
as a two-family dwelling unit. We were refused because two-family units are prohibited in the
RSA 3 zoning classifications. As you can see here from the map, the majority of this particular
neighborhood in west philadelphia um has a single family um zoning classification um however uh as
i move forward in a project um throughout the discussion you'll see uh why we have a hardship
here um again this is an area map uh just for the board uh familiar to get from
Again, this is an area map just for the board familiar to get familiar with the neighborhood.
We are approximately two blocks away, two blocks northwest of the 52nd Street L Station.
So this area has some room for density to support this commercial corridor here.
Here's a picture of the property.
As I stated, my client bought the property in November 30th of 2020. He purchased the property as an existing duplex. When he went to apply for his renter's license, he was told by L&I that in fact this property could not be used as a duplex and as such was not granted the opportunity to get that license.
But upon review of the property's owner history, the property was legally approved as a two-family in 1940.
And as such, the property was converted and has been in its current state since 1940.
Here is a final picture of the property.
our property 123 is to the right. Directly to the left adjacent is 125 North 53rd Street,
which has a very, very similar layout as our property as well. Also, directly across the
street, 134 North 53rd Street has a similar layout to our property as well. This is a picture from
google maps in 2007 just to show that the previous long-standing use as a duplex and here again
uh those two doors um were were present um the layout of the property is uh two two two two
bedroom units um one on the first floor um and one on the second floor with pretty much identical
There is no use of the basement other than utilities and storage.
And as I mentioned, here is the zoning permit from 1940, and as I zoom in, so the board
can see exactly what the permit states, you know, it was to provide for a separate door
leading to a second floor, a separate unit. So again, since 1940, this property has had two
doors. This property has had two units. In about 19, around 1950. Mr. Young, Mr. Young, sorry to
interrupt. We can't see anything other than yourself. It says I am sharing my screen. So
I'm going to stop sharing and then try to come back.
is it still the same all right all right so i is it does the board need me to go back over the
uh the pictures um i'll zoom back up here um so again this is a picture of the property uh 123
North 53rd Street. Again, this property has had these two doors since 1940.
Directly next door at 125, it's a similar layout with two doors and two units directly across the
street. Again, 134 North 53rd Street, similar layout, two doors with two units. And again,
this picture, again, from 2007 to show the longstanding history of the two doors and to
to show that my client did in fact not create this hardship.
Again, the plans are two bedroom units
on the first and second floor,
with very similar layouts, bedrooms to the rear of the units.
And again, in the basement,
there's a bathroom storage utilities,
but no living space in the basement.
um here's the 1940 zoning permit um to provide for a separate entrance um and also create a
separate stairs leading up to the second floor um this was the permit that was on file since 1940
um as again for a two-family dwelling unit um in 1956 there was a zoning permit to replace the
porch um but for some reason when this permit was uh submitted uh they only submitted it as a one
family use so since um you know the property has had a technically a one-family uh zoning um history
um however the property has was never changed to a one-family use it still has always had those two
separate doors uh with those two separate uh units um here is just an email stating that we had our
um here is just an email stating that we had our community meeting um last night um for the rco and
community meeting um
i do have a letter of support that i would share momentarily um here is our proof of mailings um
that was sent uh to all the uh affected uh addresses um here's our tax clearance
and uh this is just a memo of law uh in support of our uh application um again uh given uh the
condition of the property um we are we believe we are afforded um uh variance relief here uh
because the building itself creates an unnecessary hardship uh caused by the long-standing design
Conformity with the zoning code can only be done through extensive reconstruction or demolition of the building for an issue that was not caused, again, by the applicant.
Here is a support letter from the 44th Ward.
We met with them yesterday evening, and there were no complaints or issues, hence they issued this support letter.
And with that, I asked if my client, Mr. Omar Edwards, could be unmuted so he could adopt my testimony.
Mr. Edwards, will you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Can you raise your virtual hand, sir?
mr chair doesn't seem as though this person is in the audience
okay i'm trying to reach out to him uh now um to make sure that he's maybe having some issues
getting on the zoom call mr young you're you're an officer of the court we'll we'll we'll take
that that you can adopt that testimony we're thank you i thank you mr chair i appreciate that uh any
questions from the board no sir no is there anyone in the virtual audience would have to what would
want to testify i see no hands mr chair planning commission thank you mr chair ian hegarty on
behalf of the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning here however the proposed
two-family use is consistent with a documented previous use as council has demonstrated city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance mi 2021 002 829 123 north 53rd street
I vote yes.
Carol Canary, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, yes.
James Snell, yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, members of the board.
And Mr. Bergman, it's great to see you again.
Oh, good seeing you again, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay. Case 5, MI-2021-002846, 1700 East Moimensing Avenue.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Pennsport has a letter of support.
Councilman Scuola has a letter of no opposition.
You've been sworn in, sir.
Carol has a few questions.
He'll be rejoining as a panelist momentarily.
are you there verne i'm here oh okay i'm sorry i couldn't hear you i'm sorry okay 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 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 that thank you you may proceed thank you uh today i'm here
for 1700 east moya mensing avenue uh please note at the top here this is a referral we are not
seeking a variance we are seeking a special exception which this board knows is a much lower
legal hurdle for us to um to get over we just have to demonstrate that we have a proposed use
that already is considered compatible with the code, which is CFX1, so long as it will not be
a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the immediate neighbors. And I have yet to find a coffee shop.
of the immediate neighbors, and I have yet to find a coffee shop or cafe that is a detriment
to the health and welfare and the safety of the immediate neighbors, and luckily the neighbors
agree. So this is the referral, and we have a site plan. I'm sorry, I just had an error message.
here's the site plan for whatever reason i'm having a glitch in the computer for this
would you mind if i stop sharing and rebooted and if perhaps there's another case that you
can go to while i reboot mr chairman is that okay that's fine i just uh yeah i guess what
for whatever reason i had three cases up at the same time this one decided to go blank on me
so I think if I reboot my computer I should be okay. We'll pick you up after the next case.
I appreciate that. Thank you sir. Okay so MI 2021 002717 2022 North Broadtree. Zen Jin
is the attorney. 32nd Ward sends a letter of support.
Mr. Jin has been made to a panelist. Okay
Okay. Mr. Jinn, state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes. Zen Jinn, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia EPA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Carol has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Jinn. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with required documents 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, except when we first submitted the exhibit, there was an inability to get a tax clearance from the city system.
However, I have the HUD here with me today that shows that the city payment for 2020 was taken care of at closing.
If the board would allow me to proceed, I will go ahead and proceed with the case.
Yes, go ahead.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information we submitted relating to this case.
This is the updated and latest information, which includes the HUD that I mentioned earlier.
Firstly, we have submitted the refusal RCO letter and related documentation as required by the board.
To understand the refusal in this case, this is a SPINS district that is right off of North Broad Street in the Temple area.
However, this is a historical property that once belonged to, I'm not familiar with the
exact name of the historical figure who it belongs to, but it is designated a historical
property.
My client is trying to actually save the front of the historical property and then add an
addition to the back and use it overall as a nine-unit dwelling unit.
This is a large structure.
I'm going to go ahead and jump to the photos. However, I do want to point out that we are only
looking at dimensional variances in the nature of lot size and total maximum coverage.
The property itself is 2022 and this is the attached structure with the next door building
shown in the photo, but we are this one right here. Part of the work here is to salvage
the entire front of the structure, maintain its historical nature, however adding to
the rear and making the complete building revitalized for use. The SBINS normally is
a district that applies to institutional uses, however that portion of Broad Street really
is now not being used in that form. The building itself is rather large. However, our plans
involve an addition to the rear of the property. And I'm going to zoom in because it's difficult
to see from the screen size. So our plan is to have an addition to the rear of the property
and also to basically match the entire property to a four-story structure. Part of this
Part of this is to make it so that the cost that goes into revitalizing the building would also be part of the development
is to make it so that the cost that goes into
that will ultimately bring back the revenue necessary to compensate for the cost of investment.
However, from the design standpoint, my client is very aware that trash is always of concern.
We have enclosed trash enclosures that's accessible by all units designed into this proposal,
And that can be seen better from the floor plan side, the way the building is going to be restructured with the addition includes basically access to a shared adjacent alleyway in a sense that allows you to have all units access those enclosed trash in the back.
And in addition, the residential units would then be laid out based on the existing front and combined with the rear of the property.
When we met with the community, they were very excited for the idea of preserving the building because Broad Street does have high density.
and because these kind of uses are becoming pretty commonplace in that part of Broad Street,
the community did not feel the density, the additional density, in this case of approximately
two units, would be a detrimental impact to the community. The layout is pretty simplistic. As
you can see, each floor would have a three-bedroom unit in the front, three-bedroom in the back.
The total unit count, again, is nine units.
I can direct to a specific part of any of the plan if the board would like additional view of those specific areas.
But generally speaking, this is pretty much a matching floor plan until the upper floor, which is left as only the front portion.
We did meet with the RCO, as I said, and we did get non-opposition from and support from them.
And again, from a historical standpoint, we're going to maintain the look of the property and maintain the historical fabric of the frontage of the property.
My client is here. Mr. Al-Haddad should be with us.
If the board has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them and also direct to any other portion of the exhibit if needed.
Thank you.
why don't one of your client come on state his name spelled for the court reporter and i'll
swear him thank you uh mr al-hada can you raise your hand in zoom so that you can be identified
he's been allowed to speak
good morning everybody good morning sir good morning please state your name and spell for
the court reporter? My name is 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? Yes, I do. Proceed. Thank you. Mr. Al-Haddad,
did you see the presentation I made to the board and have you heard my testimony to the board?
Yes, I did. Can you verify that what I have presented is true and accurate and adopted as
your own testimony yes you did thank you thank you okay questions from the board no mrs chairman no
anyone in the virtual audience want to testify
i see no further 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 a change to CMX4 zoning at this location.
The proposed use in bulk are consistent
with the proposed zoning.
City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the variances.
Council Sharon, are we okay with the tax?
If needed, I could share the information on the HUD,
although I would rather the board look at that
without sharing it to the public.
Thank you.