Is that correct?
Yes, I believe so.
Thank you.
You may proceed and your screen is up.
Does the board have a copy of the letter of opposition from the Roanhurst Civic Association?
I do not have that as part of my exhibits, but I will address that as we go on.
If I can get this working properly, we have a list of exhibits that we have submitted.
We have, I'm sorry, this is not seeming to work.
We have our tax clearance certificate, exhibit two is D, the property was purchased in 1947.
This is a copy of the zoning permit that was posted in orange and we'll show the posting
The orange is the zoning notice, the white paper is the notice of refusal.
The white paper is the Notice of Refusal.
And here are the different postings and photographs of the cross streets, the streets, the premises across the street from the postings.
This is an aerial view of Ron Hurst Elementary School.
Let me, before I go further, say that I believe Nicole Ward, the Acting Executive Director overseeing the Office of Capital Programs, and some of her staff may have joined this Zoom presentation.
The subject of this appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment is limited to the question of the placement of a temporary modular classroom building at the Roanhurst Elementary School.
As we will see in a moment, the placement of the modular school building is part of a larger project, which has already been permitted.
And from the aerial view, I can tell you that the white-roofed buildings, referred lovingly as the annex, will be removed, as well as that white trailer that you see near the back of the building.
This is the zoning permit for that part of the project.
That part of the project is a major renovation to the existing school building, as well as the addition of two more portions to the building.
This is the approved site plan that went with that permit that was issued January of 2021.
You'll see the square to the top. That represents a 3,000-square-foot addition, and the larger configuration is a 31,000-square-foot addition.
Both of them require the removal of those buildings that I pointed out previously.
Lake. There'll be additional landscaping bordering the homes. The streets to the left and right are
Hartel Avenue and Griffith Street. Both are aligned with what I believe to be residential
uses. The property goes from Caster Avenue to Large Street to the rear, and these are elevations of
that particular project. Again, that's not this project, but it's in the context of that
that we look at this. So we made an application for an educational facility which would be the
modular. This is a seven and a half acre property, and if you'll see the square that's darkened
toward the top of the screen, that is where the modular classroom building will go. It has eight
classrooms, a central corridor, and two bathrooms. This is a plan of the elevations, as well as the
floor plan that I just mentioned with the eight classrooms and showing what the elevations will
look like. This is the refusal. Now the examiner looked at this and decided that this would violate
the prohibition against multiple buildings, principal buildings on a lot. We suggest to you
that this clearly is an accessory building under section 604 of title 14 of which is the zoning
code specifically section subsection 1a and if I could read that in its entirety unless otherwise
expressly stated in this zoning code accessory uses and structures are permitted in conjunction
with allowed principal uses and structures limitations on the number of principal buildings
permitted per lot are not to be construed as applying accessory to accessory buildings
and structures this is a classroom that will be used to house students who are displaced
by the renovations within the principal school building. It cannot operate on its own. Students
students will receive a portion of their educational program, but the cafeteria and
will receive a portion of their educational program.
facilities and all the other things that go along with an elementary school will not be in this
building. And we suggest that it meets the accessory use standard as being subordinate
to the principal use and principal structure in terms of area and function as provided in the
zoning code. So we think that the examiner mistaken the building as not being accessory.
Were you not to accept that, we can't perform the educational services that we provide for which
we have previously received permits at this location, unless we have the modular classroom.
And we suggest that that would be a hardship to the property.
The second ground for refusal has to do with parking.
And the examiner viewed this as the addition of 8,000 square feet to the existing growth square footage.
We believe that's not appropriate because the room that will be provided in the modular is offset by the areas that will be renovated and cannot be used for school purposes while the renovations are going on.
So this is really a one-for-one kind of exchange, and that should not trigger additional parking because it did, excuse me, it did not exceed the existing building gross floor area.
Should you not accept that, we would ask for a variance in order to continue the educational use here.
Neil, do you want to bring somebody from the school district going to adopt your testimony?
Two things there. If Nicole Ward is here, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll ask under
section 14303.14F that my statements be considered those of the school district as long as there's
no objection to that. But is Nicole Ward available?
That's fine, Neil. You're an officer of the court. We'll take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
About the RCO. The RCO voted 10 to 5 against to oppose the project, but had an explanatory letter.
Most of the things they were concerned about had to do with trash and the pickup congestion in the streets as parents come to pick up their children.
And also, apparently, there's an issue with vagrants on the open areas of the school district.
My understanding is there's already been a maintenance crew out to clean up the area.
with this on account of this uh zoning relief there will be no increase in the number of students
or the number of staff um we we really don't have control about the uh the congestion the
vehicle congestion in the front of the building on castor avenue uh as i'm sure some of you may
recall there was a time when we always put elementary schools smack in the middle of
residential areas so that children and parents and staff could walk to school. That may not be
the situation now, but there's nothing the school district can do about the placing
of this school, which is well loved by its parents. Be pleased to answer any other questions.
And what's the time frame for this temporary structure?
I'm sorry.
We did have some discussion.
And while the original applicant put down eight months, that will not be sufficient.
As we explained to the RCO, it should take at least two years.
So, in an email I sent to the councilman's office, I asked for support for a two-year temporary zoning permit with the condition that if for an additional year, if the project has not been completed, we will not own the modulars and we would like them out as soon as possible.
But we need the time for construction.
All right. Any other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Alice Udovich.
Chair, we have Alex Udovich.
Good evening, Chair and members of the board.
Alice Udovich, representing Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
My last name is U-D-O-V-I-C-H.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
The Councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance.
I believe that the community's concerns will be addressed in a future meeting with the
Ron Hurst community, and it really did not have to do with the zoning, per se, but maintenance
and other issues.
So we're hoping to get those items resolved.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Can I just make a comment?
Please extend Alice our thanks to the council.
Right.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair planning commission i'm sorry go ahead excuse me um i was just going to
say that while you can certainly add a temporary proviso my recommendation would be that you simply
make it for a three-year period rather than including the conditional additional year
thank you we have no okay okay planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission let me just make sure i find the
correct box the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 3 single family residential
under the comprehensive plan we feel the applicant has demonstrated a temporary hardship
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board grant a temporary variance
thank you mi 2022 000 929 7809 castor avenue i vote yes for a temporary three years
Sharon? Yes, with a definite end date, so maybe April 1st, 2025. April 1st, 2025.
How about three years from the commencement of the work? Because we don't...
No, we can't do that, Mr. Sklerov. We need a definite date because there would be no one
keeping track of this, so... How about July 1st? Okay, so July 1st, 2025? Yes.
thank you other board members
thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso harold tenere my vote is yes with proviso
sorry to keep interrupting me chair you are okay with the july 1st 2025 date yeah yeah okay thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff. Thank you. Everybody have a great day.
You too. MI 2021-004-834-9423 Hillsback Street. No RCO letter as of yet from Busselton
the Citic Association.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter, please?
Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N,
last name J-I-N,
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 1838,
LWPA 19103,
here on behalf of the applicant do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do could you identify your client and state the relationship to the property yes my
client is x and m investment llc mr john chi is the um uh one of the managing members of the llc
and he should be here with us all right good our vice chair has a few questions mr john do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. And I assume
that you've sent in the required documents based on my notes timely. Yes, all documentation were
submitted. In fact, we also submitted the letter of opposition from Greater Busselton Civic League.
I will show that to the board during my presentation. Okay, great. Thank you. You may
proceed and share your screen. Thank you. I have now put up the submission we sent to the board.
Is everyone able to see that? I assume that everyone's able to see it. So the copy of the
I assume that everyone's able to see it.
So the copy of the refusal, RCO letter, history of the certificate.
refusal.
So this is an interesting case in that it is a pre-existing non-conforming condition situation.
The RCO's letter is actually in opposition.
I'm going to go to that right away.
So we can first, I'm sorry, let me just show the refusal briefly.
This is actually in an RTA1 district where two-family dwelling is by right.
However, this is a three-dwelling unit building as purchased by my client, and the application essentially is to legalize the third unit.
So the Greater Busselton Civic and the surrounding neighbors had a meeting with my office, my client, myself, via Zoom.
The meeting was held, and we had some support from neighbors, but a lot of opposition from neighbors as well.
the general feeling that I received, and I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, is that
the neighbors don't want to see more triplexes popping up in the neighborhood. Their concern is
the precedent this would sit as a triplex, where normally you're allowed only duplexes.
So that being said, part of the reason this application was made in the first place goes
back to my client's purchase of the property and its prior legal use. My client purchased it at
the end of 2020 and was issued both rental license and certificate of rental suitability in 2021 in
the beginning for three units. As far as he knew from when he purchased it, this is a legal three
unit building because rental licenses at the time of purchase were, I'm sorry, this is his commercial
license. The rental license and commercial licenses were available, and this rental
situation for three units actually goes back to 2014. In addition, this property was issued a
violation for use in the records of the city back in 2010. That was subsequently complied for
whatever reason. We don't unfortunately have the detailed record of that. What we do now is that
the prior owner, who unfortunately has passed away and is unavailable to testify, the prior owner was
able to, since that time, acquire rental licenses for three units. And that's how the property has
been rented. This is a property that has been rented out of three units and has been used as
such until my client purchased it. Thinking that, again, it is a legal three unit. My client was
also issued, again, a rental license initially until L&I was called probably by a neighbor.
And L&I came and immediately issued a violation saying that you're not permitted to have three
units because this is RTA-1. An application made to L&I was refused, as the board saw earlier,
for the same reason. But again, based on what we know of the rental license history and also the
rental suitability certificate, as far as the old records in the city, and I don't have all records
because a search of the atlas did not come up with additional documentation, but the records that are
available seems to evidence that this property at some point has been operating for many years
as a legal three unit. The property is a corner property. It does have a unit that would
theoretically be considered a basement property, but as you can see, it's actually above grade and
there's a direct access. I will also point that out in the plans. There's a garage on the one end
And the property is otherwise existing in its condition. There are no proposed changes to this property because, as you can see, the apartments are existing and was actually occupied at the time of purchase.
Since then, my client had to, right now, in fact, the third unit is still occupied by a gentleman who's a disabled veteran, and we're still trying to figure out if the board is not to grant the variance, what to do in that situation.
But the plans here are pretty straightforward. I'm going to zoom in on the section of the floor plan so it's easier to see.
So this is the unit in question. It is essentially a studio unit on the same level as the garage.
But as you can see, this is a straight walkout unit. There is an exit that would lead straight
out of the unit. The first unit or second apartment, in essence, is on the, quote,
quote, first floor, but it's elevated. And then the second floor is the other apartment that is
first floor, but it's elevated. And then the second floor is the
the second apartment. So this total three units. And again, this is a unit that is really in
question here, because we know that RTA one would permit the first and second floor unit without
additional variances. So with regard to this application, again, Pennsylvania zoning law
tend to recognize where there's pre-existing non-conforming condition unless it was abandoned
under the Philadelphia Code, such as my client or the prior owner didn't pick up rental licenses