The lot itself is just over 1,500 square feet.
as you can see here in addition to the block itself being split zoned the north side of the
block is split RSA 5 and RSA 3 and then the south side is RSA 5 to give you a little bit of
additional context you can see here at exhibit 7 the nature of this particular block and the
enduring significant vacancy that still exists on this block with only two structures that exist on
the south side of the block and seven structures that exist on the north side of the block now of
those seven structures on the north side two of them are dense multi-family and you can see one
new construction here that was also built by my client and is very similar to what is proposed
today and then another fairly large apartment building here as well and then the next building
next to that is unoccupied and seemingly abandoned i did include some additional photographs in the
exhibits at exhibit 14 to give you a little bit better sense of the property and the conditions
of this particular block so you can see here the first photograph here is of the vacant lot
at 3605 fairmount avenue which is directly next to the left of the two-story home in blue here
to the left of that are several additional vacant lots as well as that abandoned structure that i
pointed to in the aerials moments ago now across the property again the conditions are relatively
relatively consistent here with mostly vacant uh fairly significantly sloped land
now looking up towards north 36th street and again the property is to the left of this image
you'll see that there are generally only two-story homes that exist on the bookends of this
particular block but most of the structures in the middle of the block have been demolished
or replaced with new multifamily dwellings and then this is a fairly similar view again looking
in the opposite direction towards north 37th street where the property is on the right hand
side here and then again looking from north 37th street again you can see the new construction
that my client built at the other end of this block and that larger apartment building that
pointed to in the aerials and then we did also include photographs of our timely posting in
the exhibits as well the zoning site plans
as well the zoning site plans are at exhibit 5a and show that this project proposes as it did in
2021 a three-story structure with four dwelling units ranging from 895 square feet to 990 square
feet which include two bi-level units and again these are the same floor plans up the same zoning
PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED THE LAST TIME AROUND. THE FLOOR PLANS ARE SHOWN AT EXHIBIT 5B.
YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THE DIFFERENT COLORS TO ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFERENT UNIT LAYOUTS,
THERE ARE TWO TWO-BEDROOM, TWO-BATH UNITS, WHICH ARE THE TWO UNITS ON UNIT THREE AND UNIT
four that are both 860 square feet and then there are also two one bedroom uh one and a half bath
units that each occupy a portion of the first floor and a portion of the lower level which is
in this case because of the slope predominantly above grade and then you can see here in the
rendering at exhibit 5c that the structure here just like it was at the other end of this block
was designed to blend to the best of its ability to the adjoining structure to the right in terms
of the front porch the front setback and the overhang awning on that front
now regarding the refusal itself this is somewhat of an unusual refusal for this particular area
because of that rsa3 zoning so as you know the proposal did receive a refusal for the proposed
multifamily use but i want to address the couple of dimensional refusals as well as i think i can
do that relatively quickly as you saw in the zoning map that i brought up on the screen
the block itself is split zoned between rsa3 and rsa5 now from a dimensional perspective
the proposal here as it was in 2021 was designed to substantially comply with the rsa5 dimensional
provisions given that most of the structures on this block conform with the RSA 5 dimensional
standards. In this case, an RSA 3 structure would be quite out of character with this particular
block and would be quite challenging for any form of development to comply with because this lot
is significantly smaller than a typical or contemplated rsa3 lot by code a minimum rsa3
lot is required to be 2250 square feet and 20 feet wide 25 feet wide in this case and with all
OF ITS NEIGHBORS ON THIS BLOCK THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 1593 SQUARE FEET AND 20 FEET WIDE SO IT WOULD
NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR ANY NEW STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT REGARDLESS OF USE TO MEET THE RSA 3 STANDARDS
NOW IN COMPARISON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR RSA 5 IS 1440 SQUARE FEET SO MUCH MORE IN LINE WITH
with the actual physical conditions of this lot and all of its adjoining neighbors.
Now by way of comparison, with the RSA 3 zoning, as you can see on the refusal, the open area
is required to be 50 percent of the lot, where in this case, 26.25 percent is proposed.
Now if it were RSA 5 or RM 1, 75 percent coverage is permitted.
That is the standard that you typically see with RSA 5 and RM 1. And in this case, 73% is occupied.
So again, just to show you the comparison here that it is designed to be consistent with the
dimensions that would be required for the bulk of this block. Now, just to kind of illustrate the
impact if uh the owner were to comply with the rsa3 provisions they would only be entitled to
build on a footprint of 796 square feet similarly the required rear yard for rsa3 is 20 feet where
nine feet is proposed and then lastly there is a refusal here for insufficient parking which again
is only required in RSA 3. It would not be required for the rest of the block in RSA 5.
Now, providing parking on this lot would not only be impossible, given the limited 20 feet of
would not only be impossible given the limited 20 feet of frontage and the relative lot size but it
would be entirely out of character with this block and this neighborhood in general which does not
typically have driveways or any form of off-street parking now in terms of the multi-family use the
conditions that lead to a hardship in this location have not changed since the original 2021 approval
which I did uh include in the exhibits at exhibit eight and again you can see it is the identical
proposal uh that was approved by the board it was zoned RSA 3 at that time as well
first this block is relatively consistent with uh the relatively mixed character that exists on many
blocks in Mantua which generally have occurred due to the rezoning that occurred in 2017
17 that zoned blocks like this away from their prior rm1 zoning so what you ultimately have
here is a mix of multi-family with some single-family uses uh which again are are predominantly
surrounded by significant vacant land so you can see here at exhibit 9 the large 10-unit building
that i pointed to earlier which is just two doors away uh and then that's directly next to
uh the four unit building here at 3623 fairmont avenue which has actually been constructed since
the board last heard this case in 2021 directly behind at 3608 and 3606 olive street which also
share that rsa3 zoning this board also approved four units on those properties as well
and then less than 200 feet away is a very large apartment complex that you can see
just out of image here which has about 101 units so overall the density that's proposed here is
entirely consistent with all of the surrounding structures and does reflect the density that
would have been allowable under the characteristic uh rm1 zoning finally we submit that these are
the least minimum variances based on the presented design as well as the density that is characteristic
to this particular area which permitting records show are mostly four or more unit dwellings and
you can see here all of the orange and red stars that indicate that we submit that the proposal
will not increase congestion harm neighbors properties or impair light and air and like
i said manchua civic once again supported this as they did the first time around as always i did
provide a full analysis at the memo of law at exhibit 10. at this point i would ask for the
administrator to look for my client Rami Shreim Rami Shreim has been promoted to
panelist hello hi state your name and spell for the stenographer yes it's r-a-m-y last name
shrine s-h-r-a-i-m you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Counsel?
Rami, were you present and heard all of the testimony and evidence that I offered in front of the board today?
Do you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it to the board yourself?
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
the trash that I saw in the rendering is the trash going to be stored outside for all units
or that was just part of the rendering it's just part of the rendering the trash will be stored
interior to the unit and then would be obviously put out for trash day but the trash is not going
to be stored outside right thank you Meredith did you go to the RCO meeting I did not attend
the rco meeting no my my client handles those himself all right okay other questions uh yes
okay so when this was originally approved were there buildings already on the property
no the conditions here are the same that they were in 2021 so nothing here has changed i think the
only thing that has actually changed i think there were a couple of structures maybe to the
i think there were a couple of structures maybe to the left of the property that have since been
left of the property that have since been demolished.
demolished but otherwise nothing has changed and it's the same zoning classification seems
that yeah you can even see that here on the prior permit that was issued you can see zoning district
rsa3 and with respect to the split zoning which has the most part of it uh for this property it's
just rsa3 so that it the property itself is not split zoned the block is split zoned ah okay so
the point is just that there is an unusual condition here where most most of this particular
block is rsa5 so by designing something to comply with rsa3 would not only be impossible for this
lot it would be out of character with the dominant zoning of the block from a dimensional perspective
but since it is a vacant lot you could still do something that's more in line with rsa5
this is consistent with rsa5 the dimensions here are rsa5 compliant the 1500 square feet is the
amount of the lot correct correct and most rsa5s they're 1440 square feet correct correct but this
As you can see from the table here, this occupies less than 75% of the lot, which would be consistent with RSA 5 standards, has a 9-foot rear yard, which would be consistent with RSA 5 standards.
It's 38 feet, which would be consistent with RSA 5 standards, and it has the front setback that RSA 5 would require.
you're saying that the dimensionals are okay correct so if if it were zoned rsa5 like much
of this block that the dimensions are not compliant with the rsa3 but the rsa3 lot
characteristic here is very unusual given the size of lot rsa3 typically applies to lots that
are much larger so that's that's why there's a discrepancy here
Okay. And no parking. Correct. Right. Hmm. Okay. Thank you. And the, and the, and the RSA five, this multifamily is not allowed. Correct. Absolutely. Correct. Okay. Um, so what's the depth of the basement below grade?
believe it's only four feet
rami do you happen to know that and that's in the rear that's a walkout that's a walkout
um a sunken uh um uh area that has is that that are those sliding glass doors there or is that
an egress well in the rear the sorry if if i may answer so the we it's this four feet
marriage was correct um and the um and height of the ceiling is is nine feet total um of which
only four feet are are below um street level okay and is that a walk out sunken sunken uh
area walk out in the front no that from the rendering no on the back it is yes it is a walk
out uh the front because there's the porch um um so yeah it's not a walk out in the front it is a
walk out in the back. Okay. Other questions? Questions from our attorney. No questions at
this time, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have
a hand up by the name of E-Mean, last name starting with E. I'm going to allow them to speak. Thank you.
hello I could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer sure my
name is Eman Elkaban EMA and last name e lk a lb a n you swear referring to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor yes
please proceed yes so I'm a neighbor nearby and of course you know as we
want to see more development in the neighborhoods rather than just vacant
lots i also you know attended the rco meeting and i was you know informed about the fact that this
was already like approved and really nothing has changed and and i am a fan of seeing change in
the neighborhood and seeing you know more development and less just vacant empty lots
that just kind of attract trouble in my opinion um so yeah i'm in support of this project and i hope
Trouble in my opinion. Um, so yeah, I'm in support of this project and I hope that the, you know, the previously approved permits can be re approved again.
Council, you have any questions? Thank you very much for calling in. Is there anyone else? Thank you.
Yes, chair. I have a hand up by the name of Gwendolyn Morris. I'm going to allow them to speak.
uh could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer my name is g-w-e-n-d-o-l-y-n
last name morris m-o-r-r-i-s i'm a separate firm do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i'm a community resident a what
sir a community resident i'm not a neighbor next door all right go ahead please proceed
she's with mantua civic association go ahead sir ma'am i have i have a heavy voice i have a heavy
voice that's okay i just wanted to i just wanted to add a bit to this conversation much like the
young lady before, I am excited about the development that has gone on, and as you know, in Mantua
for many, many years, and the more western part of Mantua, above 30 to 36th Street,
is where much of the vacant land existed and still exists to some extent. So to see development
in that part of this community means that Mantua entirely, because the lower end of Mantua is very,
very different, looks very different than the more Western part of Mantra. So we're really excited
to see development in that area. And we're in full support as a civic association,
as a 50 plus year resident of this community, as a former renter and a homeowner in this community.
I definitely, and I want to stay here or whatever. So again, I think that this also, you know,
encourages some of our younger residents to look at possibly you know remaining here uh that it
won't be and i looked at that particular location at 36 and fairmount i know what was there before
it i thought it was sherwood forest that's how overgrown those lots were in that area
so i am happy and excited uh to see development going on in that part of our community right
So, well, thank you very much for taking the time to to call in. Do you have any questions? Okay. Anyone else in the audience?
No chair, I have no more hands up at this time. Thank you. Planning commission, Michael, with the Philadelphia city planning commission, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing 3 residential single family attached zoning at this location.
The appellant has demonstrated that the dimensional requirements of the district would restrict the buildable area of this property significantly as the property is below.
the rsa3 minimum lot size multi-family use is a common condition in this neighborhood and the
proposed use would not cause undue detriment beyond what might otherwise be expected therefore
the city planning commission recommends the board grant their dimensional variances and the variances
for parking and multi-family household living use thank you very much mi2026 000965
3600 3605 fairmont avenue i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes tana graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes
i am when my vote is yes layla bb my vote is yes thanks everyone thank you council
um number five down here
but we're going to take a five-minute break and find alan and sure
oh you could say
MI 2026-000-967-167 West Seymour Street, Allen Ockamson is the attorney.
Allen, is this your first time today?
It is my first time today.
I know you don't like that, but could you please state your name and spell it for the sonographer?
Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Oh, wait, hold on.
He's here.
Yeah, go ahead.
Let me see.
I have my new.
Take your time.
What are we doing with time here?
It's supposed to be 421.
Supposed to be 421.
It's 420.