Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands.
uh i'm assuming that uh just for purposes of the record chairman that uh people have dropped off
but i can represent uh that in support and at some point in time uh present or intending to
present be present was a gentleman by the name of edwin hernandez uh a gentleman by the name of
Dimitri Gordan, G-O-R-D-A-N, Roniton, R-O-N-A-T-A-N, Martinez, Juan Fernandez, Grizel, G-R-I-S-E-L-L-E, Matos, M-A-T-O-S, Rivera, R-I-V-I-E-R-A, Francis, F-R-I-N-C-E-S, Ortiz, Cruz, Cesar Felipe, F-E-L-I-P-E-R-I-V-I-E-R-I-E-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-R-I-
griffin how many more names do you have just one more after that uh jacob del monte d-e-l-m-o-n-t-e
all in support uh of this project and and also like to thank the rco uh who certainly put us
through some challenges but we listened and replied thank you thank you um planning commission
so the planning commission is going to uh hold on this until we get the revised um just for the
record ron to state your name and spell please oh sorry uh first name is r-o-n last name bednar
b-e-d-n-a-r i'm with the city planning commission and tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
the truth ron i do thank you um so hillary we're going to close the record on this other than
the amended for refusal coming back right well because planning um deferred we'll need to have
a brief presumption hearing um on the amended refusal so we will not close the record at
at this time as there may be feedback based on the amended refusal thank you very much
Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel.
thank you counsel so we're going to set this down for a reason
So we're going to set this down for a resumption hearing.
We are.
Okay. Sir, thank you. May I be excused?
You can. Thank you.
Thank you.
Right. Number two, MI 2023-004-403-817 North 41st Street.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Belmont Alliance Civic Association.
Seven in support, four in opposition, eight in non-opposition.
Meredith Ferliger has been promoted.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R of Delworth Paxson.
You're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
I sure can.
This is a little bit unusual, but let me just go through the sentence.
So my clients today are 41 Brown, LLC, which is a conservator of the property by way of an Act 135 conservatorship court order at Exhibit 3.
The conservator does not technically have standing before the board, but my other client is the equitable owner of the property under an agreement of sale, 817 North 41st Street, LLC,
which has been approved by the court
under the original conservatorship action.
So that's shown at exhibit four
and I'll address that in the presentation.
Mike Scherer has a few questions for you.
Good evening, Councilor.
Do you agree to wait to read another refusal
or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
i did thank you counsel please proceed happy new years you too and i did share my screen happy new
year to all the board members uh as i mentioned the request before the board today concerns a
property that has been officially been deemed abandoned and blighted by the philadelphia court
of common pleas and is proposed to be redeveloped in a fashion that is identical to the new
construction immediately next door. Typically, people come before this board and call their
properties abandoned and blighted, but this one actually has the unique feature of having a court
designation of being abandoned and blighted. But for a very recent rezoning effort that occurred
after the next door development had been built, the multifamily use of this property would have
been by right. Now, the density would not have been, and I want to be candid with the board about
that, but the property next door did secure and did seek and secure a variance from this board
for the proposed density. So this is looking to be identical to that. As Mr. Chairman mentioned,
this proposal did receive support from Belmont Alliance, which is evidenced by the letter of
support in your packet at Exhibit 17. Let me first orient you to the location of this property and
the history. The court orders, I did include a voluminous number of the court orders,
but they are all included at Exhibit 3. And tax clearance for both the conservator as well as
for the entity with actual standing before this board, both of those tax clearances are included
at Exhibit 2. As you can see on the aerial here at Exhibit 10, this property sits on North 41st
Street, which is just to the north of this orientation, and is just three properties in
from Reno Street. And just flipping in the opposite direction here, you can see that these
aerials are slightly outdated, as the previously blighted structure that is shown here has now
been demolished. Regardless, you can glean that this block contains a fairly uniform makeup of
three-story structures, which is consistent with what is proposed before the board today.
Turning to the photographs at Exhibit 18, you'll see the now vacant lot that is the subject of
today's request at 817 North 41st Street. Per the court approval, the structure was demolished
roughly about a year ago. You'll notice the new construction immediately next door, which contains
six units. Again, identical to today's request, both in terms of unit count, in terms of aesthetics,
in terms of aesthetics, and also in terms of layout. My client also owns the corner property
and also in terms of layout. My client...
at 813 North 41st Street, as well as 815 North 41st Street.
This next photograph here is looking towards the next block past Reno Street, which is entirely
vacant at this point. In the opposite direction, this view is looking towards Parrish Street,
And again, the board will see the three-story brick structures that make up this block.
Directly across the street is the Calvary Episcopal Church.
And we did also include photographs of the zoning posters in the exhibit packet that were timely posted.
If I scroll down a little bit, you can see those photographs here.
Now, for context, and I'll scroll back up, just to establish to the board why the court issued the conservatorship against this property, I did include a couple of historical photographs showing the blighted conditions that ultimately led the petitioner to file the Act 135 petition.
That was originally granted by the court back in 2022, but as the board may or may not know, those actions can take quite some time to really move forward.
So I did include photographs here from 2019, 2014, again another 2014, and all the way back to 2007, showing the longstanding abandonment and blight that this particular property faced.
The March 2022 order deeming the property as abandoned and blighted and the subsequent June 2022 order appointing 41 Brown LLC as conservator are all at Exhibit 3, and I'm happy to go through them if you have questions.
In November of 2024, the court approved 41 Browns LLC sale of the property to 817 North 41st Street LLC, and that agreement of sale or sections of that agreement of sale are shown up on your screen here.
the uh clients own uh the properties that are immediately next door to this one leading towards
reno street so 815 and 813 which made it eligible to file the petition in the first place and is
also highly relevant to how the property management will operate if you refer to the zoning map at
Exhibit 9, you'll see the property is now zoned RSA 5, having been rezoned by Bill No. 230034A
that was introduced after the conservatorship petition had already been filed and approved
by the court. The lot and this entire block were previously zoned RM1, but were rezoned to RSA 5,
despite the fact that virtually no single-family uses exist on this block.
And I am just showing up on the screen here sections of that remapping bill at Exhibit 11.
At Exhibit 12, I have included history of this property at 817,
showing that the property's historical use was as multifamily as a triplex,
dating all the way back to the 1940s.
The proposal for this property is shown on the zoning plans that I have up on the screen at Exhibit 6. They have been revised, so should the board be inclined to grant this request, we would request that it be granted with a proviso revised plans for one page.
and the changes are minor and I will address those. The proposal includes one new three-story
brick structure to blend with the predominantly three-story structures on this block. The building,
just like the one next door, will contain six dwelling units and is proposed to be an exact
mirror image of the new structure next door. For reference, the layout here is also identical to
the layout of the client's other developments at 803, 807, 811, and 813 North 40th Street.
So this is really a tested, tried-and-true layout that has tenants living in it.
The only change here that required the plans to be revised was to create the mirror image
by flipping the location of the stairs in the pilot house. So you can see on the original
application. The stairs were on the south end if you're looking at it from this orientation
and that's now been revised so that the stairs are on the north end and again it's just to
create that mirror image. The front setback here will align with the two structures immediately
The front setback here will align with the two structures immediately next door, and the rear yard here will be immediately identical to 815.
next to
The existing structure at 819 actually extends farther back into its rear yard.
As you can see on the elevations here, and I'll zoom in a little bit.
You can see that the first floor level here starts almost six feet above grade, allowing a much more functional lower level that is predominantly above grade.
And if I flip back to the photographs, you can see that condition here, which has identical grade conditions and a full window for that lower level.
So it's really not a true basement in the sense that the board would often see.
I do also have sample interior photos that I'll show you in a moment.
If I flip to the floor plans at Exhibit 8, let me zoom in here a little bit.
Units 1 and 2 are bi-level units of 651 and 759 square feet.
Units 3, 4, 5, and 6 are roughly about 450 square feet and are each one-bedroom, one-bath units.
Again, these are all identical to the new construction next door, except for them being
mirror images.
Because the owner also owns 815 and 813, there will be a common trash storage area in the
rear that you can actually see on an earlier aerial image that I have included.
And you can see the arrow here.
So you can see that the fence currently encloses the two corner properties, which will be
extended to enclose all three so that they can share that trash storage. This trash is currently
emptied from Reno Street three times a week. The properties are all managed by Haverford Square
Properties, which provides all services to these properties, including trash management,
pest control, sidewalk sweeping, common hallway maintenance, and other traditional building
services. The board has the added benefit for this proposal to actually see what these units
are going to look like. So again, at Exhibit 18, I have included photographs, and let me get down
to them. I have included photographs here of the units that are next door, which again will be
identical here. These show the high-end finishes and spacious designs, including walk-in closets
and in-unit washer and dryers. I have a lot of interior photos from next door, so I will scroll
through them quickly and can return to any if there's any questions. I have included two unit
types here. So this first photograph set here is of a sample one-bedroom unit. And again, here is
bathroom hallway. Another image of the bathroom. Bedroom with a walk-in closet.
And again, the closet with the in-unit laundry. Again, another image of the bedroom.
Kitchen, living area. Again, the kitchen.
and then you can see here uh this is actually a floor plan from next door where there is some
furniture added just for reference and then in terms of the bi-level unit again you can really
get a sense of uh you know how far above grade these units really are with with full windows
and and just as much light in there as you would have on the upper level floors as well
So there's two different bi-level unit types, which you'll see in these photographs here.
But again, kitchen and living areas, really unique circular staircase that goes up to the first floor.
Bedroom, this is just the living area and the kitchen from the other area.
This is the island.
And then on the upper level floor here, you can see the bathroom, bedroom.
again bathrooms walk-in closet in unit laundry that are really quite large and then the bedroom
on the upper level and again the other unit is is almost identical the kitchen is just
oriented a little bit differently on that lower level and you can see that here
all of these six units next door are fully rented and occupied
Regarding the refusal, this proposal only received two refusals for the proposed multifamily use,
as well as due to the height of the pilot house, which is a little bit of an odd one.
as well as due to the height of the pilot house, which is a little bit of an odd one.
The applicant here submits to a hardship given both the history of the property,
as well as the character of the neighborhood and the block, which is highly relevant to the
applicant's entitlement to a variance. First and most importantly, the PA Supreme Court in the case
of Inray Appeal of Metal Green Inc., issued in December of 2021, specifically found that the
Act 135 blight determination is highly relevant to the board's determination of hardship,
particularly in the case of a use variance. To quote, the court stated that the condition of
a property, such as where it is blighted or abandoned, is an appropriate consideration
in determining unnecessary hardship. As I reflected earlier, the conditions of blight
are bolstered by the fact that this property was historically used as multifamily for its entire
documented history. Aside from the historical multifamily use and blight, erecting a new
single-family home on this lot would represent a deviation from the predominantly multifamily
dwellings that exist and have recently been constructed on this block. As you can see here
Here at Exhibit 13, a map is included showing that this block specifically contains predominantly multi-family dwellings of varying density, including two other six-family dwellings on this block, one four-family dwelling, and several triplexes.
Across the street on North 41st Street, just south of the church, are all exclusively six-family dwellings.
As I referenced earlier, the prior RM1 zoning of the lot would have permitted four units, which was the same exact condition for 815 North 41st Street, which was granted a variance for the two additional units several years ago prior to its construction.
Now, in terms of the height, let me scroll back to the zoning plan here.
this was an identical refusal that was issued for 815 north 41st street next door
and is a relatively odd feature of the zoning code and that the pilot house height would have
been exempted had this been an occupiable roof deck because the roof deck is for mechanical
access only the pilot house height is counted towards overall height even though the building
itself is compliant and aligns with the rest of the block. So you can see here the pilot house
is identical, is just going to be flipped to the other side, is not visible from the street. It's
only visible for next door because there's a vacant lot. But it's somewhat of an odd feature
that if we were to convert this to an occupied roof deck, that height is now all of a sudden
allowed. There are very few occupied roof decks in this area, so the developer did not feel that
that would be an appropriate thing to put here, but does need the pilot house to ensure it can
access the mechanical units. We do submit the proposed number of units is the least minimum,
given it is identical to next door and comparable to most of the most multifamily densities on this
block. We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair
light and air. Detailed analysis is provided in the memo of law, submitted to the board at exhibit
14, and I'm happy to touch on any point in more detail. At this point, I will see if my client is
available. We actually have an RCO meeting in just a couple of minutes, so I'm guessing that he may
have jumped off to go to that rco meeting uh but german yakubov if you happen to still be on here
german yakubov will be allowed to speak
why could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
sure german yakubov g-e-r-m-a-n yakubov y-a-k-u-b-o-v
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do so, swear and affirm.
Thank you. Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.