assigned dimensions allowed on a property. Commissioners, we have also the application
for appeal here on the light I apologize we have the
on the light I apologize we have the project information form here
we have the certificate of tax clearance for the zoning board here
we have the property information if you look down below you'll see that this property was
purchased by the church here in 1974. The church has been operating at this location for a number
of years now. They do provide a food pantry for the neighborhood as well as a zoning place for
the community and they do represent a very diverse community. Commissioners, back in 2016 I brought
this project to the board here because we wanted to have some signage in the front of the case
in the front of the church and we applied to the zoning board of adjustment for a lighted digital
sign. Here's the actual permit. Here's the actual decision. That was the refusal.
The original application. And here is our project today. Commissioners, on the screen now is the
elevation, a photo rendering of the awning that we would like to add to the back of the church.
As you can see, it's about 20 feet by 8.6. It does have some writing on it for identification
purposes. Basically, it just names the church, which is Germantown Christian Assembly.
Commissioners, you'll see this awning covers the double red doors here. Outside the double red
doors is a ramp. This church caters to many elderly individuals in the community. They have
a van that they park here in this parking lot. You can see the three handicapped spaces alongside
of the awning. Basically, they would like the awning for just cover. So most individuals enter
this church through the back the front entrance is hardly ever used and just for rain etc
they would like to put an awning here to provide covers for the elderly parishioners who may be
getting out of those handicapped vans you'll see on each side of the awning as well as other
patrons coming into the church this is how the awning will look once it's applied to the church
The other documents just show the dimensions of each side of the awning, as well as further down, we have how the awning will be placed and how the awning will be fastened to the church.
We go down a little further here. I'll show you a picture of the posting that we did to post this property and to notify the community that zoning hearing was upcoming.
And you did have a meeting with the RCO, which is East Mount Airy Neighbors, and they voted?
to support our project. And if you'd like me to go over to that letter of support,
I can put that letter of support up on the screen for you right here. This is a letter of support
from the East Northern Area Neighbors Association dated November 24th, 2020, which indicates that
we had a meeting on November 17th, that we, it was a Zoom meeting, that we discussed the project
in full. There were 10 members, 10 people at the meeting but only one near neighbor.
They were also kind enough to provide the actual meeting summary form and as you can see the
support for this project was unanimous. No one had any objections to the church being able to
put an awning on the back of the property uh for um nomenclature as well as a cover for uh the
community uh if you just go back we got it okay i think i think we got it uh does the board have any
questions? No. No. Mr. Henry, are you still on the line? Yes, I am. And would you adopt the
testimony that I've given the board here today? Yes, it's true. Okay, thank you very much. Planning
Commission. Morning, Chair Toneri. Ian Hegarty, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
property is indicated for a single family use on the comprehensive plan however the proposed sign
is accessory to an existing religious assembly and won't be visible from the street and so we
have no objection to the granting of the variance. Thank you. Calendar number 1179-610-East
Thank you. Calendar number 1179, 610 East Mount Pleasant Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you very much, Commissioners. Have a great day.
Thank you. You as well.
I'm going to go back to case number seven, calendar number 0948, 3223 North 29th Street.
i have rachel pritzker you may unmute yourself good morning good morning can you put your name
and address on the record please yes rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635
market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing about the truth? Yes. Do you also agree to waive and stip? Yes. And have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, plans, and photos
of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do
you have a letter? Yes. Okay, you may proceed. Okay, can I share my screen? You sure may.
Okay, this is...
okay can you see the screen yes okay this is 3223 north 29th street
this is an existing structure it is an existing two-family dwelling it is zoned rsa5 however
this property was previously converted by the prior owner that's this brian miller it was
uh purchased um recently by a new owner who um is was completing the process to get this
legalized so um our hardship here is that it's an existing two-family household living
provide you with the photos and we're just looking to legalize the use
for this new owner as you can see based on the appeal application that was filed prior to my
involvement the property was bought from the sheriff's sale as is as a duplex no construction
will be done to the project again we're just legalizing the use the tax clearance there was
a balance we had that paid off as you can see here by the new owner this is the deed transferring
the property over to the new owner which was done in december of 2020. this is the zoning map showing
the parcel, aerial photos. Have you met with the RCO? We did meet with the RCO. We sent out 89
letters and we do have letters of support from near neighbors. I spoke with Ms. Saleta who let
me know that the RCO was requesting a continuance. However, we have met with the RCO. We sent 89
letters out and then we also sent someone out door knocking and got letters of support. There's
a lot of vacancy on this block. And there's also a lot of other multifamily. So I'll provide those
photos. But basically, the RCO was requesting a continuance because they wanted to have
people. Excuse me, Rachel. This is Sharon Saleta. The RCO then, after we spoke, withdrew the request
for a continuance and instead submitted a letter in opposition. Okay. I was not privy to that,
but thank you. And who is the RCO? Swampoodle? No, that was not the coordinating RCO. Ah,
I apologize. It was Community Action Group. That's correct. They are the ones I was referring
to. We also had something from Swampoodle, but ACCA is also opposing. And they're not an affected
RCO. So it's only Community Action Group? Yeah, Swampoodle is an affected RCO, but not ACCA,
and Community Action Group was the coordinating RCO where we had the meeting.
As you can see from the mailer, we sent out actually 188, my apologies,
as you can see from the mailer we sent out actually 188 my apologies 188 letters um to
near neighbors um for this meeting that was held i think it was the 12th of january
we also door knocked and got letters of support from your neighbors um as you i'll show you the
photos so you can see uh sort of my concern with allowing a continuance was that um the property
is already built out completely as a duplex. The hardship would be that we would have to
renovate or demolish the entire interior of this structure, and we don't plan to do any alterations.
As you can see, it was rehabilitated previously and is in very good shape. So to have to
redo all of this to put a single-family home, especially on a block where there's already
single, there's already multifamily and a significant amount of vacancy. I don't know
that that's viable in this neighborhood. And this was purchased as a duplex? This was purchased as
a duplex by the prior owner and by the current owner. Yeah, as you can see, it's already built
out. It was purchased at sheriff's sale as a duplex. It just was never properly legalized.
Okay. This is Sharon Salida again. I'm sorry to keep interrupting.
um we do have a letter in opposition from the coordinating RCO which I just forwarded to the
board members by email um I will also send Ms. Pritzker a copy yeah they had only emailed me
for the record they only emailed me asking for a continuance they did not email me um mentioning
any opposition or even relaying you know the vote from the from the meeting so and I had shared with
them that one of the reasons that I was didn't want to do a continuance was because this is
already built out as a duplex completely and that in order to comply with RSA 5 we would have to
demolish this entire interior structure and we're just looking to put you know this back into legal
use as far as the city records are concerned. Ms. Pritzker would you like to move this to the end of
the list continue it then so you would have an opportunity to review submit it um i don't think
it's going to change my stance on this i appreciate that they are in opposition however again this is
an existing structure that's already built out as a duplex that was purchased as a duplex
and if the board decides that to deny the variance what you're requiring is the owner to demolish
the entire interior of this in good shape duplex that was purchased as a duplex and has a long
sitting history of a duplex on a block that's primarily vacant that can't support single
family in this neighborhood in this on this particular block and also has surrounding
properties 10 owners that are in support of it being a duplex in addition to the fact that there
are other multifamily properties on this block. So further showing that this is in character
and that this block in particular, given the amount of vacancy and the conditions, can't
really support, you know, the demolition of this interior structure for a single family
home. The owner is proposing two affordable units, around $650, if you can understand,
you know, sort of the economics of that, in addition to considering what a demo of all
this would be. And I believe we did send these letters to the board in advance of the hearing
to show that there was plenty of email to the RCO letter. Okay, thank you. So when he purchased it,
were there tenants in there? I don't believe so. I believe Len is on the call, the owner,
but I don't believe so. Or there may have been one tenant that has since left. I would have to
confirm with him. I just know that when he purchases, the prior owner had been going through
the process of getting approval and had sold it in the middle of it. So we kind of picked this up
at the RCO process in order to kind of, you know, bring it through. As you can see, this is the front
of the property. There's two doors to enter it. And again, as the board can see, it's in good
shape as a duplex, multiple kitchens. There were members at the RCO meeting who believed that just
moving a wall around was all that was needed. That's not accurate. It would be a significant
renovation of this structure. So the block is made up of single homes and duplexes. Yeah,
it's mostly two and three units. I want to see if I have the list of it. We usually try to include
the list of it. Give me one second, I'll pull up the list of, of how
Give me one second. I'll pull up the list of how the other blocks are broken down on
that block in particular. I had someone from my team doorknob because I wanted to make
sure that there was enough notice given out and that we were able to get support from
near neighbors. So I have their information and what they... Okay, I'm just going to share
the screen. So Andre Del Valle, who's a consultant from my firm, went out and did all the door
knocking on the 18th and basically reviewed that there are houses on this strip, 3213 through 19,
32 31 32 33 north um 29th street that six of the 11 houses are duplexes and there's also a
significant amount that are just shells with nobody living in them um he said he spoke with
the near neighbors um got 10 signatures and some of the concerns were trash and parking issues
i believe len who's the owner has already dealt with the trash um since he's now owned the property
and removing it and you know plans to continue to do that obviously there's nothing that
can be done to provide accessory off-street parking um for this project um but yes uh madam
chair there are about six duplexes of the 11 houses on this strip i'm not sure what condition they're
in uh or the you know but that's as far as the city records are concerned okay um is there anyone
here who would like to testify on this case i have one phone caller i'm unmuting please
unmute yourself you're free to speak
can you hear me okay yes can you put your name and address on the record please
yes i can it's adrian fernandez swamp little neighborhood parcels association rco
and we are one of the affected rcos on this address also per the city rco notification website
Okay. Do you swear to or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Okay. Okay. At the meeting, I'm not sure if you have a meeting summary form or not.
At the meeting, there was only one affected address after the meeting from the address list,
And all the other participants were RCO members and also the two affected RCOs, the RCO Coordinator Community Action Group and the affected RCO, Swamp Oodle RCO.
All parties were opposed to this conversion.
In Swampoodle, single-family dwellings renting is very successful, and there's no hardship to rent this property as it is an illegal multifamily dwelling.
Also, the refusal is problematic because the refusal does not list any legalization.
Therefore, when notices were sent out, the refusal is not truthful.
So therefore, the notices did not truthfully notify the neighbors that the conversion was for legalization from single-family to multifamily.
This variance is overused in our area, which is one of the largest reasons why we're against it.
This property has a certificate of occupancy for a single-family dwelling, which the owner knew that when he purchased it.
And we didn't see any evidence that it was purchased from sheriff's sales, so we're not sure about that.
The variance is overused, and also we have too many illegal multifamily conversions.
And we want these houses to stay single-family so we can attract those types of residents.
We have a huge problem even at this property with trash because the property managers for multifamily and single-family districts
and also the types of occupants that they attract, they just have no respect for properly bagging their trash and also dumping.
That would be household dumping and also construction dumping.
The photos from this property, which is all we received, we did not see any drawings.
The photos look like the property was recently rehabbed before the community meeting and before the hearing.
This property would have been much more expensive in that part of Swampoodle, which is right below East Falls.
This property would have been much more expensive in that part of Swampuro.
The property would have sold for more than approximately $47,000 that it did if those rehabilitations in the picture were present.
So we believe the property was recently rehabbed before the hearing and before the community meeting.
Let's see.
Both RCOs opposed. We did speak about a second meeting, but after more discussions with the other RCO members that were at the meeting, overwhelmingly, they decided they did not want to have a second meeting.
So both RCO chairs, we went along with what they want, and we all opposed this variance.
Can you also please read Tawampo's letter where we have a few additional points?
that would add to our opposition of this variance being granted.
And also, please take into account the misinformation,
especially with a refusal, was not – it had misinformation.
There was no terms on that refusal asking for legalization.
And this many times is how we get many multifamily dwellings that the community
does not want to live around. We have too many. We don't want any more. Our trash problems are
overwhelming, and we have to always say, for the record, it is of no fault of the city's
sanitation department, who does an excellent job of trash collection and swamp little.
Our problem is multifamily dwellings. We are overwhelmed with the trash and the other problems.
Madam Chair, can I address some of these? Sure, you may.
Okay, so the refusal says for the legal, the refusal says for two family in an existing structure, it's up to the L&I reviewer as to how they characterize that. I've done many cases where we're legalizing existing uses and they don't put that verbiage.
So that doesn't mean that it was misrepresented or, and if the RCO has an issue with the language
that that would be an appeal to L&I based on that.
But I know that the board has seen that on many occasions and that that's not a misrepresentation.
Plus it was very clear at the RCO meeting that we did have that we explained that this
was an existing structure.
Obviously the construction and everything was done before the community meeting, as
I had explained, the owner inherited it, the new owner inherited it this way.
So there was no construction between the time he bought it and the RCO meeting or this hearing.
It was already like that.
So that's, again, why, you know, obviously it was done before the community meeting.
Also, again, I was not privy to any additional conversations that the RCO had as opposed to besides asking for a continuance.
And again, you know, I didn't really think that that made a lot of sense for this matter.
In addition to considerations for single family homes, I don't disagree that that's something that communities want.
We're dealing with this case in particular where this has already been built out as a duplex.
There's two kitchens, bathrooms, separate doors, separate meters.