It's already been renovated, and we have a new owner just trying to legalize it to require that they demolish the entire interior to build a single family home.
would not make any economic sense for this neighborhood
or would absolutely be a hardship in this instance.
I typically don't bring cases to the board
where we're trying to legalize an existing structure
and there's a real opportunity
for a meaningful conversion back to single families.
So this is the only kind of way to go about legalizing this.
And it will, again, more importantly,
provide some more affordable housing
in this neighborhood as well.
and existing, given there's plenty of vacant structures on this block, and the community's
comments about how poorly this block has been taken care of by the owners, I can't imagine that
we would want to deter, you know, an owner who's looking to legalize their property and provide a
nice structure to be dissuaded from doing so. So is there anyone else who would like to speak
on this? I have the owner on the line as well. Okay. I could have him speak. That would be
great. Is that Brian Miller? His name is Len. Len. He should be raising his hand.
Can you hear me? Yep. Yes, we can. Name and address, please. Hi. First name is Len Tau.
That's L-E-N-N space T-A-O, last name is Lynn, L-I-N, 3223 North 29th Street in the city of Philadelphia.
32 23 uh north 29th street in the city of philadelphia uh zip code is 19129
thank you and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you you may proceed rachel thank you len um have you heard the statements that i
made today yes could you just explain to the board the condition of the property when you purchased
it and just affirm that this was already built out as a duplex when you purchased it from the prior
owner? Yes, of course. And you haven't done. Go ahead. Sorry. So when I first purchased it last
year, I spoke with the seller. You know, I was advised that the renovation was done years ago.
it's not recent renovation. And then just to answer your initial question from the board,
the property was vacant when I purchased it. Right. And there are, can you just explain sort
of the conditions on that block as far as trash? Have you made it a point to remove the trash on
your property and will you continue to do so as you've heard that that's a concern?
Yeah, of course. So we have removed trash from the front and the back. And then there were some, you know, garbages in the garage log. We removed that as well.
so we will have a policy where you know we will have to have some of our tenants
leave the trash in the garage lot and then have one of them you know put it outside for pickup
day and you know I just want to make sure just to relay this message to the board that
you know i i heard a message about the trash um you know when i purchased it you know i i do
know is that there are trash um not on that block but some like a few blocks away there are some
trash that were on the street so you know i do know that concern and i've taken that to the heart
So I'll make sure that there's a policy in place that, you know, that's to make sure that the trash, there's no trash in the front or the back when there's no pickup day.
and just make sure that the property is well-maintained
and then that, you know, there are responsible, you know,
tenants or residents in place to take care of the problems.
And based on your time spent owning the property,
do you confirm that there's a significant amount
of other multifamily on this block
and that there's also a lot of vacancy on this block as well.
Yes, confirmed.
So we have, you know, taken care of the property since we bought it.
So we have done some cleaning.
We have removed, like I mentioned, we removed trash from the front and the back.
And, you know, we do notice that on that particular strip, there's a lot of vacant houses, some of the houses that we could see.
They have, you know, duplex units in them, you know, just by looking at from the back, they have like two meters and there's a lot of them, a lot of houses with two meters.
and uh but then again there's a lot of houses um you know with broken windows uh with uh
open roof um so that particular strip you know um there's a lot of vacancy and there's um also a lot
of uh multi-units there as well thank you and the last question is just can you confirm um you know
my testimony that there it would be a hardship uh given the current condition of the property
to have to demolish the entire interior
and to have to renovate it as a single-family home,
given what we've already discussed
about this property in the area.
Yes, confirmed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Does the board have any questions?
Planning Commission?
Good morning again.
Vice-Chair Tanari, Ian Negerty,
Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
So this property is recommended for single-family use,
both in the current zoning
and in the recommended zoning
in the comprehensive plan, while we recognize the difficulty and cost associated with reconverting
this property to a conforming use, there's no documented legal use here as a two-family dwelling.
there's no documented legal use here as a two-family dwelling and we would argue that
the claimed hardship is self-created due to a lack of due diligence. The property presents
no unusual physical characteristics to bolster the claim of hardship and so we would recommend
that the variance not be granted. Calendar number 0948, 3223 North 29th Street, my vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you thank you calendar number 1068 518
8 West Pike Street.
Vice Chair, this was previously listed on 1014.
We have no exhibits, but apparently the applicant did go through the RCO process because we
we have a letter received prior
to the originally scheduled hearing from Sloan Folks.
It's a letter not in opposition.
Okay, so this would be a continuance.
Is there anyone here?
I see no hands, Vice Chair.
Calendar number 1068, 518 West Pike Street.
This case will be continued.
Calendar number 1091, 702 Sagal Street.
And in this case too, I have no record of having received exhibits and it was previously
listed on October 28th.
Is there anyone here on this case?
i see no hands vice chair thank you calendar number 1091 702 single streets case is dismissed
dismissed
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Calendar number 0296810 North 12th Street.
Mr. Jin, you may unmute yourself.
Yes, good morning.
Good morning. Name and address for the record, please.
Zin Jin, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive and stiff?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
I do. I do have everything.
So we do have a letter in opposition from the RCO.
Who is the RCO?
It is the 14th Ward Democratic Executive Committee.
Okay. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
What I have before me is the cover letter, which we submitted the refusal, community letter.
We have a petition in support, and I'll discuss the opposition and the support, photos, plans, tax clearance, deed, and related application forms.
This is an application to erect a new structure on what is a vacant lot to use as a two-family dwelling.
The initial application did have a height refusal as well as rear yard and open space.
During our negotiations with the community, based on their feedback, we had actually agreed
to drop the height to 38 feet conforming, but would ask to continue to use as a two-family.
The property is actually owned jointly by two families that are close friends.
They're going into this property together to build what is essentially going to be a
duplex condo units so that one can take the upper floors and one can take the lower floor.
The reason they're doing this is because putting their money together allows them to actually build
this project, whereas individually they would not be able to do so. The community did oppose this
as a committee more so than the individual attendees with one committee member supporting
it their explanation is attached with their letter in detail and I'm sure
Their explanation is attached with their letter in detail.
And I'm sure Diane Monroe, Ms. Monroe, might be here to directly address that.
So what they're saying is that it is, they don't support it because it's in an area that
is single family homes and that multifamilies are not located here.
There were also some issues relating back to the NCP bill overlay, which I explained
that, you know, yes, there's an overlay and yes, there's a refusal, but that is why we went out
and talked to the neighbors for their support before we approached the community group for the
meeting. This property is located at 812. As you can see, 808, 816, 818. These are existing properties
in the area that actually is on that side of the street or actually in support, including some of
people on the 13th street on the back as well one thing to note about this property it is located
right here in this lot it's one of the smaller lots in the area however what is abutting it is
worth looking at because while it's in its own lot what you have on the other side of it right
next to it is a commercial pipe building further down this is a lot itself I'm going to scroll
through these further down here this is a Chinese restaurant multi-use property as well so that is
also not a single family the actual uses on this block also includes a funeral home a one or two
units that are actually multi-family and then our vacant lot however I do agree that there is an
existing single family right next door but they are so signed in support because they want the
lot developed. It's been vacant sometimes since 2008. However, across the street is a single
family development that was put in. I think this is a part of a bigger development of low-income
housing that is existing there. They have their own parking. So it's not, the impact from this
one being on this side, being a duplex, really isn't going to be that great towards the other
side of the street because this side of the street is not consistently single family.
What we have really is a structure that I'm going to go to the floor plan first so it's
easier to understand what the division is between the two.
So this is actually going to be owned by one client, one of the names on the deed.
She is actually single, so she's not looking for a lot of bedrooms.
So what they have is she has first floor basement and a part of the second floor with one bedroom.
Then you have, in addition, the second and third floor and fourth floor is actually one unit with four bedrooms because that family is a couple with two kids.
And that's really the reason this proposal is being proposed.
We understand that this is a new construction.
there's no existing hardship however we do want to point out that this is a property that has been
essentially vacant for some time because no one wants to develop it due to the nature of what it
is in between it's going to be hard to actually find someone who wants to just build a single
family house right there on that spot now the height we have adjusted the height
relative to our discussion with the community as you can see the elevation here has been lower to
38 feet from the original which I can show on the upper plan of 41 feet so we are lowering the
building to make it more conforming to the cold height the reason it cannot be even lower is
because the way the duplex is designed it would be impossible to lower it to the height of the
next door. And certainly we also have a single story commercial structure on the other side that
we don't know what's going to happen to in the future. The main reason we're asking for this
again is the buyers went into this together with the conceptual idea of a duplex here.
If it cannot be built, there's likelihood that the lot would stay vacant and they would
have to seek another location for for their project and again these are going to be owner
occupied both the owners will be here to verify that they want to actually live in the space in
fact the one owner is only about a block away currently renting space the again the community
we understand the community's position as a committee against this application however as
you can see, people on the block knows about the lot,
People on the block knows about the lot, knows that it's been vacant for some time,
knows that it's been vacant for some time.
and actually welcomes the idea of an occupied duplex at that location.
And actually, well,
808, I think one of the properties, it's 814 or 8, no, I'm sorry, 808 or 812 might be a funeral home.
That is also some sort of a commercial use as well.
It's not a single family house.
And again, we're seeing most of the immediate neighbors that are occupied, including 808 North, which is one of the ones next door, are all in support of this particular application.
Okay. Is there someone here from the RCO?
I didn't mean to cut you off.
No problem.
Diane, Mork, you may unmute yourself.
i just did can you hear me yes i can can you put your name and address on the record please
okay diane monroe 14th wood rco chair 1117 mount vernon street philadelphia pa 19123
thank you and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do you've submitted a letter opposing this yes and correct can you briefly tell us why
um when we opposed this project um when it was first presented to us we weren't aware of this
overlay this uh legislation um uh to protect that area uh we weren't aware of it but we did mention
to mr jen that it was just too too too big because there are nothing but um two-story homes around
there richard allen um projects or homes is across the street um from this proposed project and
There aren't any duplexes over there.
That area right now has no duplexes at all.
But where they're building at is near Meier Homes.
So is this near 12th and Poplar?