We're going to close the record and maybe give you a chance to talk to Reverend Williams.
uh that's no problem um okay yeah that's fine um is there a date by which we so hillary what
hillary why don't we do this why don't we uh um close the record other than additional information
from um the rco and then uh response from council but everything else will be closed
that's fine mr sure do you want to um vote on this in two weeks i i think two weeks will be
perfect okay we'll vote on this at two weeks in two weeks at 2 p.m okay okay miss mccoy yes thank
you very much thank you all right okay number number five oh no let's go back to uh number
three. Sean Ward, please. MI 2023-002-457-2364
Orthodox Street. Sean Ward.
Sean Ward is coming back in as a panelist.
mr ward there you go okay i am here hey there you go um could you state your name please and
spell for the stenographer yes sean s-h-a-w-n ward w-a-r-d esquire counsel for
Joe Ramos, who is the owner of the LLC and a property owner.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
So I see some notes here.
I understand we're going to hear this and then hold.
Have you talked to Hillary about this?
Yeah, I was able to provide her, Hillary, some additional information.
Yeah, I was able to provide her, Hillary, some additional information. So, you know, we can walk the board through that. And, you know, if in fact, we still want to hold it for the revised or corrected refusal, that's fine.
Okay. All right. Mr. Ward, this is Hillary. Yeah, no, I still think we need to because I'm not, there's inconsistent information floating out there and the refusal doesn't match what's being requested. So I think we really need to correct it.
so okay or amend really amend it yeah that's that's fine and i can i can walk the board through
those uh those uh items our vice chair has a few questions for you thank you start
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
i agree to waive a reading of the refusal but obviously we can't stipulate to its accuracy at
this point that's understood uh have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
All documents have been submitted and accepted by board counsel.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed with your screen.
All right.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my typical exhibit packet, which on behalf of Joe Ramos,
Mr. Ramos, I don't believe is here today.
He's actually moving.
So the movers were coming today.
But as an officer of the court, I can verify that he's reviewed the documents that were
submitted and is well aware of my representations to the board today. With regard to the packet,
A1 is the notice of refusal. In the notice of refusal, you know what, I'm just going to go
right to the refusal and show you that. Basically, in the refusal, we are proposing new construction
of an attached building at the rear of the property. However, the existing structure at
the front of the property is not a multifamily four-unit household dwelling. It is, in fact,
an existing two-family dwelling. There was a variance granted a few years back, which I
represented Mr. Ramos. We did obtain a variance to add an addition to that existing building,
but obviously, you know, COVID and some other issues, financing, interest rates, you know,
and all that jazz. That project was never implemented, so that structure was never
changed, and it continued as a two-family structure. So I just noted that on the refusal
in red, the addition and the four-families was never implemented. So one of the refusals
indicated that we were proposing a total of five units. You know, the four that were deemed
existing plus the one additional in a CMX2, so I highlighted that on a refusal.
That is not what we're seeking.
We are, in fact, seeking one additional unit in addition to the existing two, not five.
The other refusals with the roof deck and the access structure, the setbacks at the
roof, we did accept a refusal for those.
On the plans, you'll see that the roof deck is on a rear structure, which fronts on a common alley.
It is not at the front of the building at the sidewalk where I submit that the intent and purpose of the setback for a roof deck is so that nothing inadvertently gets thrown over the front of the building and lands on the sidewalk where it can hurt a pedestrian.
So we did we did, in fact, accept those two refusals.
uh the uh refusal uh for the occupied area we accepted that refusal and um as we did for
uh the rear yard depth uh this is an existing garage structure at the rear we proposed the
demolition of scene and the erection of a new garage structure with an apartment above at the
rear. So the, you know, the setback we consider de minimis since the setback is not existing
today. So, but going back to the exhibit list, A2 is the application of appeal, A3 project
information form. A4 is proof of ownership. A5 is proof of tax clearance. A6 was the zoning and
site elevation plan originally submitted. I do have with me today, which was emailed to
Hillary, our replies to the RFI or request for information by the examiner addressing some of
those issues on the site plan. I'll walk the board through those momentarily. A7 are photographs of
the posting, subject property, street views, aerial views. A8 is our RCO meeting notification
and certificate of mailing.
The Bridesburg letter was submitted separately from the packet.
The Bridesburg letter was submitted separately from the packet, as indicated by the board, and it was a unanimous support.
If a letter was submitted by the council person, I'm not sure if we did get that or not, but I would ask that that be marked as 810.
And with regard to the relevant zoning history, back in 1939, this was a hatched sewer in a one-family dwelling.
1955 through 78, it was converted to a two-family dwelling.
And then again, as I mentioned, in 2015, we did obtain a permit for the erection of a two-story addition to convert it to a four-family dwelling.
However, that never took place.
So that obviously that variance has expired.
A12 is the zoning map.
A13 is the aerial photo.
So, we have the application of appeal, the project information form, copy of his deed.
We also have the tax clearance.
Wait a minute.
There it is.
All taxes are paid and up to date.
I point out this is the plan that I believe was submitted with the application.
I crossed out in red the existing four family and the notice on there that it was an existing building containing four departments.
But as you see, the bubble surrounding this language that was inserted by the examiner when asking for additional information.
We did submit a response with an amended plan.
As you can see here, this was the amended plan.
That language was removed from the plan, and we showed that the rest of the information as contained therein was correct.
With regard to his request for information, we again accepted the refusal for the 9-foot setback or 10% of the depth of the lot.
We also accepted the refusal for the roof deck setback at the rear of the building.
We also accepted the refusal for the associated roof access structure, the occupied area, and we also indicated that since we would prefer to have two off-street parking spaces,
but under the code, one would be required for handicap accessible, adaptable space under the
code. And then finally, they did in fact ask us specifically whether or not it was for five
families and whether or not the existing, you know, well, it says that the maximum four would
be allowed for the property. We corrected them by indicating that the front structure consists
of two family dwelling, and we're looking to add just one dwelling unit at the rear.
So Hillary had a question for me we discussed earlier. Under CMX2, you're permitted one
dwelling unit per 480 square feet of lot area. This lot consists of 2,000 square feet. So the
three units would be permitted as a matter of right. And as the front structure is already a
two-family dwelling, there is no requirement for commercial use on the, you know, first floor
frontage. So, but needless to say, you know, Hillary has indicated that we should get a
corrected refusal with regard to the, you know, the discrepancies in the existing refusal. So
So between Hillary and I, we will work on that to obtain that corrected refusal.
So this is just an aerial photograph.
This property is located off the corner of Milner and Orthodox.
If you're coming southbound on Aramingo Avenue near the former Bridge Street exit, we're on the right hand side of Aramingo Avenue right back in the development there.
um it's i would also point out that uh mr ramos owns 2130 or 2366 uh orthodox street that was
new construction on a vacant lot that that that does consist of four dwelling units
uh we're in the process of trying to acquire the vacant lot which is known as 2368 it is
It's probably owned by a decedent's estate, and there's substantial taxes and L&I liens on the property, so we're trying to work with the district council to obtain ownership of that.
Here's a copy of the posting.
One second.
Front of the subject.
Front of the subject, properties to the right, property to the left, street views.
Properties to the right.
Property to the left.
Again, this is the vacant lot that's two units down we're trying to acquire.
This is directly across the street.
This is one of the notices of the meeting to, or this is the meeting notice for Bridesburg Community Action.
attached was a copy of that refusal the mailing addresses the uh notification map
certificate of mailing and then the aforementioned zoning history uh with regard to the property
uh we did meet with bridesbark last week and uh quite frankly nobody attended
other than the board and one member of the community.
And they issued their letter in support of the application,
and they provided a letter of explanation.
And at that time, we did discuss the specific discrepancies in the refusal.
I clarified to them what exactly it was that we were seeking to build,
uh replaced the existing garage in the back with a new garage with an apartment above
and so they were well aware of that and they mentioned that in their letter so
i believe even with a corrected refusal or revised refusal their letter would
certainly continue to be applicable so uh based upon that that that's all i have for that
particular case
you know given the
discussion with the board counsel
we would ask that him
obviously the board hold the decision
based upon
pending revised
refusal. All right questions
from the board?
No chair.
No chair.
Additional comments from our attorney?
Hilary Emerson? Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair. Elena, do you want to wait for the revised or do you want to take a position?
Yeah, we can wait for the revised. Okay, thank you. So we'll vote when we have the revised and
we get that back and we'll, working with Hilary, we'll have this done as quick as we can. Thank you.
So just to clarify, Mr. Chair, because planning has deferred, well, well, since planning has deferred, we will have a presumption hearing in this matter that we'll schedule as soon as we receive the amended refusal.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you. Very good.
All right. Going on to number five. MI 2023-007-211-2812 Snyder Avenue. Henry Clinton is the attorney. There's a recommendation of opposition from Tasker Morris Neighborhood Association. Three opposed, two in support.
Mr. Chair, for this matter, I just want to note that we also received a letter in opposition from Council President Johnson this afternoon. Thank you.
Thank you.
how many clinton is coming in chair
mr clinton just state your name you've testified a couple times you've been sworn in before so
just state your name and could you identify your client relationship to the property
sure my client is the owner he's to my right your left hong tim t-h-i-e-m all right and our
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
I do, Mr. Shahid.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of his hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
With me is my client, Tom Kim, to my right, your left.
So this is a request for the visitor accommodation in a very, very small house on a very, very wide street, Snyder Avenue, where the owners have lived within a half a block of this property since 2009.
And they bought the subject property, 2812 Snyder Avenue in 2015.
So I don't often come before the board without community support.
this is a little bit of a unique situation.
There was only one neighbor there
and everyone else was on the board
and none of whom lived near this property.
These are the table of contents, AA through 810, which ASP admitted into evidence.
These are the table of contents, AA through 810,
which ASB admitted into evidence.
The refusal, again, is a proposed visitor accommodation, and it's prohibited in a residential district.
But this is RM1, right?
This is zoned multifamily.
I think there should be a little bit more leniency in this type of zoning district rather than an RSA 5 or an RSA 3.
So there is a letter of opposition. Again, it was three to two. Mr. Tim has a petition that he
went around and got a lot of neighbors assigned. Not a lot could make that meeting. I understand
there's a number of neighbors on this call who could not make that meeting. We're going to voice
their support, so we'll see if that works out. These are the signatures of support in full
candor to the board, this signature right here, that's actually my client. He didn't realize that
he could sign a petition in supporting his own project. So you should not include that as a
signature of support. But the other signatures are legitimate. There's 2812, 2822, 2800, 2824,
right next door, 2818. He actually tracked down the owner of 28, on the other side of him, 2810,
who lives over in Graduate Hospital. But the gentleman said he could not sign without his
wife signing along with him. So we don't have their signatures, but otherwise I believe we would.
Here's photographs. What's unique is this is literally the smallest house on Snyder Avenue. As I said, Snyder Avenue, as everyone on the board knows, is a pretty wide thoroughfare. This is two bedrooms, one bath. Some of the other properties are larger. Wide sidewalks, properties in good shape, good condition inside.
So some of the comments at the meeting were that they believe, the one neighbor believed that there's other people on the block that are using their homes as Airbnbs.
And we said, well, look, my client is Cambodian. He wants to have people from his homeland come or family or friends, and he doesn't want to do something illegal.
So he's trying to do something that's right and proper.
And because there may be others who aren't doing things right and proper, that basically has impacted his ability to do what he wants with this property.
He's literally right around the corner on the twenty hundred block of South twenty ninth street.