all but the tax clearance which was emailed to council yesterday
okay thank you please for sheet and share your screen
uh the
share screen green button at the bottom
nobody uh nobody has attended nobody attended the rco meeting
uh the letters were sent out uh my client will testify that he even went to the port to the
point of knocking on doors in the neighborhood in order to uh get anybody interested but people
were either not interested or did not answer their doors. This is for legalization of a
of a garage door on a vacant lot. I should note to the panel that this appears to have been a
vacant lot since the early 1950s. It is not a it's it's an unusually shaped property.
Shaped property.
I'm showing, are you seeing?
I'm showing, are you seeing now the posting here?
No, we need to see.
You're still on the first page.
Could you send us what the property looks like?
Here is the posting.
The issue is this is a 10-foot wide lot.
The door is necessary because of the situation you see here
because people, when there was no gate, were dumping garbage there.
It has been used since the 1950s.
It was originally a plumber had kept his trucks there.
I have a 1954 use permit to that effect that I'll show you in a minute.
But the situation was as the trash was being dumped onto the property,
And he just simply wanted to limit the amount of trash that he had to clean up or could be fined for.
It was a commercially used property prior to it becoming rezoned as an RCE 10 when it went to sheriff sale in 2015.
Now the block is listed as residential.
However, this property is very probably too small to even have a house built on it without
a variance.
As you can see, there's a small garage in back, which is used for parking.
I have a mechanical engineer's report saying that the door was put up properly.
the door is not unique for the neighborhood this is directly across the street you can see the same
gates on the on the food truck next door you can see from the drawing that there is 10 feet six
inches across the open doorway and the overhead lot view there is 110 feet of open parking space
but again it's only 10 foot six inches wide and then there's a garage that is 35 feet deep
here is the use permit from 1954 uh giving a allowing a plumber shop housing truck tools and
material legalization we've been able to find no other record indicating there was any construction
on this property since it has been a vacant lot and really all we're trying to do is improve the
quality of the neighborhood by reducing the amount of trash being dumped there my client wants to use
it to park vehicles. He will testify and he will answer any questions that you would like.
I'd like to call Mr. Noah Ziv. Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell
for the court reporter? Yeah, Ziv Noah, Z-I-V, last name Noah, N-O-A-H. Right. And do you
accept the testimony that I've just given as true and correct? Sir, sir, wait a minute,
wait a minute. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth yes i do speak up just a little bit you're a little hard i'm sorry i'm coming a little
closer no that's fine all right go ahead counsel do you uh do you uh accept the testimony i've
just given is true and correct absolutely uh does the panel have any questions for mr zip
questions from the board for counsel no mr no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments
from the virtual audience mr chair this is hillary i just i just want to jump in um i had
had some conversation i was going to ask you before i got there before i got to planning but
go ahead yeah no let me let me just have it i just wanted to clarify this is an application
and i've had this conversation via email with the applicant this is an application for a change of
use or establishing um the use um of the property the the gate is not part of the application um
It's only use. There's no construction as part of this application.
I've advised the applicants that they do need to apply for a permit to the gate and given them the instructions for how to do that.
There is an issue on the refusal where the use that is listed as what's being requested is storage.
That is not a use category in the zoning code.
I've been in touch with LMI to try to get clarity on this.
and what we determined this morning was that we will discuss at the hearing today exactly what
this use is and it sounds like vehicle storage is what it is and then I will go back to L&I
and find out what use category this should be and when we vote on this case if it is granted
we will include a proviso that clarifies the use for this property.
we will include a proviso that clarifies the use for this property.
So, Hillary, do we want planning to take a position,
or do we want to wait to see what they'll be voting on?
Yeah, I think planning can take a position based on the testimony today,
unless they would like to defer.
But I do want to just clarify with either counsel or the applicant,
what is being stored here is solely vehicles, right?
Is there anything else being stored at the property?
Is there anything else?
So it is a garage door, like a little space garage, as you saw in the pictures.
I assume I'm going to rent it out.
It's not going to be solely mine.
I just own the property.
I just cleaned it up and made sure that it's safe and secure, like you saw the engineer report.
I assume because of the size, it's only 10 by 35.
It's going to be used when I rent it to either a van storage for safekeeping so nobody can break in and steal whatever tools they got inside the van.
And then since you have another 100 foot, I would say you can maybe store another van outside or maybe two until you get to the end of the garage door.
But my idea was safety.
That's why I closed it in.
And same thing with the garage door in the back.
Same thing.
It's closed in and it's safe.
So it's going to be for storage of a vehicle.
And I assume if they have tools or ladders and stuff on top of the van, it will be secure inside of that building as opposed to just outside on the street.
All right.
So I will discuss that with L&I and find out from them what category or categories under the zoning code that should be listed so that the use is clear.
Thank you for that clarification.
Thank you.
Is anyone in the virtual audience who has a comment?
I see no hands, Chair.
Ian, do you want to take a position on this?
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you, Chair.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family zoning on this block.
However, as the appellant has demonstrated, this is a very narrow lot at about 10 feet wide.
So we agree that residential use is not feasible on this site.
And the proposed uses as described by the appellant are consistent with the physical configuration of the existing structure on the lot and the lot itself and its prior legal use as a plumber's shop.
so therefore the city planning commission recommends that the board grant this variance
thank you uh hillary we'll wait to hear and we'll come back with this yeah mr chair we did not sorry
we did not open um up to public testimony so we just need to do that quickly um sorry i jumped i
jumped in we did chair and i did i did do it hillary oh okay okay all right okay so we're
going to be back in touch with you okay yeah we should be able to have this um voted on next week
okay thank you very much thank you number five mi 2022 004-564-412 bainbridge street
alexander barth is the attorney a letter of support for free village neighbors
There's a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
There's a letter of support.
We also believe there's a letter of opposition.
Mr. Barth.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Alexander Barth, B as in boy, A, R, T as in Tom, H as in Harry, of Cohen-Seglius, on behalf of the applicants Carlos and Adrienne Rogers, the owners of 412 Bainbridge Street Unit I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed all the required exhibits to our office within five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
You have? Thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Can you see my screen?
We can.
All right. So we are here this morning on behalf of the owner's applicants of 412 Bainbridge Street.
It should say Unit I, not Unit 1. I apologize for that. It's Unit I on the refusal.
This is a single-family home located on Bainbridge Street, obviously the 400 block of Bainbridge Street.
On Bainbridge Street, obviously the 400 block of Bainbridge Street, and we are here today in the Queen Village neighborhood.
and we are here
We're here today seeking a variance for the grant of a visitor accommodations permit for this property so it may be allowed to be used for short-term rentals.
Just as the preliminaries to go through of the exhibits that were previously submitted, we have, there was no application because it was an Eclipse application for the license itself or the permit itself, but Exhibit B is the refusal for this, for the application for a visitor accommodations permit.
Going on, Exhibit C is the application for appeal to this board.
Exhibit D is the project information form that was submitted with the application time-stamped.
I apologize, this goes on.
Exhibit E would be the deed
to the applicants
as you can state while the
refusal states that this is
412 Bainbridge Street Unit I
as a unit
this is an off-street courtyard-based
development
412 Bainbridge Street Unit I
let's see
We have Exhibit G, which is the Certificate of Tax Clearance.
Exhibit J is the photo posting or poster photos showing posting for more than 21 days
continuously prior to this meeting.
And Exhibit L is the RCO notice together with the proofs of mailing.
I can see if I can just skip ahead to those quickly.
to get away from the, there is Exhibit G.
So we have proofs of posting.
This is a courtyard-based development, so the street frontage is obviously on Bainbridge Street.
That is where posting occurred for both the notice of refusal and the poster itself.
Various dates leading up to the hearing.
There it is.
Tax clearance certification.
And then further down is Exhibit L.
So we are here today requesting approval to secure a visitor accommodation license.
This is not an owner-occupied property.
It is a single-family home owned by the applicants who operate a business in Philadelphia.
They are Mr. Rogers.
I believe Ms. Rogers is here, are here today and are capable of testifying.
They purchased this property before the institution of the current laws or ordinances regarding Airbnb or short-term rentals.
And they wish to use this property as a short-term rental.
It is a single-family home.
It will be used. The proposal is to use it as such. And they have previously rented this property as well as others.
They have a four star rating for their rentals in the past. This will only be used as a single family home.
There's no decision, no plans to expand the property, expand the number of bedrooms, bathrooms.
It is a smaller unit, so it is not some kind of expansive rental property.
And they have met with the RCO previously in meeting with the RCO.
The RCO provided a letter of support with certain provisos, those provisos being the addition of a security camera.
The applicant was willing to and complied with that request.
And just so you guys can have an understanding of kind of the nature of this courtyard-based dwelling,
these are the external photos of the home.
They all face onto a courtyard coming off of Bainbridge Street.
These are kind of looking up and down the courtyard at the premises.
The premises here, premises I, is on the right with the bushes.
The applicant, this is the front door to the unit.
As you can see, it's very well maintained.
Windows have been replaced since they've taken ownership of it.
They maintain the property in peak condition.
These are the interior photographs showing you or depicting the relative size of the property.
Again, this is essentially a trinity, I think, as most would be seen, or just a smaller single-family unit.
a trinity i think as most would be seen or just a smaller single family unit this is not some kind of
large rental property it's meant for a small number of renters and has been used that way
and that's the intended continued use the rco requested or supported the application for a
visitor accommodation license provided that there was the installation of a security camera this is
a rooftop deck that it has. A ring doorbell has been installed at the premises to provide
security camera footage. The applicant has provided the near neighbors and the condominium
association with contact information so that he can be reached or anybody can be reached if there
are any issues. Council, why don't we have your testimony adopted by the owner? Mr. Rogers, are you
here? Carlos? Yep. Hello. Can you hear me? Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the
court reporter? Yes, sir. Carlos Rogers. C-A-R-L-O-S. R-O-G-E-R-S. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel. Mr. Rogers, have you heard
my testimony here today and do you find it to be truthful? I do. Do you adopt that testimony as
your own before this board? I do. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.