meeting we have proof from the voting system that our votes were submitted only once not twice
and if we can need to provide that we will we got an email verification and a pdf from that so
we've heard a lot of testimony about the vote but i think the key thing is why don't you read your
letter all right so um i'm gonna read a summary because i submitted a letter for to the zba
that was written on behalf of harry cook um and i'd like to enter that as my testimony but i'd
like to summarize that because it's you know pretty lengthy um so um as it was noted uh my
my wife who's here with me um you live on 128 west wallot lane and um sorry west topo hawkins street
and our property shares that the rear property line with the applicants and their garage we saw
that on the map sure we did. So we first were notified of this proposed development in February
2022 five days prior to the scheduled RCO meeting. We had no prior notification from the neighbor
submitting the application and it was really a shock to us to find out that with such little
time we had to review the intended plans and be prepared for the meeting at the RCO.
In addition, the plans that were presented today are not the same plans that were presented to and voted by the RCO on the March 2nd meeting.
And as far as we know, we just saw the plans, the revised plans, two days ago that were forwarded to us.
As far as we know, aside from the Tom Schwartz and Karen Stevens, I don't know if anyone else saw those plans, but we definitely did not until two days ago.
So, Mr. Garcia, here's the question.
You saw the plans two days ago.
Have you changed your mind?
You have to look at the plans or you still have objections?
No, my mind has not changed. I still feel that our opposition is based on several reasons.
One, the applicant has not fully shown that there's established a legal hardship under the Philadelphia Zoning Code for the parcel.
It's a single family with a garage and not a residential use in the garage.
And also that granting the requested variance will have an adverse impact on all adjacent neighbors and is contrary to the public interest as evidenced by the RCO vote, which is being questioned.
RCO vote which is being questioned and also the 21 near neighbors
and also the
whom I spoke to individually who signed the petition submitted with our letter.
And I did have plans that were provided to us when I spoke to the neighbors and
we spoke about them and reviewed whatever information we had provided by the applicant
to us. The existing footprint of the pre-existing non-conforming garage also may not be expanded for
a new use under relevant case law, and that's important because the addition is completely
within the 25-foot rear yard setback, which is currently also not compliant with the current
zoning code right um and from what we understand um in order for the board to grant the variances
the applicant must show that um you know he meets all the requirements per the philadelphia zoning
code and um we feel that when he purchased the property he knew it was a single family
dwelling in the zoning district that forbids multi-family use we knew that he knew that
there is no hardship that it's only created by him because he's expressing the desire to
put multiple dwellings on the property and convert the long-standing garage into
to residential dwellings and secondly I think we granting the requested variances would increase
the residential use on that parcel by 66 percent and expand the footprint of the pre-existing
non-conforming garage while the applicant cannot provide credible evidence that this
proposed variance are required to avoid any unnecessary hardship not created by him
and they represent the least required variance
from the code to avoid any unnecessary hardship.
It is assumed by us that the hardship amounts
to landowners near desire to increase profitability,
which he's stating is needed for him to maintain his home.
This then does not meet the criteria required for variance
and therefore the variance should be denied.
thirdly um i have quite a bit here i'm sorry i just they got a lot of time and i think this is
a really important issue for the neighborhood and we you know um based on the the um master plan for
the district philadelphia 2035 master plan the planning commission um has recommends that the
100 block of West Walnut Lane remain low density. Therefore, the applicant's desire to increase the
density from one family dwelling to three units is inconsistent with the master plan and not
consistent with the spirit of the zoning code and the adopted plan for the neighborhood, and therefore
the variance should be denied. In addition, we did, as noted before, the RCO did vote in opposition
and it's news to us that our vote was not counted but that's because we understand there's certain
issues there. The opposition petition is also was submitted and from the map that was represented
earlier in the presentation a lot of the red which were the people in opposition were
adjacent or near neighbors where a lot of the green and a lot of the letters the addresses
that were presented were not directly near neighbors or adjacent neighbors and so and a
lot of the names and letters that were written were by people that are on the RCO or members
of the RCO, of which Mr. Luke Smith is currently the Vice President of the RCO. And so we feel
that these points make it clear that the burden is on the applicant to show a legal hardship,
and that has not been shown. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia, I don't mean to interrupt you,
But you've said that several times now, and I understand it.
So could you give me some new testimony?
Because you've talked about the burden several times.
So could you try to gear down where you want to be with this?
Okay, no problem.
So the last thing is, I mean, the other items I wanted to confirm is I wanted to reiterate that the existing garage is noncompliant.
And it is currently, they're seeking to expand the use.
And it is currently, they're seeking to expand the use.
You've told us that, and I understand that.
And then the other item is that with the provisios that have been submitted, it seems that what they're trying to do is indicate that they were only asking for one additional dwelling unit.
From my understanding, what is currently in the zoning code, accessory dwelling units are only allowed on lots that are occupied by a single-family use, and they have to meet the criteria under section 14604.11.D.
And they also have to be located within the interior of a detached accessory building with the existence of a building that's been in existence before the date of the zoning code.
What we see here is that the applicant is seeking an additional drawing unit as an accessory drawing unit.
And this lot will then no longer be considered single-family lot.
The other item I wanted to bring up is that under the same code, the accessory dwelling units are allowed in areas that meet the requirements outlined by the Philadelphia Historic Commission.
and they have to be either an historic building recognized by the Philadelphia Historic Commission
or a large lot in RSA 5 or CMX 1 zoning the applicant's property needs neither of those
because the the building is not recognized by the Philadelphia Historic Commission
and on their registry and also the Topohockin Station District is only recognized by
the department of state not the historic commission and the law is rsa1 and not rsa5 or cmx1 okay
and then um and and also i wanted to note that the other mr garcia mr garcia let me say this much
we have the letter from mr cook that he right everything you're saying is coming from the
letter. Am I correct? This part is not because I just saw the provisio two days ago and I'm just
speaking now about the provisio. The other information shared in the provisio, in the
revised plans with provisio is that they are seeking to place a trellis with some landscape
to buffer the neighboring's properties. But from my understanding, as it's noted in their plans,
The patio, which they know on the second floor, is not technically a patio.
It's a roof deck per zoning code definition because it's on top of a roof framing of a building.
And per the section 146045 of the zoning code, roof decks are prohibited on excessive structures.
Are you reading this from the letter, sir?
no this is something that's not from the letter because the letter was written prior to me
knowing that there were any plans with provisius
i i'm just to clarify i'm also familiar with the zoning code because i am an i am an architect i'm
here representing myself as a homeowner i understand i understand i understand um and so
there is no the the roof deck shouldn't even be allowed the addition shouldn't be allowed
so the provisions for a trellis to buffer from the roof deck isn't even valid in my opinion um and
then also um the applicant is proposing windows that are facing the property our property um
directly and any tenants in that building would then be looking directly into our property and
therefore the trellis would do nothing to protect our property from being looked upon um the the
applicant's mother stated that you know in her house people are looking into her backyard well
now the applicant is trying to do that to my backyard and even if my house is further away
that is the backyard where my child plays and I don't really want that and
it's not even allowed because it's less than three feet from the property line
so for the building code the IRC the IDC you can't even have windows along the
You can't even have windows along the property line that close.
property line that close it's not
It's not legal.
Okay, are you done, sir?
What I wanted to finally add is that we feel that with a house that's over 6,000 square feet
and a lot that's over an acre, we believe the applicant could create a by-right project
without any hardship required for variance.
and therefore the proposed and revised plans with proviso should be denied because
we never saw any alternative plans aside from wanting to add an addition and occupy the carriage
house okay thank you um steve let me ask you are you gonna question then mr uh um i i'm not gonna
of question um the witness but i do have um a like a brief closing for you let me let me just
for before steven is there anyone else in the virtual audience excuse me chair we have charles
richardson hi mr richardson good afternoon yeah we're in afternoon now mr chair thanks for reminding
me that's the afternoon charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall
The councilwoman is not going to make an official decision on this one, but just want to make note that I did attend the RCO meeting.
It seemed like there was all kinds of opinions that were being bandied about.
And I made the suggestion that they hold the vote, which it seemed like they had agreed to.
And, you know, as they had been discussed earlier, and I was kind of surprised that they went forward with the vote for a little later on.
And then I heard from other people that there was a bunch of confusion with regard to the votes.
And unfortunately, it seems as though that, you know, the RCO went with the opinion that was rendered with those votes, which was in opposition.
There seemed to be a lot of room for conversation to take place.
And I have suggested that to Mr. Smith and also to the RCO board in order for this to kind of play out a little better than what it has.
Do also want to make note that Mr. Smith has since done a lot of work, did speak with him and noted that he has a lot of letters of support.
and you know so therefore you know making note that that is the case uh we're leaving it in
the hands of the board to make a wise decision on this on this property thank you thank you
mr richardson anyone else in the virtual audience chair let we have a hand up uh first name again
and an f last name garcia um hello hi could you state your name please and spell for the court
reporter uh fazia f-a-u-z-i-a last name s-a-d-i-q space g-a-r-c-i-a right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes are you associated with mr garcia yes um so
i agree with the testimony the one thing i wanted to add was that the first hearing for the zba was
supposed to occur in July. If the applicant had any issues with the RCO vote, he could have decided
to have another vote that was never presented to the RCO. And so that is kind of interesting that
he's now trying to say that people had issues with the vote. The project could have come back
to the RCO and it was never brought back to the RCO. And we never received a meeting with the RCO
to review the provisios and the new drawings um so i wanted to thank you thank you for pulling in
i appreciate it is there anyone else i seen chair we have one chair we have three several hands up
it's about four hands up um next in line we have bernard wilson okay okay mr wilson i am here
All right. State your name, please. Spell for the court reporter.
Bernard Wilson, B-R-N-A-R-D-W-I-L-S-O-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Wilson, are you for the project or against it?
I'm against the project.
Okay. Could you tell us why in a short period of time?
um our resident is 146 which uh the west top of the southeast corner of our property
is at the corner of luke smith's property we were dismayed at the onset of this because
mr smith never came to us to speak to us about his intentions as a former president
came to us to speak to us about his intentions as a former president of West Central Germantown
Neighbors. I'm very familiar with the process, and I would have loved to have engaged him in
conversation about his desires, but I never got an opportunity. The other thing that is also
interesting is that this proviso came out, and the revised drawings were never submitted back
to the community for review. So it was interesting to me that there was a sort of non-sequitur
here that the RCO letter, the provisional letter, got admitted and it did not go back
before the community group to discuss it, to vote on it, etc. The last thing I'll say
very quickly is that the only carriage houses that have been converted to use in the immediate
vicinity is the one to the east of Luke, the large property which has been commercial for many years
and the one at 120 which according to the records online it is not permitted as a use for a family
dwelling. The final thing I want to say is that if you look at the graphic the red which denoted
objection to the plan in closest proximity to the property is stronger than the ones on the outline
in the green which are farther away from the property than any of us who object thank you
thank you all right how many more hands do we have i see no excuse me thank you every time
every time i say i see no hands hands pop up we have thomas schwartz well okay you want to
that's the last one there's no other hands no okay come on yes please i'll let my wife
karen stevens speak she has something to say okay uh state your name please and spell for the court
reporter karen stevens k-a-r-e-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do we also have a letter from you yes and i i apologize
for not being able to unmute myself before i but i'm saying we have a letter also from you right
you do you do yes okay we'll proceed uh well we are in favor uh i feel that it is a reasonable
request we are located right right in back the impact would be the largest on us right it was
our carriage house in all the pictures and we do not have it developed uh we have been
friends with the smiths for over 30 years we know them very well they are good people they
are community minded and uh i i thank you very much but i stand at 12 30 i have to we have to
end it completely so we have a letter from you everything you said we know where you live we
saw it on the map and we appreciate it are there are there any questions from the board
no mr chairman okay um no mr chair uh hillary do you want to interject anything here
yes mr chair um mr masters in your presentation you noted that the additional dwelling unit um
the that was being sought now is uh they're seeking to have an uh adu an accessory dwelling
unit there along with an in-law suite is that correct um yes the the carriage house will the
first floor would be an in-law suite so that would belong to the same family as the main house and
then there will be a separate accessory dwelling unit on the second floor okay um because an
accessory dwelling unit is under the code is different than a regular dwelling unit and
doesn't necessarily well it doesn't render the property of multi-family use because it's
accessory. It's not considered an additional dwelling unit. And so if your client would like
to have an accessory dwelling unit, we will have to have the refusal go back to L&I for review
under the accessory dwelling unit criteria. The board can't vote on it as the plans are right
now because they they don't match what's in what was originally requested um and it's a different
criteria that the the plant the the uh lni has to review for an accessory dwelling unit than just
for an additional dwelling so we we do not want that to happen um miss emerson uh we we would stand
with with just a separate dwelling unit and and we we our argument is that it's very similar
to an accessory dwelling unit it doesn't meet exactly the criteria because we don't have the
exactly the criteria because we don't have the historical commission designation we have the
historical commission designated