community center and for group living and in fact after my client acquired that
acquired the property he was approached by some folks in the community who were proposing to
purchase it and to uh restore it as a community center and for that same group living uh those
discussions never came to fruition but just by way of background I wanted the board to be aware of
that uh this project has gone through the historic commission and we do have their approval uh with
respect to the renovation to the exterior of the building as well as for the windows uh we have
also met with the RCO. Excuse me, do you have exhibits? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me share my screen.
do you have exhibits oh i'm sorry let me share my screen
um thank you tom sorry about that
i jumped right in
okay so this is just a store photograph of the property just for some perspective and i do have
some photographs of the exterior which i'll share as i work through my presentation
So we did meet with the RCO. There are some provisors which I'll address as we go through this.
With respect to the exterior and as well as for the interior, most significantly on the interior, my client has agreed that he would maintain the historic nature of the property to the best he can.
And that includes, I think most significantly, it was the fireplace, which I'll point out, which would be in unit 1A.
The RCO vote, we had fairly, we had actually submitted this originally in 2019, met with the RCO, received some pushback with respect to the original application at eight units.
following those discussions we we did reduce the plan to six and that's what we're here for
this morning is is our six unit plan uh with respect to we then met again in november of
2020 with the rco with our six units in mind uh the near neighbors there was three in attendance
three voted not opposed with proviso that we include uh condominium ownership which
we are not opposed to. With respect to the community, 13 in attendance, the numbers don't
quite add up for me, but I'll read off what was in the email from Ms. Weiss. Six were in support,
two voted not opposed, zero opposed, same with the same legal proviso for condominium ownership.
I do note that the solo board voted four opposed. That was based on supporting single family
ownership only so I think that was more of a principal vote than anything else there are two
issues before the board one is a dimensional variance so we are seeking a and I'll just show
right here we are seeking a subdivision as part of this and there is an existing historic garage
on the property and that garage existing garage that is part of the historic commission's purview
we have agreed to keep that garage intact and to to renovate it and restore it as part of the
process the garage itself is 364.80 square feet maximum allowed would have been 130 square so
So the garage as an accessory structure is an existing non-conforming, but it is an impediment to completing the subdivision.
So we do ask for support on that issue.
The more important issue is the proposal for six units in an RSA2 single-family property.
So I will give some perspective of the property.
So this is how it sits currently.
uh still in relatively good shape my client has done some work to uh just to maintain its existing
uh structure as i said it's a rather large home uh just some side view just to see again what's
going on to the exterior so it does require both interior and exterior
or renovation work this is a view of the backyard it sits behind well I guess in front of a school
to the rear of the property just another view of the back and the side so our proposal at six
units the building is not only historic in this but it's it's also unique in the neighborhood
One of the folks that I have with us this afternoon, well, as I think we just flipped into the afternoon, is Oriole Zach.
He's a licensed real estate agent.
He did some research regarding it.
The next closest home of this size he could locate was in BrynAthen, Montgomery County.
There did not, based on his research, there did not appear to be any comparables within any close proximity to the property itself.
We believe that the six units represents the least modification necessary to make use of the
property and I have three reasons that I would give for that. First is that the the retrofit
the retrofit and renovation required for the property to comply with the historic
and renovation required for the property to comply with the
commission requirements and to maintain the historic nature of this property are substantial.
My client believes that the cost of renovation potentially would exceed the value of the
property and that assumes that we could find a comparable to be used for an appraisal.
Second, in attempting to keep the home as a single family, the poll of buyers is drastically
reduced. This property was marketed and was on the market by Mr. Zak for a substantial amount of time
as a single family residence. Notably, there was no offers. Plenty of people came through.
The folks that came through were builders and developers looking to do something else with
the property. As a result, we argue that the purchase of this nature would require a cash buyer
because of the comparable problem. It would also require a buyer who is in the position to maintain
the historic nature of the property on an ongoing basis. We submit to the board that application of
the code on this property presents a hardship in as much as single-family use actually imposes
downward pressure on the value of the property. And then lastly, with respect to the units
themselves there is also a balancing that was made in both the design and sizing of the units
a unit which is too large is not sellable because those potential buyers look for single-family homes
and therefore in preparing the drawings and apportioning the sizes of the units
we were mindful of of that part of it and tried to keep each of the units under
2,000 square feet. So before I, I will walk the board through the plans, of course.
But so of the six units, I've got five two-bedroom, excuse me, five two-bedroom units,
and I've got then one unit that is one bedroom. Okay, so this is just the property as it sits
on the lot. Over here to the left is where the subdivision would occur to divide the property
and two and then the existing structure so we've got a shared driveway here current uh we propose
seven parking spaces i'll zoom in a bit just so that we can see it a little bit better the parking
is in and around the perimeter of the building sorry my zoom camera is in the way of
So, I've got one, two, three, four, five, six, and it looks like I missed one.
Oh, four. Sorry. Four, five, six, seven. So, seven parking spaces are included in the plan,
as well as then a drive area to the rear of the property. And then, of course, going up towards
the top of the page is the is the where the school sits behind this property
so essentially the plan calls for a common vestibule
where you would enter the property stairwell takes you to the second floor unit a goes off
to the left here uh if i'm not mistaken i believe this is the the fireplace here although it could
be on this left side and maybe I do have Frank Cuthbertson from CKG Architect to that we might
be able to verify for me which of these structures is the fireplace but during the RCO meeting there
was a a comment that to the extent that we could keep that it was preferred and my client is
amenable to that he's amenable to maintaining to every extent practical the historic nature of the
property so uh the unit 1a works its way to the rear of the property here you've got two bedrooms
in the back and then uh so the rear here is the kitchen and dining area unit 1b enters the same
vestibule to then to the right uh into a living area bath two bedrooms over here and then the
kitchen and dining area is to the rear here there is a door that it's a typo says unit 1c entry it's
unit 1b but that does lead out then to that side of the property where the the driveway is in one
of the parking spaces excuse me council yes the garage is that a living space the garage is not
LIVING IT WILL BE USED FOR TRASH AND FOR STORAGE. THANK YOU.
Thank you.
And that was one of the provisors as well through the community that we've agreed to.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE PROVISORS AS WELL.
Okay, so first floor.
Second floor, you have Unit 2A.
You come up the steps, you enter Unit 2A over here.
Again, I've zoomed out a bit so that you can get a better perspective, but you've got a sizable living area as well as then a kitchen.
You do have an outside patio here.
It's elevated above the first floor. Unit 2B, likewise, actually I think this is Unit 2C,
has access to this deck area here. Unit 2A is a bi-level unit, so these stairs are internal to
Unit 2A, which we'll get to the third floor in a moment. Unit 2B is off here to the right. It's
also two bedrooms unit 2c then is to the rear
here it's a smaller unit but it is one bedroom kitchen bath living area and then like i say
outside access to that patio third floor then completes unit 2a is completed up here on the
third floor and then to the right here is unit 3a which is also a two bedroom i don't know if i
mentioned sizes. First floor units are just under 1,300 square feet each. Unit 2A, although
a bi-level unit is just under 1,000 square feet, 965. 2B, 995. 2C is that smaller unit
at 668 and then 3a is at 1120 square feet just give me one moment
okay so
if i'm not mistaken we did agree that there would be no dumpster that was one of the issues that the
community raised uh like i we would also maintain my note showed that there was one tree in
particular in the front yard it was a red beech tree that we would agree to to not disturb to
the extent that it's it's healthy and and can uh remain uh we've agreed that the renovation to the
interior as well as the exterior would be in line with historic commission requirements and uh i
believe there was some at the time of the RCO meeting my client had actually suggested that
certain elements of what they would what they propose to do in the course of construction would
actually be an enhancement to the to those minimum requirements. I would also note that there is
proposed there will be laundry stackable units in each of those units. My client has taken no action
or done anything to the property that would create this hardship to the extent that he
could renovate for use as a single family we believe it's cost prohibitive and again it gets
into not only the cost of the retrofit to single family purposes but the value at single family
purposes on a house on a home of this size and of this nature we believe to to be prohibitive
um i have with me my client who's a managing member of the entity aaron harari
and then i also have uh the real or excuse me realtor oriel zach why don't we get uh
your client on mr hawari i think you said yes harari that you'll have him to adopt your
testimony and then we'll ask you if there are any questions. Yes sir. Good morning Mr. Harari
please identify yourself with the records by your first and last name.
You may have to raise your hand Aaron.
No one by that name hand is raised at this time. All right Mr. Weitzman as an officer
of the court will stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony yeah he is on the call
it's possible that he's connected under a different name no no worries uh any questions from the board
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair i have joseph mccarthy
mccarthy please identify yourself with the record name and address
Mr. McCarthy, please unmute yourself.
He's unmuted from what I can see.
Mr. McCarthy.
Anyone else have their hand up?
Tina Marie, excuse me, Tina Marie Russell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Morning, Ms. Russell, please identify.
Hello?
I said, sorry, that was an error on my part.
No problem.
anyone else we have charles richardson the richardson good afternoon mr chair and members
of the board charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed uh having uh
received the letter from the RCO. They are in agreement, but with provisos that they're
requesting, but the Councilwoman does note that the provisos are unenforceable. So she has no
objection to granting of the variance as it stands at this point. Thank you, and you're correct. The
provisos are not enforceable. All right, anyone else? Mr. McCarthy has his hand up again, Chair.
do you want me to unmute him yeah if he's there fine please unmute yourself mr mccarthy mccarthy
well obviously having technical difficulties anyone else if not planning commission
good afternoon brian wendrick planning commission staff this property is
indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is consistent with
neighborhood and the comprehensive plans, which encourage multifamily use as a means of
preserving large existing historic buildings. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting
of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001486. 48-62 East Penn Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you Mr. Weissman thank you Mr. Chairman and members thank you
Carol I muted you back you have to keep muting yourself because we're
getting the feedback from you and Miss Tenere maybe in between breaks you can
log out and maybe get back in and maybe that'll fix it
calendar number 2491664 union street
anyone here for 664 union street
There's no exhibits, Chair, and it's the first listing.
I have someone here who's, excuse me, I'm unmuted now.
Hello everyone.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself for the record, first and last name.
My name is Serge Moslenkov.
Your first and last name, please.
Serge, S-S-E-R-G-E, and the last name is Maslenikov, M-A-S-L-E-N-N-I-K-O-V, and I am an owner of the property, and my attorney is supposed to be here, so I'm just wondering if he's there or not.
Your attorney's name?
Yeah, Sharon.
I'm sorry, this is Sharon. We don't have any exhibits for this case.
okay sir we don't have any exhibits so we're gonna have to continue this case
sure you'll get notice of the continuance mi 2020-002-491-664 union street is continued must
be heard i'm sorry if i could ask chair um if we can find out who the attorney is of record for
applicant uh his his name is leo mobile hill yes thank you thank you you will be noticed
your you and your attorney will be notified of the next date sure thank you thank you
calendar number one one zero two six seven nine north broad street the attorney is engine
I BELIEVE THERE'S A LETTER OF SUPPORT WITH PROVISORS FROM THE 14th
I believe there's a letter of support with provisos from the 14th Democrat Ward Committee.
Mr. Jin, you've been promoted to panelists. You may unmute yourself.
Thank you. Good morning.
Good morning. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Zin Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave and stick?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to share with the board the information.
This is an application that is before the board for a second time with slight changes from the original.