immediately upon receiving the notice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from
the board? If I may just show the board on the violation notice, I do want to point out that
But L&I's own notice says that it's a, sorry, let me share that with the board.
L&I's notice says the original use was mixed use with three units.
And in fact, their main concern was that basement unit to be returned to approved use, which would have been the mixed use.
So we're asking the board simply to allow the three units to remain, but basement would be used only as storage, utilities and shared space, recreation.
no no living in the basement is there any zoning proof of the previously approved use i'm not
seeing it in atlas so oh i i actually showed it earlier i'll put that back up on the screen
hold on one second you're going a little fast sorry i'll put that back up um let me and then
my question is at purchase had any research been done about the property um and any understanding
of the RSA-5 zoning district?
I think with my client,
so my client purchased the property
with the understanding that the units were existing.
I think when he hired a contractor,
I'm going to put the zoning proof up first
for the board, one second.
So this is the record,
Atlas record that is available.
and this is going back quite a few years but as you can see three families storefront was
the existing they actually whoever owned it at that time actually thought of a five dwelling with
a one housekeeping and four non-housekeeping units i believe this was ultimately approved
because if you look at the stamping on here, it was use registration with that variance record
in the histories. So when my client purchased it, there was three units plus the basement.
He hired a contractor who apparently told him that because of the history, there should be
four units, should be fine, went ahead and did the work, then got the violation. He immediately
stopped everything, vacated the entire premises. In fact, there's no tenants in there now.
My client is trying to follow whatever is required to comply. And he wanted to first
talk to the neighborhood and apply for four units. The neighborhood's feedback is, of course,
they don't want to see the basement unit, which he agrees to remove at this point. So that's why
we're only seeking three units before the board to be reaffirmed without the mixed use, because
we don't think that oh there's gonna it's not going to be used in a mixed use format for that
space did we know the last time this building was occupied was that just closed at the sale
that uh marlon do you know it was the building still occupied when you purchased it or uh
how long has it been vacant do you happen to know
you're still muted no that's empty it's empty it was empty when you purchased it yeah
yeah i'm my concern is that there's a 2009 zoning permit that defined it as single family
um i know you found the one from 1960 but there's one that was later which would have been the most
recent one and that also all of the lni violations started in march shortly after the property was
purchased there's 58 lni violations on this property specific to the construction related
to the to the subject that we're talking about right now and i'm that does concern me
right so to my to my understanding a lot of violations um relates they're all connected
of course but the so when when my client put in the new retaining wall that had it's that had
that had triggered a violation based on the height of the retaining wall and needing construction
triggered a violation based on the height of the retaining wall and needing construction
permits. In fact, I was reading that particular violation. I think a large number directly
connects to that. Their violation connected to the deck that I'm aware of. And then the final,
of course, one of the violations that we apply for zoning for is the use violation itself.
yeah it's just series of violations just it's concerning that's all yeah and we're in the
actually in the process of complying um all those violations this is one piece of the compliance as
well would you all be open should the board grant approval to um a proviso requiring a co
oh not not an issue yeah we have no problem with that
any other questions from the board
questions from our attorney Hillary Emerson
only to note if the board grants in for fewer
units than is on the refusal
we'll need to do a proviso for the number of units we're approving and we can do
a proviso for a certificate of occupancy as well if the board would like
and we can do one for no household living in the basement as well
thank you questions from the audience any questions from the vote the virtual audience
i do not see any hands mr chair thank you mr hand planning commission
thank you chair michael gall with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single family attached zoning at this location
the property has a documented history of multifamily residential use dating back to 1960
and is physically configured for multifamily use therefore the city planning commission
recommended the board grant the requested variance for multifamily use but with a
proviso recommended at a maximum of three units if i 2024-006-214-7101 to lap street
my vote is yes with proviso no basement household living as well as there it needs to be a co
prior to utilizing the property as well as a limit of no more than three units in the
maximum three units
my vote is yes with provisors
charl gaston my vote is yes with provisors
tennetta graham my vote is yes with provisors
my vote is yes with provisors
thank you
number seven mi-2024-006-899
2045 north carolina street
mr alan knockinson we'll be calling off um five cases together um let me read them all off and
then we can go through them as well i'm going to hear that with mi-2024-006-900-2016 nor cowlisle
Street, MI-2024-006902, 2022, North Carlisle Street, MI-2024-006917, 2037, North Carlisle
street and number 13 mi-2024-006-919-2040 north carlisle street
turn your mic on yeah it's first time i've got you gotta get hot
it's been a while uh uh good afternoon members of the board alan knockamson of knockamson pc
A-L-A-N-N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
To my left is Firas Al-Sayed, who is the owner of the property.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Our board member, Graham, has a few questions.
Good afternoon.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
okay and do you agree to wait a reading out of refusal and do you stipulate to its accuracy
i do you can proceed all right thank you and counselor if you can just let us know which
ones you're going to work on so we can uh so i filed them separately but i created a joint packet
um which we typically do just to streamline the process um but we have them individual but we have
joint packets for presentation purposes. So we are going to review 2016, 22, 37, 40, and 45.
So we are going to review 2016, 22, 37, 40, and 45 North Carlisle Street.
If you're familiar with the Temple University area, this is a half a block off of North Broad Street, right in the heart of the Temple University section, not far from here.
And we have several notice of refusal, one for each.
Mr. Nockmson, sorry, quick question, and I'm sorry if I missed this.
can you uh the ownership listing it for three of the properties is the same and then it has
two different entities can you just clarify how everything's related together yeah it's the same
ownership group i can and i i apologize i can go through the deeds and and then i'll point out
specifically who's the owner for each one okay that's fine yeah it's deep in my presentation
yes yes i just want to clarify for the record that it's the same ownership entity even though
it's a list of different entities but the same ownership group essentially thank you all right
so we have notices of refusal it's a essentially the same thing over and over again we have an
interesting zoning classification we're not rsa5 we're not rm1 we're we are spi special purposes
institutional so it's a zoning classification you'll see near uh colleges of this sort and um
What we're proposing is to have three family dwelling units in each of these properties.
And we'll go through the presentation, but my philosophy in zoning variance law in any jurisdiction, including Philadelphia, is if you walk by the property built or used as proposed, does it stick out like a sore thumb or is it something that fits within the fabric of the neighborhood?
So, again, what's the property to the left of us look like?
What's the property to the right of us look like?
What do the properties on this 100 block of Carlisle Street look like? And you'll see that we are in conformance to what everyone else is. And we have a whole list of properties. And that's what we're seeking to doing. And the multifamily use is more in conformance than the RSA 5 use that they're trying to push on us in terms of single family use.
But we met with the community. We had three members of the community attend, all the same household on that block. They all live in a single family home. And they were all against it. But those are the only individuals that are against it.
My client and their ownership group is well known in the Temple area. Actually, behind me in the audience is Omar Asayad, who actually went to Temple University, graduated with a degree in engineering, and his family has 45 units or 50 units in the Temple area.
He self-manages these properties. He's well thought of. My understanding is that Judith Robinson from the 32nd Democratic Ward is online, who will speak to that as well. We also did a petition after the meeting. We thought that this was a straightforward project in the sense that everyone else has three units on that block. Not everyone, but a lot of people do.
And then when we got pushback from one family on that block, who, again, when people speak loud, people listen. And I respect the fact that if you live in a neighborhood, especially your block, you have a say. But you also have to think about what's on that block, where we are in the neighborhood, what makes sense.
And so when we got the letter of opposition, we decided to circulate a petition of properties nearby. And actually, if memory serves me right, I think the neighborhood group asked both of us to circulate a petition because it was not a well-attended meeting.
That petition you'll see are properties that are nearby to us. And then you'll see from a
comparable density point of view of a diagram that I created, aerial views, because we do have
some dimensional variances. So again, this SBI has like an interesting lot coverage requirement
of 70%, where ours is like a little bit over 80%, most of our building structures that we're
proposing. But those building structures that we're proposing are not out of character to
the surrounding area. And I thought the aerial view would show you that as well. Maps of the
area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings. It's basically the
same property five times. Our RCO meeting notices, our applications for appeal, our deeds to the
property, where we'll go point by point tell you for record keeping purposes who owns which property
and our certificates of tax clearance. Notices of refusal. Again, it's basically the same thing
over and over again. We're asking for multifamily use, which is not allowed by rights. We're
asking for additional occupied area, which is de minimis in nature. And that goes for
2016, 2022, 2037, 2040, 2045. And I believe that's it.
2045. And I believe that's it. We didn't meet with the community, the community group beach interplex Inc. provided a letter summarizing the meeting. None of this has to do with zoning. You know, there was a discussion about the community is oversaturated, oversaturated with student housing.
Again, it's not like we're in West Philly, way away from the university, or even North Philly, where we're blocks away from the heart of the Temple University.
We're half a block away.
Every single other house nearby, basically, is multifamily in nature.
We're not discriminating.
We can say to individuals, we want to put multifamily here.
These are only two-bedroom units.
Anyone can rent those out.
it's not just students that can rent them out we just want to improve the housing stock because
these houses have been around a while they need some serious tlc would be very expensive to do
it'd be cost prohibitive to do the the tenants that they're receiving as because no one wants
to be around the student housing i mean let's be truthful and frank here like no one wants to live
like they're single family multi-family whatever but my client is responsible landlord so none of
issues are zoning related we talked about trash we have a responsible trash plan um both forward
and backwards and again again judith robinson i hope she's still on i heard her before about
north street but unlike that presentation you'll hear that we're a responsible landlord like she
actually said to us you know what your clients one of the few that actually follow through you
know when we do community benefit programs i take it very seriously that our clients follow through
and you know when they don't we get upset but she said and this is a not a first time that um we've
done work for this ownership group and we did a zoning matter with judith's group at 30 on the
32nd democratic ward not far from here my clients got the variances and did exactly what they said
they were going to do and judith was very appreciative of that so again three members
of the community showed up in opposition all part of the same household and then again i i can hear
it like when someone's very upset the board members are a human you know reaction is going to be okay
i don't want this either but again we're talking about from a legal standpoint or should we be
allowed and i think we've met our burden here and this is the same vote across the board so then my
client reached out personally oh this is actually their petition in opposition after the meeting
they also circulated a petition opposition. So a couple of things. There's only three properties
on that block that signed that petition, 2034, 2028, 2021, North Carlisle Street. I will note
that 2034, there was one individual who signed both of our petitions, one in support, one against,
just making commentary there. And then 2021, the person who signed the petition in opposition to
the multifamily use actually lives in a triplex. So not again, someone is living in something that
we want to build. And then our petition, again, we try to make it simple so you can see it from
an illustrative point of view. These are the individuals that sign our property.
What? The picture before that, was that the trash? It was the trash. So, and again, I actually
talked to my client there were trash examples of trash i again i'll confirm with my client he said
that these were not his properties um and again not related to these properties at all
and then this is the actual um uh map of the signatures we got of the individuals who signed
our petition and again we really try to keep it on carlisle street and nearby
So you can see by the map, the red is the actual properties that are the subject of this appeal, and these are the people who signed where they lived.
And then, again, not out of character to have multifamily living here.
So there are 10 other instances on that block.
so there's five that we you know pinned as our properties but the other 10 on that on that map
are multi-family in nature all triplexes and then you know the you know again the nearby
multi-family 2050 2048 2046 2044 2043 2041 2039 2036 2031 2000 broad 2008 broad
And then here's the backup data, too.
And then here's the backup data too.
And then the aerial views, I think there was a better picture, maybe.
Maybe it's later in my presentation.
But I wanted to focus on the dimensional variance of the lock coverage.
What we're proposing is not out of character to nearby properties.
And I think I have a better picture of that somewhere else.
Maps of the area.
again we're spi like what we're proposing it's not out of character you can actually have group
living here that's not something that i think anyone in the community would want in that in
that respect and we're near rm1 as well so there is no rsa5 there to to allow for single family
and that and single family use is out of character for that block oh here it is um i think is just
showing the building structures in nature. So these building structures go deeper than what
you would expect for this zoning classification. So our proposed use of having building structures
going even deeper than what our current building structures are, which would be less of a variance
in a lot of cases. Like right now, our buildings are non-conforming in nature from an occupied area
standpoint. And then photographs of the property. And this is what I want to bring up too,
just to show good faith my client installed the and at the request of the community my client
installed uh like containers out in the front to again this is a temporary measure this is not
something they want to do the garbage where they're going to be storing is for the first
floor unit they'll be storing their trash in the rear and then the upper floor units uh they'll
have like the steps will have like an area where they can store the trash they would also you know
request a proviso for commercial trash pickup which would run with the land but just to show