I do to both, yes.
Okay. Thank you. You may proceed with your case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. As I mentioned, my client today is 42nd Market Associates, LLC. That LLC is represented today by Brahim and Gladen, who is in the audience in case there's any questions. We do also have our architect in the audience in case there's any questions necessary from him.
The case in front of you this afternoon concerns 753 North 44th Street in the city's West Belmont
neighborhood. This is a bit of an odd one just in terms of some unfortunate timing, so I will be
brief. To summarize, not only was the development before the board today previously permitted for
this lot by right before a zoning change occurred, but the board also approved a variance that is
nearly identical immediately next door that my client also owns, and the intent was to develop
these together. So the exhibit packet in front of you includes 16 total exhibits, and at exhibit 15,
As I mentioned to you, I do have an email from David Pickett from West Belmont confirming that the vote was seven in favor.
At the time he sent this to me the evening of the meeting, three people had not voted yet.
But the presumption would be that those three people would either have voted in support.
And even if they didn't, the vote still would have been predominantly in support.
I did touch base with him.
So will you send a copy of that to Hillary when you get a chance?
Certainly will do.
I do have tax clearance at Exhibit 2.
And at Exhibit 3, the deed shows that the applicant purchased this property on May 31, 2022.
As you can see on the zoning map at Exhibit 7, although the property was rezoned to RSA 5,
the property sits on a block that did serve as the point of division
between the new RSA 5 and the retained RM 1.
By way of some area context, I have included the aerials at Exhibit 8.
As you can see here from the arrow, 753 North 44th Street
is directly across the street from the Martha Washington Public School,
but is otherwise surrounded by residential uses that I'll touch on in more detail momentarily.
From this aerial, you'll also notice that there are two vacant lots that exist between
the existing structures. Immediately to the left is 755 North 44th Street,
which I alluded to earlier that this board heard and approved just last year.
photographs of the existing vacant lot are shown at exhibit 16 as you'll note this lot sits on a
block with similar differing vacancy just in terms of both lots and some dilapidated structures that
you can see the lot itself extends all the way back to palace street the previous structure that
sat on the lot was demolished sometime seemingly around the late 90s. So as you can see here at
Exhibit 9, I'm showing the permit history here from Online Atlas. This property did previously
receive a zoning permit on January 1st, January 4th, 2021, for the erection of a three-unit
multifamily dwelling. And you can see that in the permit language here for multifamily,
three-family dwelling. My client purchased the property just about a year later after the permit
was issued in May of 2022. Because the zoning had changed, his plans at that point to develop two
identical attached structures was compromised. So he immediately commenced the process to seek a
variance to permit the multi-family use immediately next door at 755 North 44th Street.
Unfortunately, following the time that that variance was approved, my client's design
consultant experienced some personal familial hardship and inadvertently lost sight of the
impending permit expiration for 753 North 44th Street, which is the property before you today.
By the time a building permit application was submitted for the adjoining buildings,
By the time a building permit application was submitted for the adjoining buildings, L&I informed them that the permit for this project had expired and was not capable of further extension, nor was it capable of being renewed because the zoning had then been changed.
The zoning plans that were resubmitted to L&I are shown up on the screen here at Exhibit 5
and we do also have floor plans and renderings at Exhibit 6. So as I mentioned this proposal is
for a new three-story structure for three dwelling units. Given the context of the surrounding
neighborhood the structure itself is only proposed to be three stories. Additionally
based on discussions that were had with the community way back when we were discussing 755
North 44th Street, the third story of this project will also be designed with a mansard
to further blend with the surrounding properties, which as you can see in the photographs are not
exactly uniform on this particular block. To the one side they are two-story and as you can see to
the other side they're two-story but a little bit different in terms of the look and character.
The structure itself is five feet above grade and does also have a narrow design in the rear
as you can see on the zoning plans to ensure that ample windows can be constructed in all of these
units. You'll also note in terms of refusals, this is somewhat of an unusual one, that the rear yard
is nine feet. This is a bit unusual as I'll explain as I'm sure the board is used to seeing
that rear yards are typically required to be nine feet. So I'll address that in a moment.
Each of these units is a two-bedroom unit, and you can see the square footages listed here.
The first floor unit is just over 1,300 square feet, and the other two units are 680 square feet.
Each of the units has laundry facilities, trash storage, and ample living space.
My client and this applicant handles his own property management
and has a proven track record in the West Philadelphia community of responsible management
for all of his projects. So as I mentioned, with respect to the application, we did receive two
refusals, one for the use of three dwelling units and the other one for insufficient front yard
setback along Palace Street in the rear. As I referenced, this case presents a dual hardship.
Most importantly, this project was already permitted, but due to an unfortunate timing mishap, the permits expired before a building permit could be obtained.
Because the property was remapped after the permits were obtained, as you can see here, what was previously permitted here now requires a variance.
in terms of the rear yard let me bring up the zoning plan so you can visualize this a little
bit because the property has dual frontage the palace street frontage is considered a front
despite the fact that it functionally serves as the rear yard which you can see very clearly here
at exhibit 16 in the photographs that this really is functionally the rear yard for all these homes
To comply with the code, the structure would have to meet the setback of the structure that is immediately next door, which is about 3 feet 6 inches.
That would have required, and again on the zoning plan so you can visualize, that would have required that this portion of the structure be narrowed even further to a width of only about 11 feet so it could still comply with open area requirements.
It is not clear whether the code was different in 2021 in this regard, or if Elle and I simply missed this when the original permit was issued.
Despite the rezoning, the area surrounding this property remains a mixed compilation of single-family, multi-family, and even some commercial uses.
The fact that the rezoning line was drawn essentially down the street accentuates this hardship.
At Exhibit 10, and as I have up on the screen here, the property is surrounded on all sides by a mix of multifamily densities.
Most of the comparable densities on this block and the one block south of this are between two and three units.
The applicant submits that the proposal represents the lease modification in light of the fact that the identical development was just approved last year and in light of the surrounding context immediately adjacent to this property.
The applicant submits that the proposal represents the lease modification.
We also submit the property and the proposal will not contribute to any congestion, impair light and air, or harm the neighbors.
And in fact, leading up to the RCO meeting, I received a call from a near neighbor praising the new development, given the longstanding vacancy of these lots.
We do submit that the proposal complies in full with all of the standards of the code and as more fully outlined in the memo of law at Exhibit 12.
So I would ask if my client, Brahim, is in the audience to adopt my testimony.
Brahim?
Sure. Thank you.
sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
sure uh my name is brahim um b-r-a-h-i-m that's my first name last name is i i-g-h-l-a-d-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, sir, I do.
Counsel?
Thank you.
Brahim, you've been present to hear my presentation and all the testimony that was offered in front of the board today.
Is that correct?
And do you agree that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Thank you.
We're happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, I've got a couple comments.
um the the the entire block is two-story with porches this proposed plan is three stories
no porch and i did the that project for pha so we were very intentional about making sure that
we were contextual in terms of having porches and scale etc so to see some new units come in
that are completely obliterate that sort of planned process is disheartening, right?
So I think it would be good to see the development really take on more of the character of the
neighborhood with porches and even two-story, but, you know, I don't know whether this complies
with the height restriction requirement of 38, but definitely for sure with a block that has
complete porches that are for the most part intact, except for some of the group that you show
at the other end. I think that should be for sure considered. Thank you, Mr. John. So a couple of
comments. So first of all, the proposed height is less than the code would allow here, and that was
done very intentionally to try and blend with what is there. You can obviously see just in terms of
the frontage that there isn't necessarily a uniform look here. And realistically, I understand
that, you know, you were probably involved with these PHA, but there really is not a uniform
look here. So that was ultimately what drove this particular design, which, as I mentioned,
really came out of the RCO process from even the first time around that we had to do this. So
this was not the original design that had been presented. This was a design that the community
had worked through when 755 was in front of the board and was something that they had really
requested. So obviously, since that was approved and is already, you know, going through the
permitting process, I think certainly my client can look at whether adding a porch at this point
is feasible. But I think just in terms of consistency, since 755 is already approved
and going through the permitting process, changing this one would now result in even more
non-uniformity. Well, I think the one that was approved is the only one that is in non-conformance
with the rest of the block. The photo that you have, if you look at the block, everything to
the left of your site all the way to the corner has porches that are intact everything to the
everything to the the two porches to the right don't look so good but if you go to the left
the two porches to the right don't look so good but if you go to the left
they all have porches and they're all intact and they're all two stories
the only thing that's not in context is the one that was approved that's going to be next door to
this so but it is what it is but these just i mean i think these are just really more steps and i
think that the intent was to sort of design to be a little bit more consistent with this look
which is not a full porch like it is on the right well i think it is but i i i i understood
completely but but that's that's my issue that's my issue i understood right show the basement again
i'm sorry the floor plan for the basement
and again board member uh just for context that that level is is fought is only the the structure
itself is five feet above grade so it's not it's not a full basement level which is very consistent
with uh you know many other similar properties that have been before this board in terms of
having a preference for for basement levels that are not entirely below grade
it's a bi-level to make sure that i don't see it first as part of unit one
thank you yeah it sure is i guess the other the other criticism that i have is of the units to
the layouts um those two bedroom units with that's really a combined kitchen kitchen i don't even
call it a dining living i mean you know just the way you have your furniture furniture is facing
your cabinets in your kitchen it's not a legitimate living space for a two-bedroom two-bath unit
so that's another concern that i have so i don't know it's the density i guess is the other concern
so i i again yeah sorry was there was there another question that
the question that was just the comment yeah comment understood and and again you know that
with with uh full respect to the to the concern that that has been outlined i can bring our
architect on if he's still available i know he was a little bit under the weather today to
answer that question but you know again this this was already approved exactly as before the board
today, it is identical to what is going to be built immediately next door. So it really is,
with, again, full respect to the concern here, this really is a very unique circumstance,
just in terms of, you know, again, some personal familial challenges that the design consultant
had here that led to the permit expiring. Is Sean Kang available to address the concern about the
interior layout. Is he in the audience?
Do we see
him in the audience?
He's there.
It might be
via phone. He's there.
He's there.
Okay. All right. Great.
Hello.
Could you please state your name and spell for this?
It's H-Y-O-N, last name K-A-N-G.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you turn your video on, please?
All right.
Sorry.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you. In 500 feet, turn left onto Donoglois Road. Oh, boy. Is it on? Council, I think I've
already swore you in, am I correct? Yeah. Right. Council, could you ask your questions? Sure. So,
Sean, there were two design related concerns that the board expressed today, one relative to porches,
the other relative to the interior layout. Did you hear both of those comments?
yes i mean the porch we can do something very similar to the door next door where it's just
over the steps like if i think to the left of the property um it's literally just steps and
a covered roof that's right over the entry and not a full porch so we can add that if necessary
and in terms of the layout we made a very generous kitchen um we can do a more compact kitchen to
increase the living space so there are some design things that we can do to increase living
So there are some design things that we can do to increase living, to make it feel more comfortable so you're not looking straight at the kitchen.
to make it feel more comfortable.
I hear you. I think it's just overall too dense.
I know it was clearly something was approved by a previous board.
I wasn't on that board, but probably a two unit would be more appropriate and give you a better living space.
i have no other for no comments i was uh had a comment one i want to double down on all the
things that mike john said i also do not think this came to the zoning board i think this was
last approved in 2021 and was by right so i don't know that the statement that the community had a
say and supported it is accurate i think that it was designed this way and it got approval i think
i'm struggling to understand the hardship because your client brought this property in 2022
um and i i'm still not understanding what the the hardship is because at the time that they
bought the property the neighborhood was already under city planning proposals and the draft plan