carpenter streets this is a 2008 aerial this is uh worthwhile to show because you see the deck
there in 2008 so it proves its age and you also see our immediate neighbor to the north at 929
9 South 18th Street also has a deck at the same elevation, same size just about, and they are in
support of this legalization. And as far as we're aware, their deck is legal. I also do not believe
that anyone from the neighbor is here at this point, but they support this proposal.
This is the site plan at Exhibit 8 that we submitted to get this process started,
drawn by an architect okay here's the home photos from 18th street um so the home on the corner is
annie's home right there 931 um a little too far this uh is a corner view this is a view from
carpenter street they already showed you here's another view of carpenter street from a different
angle you can actually see in this one the underside of the neighbor's deck as well
so just further proof that there is a nearly identical deck next to this
one more view there okay here's the zoning code real fast just to talk about what the specific
refusals are they're the code sections highlighted in the red box so like i said the main refusal is
that the an elevated deck as opposed to a an unelevated patio cannot enter the rear yard
setback area and the rear yard setback area occupies almost the entire yard in this instance
And so that basically means to have any elevated deck here, you'd need a variance.
And there's another refusal specifically about one of the support columns that it is too close to the Carpenter Street lot line.
But just to go back one slide, given just sort of the real world pedestrian experience, it's not as though that support pillar feels as though it's a danger to a pedestrian walking by.
it's sort of set behind this foot wall there. Okay, this is what you see if you look across
Carpenter Street from the deck. And the reason I'm showing you this is because these are decks
at a similar height that this board has granted recently through variances. But I would offer
that while the board, by granting these variances for these two homes, seem to recognize a similar
hardship with regard to the need to create additional outdoor space. This is a worse
version for the neighborhood of what we're trying to do. Our deck lets in light and air
underneath it, through it. This does not, right? So just to say that the sort of condition we have
here is not foreign at all to the neighborhood or even the block. And I would say ours is not
sort of as egregious as what exists already across the street and that this board blessed.
We posted the property twice, once for the RCO meeting and then again here for the ZBA hearing.
Let's go through those real quickly. A really quick bit of procedural history. So the house
was permitted for construction in 2003 and 2004. Here's the 2004 zoning permit and you will see
the proviso here on this board's notice of decision that says no roof deck so that is a
part of the hardship if we don't have this elevated deck since we can't have a roof deck
all we're left with is a ground floor patio which really is not good outdoor space considering it
be overshadowed by the neighbor's elevated deck it also would go off of the ground floor which
is not the main living floor of our home that's where the garage is in 2008 that's when this deck
was constructed four years after the house was constructed and they did submit a zoning permit
for that construction it was refused use the refusal but there's no record of a case being
brought to the board so it looks like once the deck was refused the builder just gave up didn't
go to the zba and built it anyway and here's the site plan from that abandoned application and then
And here's the site plan from that abandoned application.
And then in 2017, you know, who knows why it took nine years, but L&I issued a variance, right?
in 2017.
Again, not an unsafe violation, just a standard violation for lack of a permit for an outdoor deck.
So my client set about trying to correct that, and actually he did so right away.
So if you remember, he purchased the property in 2022 and he filed a zoning permit application and an appeal to the zoning board in 2022, met with SOSNA, who was picked then as the coordinating RCO, received preliminary support.
He had to sign this pledge, I'll call it, to get the city to plant street trees.
If the city would plant street trees, Sosna would support the application.
If you remember the photos I showed you, guess what?
Ani did get the city to plant street trees.
So he upheld his word and Sosna was ready to support the application.
But Ani did not have a lawyer.
Ani did not know how to put the proper exhibits together.
And the board dismissed his case for failure to do so.
So we are back now with me as the attorney.
And, you know, this is the second time Stasna has seen this. It's the second time they've supported it.
This is a mailing that we did to all the affected RCOs and to the neighbors.
I'll just, you know, skip right through the body of that.
I want to go down to here in case Ms. Shacomba is on.
So Ms. Chacomba, as she often does, reached out to us before the RCO meeting and asked questions about the deck.
And Meredith, my colleague, answered them.
I've attached all those emails over several months as an exhibit at Exhibit 18 from June, from July.
Why? So at the RCO meeting, when Ms. Chacomba alleged that she had not gotten notice of this application, despite making it to the meeting, that really took us by surprise.
it didn't make sense because I knew that we had emailed her. So I don't want to put words in our
mouth, but I think part of her no vote was the sort of misperceived lack of notice of this
application when in fact she had had notice. I think she was also upset that Sosno was allowed
to convene the meeting, but that is really something for the councilman's office to tackle.
we don't pick who the RCO is that convenes the meeting, right? So, you know, I understand
sometimes there are disputes between RCOs. I just don't want my client put in the middle of that.
And then finally, at Exhibit 19, I sent a memo of laws. I usually do. This lays out all of the
reasons that this application satisfies all of the requirements for a variance, hardship, and others,
In the interest of time, I won't go through all those arguments, but I've touched on some, but not all of them in my presentation.
Excuse me, my presentation here.
I think that that is the extent of my case, and I'm happy to have my client adopt my testimony.
Lonnie, have your client come on.
Okay, Ani, can you raise your virtual hand, please?
It'll be coming back in as a panel, but shortly, counsel.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jason.
Hello?
Hi, sir.
Hi, Ani.
Hi, Ani.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Anirudh Kilambi.
First name, A-N-I-R-U-D-H.
Last name, Kilambi, K-I-L-A-M-B-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Counsel?
Okay. Ani, did you hear my presentation in your case this evening?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, it was.
Would you adopt my testimony as if it had been yours?
Yes, I would.
And then real quickly, I mentioned your immediate neighbor is in support of this application. Is that true?
Okay. Thank you very much.
Questions for the board?
yes i have a question about the rear yard it does look like there's an easement for
a breezeway or a walkway and i was wondering if you know what the width of that
that what that width is hi board member win so um i don't believe that comes up on atlas it does
not i see the door in the deed yeah i'll take a look at it right now together
yeah i'll take a look at it right now together i think in terms of timing i think the reason
that this did not come up is because in 2008 it was applied for a permit to do the deck and it
was approved and then nobody applied for the building permits to match the zoning permit
that was approved so like the zoning was in place but nobody applied for building permits which
means the deck was built without structural or l and i review yes so the building next door at
1735 did not exist it was a vacant lot so there was probably no concern because there was not a
next door building and the building next door was five it was contiguous five lots is one lot
and the next building was not it was like hundreds of feet away whereas once this building got
subdivided in 20 or that lot got subdivided in 2015 and a new residential building permit was
applied after the zoning change you now had a row house right up against this
property which is right around the time that it got flagged which is likely why
we see it pop up in 2017 I think one of my concerns and I think your comment you
made was about the the condition across the street the condition across the
street is actually considered safer for fire code because it's brick and metal
railings as opposed to wood in this instance part of the reason those codes exist about wood at the
second floor is because wood has a higher burn rate and their fear is that the fire would jump
to the next property um and so i think like my biggest concern in this condition at this deck
is its materiality and like what could happen or would happen if there was ever a fire
could i say a few quick things in response um so the um okay number one building permitting um so
you're absolutely right we we never have had a building permit we're gonna have to get one for
that violation to go away as you know um so ani is gonna have to hire someone to do structural plans
not just the you know architect site plan that he has so far and in my experience l and i is going
to come out and inspect that deck in person. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that wood
is banned as sort of a matter of classification, but it's just to remind you that what this
application is really about is whether a deck can be there in that location. And if this deck is not
building code compliant and not judged to be safe structurally what would yield from this process
is a new deck in the same location so i would argue letting you know that the reason decks
are not allowed at that point is for safety reasons that is why that is part of the code
already so like we already got we already have a refusal because the deck isn't supposed to be
there so the question now is do we yeah i give a variance and allow the deck to be there because
it's already there i would respectfully respond that we are wading into what is really the turf
of the board of building standards but i i hear you loud and clear so question um didn't you say
that there was a similar deck right next door to this yes it's not quite as close it's not quite
of close so the deck next door actually is a wider width from the element that is causing this
refusal okay yeah but i mean it's made it the same kind of wood material
annie is it is it the same material is it wood at least do you know yeah you can see it
you can see yeah i don't know if it's literally the same wood material but yeah it's a wooden
deck is similar dimensionally it looks like it's at least 18 inches but possibly 24 inches
shorter and that's because the home is shorter correct yeah okay well the property isn't so
the property is not sorry the structure is the property is not different that's right
do we know if there's any kind of i mean not that we can really but is there any kind of
violation against that no no okay and is that just because it hasn't been caught yet like this one
or no i think the other one is more than three feet from the rear lot line so i think the two
dimensional variances here are around the where this one falls with relation to the rear lot line
and i think the other one is just inside of that i think this one is not that's why i asked what
the width of that walkway was because i was trying to see if that walkway was two and a half feet or
Because I was trying to see if that walkway was two and a half feet or three feet.
three feet because
Board member Wynn, respectfully, the refusal is for encroaching into the rear yard setback, which is actually, I believe, seven or nine feet here.
So if you if you I don't I can't do it on the fly, but the neighbor's house has extensive permitting history online.
And my guess is that a variance was probably straight up.
I hear you, but I'm reading this straight out of your refusal, where it says the proposed rear deck is closer than three feet from the rear lot line.
That's not what the zoning code says.
That's the examiner's sort of bizarre regurgitation of the code.
I mean, that's just not what the zoning code – the zoning code says you can't be in the required setback.
The required setback is much greater than three feet.
All right.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the audience, sir?
Do you want to testify?
Oh, come on up.
Now, I hate to tell you, but you can testify for two minutes.
I know you've been here.
I know you've been here the whole day,
But I just want to tell you, I'm not circling you out.
So, number one, pull the mic close to you.
Could you state your name?
We can't.
Could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Alfred Williams, A-L-F-O-R-D-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Sir, are you a neighbor?
No, I am not a neighbor.
I'm the new president of the Point Breeze.
Oh, okay. Please proceed. Please proceed.
And I'm here today because I think you might have received...
It's not a coordinating RCO, maybe an affected RCO.
That's important because we were the coordinating RCO, dating back to the 24th, and our concerns
is it seems to be some irregularities in regards to the RCO and the meetings that were held.
So we're coming to the chair and to the board to ask that you look into these irregularities.
Excuse me.
So there's a great deal of concern.
And again, there was letters that were sent from our organization all to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission in regards to the fact that we were, as the coordinating RCO, we were left out of the process.
As a matter of fact, there was some, again, they mentioned that.
Well, they made a change, am I correct?
Somewhere along the line they changed your group from it?
Exactly.
Right, okay.
I was hoping that you had received.
No, I just saw the word where there had been a change made for another RCO.
So, you know, with that, because of that irregularity and the fact that SOSA, you know, they held meetings without the coordinating RCO involvement, and they basically had said that they had contacted where it was not their responsibility.
So that's our concern about the process.