I can.
Great.
Great. Again, my name is Alex Goldberg of Knockamson, PC. Ruth Davidson is the record
owner of 1610 West Tioga Street. Her daughter, Cheryl Tyler, is going to be representing
Ms. Davidson, and I'll ask her to adopt my testimony at the end of my presentation.
The property address is 1610 West Tioga, and really the gist of this zoning appeal
is to cure a life and safety issue that was created by no fault of my client.
As you'll see in the architectural materials, we are seeking to modify an exterior entrance to the
basement at the side of the property, which was originally created by contractors who since
abandoned the project several years ago. That structure extended to the lot line on the side
of the property, essentially leaving no path of egress from the rear of the property. And
essentially, we're seeking to squeeze that rear egress, make it more rectangular, and open up a
window of space to exit the rear of the property and access the front. And that project has caused
several refusals. Here's the table of contents. First, the notice of refusal, which I'll walk
through, all of which are existing conditions of the property, and one of which, namely the
occupied area we've actually reduced from the current condition letter of support from the
nice town tioga improvement team which we met with on march 19th a zoning map an aerial view
which provides a good view kind of showing exactly what i just explained regarding the
rear egress photographs architectural plans and drawings the rco meeting notice the application
for appeal the deed to the property and the certificate of tax clearance and again at
the conclusion, I'll ask Cheryl Tyler to adopt my testimony. And one more thing sort of before I
jump forward, I want to mention that Ms. Davidson and Ms. Tyler actually are owner-occupiers of this
property. It's a legally zoned triplex. Ms. Davidson lives on the ground floor. Her daughter
Cheryl lives on the floor above. And the third unit on the top floor doesn't have a long-term
tenant my understanding is when friends and family come to visit uh the two of them they use that
space to allow their visitors to have a space of their own technically out of the scope of the
presentation today but i just wanted to make that clear here's the notice of refusal it was issued
in january for the erection technically the legalization of a rear deck and the side addition
which we are seeking to erect.
The refusals are as follows.
One for the rear deck, which was installed in 2008 and has been there ever since.
While that does occupy the space that was the rear yard, we're still meeting the spirit
of the rear yard requirement of the code.
We're set back from the lot line.
We're not infringing on the light and air of any of our neighbors.
The next refusal is the occupied area.
I mentioned this already, but by changing the structure at the side of the building, we're actually reducing the occupied area by 20 square feet.
The next one is a rear yard depth requirement.
Again, kind of goes into the deck.
We have the space back there, but because it's a deck rather than just open ground, we're not sort of getting credit for that rear yard depth.
And then the last one is side yard width.
This is an existing condition of the property.
this is an existing condition of the property um we do meet the code uh requirement at certain
We do meet the code.
parts of the building structure but because it's not a flat wall going down the side there are
portions that that fall below the the side yard with requirement and again i'll note we're actually
increasing the side yard width by changing the building structure on the side here's a letter of
support, unanimous support from the coordinating RCO, Nicetown Tioga, improvement team. I felt
like we had a good understanding, and they were supportive of the fact that we were, you know,
making, you know, doing this appeal for life and safety purposes. Here's a zoning map. It is an RSA
3 zone, but again, we received zoning relief many years ago for the existing three-unit use.
google maps perspective and here's an aerial view you can see our property line is outlined here in
white this gray box that you're seeing below my mouse that's the existing rear egress steps on
the side of the structure you see that it goes all the way to the lot line and while i'll note
that there is no existing fence between our property and 1612-14 that could happen any day
and we wanted to make sure that the new structure didn't extend all the way to the lot line and
there was space to pass from the back to the front here's the photographs this is the front
you can see that structure here as well so when the proposed renovations are completed
you'll essentially just trace this sidewalk all the way back to our lot line
this little piece will be removed and this structure will be squeezed in slightly
here's the rear of the property here's the existing back deck here's the rear of that
egress which does lead directly down into the basement which is really just
it's an unfinished basement used for storage and for utilities this outdoor entrance was created
so that you know when utility workers were going to the basement they wouldn't have to go through
miss davidson's apartment and it also made it easier to bring you know the stuff that she's
storing down there up and down the stairs are a little bit wider and safer some more photos of
the rear of the property this is the notice posting here's to the right of the property
in west tayoga and to the left here's the architectural plans and drawings so i'll zoom
in here for you so this is a good side by side you can see this is the existing structure it's
10 feet 9 inches by 8 feet goes all the way to the lot line this is an eight yard eight foot
side yard that's sort of being infringed by this existing structure here's what we're posing to do
we're going to squeeze it in it'll be much narrower a little bit longer but it'll you know
So with it just with it being half of the width, four feet of width, it'll allow four feet of space to pass from back to work.
Here's the RCO meeting notice from our March 19th meeting where we received unanimous support.
An email showing that that notice also went out electronically for the coordinator's RCO.
87 properties were notified, bulk mailing certificates.
here's the application for appeal
the deed to the property
showing Ruth Davidson owns the property
and has since 2007
and the tax clearance
showing that no taxes are owed on the property
so with that I'd like to call
Ms. Tyler to adopt my testimony
we have Ruth Davidson with her hand up
I might be okay and they have been allowed to speak I could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer
please yourself
okay okay so you hear me now yeah could yes please could you state your name and spell for
the stenographer. Yes, thank you so much. Cheryl, C-H-E-R-Y-L, last name Tyler, T-Y-L-E-R.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. And Mr. Goldberg, she's not the owner. She's speaking for her mother. Is that what we're
saying? Cheryl, can you confirm that you're the daughter of Ruth Davidson, the record owner of
the property yes I'm her only child and my mom is 86 so she's just not all together you know
look what just kind of not you know she's definitely able to get around but
these type of things you know a little too much for her blood pressure okay
uh these type of things you know a little too much for her blood pressure okay uh she and i
both live there together all right thank you very much mr goldberg but miss tyler did you hear my
testimony today yes i did and was it true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes absolutely
100 true and correct do you adopt it as if it were your own yes i do thank you thank you
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission, please.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
uh i have a couple of questions certainly for mr goldberg that's okay okay so um
mr goldberg you stated that okay so the the uh the current owner of the appellant built the rear
deck i'm not entirely sure if she built it but it has been there since around the time that she
purchased the property it was not built by cheryl tyler who was on the call to adopt my testimony
But it was built by the current owner who is applying for this, who's applying for the variance?
I can't say with certainty, but it may have been built towards the beginning of her ownership of the property.
So I'm going to, all right.
And the side structure was built before or after?
The side structure was built towards the end of 2018 and 2019 under the current ownership of Miss Davidson.
And while Miss Tyler was living there, when the construction happened, the contractor essentially walked off the job site, you know, in the midst of the construction.
Okay, but essentially, so the same owner in 2018, the owner in 2018 was the same owner as it was in 2008?
That's correct.
okay okay so so i'm going i'm sharing this testimony um just with the um just with the
information that we have that the same owner has been there um while both of these structures were
created um okay so i'm just just catching up on some of this information um all right so uh to
start all right the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning change at this location to rsa 5 um so
the both structures since they were built while the appellant while the appellant did own the
property um that is a hard that is a self-created hardship uh however um the side yard structure
the side yard requirement for rsa 5 is different than it is for rsa 3 because we recommend rsa 5
i will go with with that recommendation which is um five feet so i will say that's de minimis
however um so so that variance uh grant so grant with proviso uh that we deny the rear deck since
that's a self-created hardship and that is my testimony thank you all right thank you um
yeah please yeah so um regarding the rear deck miss davidson lives on the first floor
um she enjoys sitting out on her back deck it's not uh detrimentally impacting anyone it's been
there for um almost two decades so you know we would we would request that that variance be
grant as well. Thank you. MI 2024, 0003131510 West Tioga Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holliman,
my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Number eight,
MI 2024-004-22-11101, Academy Road.
Robert Careless is the attorney.
Letter from Millbrook Civic Association.
Vote was 17 to 13 in favor.
And letter of non-opposition from the Councilman O'Neill.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the stenographer?
Certainly.
Robert Careless, R-O-B-E-R-T, Careless, C-A-R-E-L-E-S-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Certainly.
I represent Catholic Housing and Community Services.
We are the contract purchaser of proposed parcel B, which is the smaller parcel of the two proposed under our application for a lot of adjustment for the property.
Okay. Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
Mr. Holman has just a few questions.
Certainly.
Certainly.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do, Mr. Holloman, on both.
Did you email all of the exhibits and the documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Mr. Chairman, are you able to see my screen?
I can. Great. Again, Bob Keralis of Cozen O'Connor, and I'm joined today by my colleague Tom Witt, as well as Suzanne O'Grady-Larito of Catholic Housing and Community Services, Nora Bergsten of CBP Architects, and Leslie Cunningham of Cornerstone Engineering.
And we are pleased to bring our application to the board today, which stems from an important project, proposed at the property to bring 48 affordable senior living apartments to a place where a vacant four-story building sits today.
Catholic Housing, my client, is a Division of Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia
and is committed to the Catholic Church's mission to serve those in need.
And as will be evidenced by this application, it does so through the provision of affordable living for seniors,
including services that lend toward the seniors' physical and spiritual well-being.
As I noted, the underlying zoning application to L&I proposes a lot-line adjustment of the subject property,
which is the site of Archbishop Ryan High School.
its grounds, and along with a four-story building to the school's south, which formerly housed the
Franciscan priests that taught at the school for a number of years. The priests were reassigned in
2008, and as I mentioned, the building sits vacant today. Under our lot line adjustment,
proposed parcel A will include Archbishop Ryan High School and its grounds with no changes
proposed. On smaller parcel B, from which we are the contract purchaser, we're proposing a renovation
to the existing four-story building, which we'll refer to as the Friary building.
The proposed renovation includes a three-story building addition for a total of 48 affordable
dwelling units, age-restricted for seniors, with 54 parking spaces, five bicycle spaces,
and associated improvements. The bedrooms are all one-bedroom units. Trash will be stored inside,
and there are other amenities of the building such as a garden, a fitness room, a community
room, and on-site laundry. The proposed lot adjustment for the creation of Parcel B is
needed for the financing for low-income housing tax credits. The number of units proposed are in
turn necessary for the LIHTC financing and therefore for the project to be successful.
And in order to achieve our 48 units, the proposed building addition is necessary.
Before I get into my exhibits, Mr. Chairman, I'll set the stage for the board here with our refusal. Our application to this board is twofold in terms of the relief requested from the code.
First, Catholic Housing is proposing a multifamily use of the vacant friary building, and under the RSA-4 zoning district, a multifamily use is not permitted.
And secondly, Catholic Housing is proposing a building addition height of 38 feet, where the maximum height permitted in the far northeast overlay district is 35 feet.
As I'll discuss, in order to marry the addition to the existing building floors of the four-story building, without the need to construct stairs for the seniors who will occupy the building, the additional height is necessary.
And I should also note that the proposed height of 38 feet would otherwise be compliant with the RSA-4 zoning.
Looking at the exhibits that I've submitted to the board today, on the second sheet we have an index for the board's reference that includes the 16 exhibits submitted, including all those that are required by the board's regulations.
Exhibit A-1 is the agreement of sale and purchase between Catholic housing and the archdiocese.
along with Exhibit A2, which is a letter of authorization from the Archdiocese to bring the application to L&I and to this board.
Exhibit A3 is our Stiput of Tax Compliance.
Exhibit A4 is our underlying zoning application to L&I.
Together with Exhibit A5, which are the companion zoning drawings that were submitted to L&I,