Okay, understood.
That would be a discussion because they're scheduled in advance.
So we would need to come up with a proper plan.
We started, we got done, it took us about an hour and a half to get through, what, five or six cases?
Yeah, because we had a lot of continuances.
Well, we had three continuances of the, I think there were six cases.
and only one the 9th street case had you know any if you would call it lengthy comments about
the rest were pretty easy and it still took us an hour and a half but right but we had a lot
scheduled it's just you didn't see it because they were removed prior to you submitting the
hearing list so that's why i agree i'm just saying that i didn't typically when we're in
when we do these things in person the morning list has 30 40 cases something like that we don't get
to do them all because there are a number of continuances that are requested but we still
wind up on average 20 or 30 i believe maybe a little bit more on a morning list i just don't
know if we're going to be able to get through a morning list um the way we were able to in the
passed i'm not saying you can't i just think we should be a little cognizant of that over the
next week or two understood and just because this was the first week of sessions i didn't put a lot
on the calendar yeah and i appreciate we appreciate that certainly yeah so do we know if alan and uh
the other attorney got on yet i just emailed them abigail's email address and said they should
contact her I also her text texted me to say that they just needed to scroll
down I told them both that they said it didn't work I am NOT the one who should
be giving technical advice you're doing a good job Sharon
So it is the call of the chair.
If you wish to take another case first, it's always your call, Frank.
Yeah. I was just thinking that. Thank you. Maybe we'll do that. We'll go to.
Frank, if you could push Dolly Street back one or two cases because Alice emailed me and said
she would be sending a letter. That's the second case on the list. So just so you know, I see that
1330 West Silver Street appears to be present and waiting. If you wish to go that route,
So Edmundo Goris is available here.
Edmundo, are you there?
Hey, how are you?
Hey, how are you?
Okay, before you begin, Armando, I just need to open up this hearing.
Okay, before you...
So let me start by saying good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
We have a quorum.
I'm officially calling this session to order.
Ms. Carol Tenere, our vice chair, is present, as is Confessor Plaza, our secretary.
Mr. Holloman will not be participating at the moment, or maybe he will on this.
Tom, if you're there, if not, we'll catch up with you later.
Also, our city solicitor, Sharon Saleta, is in attendance.
As you're probably aware, today is our first day of holding virtual hearings.
While we may have to make some adjustments along the way, our plan is to call each case and basically proceed as we would have in a live hearing.
We ask that attorneys for applicants or other interested parties identify themselves for the record, spell their name for the stenographer, when the case you'll be participating is called.
We will then hear the applicant's presentation, followed by any presentation, by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public not represented by counsel will be given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's conclusion, the board will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session.
Any case held for discussion will be voted on the record at the next July 21st morning session.
a couple of changes to the virtual format. First, we will be administering oaths to participants
prior to their testimony rather than to the room as we did in the past because we obviously had
no room. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys,
witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded. Again, I thank everyone for getting us to this place and time. It's been
a struggle for a few months. But with that, last, the Vice Chair, Ms. Tenere, to call up our first
case. I'm sorry. Can I interrupt for one second, please? I just wanted to mention that all those
who are participating by phone, there is a call-in number for you to register your appearance
before the board so that you can get correspondence and be connected to the case.
That number for anyone who needs to can call. Make sure I'll call it up.
What I'll do is I'll, um, it should be 267.
Sorry, I got a lot of screens open here.
Does any of the staff have the number up?
Tanya, this is Martha.
I have it.
it's thanks Martha sure it's 267-270-5548 and there are instructions in the voicemail on that
line to let you know what information you need to leave for us to get the correspondence on
each case thank you so the first case being called is West Silver is that correct Mike
tanya is that correct yes if you wish to move forward with them first yes tanya also
remind everyone if they want to speak to raise their hand that way we go acknowledge them
yes thank you okay calendar number one three three zero west silver street
did i just say that wrong yes i did strike that calendar number three nine six eight nine
1330 West Silver Street is there an attorney with this case no there's no
attorney okay let me read this is an application for a two-family dwelling in
an existing structure the proposed use is refused for the following the
minimum lot area requirement is 720 square feet proposed is 714 square feet
Proposed is 714 square feet.
This application does not require civic design review.
Okay, sir, we can proceed.
Again, please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your first and last name for the stenographer.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Edmundo Gores.
Spelling E-D-M-U-N-D-O, Gores, G-O-R-I-S.
I am the owner of 1330 West Silver Street.
We're having this meeting today here in order to get the variance and exception because as it was, as Ms. Carol said, the minimum square footage for a duplex by the city is 720 square feet and the property only have 714 square feet.
and we were hoping being this the case that the difference is only six square feet we wanted to
see if we can get a uh uh maybe if we can get this passed and just oversee this square feet
the six square feet of difference on the on the property thank you uh tanya whoever
Robert, is there anything in a file that we need to be aware of?
I can tell you that the community supports it, that the use is permitted, and the only variance is for being four feet, six feet short of the required minimum.
Six foot, thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter?
see none uh any questions from the board no planning commission
uh good afternoon chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential
use on the comprehensive plan this property is six square feet short of meeting the lot size
requirement of the zoning district accordingly due to the de minimis nature of the request we
have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you okay calendar number three nine six
eight nine one three three zero west silver street my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck good luck
you thank you everyone finally good luck to you um do we have alan yet knock us him on the uh
now and on yet no no and he's here for you yes he is on yes i see you
i'm sorry whoever's talking you're breaking up
and Tom's on. We don't know what case we're going to hear yet. Who has the number? Okay, thank you.
Alan, you're unmuted.
I see you. I see you, but we don't hear you, Alan. You have to unmute, mute.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yep, we got you now. Okay.
Okay, calendar number 1652. Why do I keep doing this? Calendar numbers, strike that. Calendar numbers 39672 and 39669, 1652 and 1654 North.
6th street um mr knockamson do you agree to win the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do name and address for the record good afternoon my name is alan knockamson of
knockamson one knockamson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 and i
would like to say I'm happy to be back. We are too. Oh, it's awesome. All right. I represent
BCB. Okay, we're going to pause. What? I believe Frank. Frank, can you swear him in? Yeah, I'm
sorry. Allen, and if you have anyone else, do you have anyone else testifying? Well, I did give
the owner, Charles Murphy, the information. Mr. Murphy, are you on the line?
I appreciate it.
okay so why don't we do this uh alan you know you gave your name i think already but do it
again if you don't mind and mr murphy uh give us your name spell for the stenographer
and then i'll swear you both in alan occamson
murphy paul's murphy do you swear affirm do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? I do. Yes, I do. Thank you. Yes, good afternoon board. This is the proposed
project are two single-family homes. One is 1652 and one is 1654 North 6th Street. You have a packet
of exhibits. I don't know how to maneuver this, but I did create a PDF so that you can tab each
one separately for your own benefit. I don't see it on my screen but I have a
physical copy of it. So I assume you have that in front of yourself yourselves.
Alright so the first exhibits the deeds to the property showing that BCB home
contracting and NOVA contracting are the owners of 1652 and 1654 North 6th
Street. After that are the certificates of tax clearance for both entities for
both properties. After that are the notices of refusal, one for 1652 and one for 1654
North 6th Street. Both the properties are RSA 5 properties. We're looking to put single-family
homes so there's no use variances. The dimensional variances are due to configuration of the property
as well as side and rear alleys. So for 1652, the one refusal has to do with the fact that we're
basically putting a wet bar on the upper level in the pilot house. It says, whereas the roof
deck access structure may only serve to enclose the access stairs, the proposed roof deck access
structure includes a wet bar. The second refusal, which are similar to 1654, are open area issues
as well as rear yard issues, and then particular to 1652, because the property to the left of us
has a porch, they're looking to have us put a setback there as well. Again, these properties
are only 700 square feet in size each. The width of each property is 14 feet wide,
and the length is 50 feet wide. And that will go to a lot of our hardship here.
The fourth exhibit is the application for appeal or the applications for appeal,
which include also the project information, completed project information form for both.
Fifth exhibit is the zoning and Google Maps in the aerial view. I would point you to attention
to the exhibit number one, excuse me, page number one of this exhibit. You'll see that there's a
side yard for 1652 and there's rear yards for 52 and 54. And then I also
point you to your attention to the last page of Exhibit 5. This is the scenario
view that I obtained from atlas.phila.gov for these properties. As you can see,
there are no structures on 56 or 58 and then if you look at 1650, that
structure actually goes deeper than ours so in actuality even though we're like seeking a you
know a smaller uh rear yard and uh a small and we have where we're not meeting the standard for open
area we're not impacting the actual air and light of the pre-existing structures there uh and given
as you can see also the rear and side yards for 52 and 54 that's some of the reasons that's why
we're not meeting the rear yard setback you know we have a three foot rear yard excuse me a three
foot rear alley which if we included that as part of our dimensions we would be closer to meeting
the actual zoning codes and as the side yard as well if you put that into 52 we would be closer
to meeting the open area after that i gave you on exhibit seven are the architectural plans and
drawings. And exhibit eight is a correspondence from APM, the coordinating RCO. We met with them
on March 12th. This was just before everything shut down with the city regarding COVID-19.
There are only three individuals there. So there are two people against the project and one person
for the project. I actually gave you the first letter is the original letter that was sent by
APM, and I highlighted that in red saying original letter. The difference between the original letter
and then the letter that they, I think, ultimately sent you, I noticed there was an error in the
original letter. One of the reasons why they refused the project according to the original
One of the reasons why they refused the project, according to the original letter, was because we were seeking multifamily use, which was not the case.
letter was because we're seeking.
These are two separate zoning matters, 1652 and 1654.
So there are two units, but one for each property, and they're both single families.
So there were not any use variances seeking.
And then I would also point your attention to the fact of why they stated that two people were against it and only one person was for it.
had nothing to do with zoning, like the only issue that they had, but basically the issue
they had with it was that they wanted us to do construction work for neighboring properties,
in particular 1650 is in pretty bad shape. During the meeting, a big part of the meeting was like
they wanted us to do work on it because someone lives there as a renter, and we indicated to them
that we could not do that because that's someone else's property, and we don't have the right to do
that. But there were no zoning related issues as to this property. So, you know, as to all of the
foregoing, you know, given the size of the lot, 700 square feet, given the length of the lot,
50 feet, all of the variances we're seeking dimensional are de minimis in nature. If we
were to have to comply with the zoning codes, we would not have a functional single family house,
given the short width of the property and the short length of the property.
um uh mr murphy you heard everything i stated today oh yes i did okay and and you and you and
you are a member of of of the of the owner of the corporate owner of these properties right
that's correct bcb homes okay and everything i stated today is true and correct right
yes it is and you would adopt it as your own testimony i will okay
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter?
Tanya, do you have anybody on hold?
No, I only had Charles Murphy. That was everyone.
Okay, I'll just check with you. That way I don't get ahead of you.
Questions from the board? Planning Commission.
Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
The applicant is removing the existing homes, which met the setback requirements.
We feel that if the applicant meets either the rear yard or their open space, that it would be a functional home still and would not represent an overbuilding.
Currently, we recommend the plan as submitted not be granted.
yeah oh mr chair the one thing i do i do want to add is that if you look at the pictures um
of six um you know the first the first page it shows actually 16 of 1654 it was originally
not set back it was to the street so like all we're doing is and if you look at the pictures
that are the photographs all over the place it's typical other than this block to have
no porches you know and three-story structures i i am at a loss because i don't have those
pictures i don't know about the rest of my colleagues on the board um but i have to take
your word for it does he have pictures he can share i do i do um i actually but it was with
my materials you know Sharon I can share them if I'm able to do that or can I
email them to you Tanya well let me not to belabor it I mean it's consistent I