ZBA Hearing - March 5, 2025

There is no basement living.

There is no basement living. You can see the basement here. The basement will be cleaned

You can see the basement here.

The basement will be.

and waterproofed but it will remain open storage in the in the state that you have it there.

And then again here's just the other unit on the second floor.

Again as I said just by looking at the zoning archive you can see

actually by zoning that this is about a 50 50 neighborhood of multi-units twos threes and some

fours at the top and single family uh if you actually walk the block you'll see even more

evidence of you know additional units that may not be legalized in the zoning archive

and then the last page i have for you is simply a a floor plan if you want to dive into it

very quickly the you know the hardship standard here is relatively easily met which isn't usually

the case you have to have an unnecessary hardship you have to have a no detriment to the public

health safety or welfare and you have to be seeking the least minimum variance to afford

the relief that is necessary here we certainly have a hardship we have an existing building

It would be at a prohibitive cost to try to demolish what's already there and recreate

a single family home, which would be required by an RSA 5 zoning district.

And again, this has been in place for at least 50 years that I could go back in the archives.

Moving, you know, no detriment to the health, safety and welfare.

Easiest way to understand that is we're putting in a second unit that already existed and that

the community was fully in favor and unanimously supported and the least minimum variance is we're

only asking to legalize what's there since we limited it to a duplex again we did think that

a triplex was appropriate given the size and space of the building and the third unit would

have been you know a deeded affordable housing unit with the city's programs but the rco chose

not to support that so we're here today just asking to legalize the existing duplex and move

forward and i'm happy to have my client your client here yes adam singer should be online

can we see him thank you hello i'm mr singer could you please state your name and spell for

the stenographer? It's Adam Singer, A-D-A-M-S-I-N-G-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell

the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you very much.

Mr. Singer, you're here on behalf of the owner, 1824 Philly LLC, correct? Correct. And you heard

all the testimony that I already presented in this case? I have. And you believe that to be

true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? Absolutely. And would

adopt that testimony as your own i do questions from the board yes are you keeping the side

entrance uh yes yes so that is an existing uh entrance to the rear so what you'll have is

the second story unit i can zoom in if you need the second story apartment will be accessed from

the front and go right up the steps and then directly up the third the second the rear unit

which is existing had its own access because the church space was was accessed from the front and

so the the rear unit um which was in the rear on the first floor had its own separate side entrance

and that will remain that's currently not what's depicted in these plans no no these are what the

plans will be not these are not existing floor plans i apologize these are these are what the

floor plans will be right so that door is missing should be there the side door is not there

i apologize the the the showing new entrance having both apartments entering entering from

the front on yes so the there will be access to the first floor apartment from the front

as you can see in the lower left and if you don't mind Mr. Singer

is he still there

it is my understanding that that side entrance will remain

I recognize board member Wayne that I do not see it here either I thought it was there

another question just the difference between the two is that this also shows

a fully built out second floor whereas the current conditions show

a fully built out second floor whereas the current conditions show a rear it looked like a rear deck

or a roof like it's a deck yeah but that's not what's there so are you building because that

would no we are not that would that would require another variance it would but that's what the plan

shows yes shows a bedroom where that deck would be yeah so that is not occurring um okay so this

second floor will be

a one-bedroom. The first floor will be

a two-bedroom.

Okay, any

other questions?

Questions from our attorney, Hillary

Emerson? Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

Questions or comments from the virtual audience?

Planning

Commission.

So, Ron Bednar, City Planning.

First name, Ron, R-O-N.

Last name, Bednar. B-E-D-N-A-R.

do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth

thank you the property is indicated for residential on the city plan given the

documented history of the site we recommend the request for answer granted mi 2024 006 468 1824

South 5th Street. I vote yes with Proviso. Maximum two units. Cheryl Gaston. My vote is yes with

Proviso. Tanetta Graham. My vote is yes with Proviso. Iowyn. My vote is yes with Proviso.

Mr. Whalen. MI 2024-006471. 2031-33 Palford Street. Just for the record, could you state

your name? Certainly. Sean Whalen. W-H-A-L-E-N. Could you identify your client, the relationship

ship to the property. I almost just told you it was the same owner. At this stage, we'd probably

say okay. It is not. My apologies. The owner is M&T Property, LLC. Do you agree to the waiving of

the reading of the refusal? And do you agree with its accuracy? Yes, I do. And I would say there's

a letter of no position received from narsquare action network the rco stated the meeting ended

in a tie and after that the meeting they received a letter of opposition signed by neighbors

there's a letter of deferral from council member lazada the council office supports the rso position

of no position all right uh so 2031 to 33 palethorpe street this is a mid-block 1216 square

foot property i already have it pulled up here for you can see it outlined it is a 100 built out

existing one-story commercial warehouse i'll show the maps in a second this has been in place since

at least the 1930s it shows up all of these commercial warehouses that you see on this side

of the block which is actually the east side of the block date back to prior to the 1942 land use

maps in the in the historical maps so what you can say see here left hand side is more traditional

Philadelphia Row home housing that's the western side the eastern side of this block was again

commercial warehouses dating back to almost 100 years ago so we did go we actually had a good

meeting with the RCO the only issue raised by and actually there were only two

uh near nearby neighbors who attended that meeting but the only issue that they raised was

parking um i certainly understand that and commiserate with everyone who's trying to find

parking uh the interesting thing for this street is there is no legal parking on either side of

the street so they the complaints of seeking to protect illegal parking i don't i i don't think

can proceed before you. We did have one refusal for use. My client originally applied for,

they were going to do four one bedroom units over this building. And well before going to the RCO

meeting, they made their own determination that two units would be better. So we are only seeking

two units that was not done in agreement with the rco but they certainly liked two units better

liked two units better than four units when we appeared and there was some comments that they

than four units when we appeared and there was some comments that they

you know there would not have been yes votes at four units but we had proceeded already to do

larger these will be two two bedroom units one will be on the second floor one will be on the

third floor of a two-story addition so as I said quickly you can see here this is the 1942 land use

map it's already showing again on the eastern on the western side you have single family homes on

the eastern side you have already commercial activity so you do have before you a proviso plan

where we are reducing the number of dwelling units from four units down to two units

no change in the actual plans themselves so this is probably the most colorful zoning map I've

ever seen for a project that I've presented it is a veritable smorgasbord of zoning districts

in this area. You can see ICMX, RMX. There is, you can see right in the middle, the highlighted

in blue, we are in a row of RSA5. Interestingly, most of the middle of that RSA5 are all existing

garages that I'll show you in just a second. The homes on the left, on the western side,

our RSA-5, everything surrounding us in all directions is RM1 and CMX 2.5. If this were

CMX 2 or CMX 2.5, the duplex above the existing garage would be by right.

If this were RM1, a triplex would actually be by right. As it is, we have an existing commercial

use in a prior non-conforming building. So we have a prior non-conforming use and a not prior

non-conforming building. Zoom in on this for you. So as you can see, there's the line, the dashed

line right behind our property designating the distinction between RM1 and RSA5. We have a very

narrow, small, almost box-like property. It's 32 feet wide, but only 38 feet deep.

And Pailthorpe Street, which we are on, is only 14 feet wide, curb to curb.

So as you can see here, start getting to the site photos. The entire block up and down the block,

except for in front of the garage doors is existing illegal parking everybody parks on the sidewalks

otherwise nobody could get around it and again so here right here on the right with the two white

garage doors that is the building that we're talking about today these are proper these

are photos that i took and the entirety of this block was was fully parked um again now now we're

getting up to the top up at the top of the block everything is multi-family and there's actually

a very large um 18 unit building uh with a child care on this block so again it's it's a very big

mix of uses up and down the block everything in an existing condition again you can see some of the

properties are well maintained some are not but you have still these existing garage warehouses

on one side and then like i said you can see this new construction on the left here that's an 18 unit

building with a child care on the ground floor again just up and down the block giving you the

same kind of evidence. So here's what exists in the zoning archive, and I don't want to belabor

the point and go through the archive, but you have our property right here in the middle. You have

two commercial garages immediately to the south of us, and then you have a commercial garage with

a duplex above it. You have a very large commercial warehouse and multifamily down at the southern

end of this block and then at the top you have auto repair and vehicle storage and then you have

multiple unit buildings all up as you get closer to diamond street as well as the child care center

and 18 unit building that goes all the way from north second street through to palethorpe

these are the

these are the site plans and what you have here is we will actually be providing two parking spaces

so we'll be the only the only residential units on the entire block that have legal parking

what you can see here in the bottom left is the existing first floor layout there is no basement

and uh what you have is you have one small commercial bay here which will be uh all of

the commercial use is currently being activated for um the owner runs a an electrical company

so he's doing some light storage of his electrical materials there uh unfortunately as i'll get into

in just a second this you know as you've probably guessed from palethorpe street this property is

no longer viable for commercial use certainly for a commercial warehouse use so the you can see at

the top the existing floor there is an existing door in between the two bays what you'll do is

walk in that front door down here you'll walk upstairs there will be one unit one 700 square

foot two bedroom unit on the second floor and then one identical 700 square foot unit on the third

floor for two units we in this proposed addition we meet every dimensional requirement so we will

be we will still remain below 38 feet we're actually only about 35 feet and we are as you

can see at the top of this page we're pulling back the building actually nine and a half feet

from the rear of our property which is a fully built out lot line condition

and so again what you'll see right here in this bay will be one parking spot and in this bay

will be a second parking spot the commercial light commercial storage use for the owner will

actually remain in the rear but as you saw in some of the site photos the um the only trucks

you know commercial trucks can't get down the street um it's so tight there are only small

commercial vans and the like that can get up and down the block i can go back to them but

they are captured in the photos um and then actually i'll call mr hernandez here the project

architect in a second, but I thought this was a particularly useful slide for you to see.

You can see Palthorpe Street in the middle. It's essentially fully built out, no vacant lots.

I think there is one, maybe two on the western side, none on the eastern side.

And you can see our area of work. We are the shortest

depth lot on either side and what you have is if you look at the top you can see kind of the entire

middle of this block are one story existing commercial garages there's housing at both ends

but we are right in the middle so you went from four units to two yes we're down to two units

only two units, and both units will have a dedicated parking space. Again, will be actually

the only parking space, the only legal parking on the entire block. So I understand the RCO took

no position. If you look at the vote in the letter, the RCO board actually voted unanimously

in support and the neighbors who were surrounding voted no again the only issue that was raised

there are no issues of light and air or anything of the sort was simply that i talked about that

18 unit building that there have been a lot of similarly sized buildings around and i understand

that there you know there are difficulties with parking and again that's why we're we're actually

providing parking here, we'll be the only ones providing parking. So again, as I had just said,

and I think in this case, it actually needs to be stated, for a variance, you go either to 143038E,

or it's actually the 14 requirements under the zoning code are boiled down to Marshall

v. City of Philadelphia, which is a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case from 2014. We need an

unnecessary hardship. Here, we have numerous grounds for an unnecessary hardship. The most

obvious one is we have a 100% lot coverage existing building that even if we wanted to

make it RSA compliant, it would be at prohibitive cost, we'd have to demolish the entire

make it rsa compliant it would be at prohibitive cost we'd have to demolish the entire property

which can't be required we do have that existing non-conforming use and

those physical features prohibit us from doing anything there so the again the street also

factors into our hardship we have 14 feet a 14 foot wide street as i mentioned before we can't

get commercial vehicles up and down this block it is a one-way they don't have the turning radius

in order to get anything larger than a small van the bay heights are also only 10 feet

so you can't get any you know full-size commercial truck into into those bays

you would also any single family house could also only be 31 feet deep because we'd be required to

have, you know, if we were to be required to try to meet code, which is not appropriate under the

case law, but even if we were to try to do that, you would have two houses side by side, 16 feet

wide by only 31 feet deep. As Mr. Hernandez will testify, that doesn't create a viable RSA 5

lot. And what you actually see across the street where you do have existing single family homes,

all of those lots are 44 45 46 48 feet deep so they're an additional 10 to 15 feet deeper than

than our lot and actually the two lots immediately adjacent to ours on both sides are 46 and 48 feet

deep again we just have this existing condition that precludes us from moving so the next issue

for a hardship is just the sea change in the neighborhood. I'm sure some of the members of

this board know better than I even, but dating back to the Valley View case from the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court in 83, followed up by the Wilson Pennsylvania Supreme Court case in 2007,

and then stated more succinctly in Chosen 300 Ministries before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth

court in 2016 a sea change in the neighborhood where you know here you had a commercial use

and now the whole neighborhood is different the whole neighborhood is now a residential neighborhood

these uh garages are being converted they're no longer you know modern uh commercial uses