have much greater requirements than their predecessors and so in this instance
um right we cannot do that so with that i would simply say uh there is no detriment to the health
safety or welfare of the neighborhood again the only objection even raised at any point was parking
we're offering the only legal parking there is no legal parking on the street and we're only putting
we're only seeking the least minimum variance is uh you know two units as opposed to you know any
additional units that could be supported here why don't you have your is just the owner here you
have or uh no i actually have uh you should see tom wysocki okay online do we see him
he texted he texted me that he was on okay thank you
can you hear me yes we can could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
it's thomas wysocki w-y-s-o-c-k-i you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but
the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you uh mr wysocki you're here on behalf of mnt property
or property llc the owner correct yes and did you hear all the testimony i already presented in this
case yes and did you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge information
and belief yes and would you adopt it as your own yes do you have anything pertinent that would be
separate and apart from what i've already testified to that the board should hear no sir thank you
very much questions from the board uh could i just ask my uh architect to adopt my testimony
what's he what's he going to adopt your testimony to yeah just adopt my test thank you very much
um mr hernandez mr hernandez could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
h-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth please proceed i'm sorry this is the court reporter could i ask the witness to put the
microphone yes thank you jose hernandez h-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth please proceed counsel thank you very much uh
i do please proceed counsel thank you very much uh mr hernandez you're the project architect for
mr hernandez you're the project architect for this
this project correct correct and did you hear the testimony that was already presented in this case
i have do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
yes would you adopt it as your own i would and similarly uh separate and apart from anything
that's already been testified to do you have anything else pertinent and relevant for the
board to examine i do not thank you uh questions from the board yes a question um with the
parking on both sides of the street like that are you going to have the kind of turning radius that
you need to even have cars get into these legal parking spaces i i would certainly say yes but i
would allow mr hernandez to testify more distinctly so with the the units that have
the garage doors there's less parking there that are not currently residential units so the sidewalk
is wide enough where you can make the turn and come into those units um to that uh the western
side of the property is there a curb cut yes already there there's currently curb cuts in
front of each of the uh garage doors okay and you're you're building up correct two-story
addition on top of the existing one story ah okay so board member gaston if you if you would i just
pulled back up the photo yeah you can see uh again the two white doors are our doors there's no
parking in front of those doors and so uh that allows for the turning radius across the sidewalk
all right to get in now you can see from the way that car is parked i mean how are you
go park like that it's going to be a little difficult i would think to um make that turn
and you can't and you can't control how illegally people are going to park right correct yeah you
can make the call, but yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you. I guess my question is given that
the side of the street that this is on is the RSA five single family side, and there's not that
many properties on that side of the street that are more than two stories. Could you walk me
through the justification and the decision to include the parking and not do a two story two
unit building i'm sorry so let me just restate that to make sure i understand your question
so why would we not why would we add two stories here to have a unit on the second floor and a
unit on the third floor as opposed to a unit on the first floor second floor what is one floor
one window parking certainly uh so so multi-factored on that and it was considered first of all we
would in order to uh get to that situation we would have to demolish the entire first floor
there are party wall conditions there's excavation concerns um you know this is an existing condition
which which is fully built out um secondly in you my client works here and you uh he already
adopted my testimony he can speak further to this if i if need be um there are parking concerns in
this area and again if we did seek to just put two units in there would be no parking if we sought
to put in one very large single family house it would not be sellable in this area because it
would be you know 6 000 square feet we would need far more parking than two individual apartment
units and there would be no parking because that parking wouldn't be allowed similarly if we put
um two single family houses that would be commensurate with this area if we had enough
depth we would first of all be back here asking for an extension in the rear yard um but they
would also then require it more parking than two uh individual apartment units so that was that was
the primary factor was trying to be contextual to the neighborhood um also maintaining there there
will be maintained a limited commercial use in the rear so if i went to the uh the floor plan
and i think i got sidetracked here um storage so there there is commercial storage in the rear
and that commercial storage in the rear is going to remain so uh this this bay is separate and apart
um that will be one of the parking spaces another parking space will be on this side
that's a much larger wider side so Mr. Wysocki will be going around that built uh that existing
car when it's parked there and having his material stored in the rear um and I would assume there
Um, and I would assume there, there may be, there is not now, but there may be a condition
there may be there is not now but there may be a
where they put up some demising wall just to keep the commercial use from the parking
And then my second question is, uh, the height of your third floor, do you know how that
compares to the other structures on that street?
The elevations.
Actually, in the later.
In the RCO package, I have the RCO presentation.
What page?
I say this, and I'll say this for the record and for the rest of the board, like this is
going to be the first of a series of warehouses on this block.
So what happens here is going to set the precedent and be the case for anything else that comes
behind it.
So we are 34, eight or 34, 34, eight.
that we are 34 eight so we purposely stayed below the uh height limits in this zoning district i
didn't ask about the height limits i asked about the existing buildings you know exactly so i just
wanted to say i pulled up the rendering uh in context um while we were talking i was stalling
so i could get it up for you got it okay you try not to stall too yeah just say i'm looking for
the rendering only in order to answer a question um so what you can see here is an up and down the
block um and again if i go back to the the outline page that i was on before um you can see the
heights vary so uh on both sides of the street actually on the rsa5 side of the street the
heights are significantly taller than anything that uh we'd be building it's actually just our
side of the street that still remains low uh in the middle and at the ends uh goes up to
that your side of the street was the rsa5 street and the side across was the multifamily
so it's actually both i apologize i was trying to go fast and then i always yeah i'm just going off
what you told me um so it's actually there there are pockets on both sides here we go um
So our property is right here in the middle, this highlighted blue.
I'm not sure how or why this side, the eastern side, was made RSA 5.
Again, that has all the existing commercial uses.
And then there's also the RSA 5, which is actually mostly single-family houses, although there are definitely multifamily there, in the pocket on the other side.
and then sort of kind of surrounding us like we're the middle of the donut and then surrounding us
entirely on all sides is rm1 cmx 2.5 or cmx2 um so i apologize if i misstated and said that this
rsa5 was only on the other side of the street uh frankly if the rsa5 was only on the western
side of the street uh we wouldn't have to be here because we'd be by right yeah make make your night
just a little bit shorter all right other questions from the board questions from our
attorney um just one quick thing um with the parking spaces they're not referenced on the
refusal and i understand you said the curb cuts were existing i'm just a little bit concerned
that they're they aren't on the refusal because there weren't if it was a warehouse use before
there wasn't necessarily like accessory parking as part of that application and i could find no
zoning history for the property so i wasn't sure if it might be better to i don't know if it could
be corrected or amended i'd have to ask ellen i about that to include two accessory parking spaces
because if the board is inclined to grant because i'm just concerned that it's not in the description
i mean i'm happy to proceed however it would make you feel most comfortable
i believe it is covered by the existing prior non-conforming commercial use
because there is i mean if you had cars there that were the part of the commercial use you
would be accessing that as it wouldn't necessarily be like accessory parking spaces like if it was
just a warehousing or like pulling in and out it wouldn't be designated parking so um i mean if
you don't mind waiting a week i can ask al and i if you know if this needs to be noted on here
because i do see you got you went to streets and got the streets permit and everything
i just am concerned it's not listed on the refusal so i just don't want to cause problems later
absolutely we're happy to proceed however yeah just so just a week i just need to actually
3 30 yep or two o'clock two o'clock yep okay two o'clock yep and is the oh wait a minute planning
two hands okay
Two hands?
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
What's his name?
Daniel?
Butler, Trubman, Daniel, what's the second name?
Oh, I know, yeah.
When do I let you speak, Patricia DiCarlo?
Okay, right now.
Right now?
Yeah, but do me a favor.
Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Patricia DiCarlo, capital P-A-T-R-I-C-I-A, capital D-E, capital C-A-R-L-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. DiCarlo, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Not only am I a neighbor, but I'm also the chair of the RCO for NSCA Phila.
I was at the meeting, at the hearing, and with all due respect,
the presentation that was made was for the four apartments, not two.
The parking was not offered.
It was made clear that the electrician owner would have the commercial
and have his truck there also.
At the end of the meeting, so what they presented, the architectural design, was four apartments, not two, as the gentleman has said.
Number three, I noticed that when I came into the meeting, there was a gentleman who lives on that block and he was upset that the block had not received a notice on a timely basis and that more people needed to have been there and weren't.
So at the meeting, there were only two residents from the block and both were absolutely against this project.
I then, because I live there and I'm the chair of the other RCO, not the one that coordinated, I went to the block to talk to people and realized that there was a lot of opposition to it from the residents of that block.
The large buildings that have been shown are at the end of each block, which faces Diamond Street and Burke Street, which are large streets.
So it makes sense that the end buildings are large buildings.
Most of that block, like he said, it's a very narrow street.
most of them have two-story old old-fashioned original houses then there's some that are
three-story and then it's been invaded by a second street is on one side of pail forb and
um hancock is on the other side second street is a large uh mostly commercial and that's where
those multifamily humongous buildings are, but then the back of them faces Pale Fork.
So that's just to give you a context of what the block really looks like, as opposed to what's
been described. When I talked to the neighbors on that particular block and realized how much
they were opposed to what was being presented, I wrote up a petition for them that has been
included in the package. We the undersigned residents of the 2000 block of Pailthorpe Street
hereby signed this petition to oppose the building of anything other than single-family homes
as required by the zoning code. This is a narrow street with two-story single-family homes
recently affected by multifamily buildings
starting on 2nd Street to Pailthorpe.
They don't need more of that exaggerated building.
So we have, and you should have it in your package,
we have the signature for 23 residents of the block
of the block and 14 different addresses.
and for...
So it's not like it's just a few.
It's quite a bit of people who were signed the petition
and are opposed to this project.
And for me right now, I'm even more disturbed
by the lack of, what do I call it, clarity, actual facts that the gentleman here has presented
as having been something that they did at the RCO meeting.
The RCO and the plans that were presented by the architect were the four apartments, not two.
At the end, they said, oh, well, we could look at two apartments.
But that's not a legal definition or response to what they presented.
Mr. Carlo, we appreciate it.
Do you have any questions for Mr. Carlo?
I do not.
No, thank you.
Mr. Carlo, we appreciate your comments, and thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
but do you have the copy of the petition with you I do okay good I do I saw your name on it
right okay thank you um no okay if I may respond briefly okay but I I would simply again thrust
and Mr. Hernandez was there Mr. Wasaki was there uh we very clearly presented only two units we
said up front that the refusal was four units because we didn't want any confusion but that
we were only moving forward with uh two units and you know i can show we did we did the mailing as
required and actually uh what i've only shown a couple of pages from because i didn't want to
waste your time going through the whole thing is this document that we've scrolled through
is actually the JKRP architects RCO presentation so the floor plans we showed that only show two
units the heights that we showed that only show two units everything comports back to only two
units that that's all we presented to the RCO and there certainly was a petition that appears to
have been done almost none of those residents were at the meeting so I don't know what they thought
or heard or were told about the project uh and by my count i believe there were eight separate homes