Two, they talk about an extension of the fact that we have three rental units in the building
they talk about an extension of the fact that we have three
now, and this would increase that to two additional ones.
And it would be another item that's part of the variance request is because it would be
two principal buildings on the lot.
And so those are the three items, the rear yard depth, two principal buildings, and the
extension of the rental units. However, it's a very large lot. We're the only property on the
block that meets the open space requirements after this development. So we still meet the
open space requirement. And we also provide off-street parking. We're the only property
on the block or across the street that provides off-street parking. So we conform to the
requirement for all street parking and open space. Now, we did meet with the RCO. We have five
abutting neighbors to this property. Let me see if I could get, let me try to open the photos here.
this is our this is the building here that's the zoning notice
once again this is our neighbor with 46 units here this is our driveway
we don't see that oh you don't see yours always sees the elevation so oh i'm sorry
what worries uh let me uh it's important that you see the photos so uh so you might
unshare and then um reshare with that screen being highlighted
do you see it now yes okay so uh here you see
that our lot goes in the back in the driveway this is as you drive back into the driveway
and this shows you our lot kind of bumps out to the uh to the east or to the west there i should
say beyond that so it goes out and you can see we have a lot of open space and our our proposal is
to build up and over this to this property line at this side. So we've met with the, we have five
abutting neighbors. We have 4617 Regent Street, 4619 Regent Street. There's also 4623 Regent,
which you cannot see beyond this side. And of course, 4612 Chester Avenue, who's our neighbor
on the other half of the twin, as well as the Berger group that owns the 46-unit building here.
We've met with each of the four more residential abutting owners, and we do have, although they've
never testified before the RCO, we do have support from our 4612 neighbor and from Ms.
Mohammed who is at 4623 region the 4619 folks and 4617 folks are very opposed to it they say that
this building is going to take away their you know light and whatnot even though we're on the north
side so uh so that's that's the that's the issue there the 4619 parcel is actually a non-conforming
parcel they do not they're supposed to have a nine foot rear yard lot they only have five foot at
certain parts of their area. So that's the nature of the, that's the nature of the project.
Ben Skiver? Yes. Do you happen to know what the height of 4619 Regent Street is? Well, our garage
is about 11 feet. I would say that 4619 is going to be probably around 24, 25 feet. Your proposal
would be 32 feet well our original refusal was the the allowable height in this uh zone is 38 feet
and that's what we originally submitted and we just we uh determined to take it down to 32 feet
because we think we can still construct uh our carriage house there at 32 feet now one of the
one of when we met with the rco initially we had that reduced height shown on the plan
and but we are uh if i can open the plan up to show you that part the uh we had a a terrace
in the back area can you can you see the plan now yes yes oh okay good all right so i'm getting the
Oh, okay, good.
All right.
So I'm getting the hang of this thing here.
hang of this thing here.
So you can see this area back here was going to be a terrace area, and it allowed us to
keep the rear along the rear property line to keep it lower and also to get some southern
light in through these windows in the back side.
and the neighbor the neighbors at on region street were very concerned about the noise and
privacy and all that sort of stuff so we eliminated the terrace and that's the change that we made
to present this to you now as far as the proviso goes we did not present that to the rco and we
don't consider that a substantial enough change to when they when they told us that unless you
made a substantial change we don't see that you know bringing it back is going to change our
opinion so uh i said okay so you know we're going forward and we wanted to get your opinion of it
uh based on where we are once again you know we meet the open area requirements of the of the area
unlike any other any other property on the block frankly uh no other property make it meets it and
uh so the bottom line is is you know we have this property and we we uh we want to try to enhance it
and uh and that's we think that this is a better in a in a certain sense you know from my opinion
a wall is a better way to separate from your neighbor than a fence if we were to you know
use that area in the back
you know
more with more
use than we have historically
in the past
I guess that's
what happens
with the parking
you still have the off street parking
yeah we'll still be parking underneath
the garage house will accommodate
was it two cars
uh well actually we're going to be able to accommodate three cars three outside and then
in the garage this this little piece here is a kind of an odd part of the property it juts east
so that's part of our property that goes over that way and like i said there's there's no no
one on the block either side has any off-street parking you know yeah so um we don't think we're
we're not changing anything on the streetscape as far as chester avenue goes you you probably
won't even know that this thing is back there now we are going to be abutting the property line in
the back against two neighbors and uh i did i did did talk to the one neighbor in the back there
that supports it but unfortunately she is uh being treated for covid in the hospital so she
cannot cannot appear today to support it and my neighbor at 4612 they're both academicians they're
teaching at some university somewhere I mean to ask them to try to accompany you know to appear
here is was frankly a hard one I didn't want to do that but if the board you know would look
favorably upon this if I had some letter of support or some affidavit from them I'd be happy to get
that. I don't think that would be a problem. But I know the neighbor, you know, the RCOs opposed.
They wrote a letter. They pulled all the attendees and no one supported the project.
They were concerned about noise being generated to the rear neighbors and maintenance of the rear
wall. They didn't seem to object to the use. They didn't say anything about the use. So
I don't have that. And obviously, I think Mr. Goodman made his comments. I guess the council
person is going to support the comments of the RCO. Aside from the two houses on Regent Street,
I think it was 1417, was it? Or 1416? Can you bring that up again, please?
Yes, yes. Hold on, I'll get the photos. Okay, here we are.
Yeah, 1417 and 1419. So at the meeting, there was opposition. Aside from those two,
where were they? Where's the other opposition coming from? Do you know?
Oh, I don't know. No. Well, it was whoever, frankly, I don't know. I'm not I've never
appeared before that group before. I don't know where they're from, you know.
All right, fair enough.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand.
Chair, we have a Catherine Dowdle, Ms. Dowdle.
Chair, we have a Catherine Dowdle. Ms. Dowdle, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Kathy Dowdell.
My address is 1008 South Farragut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I'm here
Ms. Dowdell, just to interrupt you a minute, please spell your last name.
Sure. It's D-O-W-D-E-L-L. And first name is officially Catherine, K-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E.
Thank you. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay. And your address again?
1008 South Farragut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19143.
Where is that relationship to this application?
Half a block away.
Farragut Street sort of dead ends into Chester and actually I'm here representing Cedar Park
Neighbors who was the coordinating RCO for this case. Very good. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure.
Sure. Mr. VanSkyver is correct. The objections to this project were not use related and
astoundingly not even parking related, this being Philadelphia. The primary objections were that
the proposed project sits on the property line. It was not only the neighbors behind on Regent
Street who were opposed to that, but there were several other RCOs present at the meeting,
all of whom voted against this project. The concern was that, frankly, we did not understand
where the hardship was. This is an existing condition with a small garage on a property line,
But to exacerbate that by now putting occupied space directly on the property line, we just did not understand where the hardship was.
Mr. VanSkyver is correct. The site is larger and more open.
He is certainly free to reconfigure the existing building or to do other things.
But we did not understand why building on the property line represented a viable hardship.
The Regent Street neighbors were primarily concerned with, yes, loss of privacy, with having
neighbors in the case of 4619 Regent. The back of the garage is only six feet away from
the corner of that property. The people at 4617 Regent were likewise concerned that people could
look into their second floor windows, that just the proximity was really the issue.
And then the other question, which is not really the zoning question, but if that rear wall is
right on the property line, how then does the owner maintain it without needing to access
those adjacent properties? It just did not seem like a good case. One RCO member did express a
concern, as Mr. VanSkyver stated, you won't even know it's back there. That is true. And in the
case of getting a fire engine back there or an ambulance back there, there was concern about the
width of the existing driveway. There's a reason that the Planning Commission does not want to see
more than one building on a single property. So we felt that those were really the much more
compelling issues here. I know that one of the neighbors is on the call, Mr. Tim Peterson, who
owns 4619 Regent. And that's all I have to say, but I'd like for him to get an opportunity to
speak if he has his hand raised. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else
would like to speak? Please raise your hand. Chair, we have Eric Sample. Mr. Sample, you can
unmute yourself and speak. Morning, Mr. Sample. Please identify yourself with the records by your
last name and provide us with your address good morning my name is eric sample s-a-m-p-l-e first
name e-r-i-c the address is 4617 region that i reside at and and do you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you sir please proceed
yes i i looking at the revisions that uh mr uh van skyvers brought forth now we do see that the
balcony has been removed that does offer a little more privacy as opposed to people looking over
into your yard but there is still the concern of it being on the property line and just as mentioned
earlier if there were any issues with that wall they're going to have to gain access to our
property to get to that wall and that's still a concern there was a question off or there was
suggestions offered earlier previously i should say where there was a question of why can it not
be moved further back from the property line i understand it from a construction perspective
Mr. VanSkyver said that there was going to be a lot of issues there, but once again, with it also being on the line, I still see that as a lot of issues there.
mr van skyver said that there was going to be a lot of issues there but once again with it also
Not to mention, during the process of the construction, the noise that we as the residents there, as far as Tim and myself, that's going to be constant noise all day from them building right there because they're literally right in our yard.
So, I'm still against it.
at least if it can if it can be moved back then maybe i can agree with it but as of right now
i'm against it okay thank you anyone else would like to testify
chair we have andrew goodman mr goodman you can unmute yourself and speak
mr goodman good morning again you're still under oath from earlier please please identify yourself
Good morning. Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District
Councilmember Jamie Gaudier. Councilmember opposes the variance application as presented
this morning. As has already been said, there was near unanimous opposition during the vote at the
RCO meeting. What this application proposes to do is convert a rear garage into a structure that is
almost as big as many of the structures at Front Chester Avenue, but without it actually
fronting a street. I would also question the characterization of a carriage house as being
appropriate, since my understanding is that carriage houses are traditionally one story tall,
not three stories tall. So this proposal significantly increases the scale of the
property and by doing so brings the rear yard depth down to zero feet, bringing this new
structure dangerously close to the homes that they share a property line with, hence the refusal for
rear yard depth there is still a perfectly economically viable property here otherwise
as it currently exists so we don't see any physical hardship financial hardship or justification for
this type of build therefore we ask the board to deny the variance as requested here this morning
thank you you anyone else yeah we have a timothy peterson mr peterson you can unmute yourself and
Good morning, Mr. Peterson. Please identify yourself with the record, spell your name, and provide us with your address.
Good morning. My name is Timothy Peterson, P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N. I reside at 4619 Regent.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
um i'm very strongly opposed to this um this a massive building um six feet from uh
my my daughter's bedroom window um you know the and any any problem that have happened with it
like a fire or something like that just terrifies me um it's right on my property line uh i don't
know if they're planting windows in the back, but I mean, I can hear sometimes residents in that
building, the building he owns that he does not live in from time to time from, you know, 25 feet
away. I can't imagine, you know, having a sound issue with somebody that close. It would, I would
probably sell my house and move um yeah i don't i don't understand why you need a another building
there you already have three rentals that you know you're renting out uh why do you need two more i
mean this is uh i understand there's these you know old uh very large apartment buildings uh
in the neighborhood um but you know this just seems you know like total lack of consideration
for everybody uh around you know it's strictly you know um a business um that's going to affect
us it's just you know i feel like um the lack of consideration is okay understood thank you
No problem. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Anyone else? Something new and different.
May I respond?
Mr. Chairman?
Oh, okay.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to a number of the comments made.