Mr. Anastasio, could you give us an update on 6424 Rising Sun?
Yeah, we just haven't had an opportunity to meet with the RCO, I believe,
and that's the reason why the RCO requested the continuance
and we don't object.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you.
MI 2025-001894-6424-Rising Sun.
This case is continued to 113.26 at 9.30 a.m.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuance?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Okay, and I also have number two, MI 2025, 000, 600, 6801 to 17 North 16th Street.
This case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
Number one, MI 2024, 00.
Number one, MI 2024, 006-823-5329 North 3rd T Street, I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
Tywin, my vote is no.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is no.
Thank you.
number two
10-5-20-24-003-143
2838 Cancel Street, I vote yes
Michael Johns, my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
Tannetta Graham, my vote is no
Taya Nguyen, my vote is no
okay, number
number three, MI 2024
002 432 739
Tyson Street.
At the request of the applicant, the vote in this matter has been rescheduled
to Wednesday, September 10th at 2 p.m.
Case number.
We're going to go to move to case number 11. MI 2025 00911716 Strale Street. William Kilrain
and Elizabeth and Elaine Phillips are the listed owner applicants. This is a pro se.
William Kilrain is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Hello, can you hear me?
I can, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Sorry about that.
Could you please turn your video on?
So I have two computers right now.
My PC does not have a video, but my laptop does.
I will log in on my laptop for video.
I will put my last name is hyphen video so they can identify it.
Okay, sure.
So let me just log in here real quick.
Thank you.
it's just you've been invited as a panelist I don't know there might be
some might have to login is might have to put a different name in because it
look like it was uh i might have to put some different information in i'll put bill kilrain
as opposed to william and a different phone number i'll put william in i'll put a different email
bill you have any suggestions yeah i'm i'm i think i got i'm talking to
i have the bill here too okay sorry about that
Mr. Kilrain, why don't I do this?
Why don't I come back to you and figure out where we stand and I'll come back
in maybe about 20 minutes to you. Okay. But I will keep,
I will let you sit there the whole day. I'll come back to you. Okay.
Just give me, I think I have it right here.
If you just give me two seconds.
Go ahead.
Let's see what happens.
It says it's joining the webinar.
And it's, the one that has my video is williamkilrain-video.
And it's, the one that has my video is William Kilrain hyphen video.
If you want to take, if you want to enable that one as well.
There you go.
I'll start my video only since I have audio.
Oh, for crying out loud.
okay hello well we we see you but i i don't is your video up my video is up okay it's showing
i can see myself um can anyone else see me i'm under william kilrain i think you have two again
my screen share is going to be under bill kilrain uh so there's that one is blank and it will only
show my exhibits and then you can see william kilrain hyphen video and that is who that's my
picture of me, if that makes sense. I guess, could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer? Sure, it's William Kilrain, W-I-L-I-A-M-K-I-L-R-A-I-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Our board member Tenetta Graham has a few
questions. Mr. Chair, before that, would you like to read the refusal into the
record okay all right thank you good afternoon um have you required all the documents five uh
necessary for the case five days in advance yes okay okay so just this application is for the
erection of a five foot high 100 opaque fence between the property line and the front building
line of existing detached structure. Use a single family dwelling. The required front yard fence
height is four foot, whereas a fence height of five foot is proposed. Required fence opacity
is 50%, whereas 100% is imposed. Please start your presentation. Sure. Well, let me give you a
little bit of background before I bring in the exhibits. So, and everything I say will be backed
up with the exhibits. We bought this property in February of 2022. The fence had already been
installed. It had been installed at least since October of 18. That is verified via Google Maps
and Philly Atlas video, basically. So the fence pre-existed our ownership by at least five years.
It had been there for five years. Nobody had a problem with it. And then for whatever reason,
someone decided to notify L&I for a violation. I don't know why, won't comment on that.
So I had also, when we purchased the property, there were no violations on the house at all
at the time. And also the city provided me with a certificate of occupancy, which stated as such.
So we thought we were buying a property that was fully zoned correctly and without violation.
um okay so uh we have the full backing of councilman brian o'neill he has provided a
letter and uh let's see here if i can bring that first up yeah fox chase civic association right
so fox jakes we did have the meeting with the fox chase civic association all near near neighbors
were notified all 13 near neighbors were were fully in support um everyone was pretty disgusted
at the situation, you know, were all good friends and they couldn't understand why this was
happening. So not only did I get all 13 members of the near neighbors who were notified at the
meeting to agree that the fence should remain without any, with a, with a variance, but all
members, including all board members of the Fox Chase Civic Association also agreed that the fence
should be able to remain with variance. We have their letter. Okay. So you don't need me to bring
that up then nope we're good okay um i don't want to waste anybody's time i mean what there are
certain exhibits i have i have um you know google maps why don't you show us some photos of the
property. Sure.
Okay, back here, let me share, tab, which tab is this, no, here we go, right here.
Okay, back here.
there you go it's coming out okay so this is the exterior of the property
just from both sides and then kind of from kind of a rear perspective I do have an interior shot
I can also show you if you need it it is set back about four feet already it's under some trees as
you can see there is greenage there um you know it provides one it was actually one of the reasons
we purchased the property was because we have three three kids three small children and it
provides the privacy and security that we were looking for it has a nice big yard so we don't
have to worry about them you know being out um and you know again because the city provided us
with a certificate of occupancy without any violations,
we assume that this offense was part of the property without issue.
So if you'd like, I can show...
Show me one photo from inside.
All right. All right. Questions from the board.
So your your near neighbors, are they supportive or what?
Yes. Again, all of the near neighbors were invited. 13 showed up and all voted unanimously to agree for the variance.
And again, most of them were disgusted at as to the situation.
They were kind of aghast. Why is this happening? This fence has been here for a year.
I mean, it's eight years now, really. It's been there for eight. We were notified at five, and they just couldn't understand why this was happening.
Everyone actually likes the fence. They find that it's aesthetic. You know, it provides a little character to the neighborhood as well.
So all your neighbors, even, you know, my two direct next door neighbors, both were at the meeting and both were in support of the variance.
questions from our attorney billiard emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments
from the virtual audience
planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board michael gall with the philadelphia city planning
commission m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-l-l you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i so affirm please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsd3 residential single family detached zoning at this location there is no
unique physical circumstance or condition of this property that would prevent the property from
being used in conformance with the zoning code therefore the city planning commission recommends
the board denied the proposed variances for front fence height and opacity. Thank you. MI-2025-002-911-716
Strale Street, I vote yes. My vote is on. My vote is yes. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tenetta Graham, my vote is yes. Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes. Iowyn, my vote is yes. Thank you,
sir you have your votes great thank you what's the next steps then I guess you'll
you'll you'll hear from us right you will hear from us you'll see you'll
receive a notice of decision via email with instructions okay great thank you
I do. Sure. Sure. Number 9, MI-2025-002-370-2301 North A Street.
Recommendation of unanimous support from 37th Ward, RCO.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young.
Good afternoon, members of the board. Alan Nockamson.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client is 2301N8LLC, the owner of the property, and I have two of its members in the virtual audience, Igor Gitterman and Nathan Ward.
igor gitterman and nathan ward one of them will raise their hand um teneta graham our board
One of them will raise their hand.
member has a few questions thank you good afternoon um have you submitted your documents
five days in advance of this hearing yes we have and do you waive the reading of the refusal to
stipulate to its accuracy i do okay so thank you you can see your screen and start your case
thank you can i just be promoted to a panelist please sure thank you
He's been promoted to panelists here. Thank you.
So I'm here to present 2301 North H Street.
As the chairman stated, we did have some positive feedback by the community or from the community.
We had unanimous support for this project.
This is not the first time this board has seen this property by way of variance, and
we'll go through the materials, but the board granted a proposal for 39-unit apartment building
that was granted by the board by way of variance.
Unfortunately, given the market conditions, cost of construction, just not feasible to
build 39 units.
That's why we're back here today for 31 units, similar to last time the community supported
the project.
They supported it again.
So we have 10 exhibits. We notified 125 addresses of the community meeting. Our community meeting was June 18th. And again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that either Igor or Nathan virtually raise their hands and to adopt their testimony as their own.
I also have Rustin Oler from Harman Deutsch Architects who can answer any architectural related questions.
So the first thing we're going to review is the notice of refusal.
It seems worse than it is.
I mean, this is what happens when you have mixed zoning.
We have I2 and CMX2 zoning.
More appropriate, honestly, to do a residential zoning here, and you'll see why.
But, you know, as part of the, you know, of refusal, we essentially have 10 building structures.
Nine triplexes that are facing North 8th Street, which we'll review, and then one quadplex facing Germantown on a regular-shaped lot, which borders 8th Street, Dauphin Street, and Germantown.
And here are the refusals.
The first one is the fact that we're in an I-2 district and residential use is not allowed.
That's the first one.
Where if this was just pure CMX2, we would, not maybe on the ground floor, but on the upper floors.
The second refusal has to do with the fact that we don't have a commercial component in our project.
But again, not out of character, because if you look at North H Street, there is really no commercial there.
The third refusal has to do, again, in terms of applying the CMX2 zoning.
We do run a little bit short of the allowable residential units, but not by a lot.
That's a de minimis refusal.
The fourth refusal has to do with the parking.
That's an I-2 requirement, not a CMX-2 requirement.
Again, it would be kind of out of character in the neighborhood to provide such parking.
The next refusal has to do with the fact that we go street to street and that there should
be some type of offloading, again, parking, which would be out of character.