uh but i'm i'm here to uh relay to the board um the circumstances of that and penn sport i believe
is participating as well so why don't we hear from the part of me i only have a few things to say
mr chairman okay well let me swear you in did you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed yes and of course i'm going to defer
to penn sport uh on the offer by uh jared to uh allow duplex uh i don't know how they'll handle
that I appreciate the offer personally, but I don't speak for them.
So all I wanted to say, and I'm on here because I wanted to listen
and make sure that the things that were said there were accurate.
the things that were said they were accurate. I do appreciate that Jared did relay an accurate
I do appreciate that Jared did relay an accurate.
description of the history. I want to guess the only thing I can add is this.
This was like two and a half year litigation, as I recall. What's upsetting to me personally
is that the applicant, when we filed the appeal to the issuance of an over-the-counter permit
for the triplex. I believe this was Jim Moylan's board, but if you recall, the testimony was clear
that the use had never been actually converted. Even though there was a permit for a triplex in
the file, there was never any building permit pulled, and the owner of the property continued
to live there in a single-family home. The testimony that the board heard and the reason
why this board granted our appeal and reversed the issuance of the permit for the triplex
is because the testimony was that it had always been single family. We actually had
testimony from neighbors who were inside the property and verified it was single family all
their lives. What upsets me though is that the prior owner, not this applicant, but the prior
our owner, continued to complete the transition to a triplex while our appeal was pending.
I specifically mailed a copy of our appeal to the owner so that the owner knew that there
was a pending appeal, and the owner continued to work because we did not seek a stay and
really could not because it was an administrative appeal and we couldn't afford a litigation
at that time, the owner continued to convert the property while our appeal was pending
and completed the transition of the property from single family to multifamily.
And while the ownership has changed, and I do see the city certification, and that is
outrageous.
I don't know how after two years of litigation, which was successful by the neighborhood group,
a city cert could have been issued to this buyer verifying the 1960 permit after we had litigated
that for that long and one hard-fought battle I don't know how the city would issue a city cert
but be that as it may this applicant now steps into the shoes of of this prior owner who is
and malfeasance is an appropriate word. I appreciate that characterization by Jared.
That's absolutely right. The prior owner, talk about malfeasance. Not only did he complete
the conversion of this property to a triplex while our appeal was pending, he then sells the
property to this applicant without telling her that he lost in three different venues, this board,
the court of common pleas and then the commonwealth court and i believe is that you know the files in
a box because i've moved from uh laletta but uh this applicant the prior owner actually petitioned
the supreme court for review and lost um so it is unfortunate for this buyer um i don't know how
she would not have known of such a long and convoluted uh history but but it should have
been clear to everyone, including the city, that this property is single family. And we fought long
and hard for it, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry that Jared's client has stepped into this situation.
But unfortunately, this applicant takes the shoes of the prior owner, and there's simply no
hardship. He illegally converted this property, lost in an administrative appeal, and then sells
it to her without telling her, why should the community have to have gone through this
and then have to deal with it because of another buyer saying I'm innocent and
I deserve relief because I was in the dark. I just don't see it. I'm sorry that that happened
to her. And Penn's portal speak for themselves, but it's just very frustrating. And I got
to know that the few neighbors who were involved in the hearing, they have been very upset
about this. They're upset right now to have to have fought this and won and then have
this come up. And I guess I'm speaking for them specifically. So I'd ask you not to grant
it based on that. And I'm here to answer any questions. I'll defer to the other neighbors.
And thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Bonnie, do you have anything or want to wait for the other witnesses?
I would just like to briefly respond on the hardship issue that Mr. DeMarco raised just by pointing out two things.
The first item is that in terms of a finding of a hardship, this property was granted a variance in 1960.
The first item is that in terms of a finding of a hardship,
While we all acknowledge that situations on the ground can change over time, a zoning board finding was made in 1960 that this property met the standard for a variance and granted a use variance.
And so I would I would offer that the situation on the ground today still supports the finding of a hardship that was made in 1960.
The other point I'll make just I touched on this during my earlier presentation, but that this this particular property is not located in a purely single family block.
There's a mix of uses on that black face and directly across the street, making it more appropriate contextually for multifamily use.
Primarily residential.
Primarily residential.
Actually, it's probably more residential now than it was 10 years ago.
There are garages that have been where the bar is.
There was a dry cleaner.
There was a garage next to that.
But anyway, I don't want to belabor that point, but it's more residential today than it was 10 years ago.
Right. And I just put up the...
And the other question, you may have said this in your...
When was the... The classification went to RS5 at the time.
When did that occur?
I'm not sure when the property was mapped.
I think that probably happened somewhere between 1996 and 1999.
You would certainly know.
Okay, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry.
That's okay. I was finished, Mr. Chair.
Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this matter?
If you haven't already raised your hand, please do so now.
Patrick, you have been allowed to speak. You can unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, Board. My name is Pat Fitzmaurice, spelled F.
Patrick, would you spell your last name, please?
spelled f-i-t-z-m-a-u-r-i-c-e and patrick do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you patrick please proceed good afternoon board uh i'm here
as the president of the fennsworth civic association um i think mr mr klein and mr
demarco's comments have been um pretty accurate to the history and and what has happened uh with
this property. I just want to note a few things, and I hope to not repeat what's been already said.
As it's already been noted, this exact same relief was sought only a few years ago.
To my knowledge, DBA denied that relief, and the denial was affirmed by the courts.
From everything I've heard today, nothing has changed, and there's been no explanation of any
changed circumstances regarding a multifamily use from last time. I understand and sympathize
with the owner, but the solution is not to ignore precedent and the neighbor concerns to bail out
you know to bail out an owner there are other avenues available to make the owner whole
I appreciate the suggested solution of making this a duplex but I don't think that really
solves the multifamily concerns that we have and I would note that the ZBA denied a multifamily
duplex use on the next block just a few months ago at 1231 moyamensing due to the concerns
for multifamily use and neighbor opposition. So I think it would be inconsistent to now grant a
multifamily use. I appreciate Mr. Klein's comments about the hardship that may or may not have
existed in the 1960s, but we don't know what that hardship was or whether circumstances have
changed in 60 years since then to alleviate the hardship. And we don't know what the standard for
a hardship was in 1960. I would note that as Chairman DiCicco said, for the last project that
was heard. The community did not cause the hardship here. And again, as he noted, there is
a legal recourse for this owner to seek relief. I would note that I do believe, and he can correct
me if I'm incorrect, but I believe that the RCO meeting, Mr. Klein represented that there was no
title search performed on this before the purchase. That may or may not have triggered
awareness of the court history of this. You know, I think Mr. Klein represented or
characterize this as a continued use as multifamily, I think that kind of skates over the issue that
this is not supposed to be a multifamily and hasn't been supposed to be a multifamily for
decades. And I think that I understand that there's other uses in the area and Mr. Klein
seems to focus on that. But if you look at the map that Mr. Klein just had up of the surrounding
area, that map is overwhelmingly yellow, meaning overwhelmingly residential. And I think that
you know nitpicking the few non-residential uses kind of skirts around that i think
you know, nitpicking the few non-residential uses kind of skirts around that.
I think, I think Chairman DiCicco is aware of the,
the overwhelmingly residential use in this area as he,
his questions seem to reflect. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I think that's all I have for now.
Thank you. Any questions, Mr. Klein for Mr. Fitzmaurice?
No, thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
No chair, that's all.
okay all right uh questions from the board no no no planning commission mr chairman and members
of the board this property is zoned residential single family we do not believe the applicant
has sufficiently addressed the impacts related to the proposed use accordingly we recommend that
requested variants not be granted um chair i apologize but it seems like we have a late hand
raiser okay if you wish please uh pat you can unmute yourself and speak to this case
um thank you can you hear me yes ma'am please identify yourselves by your name for the stenographer
Sure. My name is Pat, P-A-T, Castanera, C-A-S-T-I-N-E-I-R-A. I am the next door neighbor
of the property in question. And first, I'd like to-
Okay, I need to just swear you win, ma'am.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I want to thank Pennsport and Rich for all their hard work and the neighbors
who have banded together that do not want this our whole block on our side is nothing but single
family homes on our side and it's been more than two and a half years fighting this it's almost
five years that we've been going through this because the other owner just kept appealing and
peeling and peeling and then when he lost he just decided to sell it and i'm sorry that this person
bought this without the understanding that she says she doesn't understand that it was
not a triplex. I'm not so sure about that, but I just don't want to see another five years go by
of fighting this again. The neighbors are against this, and I hope you take that into
consideration. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
If you haven't already raised your hand, please do so now. That's all I see at this time. Thank you.
Calendar number 39679 1307 East Moy Metzing Avenue. My vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
thank you all for your time appreciate it thank you thank you calendar number three eight four
two two one five four zero north 7th street the attorney is zen jin and he's already on their
oath so we don't you don't need to swear him in mr jen do you agree to wait the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do name and address
I'm going to go ahead and share the documentation related to this case.
This is for an application for use as a triplex on the block of North 7th Street.
it is zoned as RSA 5. This is a vacant lot that is being developed by my client.
The area of this neighborhood is completely built as a multi-family area
because at one point this block was actually RM 1. I believe the current
block is the current lot is RSA 5 partially because it was vacant when
rezoning came through. As you can see, 1527 RM1 approved as four units, 29 coming towards my
client's property, also a five-family multi-family dwelling. Then as we get closer, 31, 32, 34,
36 all the way to 38 are all triplex properties multifamily dwelling. We're
also proposing the same concept because essentially we are my client's
Because essentially, my client's property is in the middle between the corner properties and the other properties further down the block, all of which are triplex multifamily.
properties in the middle between
There is a church across the street, and there's also buildings in the back on the other block behind us that are multifamily.
So this lot is sandwiched essentially in an entire block of multifamily use.
When we went to the RCO, this was brought up with the RCO.
Their primary concern, there were three individuals who appeared at the meeting who opposed this project.
Their primary concern was they said that the block has been flooding and that the proposed basement would be an issue.
They wanted us to not build a basement or do something to prevent flooding happening in this particular structure.
I believe that's a legitimate concern if there are, in fact, flooding issues on the block.
However, it is not necessarily a zoning issue that should be addressed at the design level
when building permits are being pulled as far as water, preventing water overflowing into the basement.
We made the same documentation to them that everything around the building on both sides are, in fact, triplex multifamily buildings.
While I understand that some other blocks nearby are completely RSA-5, and this lot has been rezoned to RSA-5 because it's been vacant, to kind of squeeze a single RSA-5 building, a single-family building on an entire block of multifamily would make it really not a very viable building as far as being able to be sold, which is the intent here.
This is designed and I'm going to jump now to the plans. This building is designed
essentially to be used as condominiums and sold in the future. Let me try to get this
at a more reasonable size. So the basement level is part of a bi-level unit
where the bedrooms are above on the first floor and the living space and kitchen
was designed in the basement. The second and third floor are front and back by levels as well
again to give a feel of having two floors like a small house rather than one single large floor
apartment, the stair system leads all the way up from the bottom allowing a
walkway to go all the way to the rear of the property as well. So this allows all
three units to have a common area space hallway that allows them access the
rear yard where trash can be placed. So when the design was made, the
consideration is that ultimately each of these would be counterized into its own
unit and sold and also it is consistent with what is now on the block which are
entirely on this side multifamily properties. With the big church across
the street we don't feel that the facilities or light and air is really
being impacted by this structure. The facilities of the area is already there to support multiple
buildings built in the same way. There's no real use impact to the neighbors because they already
have multi-family use. This is not a three-family being jammed into a single-family block where
there will be a very different set of uses as compared to the neighbors.
parking and and other issues were not brought up by the community as a concern their primary
concern was this issue with flooding and the design of the basement ultimately to try to
prevent flooding becoming even bigger issue so in this case because of the surrounding area and
how it is composed of all multifamily buildings we submit this is consistent
with the neighborhood makeup and this would not be a hardship to the
neighborhood if it is approved as a triplex at this location
it is approved as a triplex at this location. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I put the
community notes up here on the screen so that if the board has any questions based off of their