Thank you.
Good morning, Chair. We have 26 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And also our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunke.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographers, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
Three, if you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
To win an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
leave your email, the address of the property in question. And finally, the question and answer
box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. Any comments should be directed
to our executive director, Tanya Sunke. Let's look at continuations we have today
in the morning list.
Number nine, MI 2022 -006 -992 -711 -South 23rd Street.
This case is requested continuous
by the Center City Residence Association.
The listed owner is Michelle Yu.
good morning chair this is Doreen Blakely I will co -host today thank you and I see no hands
so this case will be continued number 10 MI 2022 325 South 18th street this case is continued
And number 12, MI -2022 -003 -407 -4811 Woodland Avenue, this case is continued.
Is there anyone has any comments relative to the three cases I just listed?
I see no hands, Chair.
Is there any other requests for continuances?
no hands chair thank you i'm gonna go we have several cases that we do not have exhibits for
number one mi 2022 003 461 3161 richmond avenue um we do not have exhibits there's also been a
uh a comment relative to this case being withdrawn is there anyone here for this case 3161 richmond
avenue i see no hands chair mi 2022 003 481 3161 richmond avenue i vote to dismiss
Thomas Hobelman, dismiss
James Snell, vote to dismiss
Ishmael Shahid, vote to dismiss
Thank you
Number two
MI 2022 -003 -409 -4830 B Street
This is a pro -said case, Jesus Castillo, no exhibits, second listed.
No hands, Chair.
MI 2022 -003 -409 -4830 -B.
MI -2022 -003 -409 -4830 B Street, I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Holliman, I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
number six, MI 2021 -001 -198 -3601 -North 5th Street. No exhibits, fifth listing. Is there
anyone here from 3601 -North 5th? No answer. So MI 2021 -001 -198 -3601 -North 5th Street. I vote to
dismiss. Thomas Holloman, my vote is to dismiss. James Snell, my vote is to dismiss. Ishmael
Shahid, my vote is to dismiss. Thank you. Number eight, MI 2022 -003 -480 -150 East Champlow Street.
no exhibits second listing listed owner is betty mon and mon associates consulting
i see no hands chair thank you mi2022 003480150 east champlow street i vote to dismiss
i vote to dismiss james snell i vote to dismiss
ishmael shaheed my vote is to dismiss
number 11 mi 2022
zero zero three zero two six one seventy three west wing of hawkins street no exhibits second listing
listed
listed owner
Thanasal Estevez
I see no hands chair
MI2022
003026173
West Wing of Hocken Street
I vote to dismiss
Thomas Holland
I vote to dismiss
James Snell I vote to dismiss
ishmael shaheed my vote is to dismiss
number 14 mi 2022 003 410 123 leverington street uh listed owner is michael grayson
no exhibits second listing
mr chair i believe that i believe well i believe the applicant is here i saw her raise her hand
earlier miss crystal johnson okay can miss johnson please raise her hand again
i will allow her to speak please
ms johnson can you unmute please
Her hand just went down, but she's muted.
Ms. Johnson, could you unmute, please?
Ms. Crystal Johnson, please unmute yourself.
Ms. Johnson no hand she had her she's there her hand went down here okay
Ms. Johnson it looks like she's trying to connect to the audio now cheers okay sure
okay now she just totally dropped out so she could be having uh computer issues so
so mi2022 -003 -410 -123 levering and avenue this is the second listing
this case will be continued and mark must be tried
We're going to go to our add -on list. We have one add -on. MI 2022 -006 -837 -1406 -West
8006 -837 -1406 West Oxford Street. I vote yes, with proviso. Maximum four units.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes, with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes, with proviso. Thank you. We're going to go to number three,
MI 2020, wait a minute, I think, hold on a minute, I have number, I have to do number seven first.
MI 2022 -003 -514 -5518 North Fairhill Street.
Owners,
Hayo and Heek
Schring
I have a hand up by the name
of Melvin Sharp
I'm not sure if he's affiliated with this
He was the first add -on
That case has been heard
Okay, thank you
And then I have
Jennifer
miss jennifer last name beginning with n um so miss miss nguyen had submitted some photos
um i'm not sure what party she um what if she is a neighbor or if he's um related to the
applicants in some way it wasn't clear from the information that was received well i see the i
I see the property owners now raise their hand.
Yes, he has the same name.
Okay, so I will promote him to pay.
Yes, please.
He has been promoted here.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hello, can you hear us?
Yes. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. My name is Hao Seng.
Can you spell it, please, for the court reporter?
My H -A -O.
My last name is S -R -E -N -G.
Right.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Could you put your video on so that we can see you, please?
This is for the documentation and legalization of a semi -detached structure for use of single -family household living, sizes and location as shown in the application.
The height of the rear wall of the property line is 10 foot 4 inches, whereas only 6 foot is permitted, and the depth of the porch from the front property line to the wall of the main building is 8 foot 3 inches, whereas only 8 foot is permitted.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir, okay?
Yes, sir.
Good morning, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents
that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, you did.
Yes, we did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
And I will note that the Logan Civic Association
has a recommendation of support
as well as the Councilperson Phillips.
So please share your screen.
thank you
all right sir please tell us what you're trying to do
when i bought the property the wall and the forge everything is over there and
And I really don't know what to do after that.
Show us some photos of the site.
Can you see the screen?
I will see the screen.
I want to see photos.
We get into it.
so that's the front of your property
right that's the front of your property sir okay yes sir let me see the rear let me see
where the fences are in the rear
so that's the wall of a property next to that fence yes sir okay
and it was already there when you purchased it obviously yes sir because the the wall
Yes, sir. Because the wall, the real one, you see the next house, after the front, the white front, after the car, that is next to the property, too. They all built for a long, long time. We don't know when did they built it.
the real one
Sure. Okay. All right.
And show us the porch, your porch, the depth of the porch.
okay all right all right okay thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have miss jennifer last name ending it with an n sure i'll have to speak
sure good morning could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
Good morning. My name is Jennifer. Last name is Nguyen. It's N -G -U -Y -E -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Proceed.
The fence that he's talking about, yes, it was there, but once they moved in,
they did an addition to the property and the fence that was recently done,
and it's over on our side. Those are the pictures that I had submitted.
So explain this again.
So the addition.
They build an addition to the house you're saying?
Correct. It wasn't there and he doesn't have pictures of it.
And then there was a fence that their contractor put up that had come over onto our side of the property.
The white fence.
it's the white fence that he was commenting about um where the car is parked
and the picture he shows is not all the extended
there's more to it so so this is right is the that was the existing fence but they put in
a new fence right with the concrete coming into our side of the property and then the addition
he does not have a picture of not all of it so okay so but but i think the only thing we're
looking at today is the depth of that the rear wall how far it goes back and then we're looking
at the front porch that's the only things with that we're considering here they go further than
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. This is Hillary. Yes, you're correct. Those are the only things before the board. If there is an issue regarding property boundaries, that is a private matter and not something that the board handles.
Thank you. Thank you for your call. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is 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?
Proceed, sir.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to existing zoning.
Proposed dimensional variances are consistent with the actual built conditions of the building and fence.
We have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -003 -514 -5518 North.
Fair Hill Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
You have your votes.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you to everybody.
Okay, thank you.
Number three, MI -2022 -006 -999 -4136 -40 Mitchell Street.
The attorney is Meredith Verliger.
There's a letter of opposition from the Central Roxborough Civic Association.
Good morning, Counsel. Good morning. Could you say your name, please, and spell for the court
reporter? Certainly. Meredith Ferliger, F -E -R -L -E -G -E -R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Mitchell Commons, LLC, which is the owner of the property at 41.
Sure. My client is Mitchell Commons, LLC, which is the owner of the property at 4136 Mitchell Street.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Yes.
Have you emailed the required?
You cut out a little bit, but the answer is yes.
I did email exhibits five days in advance. And yes, we do have a letter from the RCO.
Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Again, my client is Mitchell Commons LLC, which is the owner of the property. The deed is reflected
in the packet at exhibit three. I was coming in as a panelist, but I believe that you are in receipt
of CRCA's letter of opposition, which I will address specifically later on in the presentation.
However, we do hope that after our presentation today, the board will see the significant
hardship that this property faces. Simply put, the request before the board today is to permit
a variety of commercial uses of an existing commercial space located in the relatively
newly constructed building at 4136 Mitchell Street. To just briefly summarize the hardship
that this owner faces and this property faces, any commercial use of the previously approved
commercial space will generate a variance. I will first walk you through some background and context
and will then explain the unique issue that led to the refusal. As the board knows, I did submit
an exhibit packet with 15 total exhibits.
The property is located at 4136 Mitchell Street, which is just south of Pensdale Street, and
you can see the property here in this aerial image, which is shown here at Exhibit 10.
This aerial image will also give the board some context to this area.
Specifically, you'll note the newly constructed building, which is surrounded by a large religious
congregation to the south, residences to the west, some dense apartment buildings to the north,
and you can see a little bit better in this aerial. There are some commercial uses further
north on Mitchell Street as well. Directly across the street, you'll see this open lot here,
which is the Roxborough Dog Park, which was revitalized in part due to a partnership with
my client when this project was constructed. In fact, the dog park users regularly visit
this property to access fresh water for their dogs. Additional photographs of the property
are shown here at Exhibit 15. In this front view, you'll notice there are two separate
entrances to this property. The entrance on the right is the residential entrance just
behind that tree and the entrance on the left with the ada accessible access point is intended
for the commercial space i'll scroll through briefly so you can get a zoomed in sense of
context to the area i described so again this is looking south on mitchell street
this is looking up north where you start to see some of the apartment complexes
dog park across the street and this property also benefits from an accessory parking lot as well
i will return to these interior photos in a bit but for preliminary context the commercial space
at issue is now shown up on the screen you will note that this is a nicely sized space of 740
total square feet with ample street -facing windows and an independent separate restroom
that is separate from the rest of the building. Now, by way of history, this project was issued
its first zoning permit back in June of 2016. It was subsequently granted several additional
permits between 2016 and 2019, including the grant of a variance in 2019 for the addition of parking.
This owner was not involved in the permitting, so I'm not entirely sure why there were different
permits issued over the course of those years, but the project did receive a couple different
permits and also went through Civic Design Review. The project was approved under the prior
CMX2 zoning classification of this property and includes 72 dwelling units, 10 parking spaces,
and a fresh food market at the first floor front. My client purchased the already approved project
from the former owner in December of 2017 through an LLC asset purchase and proceeded to secure
through an llc asset purchase and proceeded to secure building permits for the construction
building.
the building was completed and occupied as of 2020.
the first floor floor plans which i'll zoom in on a little bit are shown here at exhibit seven
you will note the commercial space is specifically identified here and listed as being 740 square
feet, not 550 square feet, as is noted in CRCA's letter. And it's directly next to the lobby space
here and can only be accessed through the outside. You'll notice there is no access to this space
from inside the building itself. The building itself is already heavily amenitized with a gym,
a vegetative roof deck, open space in the rear with a common gazebo, and several open gathering
and study rooms within the building. As I mentioned earlier, there is also now a dog park across the
street. I will bring up my client momentarily to testify to just a few key points, but the board
will hear that this property has been occupied for over three years, during which significant
efforts to find a tenant that fits the limited definition of a fresh food market has occurred.
Those efforts have, unfortunately, not been successful.
Accordingly, the owner started investigating whether there are other commercial uses that would be viable for this space,
given that the overall benefit of finding a viable commercial user for this space to both the building occupants and the surrounding community is a significant benefit.
You will also hear from the owner that he has received significant interest from several possible different tenants, including an appointment -only barber that's currently operating in Fishtown that would like to expand her geographic reach.
However, before he testifies for just a moment, I'd like to show the board the primary challenge this property owner faces that leads to the hardship before you today.
As the board can see at Exhibit 9, this property is now zoned RSA 5, single -family residential.
At the time this property and project was approved, the property was zoned CMX 2, which permitted the multifamily and commercial use.
The property was rezoned in 2017 by Bill number 170 -465, which is shown up on the screen at Exhibit 8.
The board will note the property's prior CMX2 zoning.
It was actually partially zoned RM1 as well, and it was rezoned entirely RSA5 through this 2017 bill.
As a result of this rezoning, the only commercial use that is now permitted for this space is the previously approved fresh food market.
Because of the RSA 5 zoning, any changing use to this commercial space will trigger a variance, whether that changes to another commercial use, which is what we're requesting today, or as an alternative to another additional residential unit.
However, the owner felt that a commercial use of the designed commercial space would be much more of a benefit than just adding an additional residential unit to the building.
Before I move on, I would like to bring up Mark Duzak just to answer a few key questions.
So if the administrator wouldn't mind locating and unmuting Mark Duzak.
Mr. Duzak, can you raise your hand, please?
I'm going to allow him to speak.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Mark Duzak, D -U -S -Z -A -K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mark, you already shared your name and address.
Could you share with the board, what is your affiliation with Mitchell Commons LLC?
I'm one of the owners.
And is it generally correct that you purchased this LLC following full approval of the project?
Yes, we purchased it with the approvals permits in December 2017.
Now, in addition to your ownership of this particular property, do you have any other relevant credentials that would be relevant to the issue of the leasing of this commercial space?
Yes, I do. I'm a licensed full -time commercial broker.
I've been in the business for 20 years.
During my career, I've worked at three national firms. I currently still work at one. I consider myself very knowledgeable of the Philadelphia commercial market, which includes being very dialed in with owners, brokers, and the community.
During my career, I've worked at three national firms.
I currently still work at one.
Philadelphia is a little bit unique because of its size, but I think with my 20 years of experience and my connections with brokers and businesses out there, I feel I'm pretty qualified.
Can you talk about your efforts at locating a fresh food market over the last several years?
Sure. Well, since I'm a broker with numerous contacts out there, I've reached out to many
colleagues about the space being available. I did this prior to construction, during construction,
post -construction. Unfortunately, the feedback I really got was pretty much the same
from any broker I spoke with, and it really dialed into two pieces of it. One being that
There is, and at the time was, I guess, a lot of fresh food space that opened up.
And all that space at the time was vacant.
Brokers really weren't able to lease out a fresh food space.
There wasn't a lot of desirability for it because what I'm being told is there were some strict requirements with the amount of fresh food that had to be on counter space.
and it really didn't pencil out for business owners so that wasn't really going very well
and then the second feedback we got about our site was it was small for a food market and
the parking that we do have there we allocate to renters so we would have to change that around
maybe to give shoppers parking space if we found a fresh food tenant in there
And in your efforts in recent months to locate a different kind of commercial tenant, have you found other types of commercial users that would be interested in this space?
yeah i mean um we we had a few groups approach us one was a uh a water ice shop uh obviously i
needed a variant so that time lag was was going to be pretty long there first personally i wasn't
too keen on on a water ice shop because of the trash and cleanup and what it may do to the you
know the sidewalk and keeping the building looking good uh during covet we had a tenant
that was interested in the space uh he was either a cpa or an attorney he wanted to open up a small
office uh but i couldn't rent to him because i didn't have a um i didn't have a variance
um ideally i really want something that blends into the neighborhood since we're across from
the dog park um something that would be a pet service would be i think you know fantastic
that our building's dog friendly.
We have a dog washing station in the building.
We helped out the dog park when they had an incident
and they lost their insurance.
So we made a donation to them
to get their insurance back in play.
When they got moving again,
they asked us if we could help them out with the fencing.
So we donated a fence for the front of the street there
that is in front of their dog park.
As you mentioned, we allow them to use water for the dogs there.
But most recently, I'd say about seven or eight months ago, I found a business owner, a woman -owned barbershop that seemed interested in opening a second location.
She wasn't really willing to commit because we had no idea what the timeframe would be or if we'd get approval for it.
Her existing shop, it's appointment only, so there's no walk -ins.
It's a pretty high -end shop that I think would fit into the neighborhood.
Her existing shop is in Fishtown.
It's neighborhood -oriented, so neighbors walk there rather than driving there and parking.
She's not interested in the core Manioc, Roxborough, Markets, Main Street and Ridge Street because those spaces are too large and they're too expensive.
but I'd say at this time she's probably a 50 -50 bed if she takes the space even though her shop's
doing well the economy has cooled off prices for her equipment has gone up a lot so she's a little
bit on the fence and that's really why I'm here seeing if we can get a variance that would allow
a few different options so if I find someone that fits into it it's not a six seven or eight month
time lag to see if I can get them in there. Because that's really, that time lag is the
piece that's really hindering me from getting a tenant. Thank you, Mark. Sit tight.
getting a tenant thank you mark sit tight as i alluded to before mark testified any changing use
As I alluded to,
for this commercial space will trigger a variance as a result of the rsa5 zoning
as mark testified this has made it nearly impossible to find a tenant willing to commit
to the space as a result of the uncertainty and delay that currently comes with seeking variants
We initiated this use change request in November of 2022. This hearing was scheduled six months
later. In light of this anticipated delay, we applied for a broader spectrum of commercial uses
to ensure that the owner has more flexibility to locate a tenant without having to return to the ZBA.
As shown on Exhibit 12, there are 34 total use categories permitted in CMX 4. The ones that I highlighted are the broad categories that we initially requested to L &I.
However, we have limited the request before the board today to 13 possible uses.
I think Mark did a good job at explaining this, but just so the board understands the nuance of
the timeline, the owner is optimistic that this barber will commit to the space if the board is
inclined to grant the variance today. Her use would fall under the limited personal services
category. However, had we limited the request to just personal services, received a variance,
and then the barber fell through, the owner would have been faced with applying for an entirely new
use, generating another variance, and once again being subject to delay. Accordingly, we requested
the limited uses based on what the prior CMX2 zoning would have allowed. As I mentioned, the
owner has also agreed to further limit the permissible uses, which I did send over to board
Council yesterday in case the board is inclined to grant this with the proviso for those specific
uses. The remaining 13 categories are ones the owner believes is feasible for the space
and will pose the greatest benefit to the community. The use list itself is intended
to accommodate small community -serving uses for both the residents of this building and
the surrounding community and those uses you can see highlighted up on the screen community center
libraries and cultural exhibits so something like an art gallery uh office space a few different
retail uh uses mark mentioned you know the the um the benefit to having some form of a pet use here
a prepared food shop like a cafe or something to that nature. Financial services really only
thinking that maybe a bank would want to put, you know, some form of a small sort of, you know,
branch here. I'm not sure how viable that is. Personal services, artist studios, maintenance
and repair of consumer goods, you know, maybe a watch repair store, something to that nature.
So, as shown today, this property owner faces a significant hardship in that a commercial use of this property is no longer permissible.
The unfortunate impact of a denial today is a space that is designed and marketed for commercial use that will unfortunately remain vacant indefinitely.
As the board has heard today, any change of use in this space will trigger a variance.
This statement alone is the very essence of a hardship in that there is no possibility this space can be used in strict conformity with the code or the previously issued permits in light of the new owner's diligent but failed attempts at finding a user to occupy the space fitting that limited fresh food definition.
We submit this is not a self -imposed hardship, as the owner purchased this LLC following full approval of the project and has, as testified, attempted for many years to find a viable fresh food market.
We further submit the request as the least minimum variance, as a commercial space was previously approved.
This proposal simply seeks to broaden the types of commercial uses that would be permitted for the space.
The request also takes into consideration the current ZBA schedule, which would prevent the owner from pursuing one specific use at a time.
This newly constructed multifamily building is in an area surrounded by mixed residential, religious, and commercial uses, including the active dog park across the street.
including the active dog park across the street. The types of commercial uses that were requested
The types of commercial
were carefully constructed to ensure that the eventual user will be consistent with a small,
quiet, low -impact community -serving use. Given the limited list of commercial uses,
we submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighboring properties,
or impair light and air. A full analysis is provided in the Memo of Law at Exhibit 14.
Now, with respect to the community, we would like to just briefly address CRCA's letter of
opposition, which was sent to the board yesterday. First, we will note that we were overall quite
surprised by the letter. During the April meeting, we had a vibrant discussion that involved many
people suggesting different commercial tenants that the owner might reach out to following a
board approval, including like a local state rep who is apparently looking for a new office.
Mark did in fact reach out to that state rep. We followed up with CRCA after the meeting
to highlight the agreed upon limited list of uses that is before the board today.
Second, I would point out to the board that while the letter notes 35 people attended the meeting, there's no statement of the actual vote.
It simply says a narrow majority opposed the request, despite the generally positive reception we felt we received at the April 6 meeting.
Furthermore, the letter frames this space as being a tiny space of 550 square feet.
However, as the board saw in the photographs that we presented earlier, this is not a tiny space, nor is it 550 square feet.
As Mark expressed earlier, there have, in fact, been several different types of tenants interested in the space.
So there's no evidence to suggest that the space is not viable for commercial use.
Interestingly, had we requested to eliminate the commercial space altogether, that also would have generated a variance.
Additionally, while we acknowledge and support CRCA's commercial goals for Ridge Avenue, those particular goals are not relevant to today's request.
As Mark pointed out to CRCA during the April meeting and today, a commercial space on Ridge Avenue would be significantly more expensive than the space in this building.
It is inaccurate to suggest that the commercial space in this building would somehow cannibalize the Ridge Avenue commercial corridor.
There is ample room for both types of commercial uses.
we also appreciate crca displeasure over the now defunct fresh food zoning bonus
realistically i would anticipate the board seeing more of these types of requests over the next
couple of years because while many property owners utilized the bonus while it was still
available it's unclear how many of those spaces will be occupied by the original contemplated
fresh food use, but that's certainly a discussion for a different day. Finally, we understand
completely the community's preference in identifying a specific commercial use. However, as we hope we
clearly explained, that is not viable at this time, given the current half -year delay in seeking
variance relief. It is extremely unlikely, based on the owner's experience to date, that any tenant
will sign a lease here with that prospect of a half -year delay just to obtain the zoning permit
to open, let alone the time involved in fitting out the space. CRCA's concluding statement
illustrates that the community is not actually opposed to a commercial use in this building,
and we do submit that the limited list of uses we submitted to the board will mitigate any possible
unexpected impact from a currently unidentified tenant.
I will ask Mark to adopt my testimony, but before I do, we would submit this as a clear
and unambiguous hardship pursuant to Section 303 .83 .2 of the zoning code, and we respectfully
request that the board grant the requested relief today with the provisos for the limited uses I
provided to board counsel and which I can bring up on the screen again for easy reference. Mark,
are you still there? Yes, I am. Mark, have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that I
offered before the board today? Yes, I have. Would you agree that that testimony was true
Yes, I have.
Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
and accurate and would you adopt it?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions you have.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no handshare planning commission ron bednar city planning the property was changed
the residential use on the city plan as noted the fresh food market height bonus was removed
from the code the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used and conforming with the current
code requirements therefore we recommend that perseverance don't be granted um counsel i'm
going to take this through executive session next wednesday okay and so that so that the board can
make that'll be the uh 9 30 meeting we'll vote at so that the board can make a conscious decision
and what i would make sure that they had is the list of the 13 things that you have in front of
them. And then what we'll do is we'll make, we'll make, we'll vote next Wednesday at 9 30. Okay.
Thank you very much. I'll make sure. Thank you. I'll make sure council has that. All right. Thank
you. Bye -bye. Number four, MI 2022 -007 -005 -577 Jamestown Avenue. Roger Perry is the attorney.
um we have a letter of support from central roxford civic association with provisos
mr perry is promoted to panelists please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning mr
Perry. Good morning. I'm starting with it. Here I am. Good. We see you. Could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court reporter? Yes, thank you. My name is Roger Perry, R -O -G -E -R,
last name P -E -R -R -Y, representing the owner. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client and relationship
ship to the property? Yes, my client is 577 East Jamestown LLC, a limited liability company that
is the owner of the property by the deed in the exhibit package. And I am here today, I believe,
by the owner, John Dunphy. Okay, our vice chair has a few questions. Good morning, counsel. Do
you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, we do.
Have you emailed all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
All right, please proceed and share your screen.
Okay, I'm looking to see.
It's up, sir.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, I'll try to increase that a little bit.
Okay, this is the exhibit package for 577 Jamestown Avenue. In summary, the refusal is based on a request by a longstanding tavern there, Henry James Tavern, been there for 30 some years and then prior and other formats.
and what they've asked to do is to eliminate and have eliminated any residential use in the
property originally it was split into an apartment that's the neighbor let me see if I can find ours
here okay and here's the tavern here and this is a side porch the expansion has requested
a variance to use the third floor as an office space, which the RCO has provided a letter of
support, noting that they have no objection to that, and is asked to use the second floor
as essentially a gathering room. You can see it's being used for darts and so forth. It's rather
small. There's no separate bar up here and so forth. If there was a party here, a birthday
party or get together as a small group, it would be served from the first floor tavern, which we
have separate bathroom facilities, fire exits both on the second floor and the first floor.
The expansion area also includes a request to use in good weather. The outside, which we've
called the rear yard, a patio area and yard. It's accessed directly by an alleyway from the street
front. They have requested to be able to set up tables and chairs.
They have requested to be able to set up tables and chairs.
There's an adjacent open yard space for dogs if people bring them from the neighborhood.
This is a current project immediately next door for multiple family apartments, tax clearance.
Plans for the property are included with the package.
Indicates the first floor tavern area, second floor gathering room,
third floor existing and there's a office up here for the operation of the tavern I'm just trying
to see if I have pictures of the tavern itself which has been pre -existing for that's the kitchen
area yes okay there's the existing tavern which has been there long term so essentially the
application today is to eliminate what was an old apartment upstairs, utilize part of that space
as an office in support of the tavern, and to utilize the second floor as a small gathering
room, and to utilize the rear yard of the Henry James Saloon as a small gathering. In the package
is the notices that were formally sent, the appeal, refusal, the notice, in addition to the
letter of support from the RCO community, which we had several meetings with. There's a small
petition here of eight or 10 people, immediate neighbors who are in support of the requested
variants in this matter. The letter you have from CRCA is also in support, noting
their response. I don't think there's any other, the only two issues is that the RCO letter does
request a proviso. We have no objection to that. Proviso is that the third floor will only be used
as the office in support of the tavern, and the second proviso in the letter requests that the
outside area only be used to 10 p .m., which we have no objection to. With that, I'll ask if
uh john dunphy is here and can raise his hand
mr dunphy please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
morning mr dunphy could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes uh john john dunphy d -u -n -p -h -y do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Mr. Dunphy, you're owner of the LLC
here. And have you reviewed the evidence that I supplied in terms of the packet and heard my
testimony to the board today? I have, sir. And can you adopt that evidence as true and correct
to the best of your knowledge and information? Yes, I can. Okay. Thank you very much. We're
open for questions. Questions from the board? No. No, Chair. No, Chair. Questions or comments
from the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have Celeste Hardister with a hand up. Okay. Good
morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter? Good morning. Yes,
I'm Celeste Hardister, C -E -L -E -S -T -E -H -A -R -D -E -S -T -E -R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, indeed.
Are you a neighbor?
No, I'm a board member of the C -E -S -E -A.
Proceed, proceed.
I just wanted to point out that the use of the backyard was something that was not identified
on the refusal and uh to clarify that that would be something that the zba would be approving as
a permitted use assuming that you choose to do that um it's just something that the crca felt
was absent from the refusal um and that the refusal uh only only identified the the uses on
the second and third floor and and not this additional backyard use so i just wanted to
have that clarified for the record so that it is
Hillary
yes Mr. Chair
I don't know if that needed to be
included on the refusal or not
but to the extent that it did
the board by approving
this use for the other parts of the property
would be approving it for the backyard as well
thank you and thank you
for calling in
is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning uh while this property
This is Ron Bednar, city planning. While this property is currently indicated for residential use on this city plan, given the physical circumstance of the site and its documented use history, we have no objection to the granting of the errands.
is currently in
Thank you. MI 2022 -007 -005, 577 Jamestown Avenue. I vote yes, with proviso. Use of third floor for accessory office only and outdoor dining and rear yard to end by 10 p .m.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes, with proviso.
Thank you, and thank you, counsel.
Okay, thank you very much for the board.
Right.
Number five, MI 2022 -007 -044 -917 Shelmar Avenue.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Fox Chase Homeowners Association.
Mr. Mattione is coming in as a panelist, Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Mattione. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Michael Mattione, M -A -T -T -I -N -I.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do uh could you identify your client in relationship to the property
sure it is santiago and nicole velez and they are
michael you seem to be breaking up a lot
yeah i've been having a hard time this morning hearing all the cases
i don't know what the problem is mr chairman okay all right let's let's see if we get through this
our vice chair has a few questions good morning council do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to his actor
have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing
we're losing you completely michael how about see if what if you take your uh video down if it gets
any better check now um you're breaking up really bad
uh okay let's hold on a minute here
so would you want to how about if we come back to you could you
i should be i could try and log on another you have another case or two correct yeah i do i do
I'll call you back. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Number 13.
Number 13, MI 2022 -007 -149 -2724 Ash Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
We have a recommendation of opposition from Bridesburg Community Association
and also a petition from the neighbors signed by 66 people.
Mr. Anastasio has been promoted to panelist.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yep, it's Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O,
and I represent the owner of the property, Tatiana Pajorchic.
I'll have her spell her last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to wait during a meeting of the refusal and stipulate to elect?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of his hearing?
I have.
I have.
Thank you.
I'm just going to see you in the show yesterday.
My screen is up.
It's 4724 Ash Street.
And the application is for the legalization of a pre -existing three -family dwelling.
When my client purchased this property, it was already a three -family dwelling with three electric meters.
I want to show you the interior layout of the property itself.
There's a backyard.
There's the entrance on Ash Street.
Here's the side elevation.
The existing basement, the existing first floor, as you can see.
the existing 2nd floor and the existing 3rd floor plan show you some photos that's the
aft street side there's some interiors here's the side entrance the rear yard
additional interior photos again this was converted by a previous owner and
at the time the history property history was not uh readily available online
my client is english was her second language when she first got here and purchased this property
and she's been struggling to get it legalized ever since she actually occupied the property
for quite some time we did meet with the bridesburg civic association on the 3rd of may
and we do have we mail to 123 individual households and that's proof of mailing
with respect to the layout and the hardship. The layout of this property and the interior
structure of this property make single -family homes physically impossible without gutting it.
As I said, she did not create this hardship. She came to the hardship. She purchased it as is
with three units and three electrical meters. We have run the numbers. It will be way too
expensive to bring this into compliance. As I said, she used to live in the property, but she
suffered harassment at the hands of some of the neighbors' physical assault, which drove her to
move. Some of the RCO attendants on May 3rd, Mr. Chair, did bring up a quote -unquote people of
different races living in the property, which wasn't relevant, and I'm not sure how that
informed the petition that was sent in. As I said, English was not her second language upon
purchase. Public records weren't available at the time. She will be forced to sell the property at
a severe loss if this is not approved. Houses on the block are listing for $250 ,000. They're not
even selling for that much. And if not approved, the property will continue to be a physical
three -family dwelling, but it'll be a white elephant that will need to come into not only
zoning, but building code compliance in perpetuity, if not approved. And therefore, it'll be
unmarketable. She was given unfortunate advice from this board's chair in 2007 when she came
before them who advised her to, quote, just use it as a single. But it is a three -family dwelling
with three kitchens. And it's not unlike other properties on the block, including one right next
door. 2728 across the street is three units. 2738 is a smaller home that's two units. At Ash
and Richmond, it's a six -family dwelling. Right next door is a multifamily. And all
these other multis are, you know, are compliant with our CO support in the past. We're not quite
sure what the issue is here. You know, she is a foreign speaking immigrant. And this is Bridesburg.
So with that, I'd like to have Tatiana raise her hand. So she can be sworn in.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please? It's spelled for the court reporter.
Tatiana Alouche?
Tatiana Luce
Could you spell your name, please?
T -E -T -Y -A -N -A
Last name L -U -C -Z -A -J
Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, of course.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Tatiana, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, it is correct.
Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Our adoptive district plan recommends no change to existing single -family zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances that would prevent it from being used in conforming with the throne.
Therefore, we recommend the aggressive variance not be rented.
For the record, Mr. Chair, at 2001, the property was purchased as a three -family dwelling with three electric meters.
Thank you.
NI 2022 -007 -149 -2724 Ash Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Mr. Mel Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
thank you counsel let's go back to uh let's see here mr mattione
mr mattione is coming back in as a panelist
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mattione, are we doing any better?
Is that any better?
A little bit.
Yep, yep, yep.
You've already been sworn.
And I think you've identified your client.
Am I right?
Yes, I did identify the client.
And you talked to our vice chair already?
Well, if I didn't, we did submit all the exhibits in advance.
Okay, then proceed.
Thank you.
Are the exhibits up, Mr. Chairman?
I see emails.
Emails.
Oh, you got the wrong screen.
Let me move this.
That's it.
You have Fox Chase Homeowners Association.
Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I represent Nicole and Santiago Velez.
They are the owners of the property at 917 Shellmeyer Avenue in Northeast Philadelphia, Fox Chase.
And they are seeking to legalize a garage that they build on the property.
And again, we submitted the tax payment information, the refusal,
The letter of support from the Fox Chase Homeowners Association, the coordinating RCO, where the immediate neighbors voted three to nothing in support, and the broader community voted 27 to four who support the project.
Designing site plan, photographs, proof of mailing of the RCO meeting notices, and the deed.
Mr. and Mrs. Vela's are seeking one minor dimensional variance to legalize the garage that they built on their property.
There is the garage.
that they built on their property. They purchased the home in 2004. In 2005, they received an
automobile as a gift, and they stored that in another family member's property. In 2019,
due to some changes in their family, they decided they wanted to restore the car,
and it would not fit in their existing garage, so they wanted to build another garage. And the
second garage is a permitted use in the RSA -3 zoning district. Ms. Velez then went on the
L &I website to try and find out what permits were required. She couldn't find anything.
So then she went to and called Norma Rosado at the L &I office and Ms. Rosado told her that no
permits were required. So as a consequence, they hired a company to lay the foundation and put the
So as a consequence, they hired a company to lay the foundation and put the garage on the foundation.
garage.
And the garage is solely used to store personal automobiles.
Once the garage was constructed, Ellen and I visited the property, told them that it wasn't proper and they needed to get a permit.
They hired an engineer. He prepared the plan.
Then the plan then showed that the garage touches
or comes up against the neighboring property
and does not have the required three foot setback.
So they went and applied for the variance
to allow this minor dimensional variance
to allow this garage to be where it is.
They went and met with the RCO and the RCO noted the garage
that the next -door neighbor, the immediate next -door neighbor, came to the RCO meeting
and said the next -door neighbor with whom they share the property line was present at the meeting
and stated he had no issue with the garage, where the garage is situated.
When you look at the photographs, the garage actually appears as though
it appears as though it's not on the property line because the fence is not,
But either the fence is not on the property line or the site plan was not drawn properly.
But there is space between the garage and the fence of the neighboring property.
And in this area, and this is the interior of the garage that they use for storage and repair of personal vehicles and lawn equipment and that kind of stuff.
And if you see in the community, there are numerous other properties with garages.
And again, the garage itself is permitted.
It's only that it's three feet too close to the property line that is the problem, other houses in the area.
And it's only after the survey was completed that they found out that the property, that the garage was built on the property line.
And they built it what they thought was off the property line because of where the fence is.
The Villasers relied on the statement of the L &I official who told them that they didn't even need any permits.
And after it was constructed, they found out they need a permit, so they immediately applied for the permit, and then they found out that they needed the variance.
So, you know, they did everything that they thought was right and found out that they were slightly off.
And again, I just want to pull up the refusal.
And as you can see, the only issue in the refusal is that it does not have the three -foot setback.
So this is a very minor dimensional variance. The contours of the property made it seem as though they were in compliance. They thought that they built it off the property line. Only the most affected neighbor has no issue with it.
uh when you look at the photos you see that this is a a large lot on with a large property very
large lot on it they have no issue with open area or any of the other requirements they won't have
any adverse impact on anybody the neighbor the most affected neighbor had no issue with it
and garages are common in this part of the um uh city um mr chairman i'd like to call on nicole
velez okay
is she all yes could you state your name please and spell it for the court reporter
hi can you hear us i can i can could you state your name and spell it please for the court
reporter hi i'm nicole n -i -c -o -l -e last name velez v -e -l -e -z do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel thank you mr chairman
and nicole did you hear my statements yes and are they true and correct yes and do you adopt
my statements as your testimony yes mr chairman i have nothing further forward if any questions
sure questions from the board no chair no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from
the virtual audience. Yes, Chair, I have Alice Udovich with her hand up.
Ms. Udovich, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair. Good morning. Could you state your name,
please, and spell it for the court reporter? Good morning, Chairman, members of the board,
Alice Udovich, A -L -I -C -E -U -D -O -V -I -C -H, on behalf of Councilman Brian O 'Neill.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Proceed. The Councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance at this location.
Proceed.
The councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance at this location.
Thank you very much for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no handshare. Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning. This property is currently indicated for residential use on the
city plan given the common Bill 2 lot line conditions on this block. The City Planning
Commission recommends that the board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2022 -007 -044 -917
Shelmar Avenue, I vote yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
ish ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you thank you council thank you good is there anyone
in the virtual audience whose uh 9 30 a .m case has not been called
i see no hands here okay see everybody 2 p .m thank you all right
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's 2 p .m. hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised that proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at philo .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
leave your email and the address of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box
on the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our Executive
Director, Tanya Sumple. Let's look at this afternoon's continuances. Number nine, MI 2022 -004 -584 -5824 -26
North Broad Street. That case has been continued. Number 10, MI 2022 -007 -615 -4554 Wayne Avenue.
That case has been continued. Number 11, MI 2023 -001 -499 -137 East
lehigh avenue that case has been continued and number 13 mi 2022 007 603 139 east
lehigh avenue that case has been continued does anyone have any comments relative to
the four cases i just continued
i see no hands chair are there any other requests for continuances
no hands chair okay thank you you're welcome we're going to go to our add -on list
number one MI 2022 007036 5616 Woodland Avenue I vote yes to temporary variance expires 5 -11 -26
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Number two, MI2022 -006902 -3223 Holyoke Road, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
We're going to go to our now our regular list.
Number one, MI 2022 007573 4053 Boone Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
letter of non -opposition from the manioc neighborhood
Letter of non -opposition from the Manioc neighborhood council, and also the applicant
has four letters in support from neighbors.
Mr. Consul has been promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, Mr. Consul.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Would you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, the name is Joseph Consul.
That's J -O -S -E -P -H -C -O -N -S -O -L -E.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Mr. Joseph Fea, and he is the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Did my packet come up?
Yes, you're up. You're up.
All right. Good afternoon, Board. Joe Consul here on 4053 Boone Street.
4053 Boone Street is a property that is a duplex. We have evidence that it's been set up as a duplex
as far back as 1997. My client purchased the property in 2008. At that time, several pieces
of his documentation stated that the property was a duplex. Throughout the years, he rented out one
of the units and lived in the other and therefore wasn't aware that he needed two rental licenses.
When he eventually went to try to get those, he realized that it was never actually a permitted
duplex or at least nothing was able to be found in the archive. So briefly, here's the property.
it's this three -story building here lot next door the property is 1800 square feet just a little
bit above 1800 square feet uh compared to the other properties on the block which are all
two stories this is a larger property an alley uh next door to it like i said he purchased it
But in 2008, we filed for approval for the second unit, and we got a refusal based on the fact that it's owned RSA 5.
We met with the neighbors.
Several neighbors wrote letters in support and came to the meeting in support, just stating that as far as back as they've known, this has been a duplex.
And, you know, there was 20 people there.
and we got the non -opposition from the community itself.
Let's go through the photos and plans.
Showing the outside. Mr. Joseph Fea, I hear some of the meters.
Let's see two meters, two meters. It's the gas meters.
If you see these, and we have an email confirmation from PICO, these are stamped as being installed in 1997 and in 1998.
So to us, that's at least some evidence that it's been operating that way for, you know, a good long while, 20, you know, 25 years, more than that, 26 years.
two doors um mr fay his father who i believe is also on this call is a bit of a handyman's
and so the the interior uh looks nice although
that was just work that he's done you can see some work he did on the basement
some other photos
tax documents there's the deed showing you bought it in 2008
tax certificate we have some petitions in support from the near neighbors
which we included in our packet we were trying to get proof as far back as possible that this
was a functioning duplex here's an email from pico saying that the second floor meter was
installed in 1998. The first floor was installed in 1997. And those have been occupied or being
been used ever since. We put in our packet the inspection report from when he bought the property.
We put in our packet the inspection report from when he bought the property, which clearly states that the property is a duplex.
So that goes back to 2008.
I'd like to call my client, Joseph Fea, to just discuss briefly his tenure in owning the property.
And I believe his dad is going to speak a little bit, too, because he also had had lived there.
So, Mr. Fay, if you could raise your hand and speak to the board, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Fay.
Hello. Am I?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Joseph Faya, J -O -S -E -P -H -F -A -I -A.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Receive counsel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Faya.
Will you briefly give a timeline to the board of your purchase and occupation of the property?
Again, be as brief as you can.
uh march 28th of um 2008 was when i bought the home um and it was already set up as a duplex
as you saw from that previous home inspection which was done earlier that month um the inspector
even was uh uh inspecting it as a duplex uh as well as uh yes i have lived in a home uh for
multiple years and i had friends living friends and family living either in the upstairs um and
And then 2015 is when my actually my dad came in and lived in a downstairs unit.
And again, we would rent the upstairs unit to friends and family.
So we've been trying to be we're trying to be great neighbors.
We consistently are involved in the neighborhoods with help shoveling snow.
Helping assist the other some of the older older neighbors, especially across the street.
she couldn't make the call today because she has to take care of her granddaughter um and then we
had some support from uh other neighbors as stated um she's not on the call that i don't believe she
is as um 143 kingsley street was in the meeting for the maniac meeting and uh gave some great
points of um it's been it's been this way and that you know i think if it wasn't if it doesn't
get completed as a duplex it would be troublesome for parking and things so she was at four
keeping as a duplex. This was Teresa K. Mark. At what point during your ownership did you become
aware that it didn't have a use permit for a duplex? Just as recent, I think I contacted you
in December, so as early as last year is when I realized. As you stated earlier, I just had the
assumption since Philadelphia Gas Company put the meters in as well as the electric company put
thermometers in that it was already kind of a situation where it was already a duplex um i even
got a tax appraisal in 20 2009 right after i purchased it and then it was my taxes were
changed to have it as a multifamily so i've been taxed since 09 or 2010 as a duplex um
okay uh i i have i have nothing further for mr council why don't you have your testimony adopted
Mr. Fayah, would you adopt my testimony for the record, please?
I'm sorry, what?
Would you adopt my testimony as if it was your own?
Correct.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
There is also a Frank Fayah with his hand up.
Who is it, ma 'am?
Frank Fayah.
he's affiliated with this case i i think we're i i think we're okay at this point
mr council do you agree uh i uh yes if you believe that i i agree it's mr fay's father
all right uh there are no more hands to you all right thank you uh planning commission
thank you chair bergman david facto f -e -c -t -e -a -u with the city planning commission
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, sir, I do. Proceed. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location. This property has a history of use as two dwelling units, so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested use variance for two dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022 -007 -573 -4053 Boone Street, I vote yes.
4053 Boone Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Consul.
Thank you, Board. Have a good afternoon.
Number two, MI 2022, 007 -565 -472 -74 Roxburgh Avenue.
William O 'Brien is the attorney.
We do have a letter of opposition from the Central Roxburgh Civic Association and a few, two other letters from neighbors.
And Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just want to let you know we received just prior to the hearings today, a third letter of opposition from a resident in the area.
Okay, thank you. That's three letters of opposition.
Mr. O 'Brien has been promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, Mr. O 'Brien. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
William O 'Brien, W -I -L -L -I -A -M, O 'Brien, O -B -R -I -E -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes. Sitting to my right, who's just out of view of the camera, is Steve Kishevsky,
who is the management member of Nizio Baker Partners, which is the owner of 47274 Roxborough
Avenue. Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir. Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five
these in advance of this hearing? Yes, I did. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. I've had my screen up. That's the index. You're good. We'll see. Let me go to the
refusal. There are
six refusal items included in the package
presented to the zoning board. Our proviso plans, which
addresses all but one of these items. And
I'll get to that in just a minute.
I'll come back to the RCO's position
in a minute as well. First, let me describe the property. This is an image of the block.
This is Roxborough Avenue at the bottom, Mitchell Street to the left, Gerhard Street at the top,
and Ridge Avenue up here to the right. The green space is 472 -74 Roxborough Avenue. It is a lot
uh that is uh 22 ,336 square feet um about 10 times the size of the required minimum lot size
in this district uh i'm going to go through a few photographs um so that you can get a feeling for
the property this is the existing structure on the property it has been the zoning archives are
in volume two which i submitted just so as part of the record but this has been a two -family
dwelling for the last 60 years. It is not historically certified. However, it was
constructed at the same period that the homes on the Ridge Avenue thematic historic district was
built. This is a view from the front yard with the house at the back looking across
at the Kendrick Recreation Fields.
And here's a view with the back of the house
looking down the driveway.
This is with the house behind the photograph,
behind the photographer.
There is this stone retaining wall,
19th century stone retaining wall
that extends along this property line
and all along the rear.
The homes back here are the rear of the homes
on Gerhard Street.
Again, these homes are on Gerhardt Street. They are large, semi -detached, single -family homes and apartments.
This is a four -car garage at the rear of the property.
This is with my back towards the Gerhardt, sorry, towards Mitchell Street, looking towards Ridge Avenue.
The building in the foreground, this White's building is 492 Roxburgh Avenue, a few doors away.
A few doors away, that was a single -family zoned property and is now 29 apartments.
That was a single family zone property.
That was permitted by variance four years ago.
Again, with my back towards Mitchell Street looking out towards Ridge Avenue, this is more of the rear area of the lot.
This is looking towards Roxborough Avenue. This is back of one of the neighboring properties. It's a large barn structure.
And again, this is the retaining wall separating the property from the rear of the Gerhardt Street properties. And you can see this brick wall is the part of the garage.
The zoning plan. So this is the Proviso plan. This shows the changes that have occurred as a result of the RCO meeting.
This is a trash area that's being introduced. That's a trash storage area that will be fenced off.
The bicycle storage has moved from this area where the trash is now going to be to the other side of the vestibule.
Introduced perimeter landscaping here along both sides of the proposed addition.
Two parking spaces were eliminated here in the rear and more landscaping introduced.
And again, perimeter landscaping between the proposed parking area and the rear of the Roxborough Homes here.
So again, this shows the existing house and then a proposed addition.
The proposal is to modify and update and rehab the existing structure from two apartments to four apartments and to put 12 apartments in this addition.
The original 24 spaces were reduced to 22 spaces to create more open space at the rear yard between the proposed addition and Gerhard Street, but we still have approved code permitted, code required handicapped parking and an additional 21 spaces.
uh the height is compliant um let me move to
some renderings this is a the rendering of the proposed addition it doesn't show the
landscaping that was introduced um there's additional landscaping will be introduced
along here but it is is intended to uh complement the existing structures in the neighborhood you
saw the mansard roof on the original house that this will be attached to. Again, this type of
roof is intended to complement that. The following, this image, this rendering shows
post -construction how this addition fits within the existing block. If you look at the
duplex structures. This would be
example, 488 and 486 here. This roof size is comparable to the roof size of the proposed
addition. The same thing with the two duplexes next to them along Roxburgh Avenue. This roof
line is not out of sorts with the size of these structures. Again, you see the parking area
and how it fits within the open space. It doesn't affect any streetscape. So from
all the streets, this existing streetscape will not be affected.
I'm going to hold off on floor plans and briefly address the RCO's issues. We met
with the neighborhood group beginning back in September of last year. And
there is an email in the package, which I won't read, but I'll just refer to
and that is on page seven. This is a letter from John Carpenter, an email rather from John Carpenter
referencing their on -site meeting and review of the initial proposal. Among the things this email
suggests is that rather than a separate structure, that the developer consider an addition to the
existing structure. So the zoning plan you just saw is the result of this first change.
So the zoning plan you just saw is the result of this first change.
And then, as I said, at the RCO meeting, we've addressed eight other issues, and those are included on the Proviso plan form.
And I described them briefly when I went through the zoning meeting, went through the zoning plan.
We had the RCO meeting. It was well attended.
I think the letter from the Civic says that over 90 people attended it.
The consensus at that meeting was to support.
There was then a later meeting on site with the immediate neighbors.
And as the RCO says in its letter, they're opposed because the immediate neighbors are opposed.
The immediate neighbors are opposed because they like it the way it is.
To be frank, it's nice green open space and they want to keep it that way.
But the misconception that this is a single family neighborhood needs to be addressed. And if I can go briefly to the end of this document and show you a pretty visual representation of what this neighborhood is.
So I previously showed you this block, and the property was highlighted in green.
These are the properties, highlighted in blue in this image, that are now used for apartments.
As I said, 492 Roxborough Avenue is here.
that is zoned single family. This whole area is zoned single family. This was zoned single
family four years ago. A variance was granted to allow apartment use of the 16 ,000 square foot
parcel for 29 apartments, which is 557 square feet per unit. What's proposed here is a total
of 16 apartments on over 22 ,000 square feet or 1 ,396 square feet per unit. So this might be the
least dense development for apartment use in Roxburgh. All of these highlighted properties
are based on public records, and those public records appear at pages 22 to 69 of the second
volume. These are all indicated as having been converted to apartment use.
So if you take a look at the existing property, you'll notice that there are a total of 14
properties that abut the property. Of those 14, nine of them have been converted to apartments.
So the Central Roxborough Civics President Carpenter's letter says that they're opposed,
their position is opposed, because the near neighbors are opposed. Well, the near neighbors
either live in a house that has been converted to apartments, or their neighbor's house has been
converted to apartments.
As I mentioned, the house is not historic.
But there is a great effort that's made in Roxborough
to preserve the neighborhood and its context.
And going back to September of 21,
the developers worked closely with the leaders
of the Civic Association to find a development
that would fit the neighborhood.
And keeping this house is an important element of that, of keeping the streetscapes as they were 120 years ago.
That is accomplished in this development.
And as I showed you from the aerial view, this fits.
This is not dense.
This provides adequate parking.
Just two final things quickly.
I've discussed the matter with the developers. Mr. Krzyzewski will adopt my testimony in a second.
They have carefully reviewed this, and there is no way to accomplish this development
with fewer than the apartments that have been proposed. It's converting the house to four
apartments and introducing the addition with 12 apartments. It is the least modification
possible to overcome this hardship. The hardship is imposing a single family on this property,
this 22 ,000 square foot property, imposing single family when obviously that
imposing single -family, when obviously that use is not, it's antiquated, it is not current.
Most, there are not less than 57 apartments within, and I'm not even talking about Ridge Avenue,
just the area that is, that is zoned single -family, there are not less, based on public
records, there are not less than 57 apartments now. And the introduction of apartments and saving
this existing house is a common -sense approach to relieve the hardship that would be imposed by
compelling single -family development. It would require the demolition of the house
and the introduction of houses that are completely incompatible with the character
of the houses on Roxborough, Mitchell, and Gerhard Street.
Mr. Oshesky, were you here and present during my testimony?
Mr. O 'Brien, let me swear him in first. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court
reporter? Sure. First name is Steve. Last name is Osheski. It's spelled O -L -S -Z -E -W -S -K -I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed. Thank you. Mr. Osheski, you were here during my test zone?
Yes. And were my comments and statements to the zoning board truthful and
complete? Yes. And do you adopt them as your own? I do. And you have the authority to do that in
behalf of the Zio Baker real estate? I do, yes. Okay. Mr. O 'Brien, a question. Yes. That point
of Ridge Avenue there, is that multiple families too? At the corner of Roxborough and Ridge is a
church, a former church that has been repurposed as a commercial office. It was the same development
team that purchased the church and what was then the priory of the church. The neighborhood and
the developer came to agreement to save the church. This was just before the street acquired
its historic status. The developer agreed to save the church, which is now the home of
Vujerio Plant Land Design. There are multi -families. There is some multi -family use
along Ridge Avenue here. That's across the street from the Acme, I believe.
Questions from the board? I'm sorry. No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a Thomas Bryan with his hand raised.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Thomas Bryan.
That's T -H -O -M -A -S -B -R -Y -A -N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am a neighbor.
I live at 458 Roxborough Avenue.
Proceed, sir.
I would like to defer that it's not necessarily that the people in the neighborhood want the space to be kept green.
The people in the neighborhood want an appropriate construction project for that use and existing zoning be implemented there.
It has very limited access.
Our neighborhood is already inundated with apartment buildings, which creates significant parking and traffic problems on Roxborough Avenue.
It has been significantly increased by the addition of the apartment building on the corner of Roxborough and Ridge, and also the addition of the commercial office space.
We're concerned that the density and the coverage of the space with the amount of parking back there will cause severe runoff problems, especially for the people along Mitchell Street.
We do have significant parking problems, and as we know, that there's going to be more than two cars per apartment, and we believe there will be significant runoff into the street that we already have problems.
We are not necessarily opposed to construction on this, but what we would like to see is appropriate construction be built in accordance with the existing zoning.
And as I can state already, there are just too many apartments in the neighborhood.
It's changing the flavor of the neighborhood.
There's less families and we're opposed to the transient population.
That's basically all that I have.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Chair, a couple of comments. Mr. Bryan, am I correct that your home is shown on the screen? Is this space right here?
Mr. Chair, a couple of comments.
You back up to the back, your backyard is contiguous with the existing garage. Is that correct?
I am next door to the garage that abuts the south side of your property.
Right. Okay.
I'm on Roxborough Avenue, not Gerhardt Street.
Oh, you're on Gerhardt. I'm sorry, Roxborough. Which address again?
Oh, so you're right here.
I'm down further to the corner.
Okay. Here?
Here. One more down. There you go. That's me.
um and you are aware that there are 16 apartments total proposed 12 in the addition and 22 parking
spaces provided understood but you also have two bedroom apartments and you know there's going to
be couples in there and generally you're going to have more cars than you have parking spaces
also uh the neighborhood is very concerned that you've got about a nine and a half ten foot wide
driveway there with walls on either side that is going to be very difficult to navigate with
pedestrian traffic on this street and we also have a concern that there'll be significant
problems getting emergency vehicles into that area i can address that mr brian um let me
bring up a photograph of the front. Well, this is a rear of the driveway. And
it's not shown there, but I guess the rear is the best view. The driveway is at the entrance
is narrow. Because this is an addition and the driveway is existing, streets review is not an
element of the zoning application. However, the intention of the developer is to widen the
entrance of the driveway in the front yard so that there is an opportunity to enter the driveway
safely from Ridge Avenue so that it is two cars wide, so that there is no obstruction
and no delay to turn off of Roxborough Avenue.
Unfortunately, that can't be done unless and until we get zoning approval
and enter the building phase.
Well, that was never presented to the neighbors.
Well, the developers certainly agree to a proviso that unless the driveway is widened
to provide easy ingress and egress from Roxborough Avenue, that we won't proceed.
Well, we still don't feel that the development and the density of the development is appropriate for the neighborhood. Even though you state that there are a number of apartments in the neighborhood, there are too many already.
Okay. We're concerned with transient populations. We have traffic issues. Okay. The neighborhood needs homes. And that would be the appropriate use of this space. And that's why we are suggesting that no variances be granted on this property.
Any other questions, Mr. O 'Brien?
i have no further comments or questions from mr brian uh anyone else in the virtual audience
yes chair i have kathleen mccrossan okay
could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
my name is kathleen mccrossan k -a -t -h -l -e -e -n m -c -c -r -o -s -s -a -n
right and i reside at 460 464 roxborough avenue okay so wait and i oppose this property hold on
hold on one minute please do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do and you're against the project yes okay do you want a number of reasons go ahead
First of all, the parking that they want to propose is literally in our backyards.
Everyone's yard abuts this property ground from Gerhard, Mitchell, and Roxborough Avenue.
This area is our sanctuary for peace and tranquility.
This is our green space, and it will now be invaded by 23 parked vehicles running any time of the day.
for us to inhale their fumes is unacceptable never mind the health problems we will suffer
in time with this increased pollution and carbon dioxide. The trees that shade our backyards will
The trees that shade our backyards will now be gone.
now be gone.
The other thing on their proposal is they're not recognizing anybody's property lines where their variances lie.
Then you're talking about the stormwater drain runoff, which normally would be absorbed by this grass, is now going to be running over asphalt.
It's a flat ground, so it's going to run into our yards and flood our yards and our basements.
It's, and in these yards is where we plant our vegetation to give us our food for the year, and that now will be flooded and polluted.
It's a bad structure in the neighborhood fabric that is foreign and not part of the density of this city block.
This block is single family, not multiple, and could make it less desirable for single family.
And then you're talking about the traffic coming in and out of this driveway and the safety of the children on our street that ride their bikes up and down this road.
That's another big concern.
Next is the issue of the trash bins where they want to place these trash bins.
You want 20 trash bins that are going to be manned by a private company on a monthly basis.
So we are going to have to endure the smell.
The vermin and the trash that's not properly removed and or cleaned.
And that's already evident by their property that they own up at 492 Roxborough Avenue, which was not single family.
I believe it was RSA 5, not single family.
And there's been numerous complaints with that trash removal and the smell that have been filed with L &I by the neighbor that lives next door to them.
As far as we're concerned, it's a stranger in the garden. There's no privacy.
The design of the home should be characteristic design of the neighborhood.
This project will impact our quality of life as it stands.
It's an overaggressive use of this property, and the only people it's going to benefit is the developer.
Thank you for calling in. We appreciate your input.
Ms. McCross, I'm showing an image. This former barn, this is the back of your property. Is that correct?
Ma 'am?
I'm mute. I'm sorry. Say that again. I missed that.
I have an image on the screen. It shows the back of what was, I guess, once a barn. Is this the back of your property?
That is the back of my property.
Any other questions, Mr. O 'Brien?
I also want to say that the house that they purchased, Mr. O 'Brien said, was two units, two families, and that's false.
It has been used as four units by the prior landlord, and it was only supposed to be two.
I think it was in 2012.
It was supposed to be zoned for two units, and it was illegally used as four units by the prior landlord.
I can briefly address that, Mr. Chairman.
The zoning archives appear on page 70 to 72 of volume two.
And it is illegal to family. I'm not sure how it's been used.
My testimony is that the minimum number of apartments in this area that's owned single family is 57.
It could be much more. For example, if there are illegal uses where if this former landlord used it for four, that means that at one point there were 59 apartments in this area.
I understand. And 492 Roxbury Avenue, their OPA record is included in volume two, and it is zone RSD one.
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Thank you for calling in, Ms. McCrossin. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, Trevor Waldsberger.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
yes my name is trevor waldsberger first name is t -r -e -v -o -r last name waldsberger w -a -l -d -s -p -u -r -g -e -r
right do you swear or refer to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth sir
i do do you live in the neighborhood i do i'm at 4309 mitchell street okay proceed sir
um so everybody else seems to have like a written statement and i i don't have that
But the one thing that I want to bring to mention is Mr. O 'Brien pointed out that a lot of.
The one thing that I want to bring to mention is Mr. O 'Brien pointed out that a lot of the properties surrounding this property, with the exception to the apartment building closer to Ridge and Roxborough, are deemed as multi -use apartments.
the point of that being is that these properties that are highlighted in blue on the map that he
is showing now still from the outside appear to be single -family homes with the exception that
the upstairs is converted into apartments so instead of one family being in there you have two
but these buildings still fit into the overall look and feel of our neighborhood they're not
apartment buildings they don't have multiple you know different apartments in there if anything
it's just the upstairs that's converted into a separate apartment there's also a tremendous
issue when it comes to parking on Roxborough and on my street to the point where I actually just
started yesterday going around to get a petition signed to enact permit parking on our street
because of the issues that we have in this area.
But there are only being 22 parking spaces in that lot behind us.
When they have guests, family, parties, or multiple vehicles per unit,
they're going to need a place to park as well,
which is then going to limit the amount of parking that we have in this area.
With this apartment building also being added,
it's going to increase traffic like we've already mentioned.
One of our neighbors here has a child that has special needs
that rides his scooter around on the block, we all look out for him. We feel safe as it is,
even though people don't know how to drive. But this is just going to add to the traffic
and the unsafe conditions for the children or other people with special needs in our area.
Yes. Thank you. So one quick question for you, sir. So
the front property stays the same, right? So the look of that will be the same, right?
Correct.
The addition, you won't be able to see the addition from the street, can you?
I'm not sure without the building actually being built, but I do know all of our yards are in the back.
I have a home office working from home.
I look out back and I see greenery.
What I'm saying is you won't see that from the street.
You're saying you'd see that from your house, right?
Absolutely.
You'll see it from every house that is on that block.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Oh, thank you, Chair. One hand just went up.
It went down again. All right. All right. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and board members. David Effecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single -family zoning at this location. There is no unique physical condition or circumstance
that would prevent this property
from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends
the board deny the use in dimensional variances.
However, if the board is inclined to approve these variances,
then the commission recommends the board
limit the unit count to two dwelling units,
which appears to be a condition common
to several of the other homes on the block.
Thank you, David.
Mr. O 'Brien, we've heard a lot of testimony.
We're going to take this back to our executive session.
We will look to vote on this.
uh next wednesday at 2 p .m okay thank you mr chairman i have plans to be out of town so i
unfortunately can't tune into that executive session uh well you'll you'll be able to find
out you'll you'll be able to find the results there'll be no testimony needed from you or
anything like that but you'll you'll find the results okay very well thank you all right thank
you. Number three, and with number three, we're also going to hear seven and 12. So number three
is MI 2022, 004 -582 -1712 North Taney Street. And number seven is MI 2022, 004 -589 -1825 North Taney
Street. And number 12, MI -2022, 004 -583 -1730 North Taney Street. Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Nockamson.
Just for the record, Alan, could you spell your name for the...
A -L -A -N, last name Nockamson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N.
Right, right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And could you identify your client for these three different properties?
Yes. They are all owned by A to Z Real Estate Transaction, LLC. And in a virtual audience,
it's Gaziana 7. It's an effort.
Okay. And our vice chair, sir, has a few questions.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, we have. Thank you. Please
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
So I'm here to present together 1712, 1730 and 1825 North Taney Street.
They're each individual zoning appeals.
And just so the board knows, we really made a concerted effort to meet with the community and nearby neighbors.
and we made modifications to the design based on their inputs.
So first, we're going to review the notices of refusal.
These are all RSA -5 properties.
We're not looking to increase density.
We're merely asking for de minimis modifications from a dimensional standpoint,
and you'll see why.
If this board is so inclined to grant these zoning appeals,
I would ask that the board grant them by way of proviso with revised plans.
Those revised plans is where we address one of the refusals that was the most concerning to the community.
And we made a compromise. And when I say the community, I meant there was a nearby neighbor, Jeffrey Young, who also appears in front of this board sometimes.
times. He actually lives nearby. And, you know, with his help and the coordinating RCO's
input, we, I believe, have a very nice project, hopefully, that this board will grant.
We have the correspondence from the 32nd Democratic Awards, where they are, I don't
remember if it was non -opposition or support of this property, but they are in favor of it.
Non -opposition.
Non -opposition. So whatever the semantics are. We did get a letter from Strawberry Mansion Community Concern yesterday. So obviously in full disclosure, we submitted that as part of our, we updated our presentation materials and submitted it as part of this presentation.
They are in opposition.
Their refusals have more to do from a non -zoning standpoint, issues regarding gentrification,
things like that, affordability, which we don't believe are factors that this board
should consider in granting or denying a zoning variance request.
We have maps of the area, photographs of the property, our original plans, which you'll
see the renderings as well uh as and then we also supply our revised plans um the rco meeting
notices so i just gave you the last one that you know uh that there was a certified rco meeting we
met with the community on three separate uh uh occasions uh and i think through that process we
were able to come to an understanding where it's you know something that we can be proud of and
the community can be supportive of. Our applications for appeal are deeds of property
showing A to Z real estate transaction LLCs, the owner of the property, and our certificates of
tax clearance. Again, in the virtual audience, it should be Ghazi out of seven, its member.
So our notices of refusal, again, we're not trying to increase density here.
Like, the last thing we want to do is to wait six months with this process unless it's really,
really necessary when you're just trying to create single family structures. But you'll see
from the pictures that these have been vacant lots for a long period of time. And it's not
economically feasible to build lots strictly in accordance with the Philadelphia zoning codes.
You know, we wouldn't have a functional third floor if we were required to meet the third floor
setback requirements of eight feet. So as a compromise, we're sending it back,
or we're proposing to set it back five feet. That is the greatest we can set it back and
still have a functional floor plan on the third floor and have marketable single family structures.
So that's one of the refusals which we directly deal with in all of these matters.
The second refusal has to do with the occupied area.
We're just shy on each of these properties.
Again, to have a functional floor plan, we need that extra space in the building structure.
We need that extra space in the building structure.
And as you'll see from the site plans, at least according to the site plans, we don't go as far back to the building to the left and right of us.
And as you'll see from the site plans.
So, again, this is not out of character to what we're, you know, to what we're proposing.
And then the third refusal has to do with the pilot house.
Because these are short lots on Taming Street, we have to set the pilot house in the rear against a rear wall.
And because of that, because of this technicality, the height of the pilot house is counting towards our height of our building, which is not the case.
We purposefully made sure that the second floor, and you'll see from our design, the cornice line, matches the second floors of the neighboring properties.
The height at the third story, which is set back, is 33 feet.
So we're nowhere near the 38 feet requirement for height or an RSA -5 property.
And we're not 42 feet.
It's just attaching the top of our pilot house.
Because these lots are so small, in order to have reasonable outdoor space that someone wants to purchase these homes, we need these roof decks.
So we're asking the board to allow us for that third variance as well.
and then it just goes with all these refusals the same thing it's all about open area um and um you
know the the setback and such and same thing they're all the same refusal there's different
properties so again you'll see we have revised plans and in those revised plans we provided a
revised provisal plan form uh we add a five foot front setback to the third floor again not the
full eight feet, but not zero what we provided either. So I think we meant more than a mill
because we're doing five feet. And then these are just the revised plans as the same thing over and
over again. And then we've got the correspondence from the 32nd Democratic Board, as the chairman
stated, that they're in non -opposition to this project. And it has to do with the setback
correction. That was the biggest concern of theirs. They didn't care about the roof decks.
They didn't care that we exceeded the building coverage
that's allowed by the code
because what we're offering is not out of character
from a block coverage or building coverage perspective.
They cared about the fact that this was a two -story block
and they wanted the cornice line to be highlighted
on the roof line after the second story,
which I think we accomplished by way of our design.
And then we did get a letter from the Strawberry Mansion community concerned today is, what's today's date? Today's the 10th, so we did receive that yesterday. And you can see even the letter, and I didn't highlight this, you know, they're concerned about how much these houses are going to go for.
And that's not a consideration for whether or not the zoning board grants or denies a variance.
Because of rising interest rates and cost of construction, it's rather expensive to build in the city of Philadelphia in particular.
And in order to make this a viable project worth building, we're asking for the least modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code.
So we're asking not to comply with the roof setback, the third story setback, but we met in the middle with the community and more so.
We are asking for an additional square footage in building coverage.
And we're asking for a roof deck, which is something that is an amenity that is highly required in these times.
And then just maps of the area. I mean, basically, we're between Ridge and Cecil V. Moore.
We're between two commercial corridors. And, you know, filling in the gaps in this neighborhood
always helps support those commercial corridors. These properties have been vacant for some time.
And vacant properties tend to be a nuisance. And, you know, we're trying to fill these properties
and responsibly we're not trying to increase density we're not asking for a duplex or triplex
these are rather small lots one the 1712 and 1730 is 776 square feet lot size and 1825 is 952 square
feet so the fact that we're only asking for these dimensional variances shows that we're trying to
really act in good faith under the circumstances and then this is the google maps perspective
and then photographs of the property as you can see we're in the middle two two -story structures
and then photographs of the property as you can see we're in the middle two two -story structures
this property at 1712 north taney street has been vacant as far back as 2014 so almost a decade
and then 1730 north taney street that property according to google earth has been vacant for
almost 15 years as you can see from this picture and then 1825 north taney street has been vacant
for approximately five years.
And then these are just, again,
proof that we posted the property for today's hearing,
giving the appropriate notice of today's hearing
for each of these properties.
And then this is the 1700 block of Taney Street
to the right of the properties,
to the left of the properties,
1800 block of North Taney to the right of the properties
and to the left of the properties.
And then these are our plans and drawings.
And I'll just, these are the original ones.
I'll just go to the illustration. You can see we were trying to do a brick facade with the cornice line three stories up.
What was important to the RCO was, again, to set back that third story to a degree, which we did, matching the cornice line on that roof above the second story.
And then just have a better feeling of emulating what's nearby on Tainting Street. And you'll see that we did that.
by this. We created, we had a more well -defined cornice line. We had lentils, like more defined
on the building facade. We created like a stone material structure on the base of the building
structure. And the windows better matched what you would expect of a Philadelphia row home,
especially in this point of neighborhood. We also made, we not only set back the third story,
we were using black as a material, so it would kind of disappear from the sight line. And you
wouldn't see it as much anyway, because we're set back five feet. And then this is the rear
of the property, which is, you know, we have siding. We find that, you know, siding is more
durable, and that helps homeowners over the course of their homeownership.
And then this is just a scenario view of what you see here, but you'll see the five foot setback here and in here on the site plan as well.
And then the floor plan is very simple. Open floor plan on the first floor, living room, dining room, kitchen, go up a flight of steps.
You have two bedrooms, a bath and a laundry room. And then the third story is just a master suite.
If we would have had to shave off another three feet off of the third story, it just wouldn't be a functional floor plan up there.
It wouldn't even make sense to build the third story.
And we couldn't build something.
It wouldn't be feasible to build something that's only two stories and make any money.
A lot of it.
And then, you know, this is our meeting notice for each of them.
april 11 to 2023 was the last certified rco meeting we had another one beforehand um but you
know this was the one where we had discussion about what the community wanted we had a follow -up
meeting uh with the with those members of the community that showed up and we had understanding
of support from the community and the coordinating rco 187 addresses for 1712 were notified of the
meeting, list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, here's 1730 North Taney
Street. Just like we're presenting all of them now together, we did the same in front
of the community, but had separate notices go out because they're slightly different
addresses that needed to be notified. Here, 209 addresses needed to be notified, listed
those addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses. Same thing with 1825 North Taney
Street.
And then our applications for appeal for each of the properties, along with the notice of refusal and project information form.
And then our deed to the property showing the ADC real estate LLC is the owner of these properties.
And then most importantly is our certificate of tax clearance showing that we have, you know, we have proof of, you know, we're in good standing.
So with that being said, I would ask that Mr. Addis -Evan virtually raise his hands.
Mr. Addis -Evan, can you please raise your hand?
I don't see him with his hand raised.
Ms. Nockamson, you're an officer of the court, and we will gladly take your testimony.
Thank you.
um questions from the board no chair no chair
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
What questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have Strawberry Mansion Community with the hand raised.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Good afternoon.
My name is Bonita Cummings.
I am the Director of Strawberry Mansion Community Concern, RCO.
So there was a meeting.
Hold on, hold on a minute.
Could you do me a favor, Ms. Cummins?
Could you spell your name for the court reporter?
My name is spelled B as in boy, O -N -I -T -A, Cummings as in C -U -M -M -I -N -G -S.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ms. Cummins.
Proceed.
There was a meeting, and the coordinating RVCO and affected RVCO,
strawberry marriage community concern uh one um neighbor a near neighbor and jeffrey young also
was in attendance um the the agreement was that we would look at what would be a uh setback
because initially there was zero setback in this uh development and they were supposed to come
back together with all of us before submitting any um communication however the uh coordinating
RCO submitted a non -opposition because there was much opposition in our own conversation
regarding this particular, you know, the designs. So these setbacks, even with the five
feet setback, it really still negatively impacts the blocks. The continuity of consistency,
the shadowing, and these, as you can see even from their own pictures, these attachments
shoot straight up out of the roof like just a big solid block that takes away the view from
the street of other residents and neighbors. It affects just our sunlight, and the refusals are
there for a reason. So we're trying to make something happen here for a tiny block. These
blocks are small and these properties are just two stories. So we're trying, and also I just
wanted to mention that the elements of, you know, a lot of people say what the zoning board's
decisions should be based on, but it also says that the elements of the zoning decisions is the
health, welfare, and safety, and in some cases, even the financial impact that will be faced by
pre -existing residents. And in this case, these amenities are being used to drive a $400 ,000 sale
price, which negatively impacts that whole area. The children and grandchildren of those neighbors
would not even be able to purchase those properties right next door to where, say,
grandma lives. So I say that the refusals are in place for this particular block being a very small
block, two -story homes that they want to impact with this three -story height. I did send pictures
to show, I went and walked the blocks, assessed the blocks, looked at it from all angles. I showed
how even some of those properties that have already gone up in that community with that same
attachment is blocking the view. So I don't know if you got a chance to look at my information
that was sent in, but even with the $400 ,000 price with the yard area where they want to do
these window wells, so you have a lot of issues that could also further go on with permitting
this type of structure to go up in that block. So I would ask that this applicant, the owner,
really take a look at the city's housing programs that are available to help him do
a better plan, to do a plan that's more consistent with the continuity of the block.
There are lots of city programs right now that the city is working with to help have more affordable
housing set for sale housing projects go on and that's what I would be asking this board to
consider in this development that that that design does not work for these tiny three those
two hundreds those tiny blocks and the refusals that are in place from LNI really support not
really support not allowing this development to get those refusals. So I would hope that
allowing this development to
this owner could go back and look at a better way and not gentrify also that community with
$400 ,000 sale prices and use an amenity simply for the reason of driving that kind of hardship
to that neighborhood. It would be a severe hardship. And he hasn't demonstrated
any hardship by not being able to to uh do that so thank you okay thank you for calling in mrs
cummins yeah anyone else mr knockoff said how about if i see if there's anybody else
is there anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands chair okay so mr knockoff said why
do you respond now before i go to planning commission yeah so in terms of the height
we're offering 33 feet from the roof line um you know again a nearby neighbor jeffrey young who
regularly appears in front of this board lives i believe on the 1800 block in north taney and he
i believe he stated that he's been a lifelong resident of that block um and based on our
negotiations with him and the coordinating rco and miss cummings was involved with that and we
did provide those drawings we did receive a letter of support from the coordinating rco
You know, everything else, Ms. Cummings stated, I hear, you know, those are issues that are non -zoning related.
Those are policy issues, but they're not should be.
Those are not issues that the board should consider when agreeing to or denying a variance request.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chair and board members, we're going to give our testimony for 1712 North Taney, 1730 North Taney, and 1825 North Taney at once.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at these locations.
The proposed dimensional variances are minor and are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code.
And so the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the dimensional variances for all three properties.
Thank you.
um mr nackamson uh hillary and i've had a discussion we're going to just kick this around
at the executive session next week and we're going to vote on this at uh 2 p .m next wednesday
all right thank you very much just a couple things we want to look at that's all and if
there's anything important we'll get back to you okay all right thank you all right thank you
Okay. Number eight. Am I right? Number four, Mr. Chair. Okay. Okay. Number four. MI 2022 -007 -576 -2315
North Front Street. Sean Whalen is the attorney. No RCO letters of yet that we have right now.
Mr. Chair, just an update, we did just get the letter, and it is a, excuse me one second, it is a recommendation of support from the RCA.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, Mr. Whalen, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Of course, Sean Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
sir? Yes, I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Certainly. Sean Whalen here from Vintage Law on behalf of the owner ACG 2315 Front LLC.
And our vice chair has just a few questions, sir. Of course.
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do with one uh stipulation the refusal is both a refusal and a referral
which i can explain later but the address look is listed as 23 north front street
The property was 2315 North Front Street.
The property was 2315 North Front Street and its adjacent property, 2317 -25 North Front Street.
When the OPA previously consolidated this for my client, they chose to go with 2325, that's 2325 North Front Street.
And they eliminated the 2315 North Front Street address, even though we were told that they would do the opposite.
So the same property, same refusal, same referral. Just wanted to make that note on the record.
Thank you.
Understood. Thank you.
Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed?
Great. Thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
Thank you very much.
All right. So everyone should be able to see now on my screen.
Again, we have it listed as 2315 North Front.
It is a more properly known, same OPA address and everything, OPA number as 2325 North Front Street.
This is a property, this is the frontage as it exists now.
Front Street is immediately under the L at this point.
So just to give you some context, here's the building right here, goes from North Front Street back to Jasper Street.
and the L runs right up and down north front there.
This was a new apartment building being built and we've highlighted in yellow the top just
to make it obvious what building you're looking at here.
And again the same building just from the top you can see the L here.
here are what i'll show us two photos of the street frontage completely commercial on the
this is the western side this is our building right here on the left commercial first floor
with apartments above and looking north you can see a commercial on both sides
This block has been relatively quiet, and this application seeks to activate, and part of the big support from the RCO is to activate this block under the L, which has not rebounded well since the pandemic.
The entire site is CMX 2 .5. Again, the site is entirely built out at this time with a full building, no new construction on this application, no signage.
We are just seeking to put in a dog grooming and boarding business called Wag Days along the North Front Street frontage.
So what you can see here is that this is the building you see. This would be North Front Street along the bottom. Jasper Street goes diagonally here in the back.
Again, none of the existing apartment building or the Jasper Street frontage is at issue here.
What we're talking about is simply just this is the basement floor and you have the boarding room, some training space.
And then the next page you have, again, this is North Front Street right here down at the bottom of the page.
walk into the waiting area and you have dog grooming and pens up at the top and then
significantly what you'll see in the top right hand corner and I'll show a photo of this in a
minute is a large thousand square foot outdoor dedicated outdoor space just for the dogs
so we have again a refusal and a referral so we have a referral for special exception required
for animal services, and that is for the dog grooming that we are providing on the first
floor. The refusal for a variance comes from the desire to put dog boarding in the basement.
And then, as Ms. Emerson did just state, we did just receive the letter of support from
ECHNA. We had two meetings with ECHNA and not a single person was in opposition at any point in
time. In fact, this area and neighborhood is devoid of any services or businesses for
dogs or people's animals, and we received resounding support and excitement for this project.
What I'm showing you now and on the call today is Hanora Rogers. She is the owner and operator of Wag Days Philly. This is the first location that she has down in South Philadelphia, and these are images showing what it looks like today, generally with more dogs in it.
But just to walk through, Ms. Rogers can testify to it more appropriately, but she has received, she's been open for three years at that location down in the Bors building at 1901 South 9th Street.
she has received zero noise or other complaints. And Echna did verify this. She's had no issues
She has received zero noise or other complaints, and ECNA did verify this.
with the neighbors there. And here, this is actually a larger, better location for her
in that she will have a thousand square foot outdoor space for the dogs to go. And here is
obviously not finished off yet, but this is that large outdoor space. For the benefit of all,
On the left here, you can see this is the new building that I was just showing that fronts on to the left of the screen would front on North Front Street.
To the right of the building is another building that the same investment group owns, also apartment buildings.
So the interior courtyard space is wholly owned and operated by the same client, and any issues will affect only its tenants in the existing apartments.
And actually, to date, we've received more requests at the apartments to have the windows facing the dogs for all the people who now live and work at home.
Notably, again, this is for dog grooming and dog boarding.
The boarding will be in the basement.
We do have this interior courtyard.
It will be open and operational from approximately 7 .30 a .m. to 7 p .m., with all drop -offs having to take place before 10 a .m. to limit any congestion.
And pickups are generally between 4 .30 and 6 .30 at night, and frequently people walk here.
The owner will be seeking a loading zone in the front of the building to cut down on any traffic that could be caused on North Front Street.
Again, there's more than ample parking. No one had any issues. It's all commercial up and down North Front Street. There will be seven to 10 employees, probably three to four employees on site at any given time, including overnight with any dog boarding.
And all trash, which I know is a big issue in these animal services facilities, will be put into the same existing trash room and have commercial, multiple time a week, commercial trash pickup as the apartments.
So everything will be off street, off site, down in the basement in the trash room, and then immediately picked up and taken away.
It has, I think the last thing, it has been completely soundproofed, and what you saw in some of those other photos was additional soundproofing that will take place, and there's no issues of deliveries here, as Ms. Rogers would testify, and I'll call on her in a minute, the, whatchamacallit, there are deliveries no more than once a month with just cleaning, general cleaning supplies for the animals at the site.
Again, it's just our people who will be affected, and with that, I will rest for a minute, and I will call Ms. Hanora Rogers.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Ms. Rogers, can you unmute yourself, please?
Sorry about that. My name is Honora Rogers, R -O -D -G -E -R -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you very much, Chairman. Ms. Rogers, you're here today on behalf of WAG Days Philly, correct?
And did you already hear the testimony that I provided?
And do 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. OK. And now, since obviously you're the you're the operator and owner, is there anything with regard to your operations that I left out that would be relevant for the board to consider today?
Yes, my current location now, on top of a small dog boarding, dog grooming, we also do dog daycare, which will also be done in this location.
Dog daycare is only during regular business hours, 7 .30 a .m. to 7 p .m., but that is an additional service that will be offered in this location.
That's the only thing that you left out. Everything else was covered.
okay thank you very much any questions that the board might have i'm happy to answer or
have miss rogers answer questions from the board no mr chairman
no chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have sloan folks okay hi mr folks could you state your name please and spell for
a court reporter. Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman and board. My name is Sloan Folks.
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman and board. My name is Sloan Folks. I'm representing the Office of Council Member Katsy Lozada. My spelling of my name is S -L -O -A -N -E -F -S -A -F -I -R -O -L -K -S, Room 316 City Hall.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO and receiving a letter of support, our office supports this various request.
Thank you very much. Thank you for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Board Members.
David Vecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed -use zoning at this location.
the applicant has shown the proposed animal services will have no detriment impact beyond
what might be expected for this use however the applicant has not shown that a hardship exists
that would prevent them from using this property without the proposed animal boarding so the city
planning commission recommends the board grant the special exception for animal services but
deny the use variances for animal boarding chairman if i may respond to that briefly
Certainly. The dog boarding, which actually I have up here, is a vital component of the Wag Days business. It was an issue and a desperate need in this neighborhood as raised by the RCO, and that's why they had so much support.
It is the least minimum variance that we're asking for because we're putting it in the basement with dedicated outdoor space that only affects our own tenants.
So there is a significant upside for the public health, safety and welfare with no detriment there, too.
Again, we're asking for the least minimum variance necessary because we're putting it in the basement and away from anyone else and any problems that could be caused to the public.
and the hardship here is that it would not be allowed anywhere in this neighborhood and it is
a desperate need given the cmx2 zoning which i could pull up if the board chairman would like
no we're fine we're fine so thank you very much all right hillary do we we want to list this as
23 25 or stay with 15. mr chair stay stay with what's on the refusal because that's that's what
the application is for, L and I can make that change at the permit level if they need to.
MI 2022, 007 -576 -2315 North Front Street, I vote yes for the variance and also the special exception.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes with the proviso.
So, Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Excuse me, Chairman, what is the proviso?
So, no, I think, why don't we do it again?
When I said both the variance and the special exception.
So, instead of making that a proviso, could you state that for me, please, Tom and Isha?
Tom and Tom.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I don't think you even need to have state it's both.
If you just grant yes, you're granting the entire application.
Okay, so then MI 2022 -007576 -2315 North Front Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Mr. Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
You have your three votes, Mr. Whelan.
Thank you very much, Chairman and Board members.
All right.
Number five, MI 2022, 007 -546 -138 -40 Tasker Street.
David Orfanides is the attorney.
Letter of non -opposition from Penn Sports Civic Association.
A letter of non -opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Just before the hearing, we did receive three letters of
opposition from neighbors, one of whom I believe wanted to testify.
Thank you.
How about the agreement of sale? Do we have that?
Yes. That's been taken care of. Thank you.
Mr. Orfanides, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Certainly. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
David Orphanides. Last name is spelled O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Certainly.
Certainly.
My client is Gerard Investment Partners, LLC, and they are presently under agreement to purchase the subject premises.
All right.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Certainly.
Excuse me.
One second.
Mr. Orfanides, the agreement of sales is Tasker Fernand, LLC.
Are there multiple entities?
No, there's just the one.
It might be an assignee.
um i'll have to you can clear that up maybe afterwards i just i didn't get a chance to
review it i just got it from my client and forwarded it yes the original the original
agreement is under toward investment partners llc and i actually have my client on the phone
and perhaps he could address that when we get to the conclusion of the hearing sounds good thank
you very much counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy i waived the reading um in terms of its accuracy i believe there was may have been a
refusal that was missed but it'll we have an app request for authorization to amend this
application based upon comments we received from the community within the last um week and a half
or so and uh well if it is something that they did miss it'll be picked up then it's just regarding
a fence and it has to do with how odd this property is but other than that everything else is accurate
okay have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh as was indicated we didn't have
a an update for the agreement of sale and that was just uh forwarded today there was a little
confusion in the language of the agreement of sale but my client apparently addressed that um
And I did forward that, but it seems like there's a question as to the name, and I believe everything else was forwarded five days in advance.
Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
You all see my screen?
Great. All right. Let me just minimize this. All right.
So, again, my name is David Orphanides. I am an attorney with Orphanides & Toner LLP here in Philadelphia.
Again, I'm here on behalf of Girard Investment Partners, LLC, or possibly the other entity.
I'll have to look at the addendum and clarify that.
But we do, as indicated, have letters of non -opposition from the community group to Penn Support Civic Association.
You can see here at tab one, their letter dated May 8th.
I think it's important to note some things that they commented upon in their letter, one of those being that the applicant repeatedly responded to directly affected neighbors and their suggestions to arrive at the latest proposal.
Also, we had three community groups, three community meetings that were well attended by near neighbors over the course of this project.
This project started all the way back in 2021, and I'll discuss that briefly.
The project has changed dramatically given the input we received from the community at the beginning and then through the remainder of the project or the process until we got here today.
But as you can see, it states they provided notable input, questions, and concerns.
These were thoroughly reviewed and addressed by the applicant.
We were informed that the applicant even met with some nearby neighbors directly to ensure their concerns were fully addressed to their satisfaction.
And that was a site visit with me, the architect, and one of the prospective purchasers, or an authorized agent of the, one of the authorized agents for the prospective purchaser, I think it was a week ago, Thursday, at the site we met with three abutting neighbors on Fernand Street.
It does, in our letter, it does point out that the property is oddly shaped, irregular, and landlocked.
And then with these challenges, the applicant has made multiple changes with directly affected neighbor input to create the project currently presented.
And again, they have a letter. Their position is one of non -opposition. And then we received a letter of non -opposition from Councilman Squilla today, dated May 9th, 2023.
So, as I indicated there, based upon that meeting we had at the site with the Fernand Street neighbors, the budding neighbors on Fernand Street, that's at one.
Our property is 135, includes 135 Fernand.
So, we met with the property to the left.
This is the view from Fernand Street at the back of our property.
It's basically a gap between two two -story row homes that leads back to a one -story or a story with a mezzanine warehouse structure.
There's an existing curb cut here and a chain -link fence.
So we met with this neighbor to the left, which is 137.
We met with the neighbor to the right, which is 133, which goes back.
And you'll see our property starts out narrow in front and then widens out dramatically.
And then you can't see it in this picture that I have up right now on the first page of the zoning drawings.
And then you can't see it in this picture that I have up right now on the first page of the zoning drawings, the owner of 131 and his property extends further back along the right side or the east side of our property.
So we had a site visit with them. And the changes that came about based upon that meeting, even though you have all these clouds, was essentially to leave portions.
oops sorry about that to leave portions of the existing structure because as I indicated and as
you could see in that photo it's a fairly large or tall one -story building but you can see in this
area and this is the property line of budding 131 was either leave a portion of the wall or build a
new wall up to 10 feet in height he wants to get as much height they want to have as much of that
wall that's there presently to remain or to be re -erected. Here again, the same thing, wall here,
this was added. These will generate new refusals because these properties are zoned RSA 5 and RM 1,
and I'll go through that in a minute. And they permitted fence height or fence wall height,
and that zoning district is six feet. But again, we'll be going back and submitting an amended
application with the authorization of the zoning board. I did submit that request for the
authorization earlier this week. Once we receive the authorization, we will submit that. We'd ask
that this case be held until that notice of refusal is issued, amended notice of refusal.
Here again, 10 -foot tall wall. Over here, 10 -foot tall wall. Those were the main changes other than
adding for security purposes at the request of the neighbors a gate and fence at the Fernand
Street frontage. The refusal that was missing was because of where the buildings are located,
and because it's so narrow at the front, and this will be addressed also when I go through
notice of refusal, we couldn't put a building up at the front of the property like the two
buildings to either side. And I believe, as you know, in RSA 5 and RM 1, your buildings can't
be any further from the property line than the structures to either side of you. So under the
zoning code, we were required to have a portion of our structure squeeze in between these two
buildings all the way up to the front, which doesn't make sense for a whole lot of reasons
that are pretty obvious to see. But as a result, any fencing that goes between where the buildings
will be, which is back here, all the way back here, to the front property line can only be up
to four feet in height, no more than 50 % opaque. And again, based upon our conversations with the
budding neighbors, they want the existing walls or the new walls to be put in their place to be
up to 10 feet in height. And then this fencing gate out at the property line, six feet. We'd
originally shown a fence in this area before at six feet. That's the refusal that I mentioned,
I believe was missed, but it will be picked up in the amended notice of refusal. Those were the
only changes we made to the project at this last point of our interaction with the community in
the near neighbors. Essentially, what we're proposing is we have two lots, and they're very
oddly shaped. And you can see here, scroll in, you have 138 to 40 Tasker Street, which is right here.
smaller rm1 partial parcel 1323 .4 square feet the which see even though it's a little skewed
parallelogram is not that unusual then behind that extending to fernan you have all of this
you have this narrow 10 foot 9 inch wide strip about 43 feet and change deep that is open right
Now, it's a driveway with a garage door here that opens up, and you can see like a lollipop, into the larger warehouse garage structure, and then jogs over, narrows out, then widens out to come up behind 138 to 40 tasker.
This is all RSA 5.
It's 5 ,052 .5 square feet in size, extremely irregularly shaped.
Originally, when we first came to this group back in 2021, we had proposed to consolidate these two lots and upon them to build a single multifamily structure for 13 units and six -car parking.
It was a little shy, and I have the information regarding that application included in my exhibit book.
It was a little shy of the required open area.
It was about 21 % as opposed to required 25%.
percent. And because the RSA 5 portion was more than 10 percent of the overall lot area,
And because the RSA 5 portion was more than 10 % of the overall lot area, the whole
the whole lot was deemed to be RSA 5. So we got a use refusal. And I think there was one other
refusal as well. That project was not well received at all by the community group during
a remote hearing. So my clients went back and in the many months since then really worked hard to
redesign the project. And what we are looking to do now is to relocate the lot lines. And because
this is this tail end of the 135 front end is RM1, it's split zoned with this portion,
the strip, but then the wider portion in here being RSA5. And if I can go to the zoning map,
you'll have a better idea of what that looks like. You can see right here. So this portion
is RSA 5. This up here at the top is 138 to 40 tasker, but you can see there's the RM1 portion
of 135 Fernand. Here I've highlighted it. So the idea was to basically take the RM1 portion,
which is nicely kind of cut off right at this point, and add that to the 138 to 40 tasker,
make it all an RM1 portion, RM1 property, and then have all of another property be RSA -5.
And you can see that, again, here in the survey right here, which is what we look to do. So
what we have here is the one RM1 portion, and the proposal there is for a single seven -unit
apartment building with two off -street parking spaces utilizing the existing curb cut at Tasker
Street, which you can see right here. I don't know why my screen keeps zooming in everywhere, but
this is a Tasker Street side of the property, single family dwelling here that's occupied by
the owner of the properties, and then an existing curb cut and gate. So there's an existing curb cut
at our property at the Tasker Street frontage. There's a curb cut at the funeral home located
right next to us to the right. So the idea is, and then you can see it here in the zoning drawings,
is single curb cut coming in, two -car parking. One of those is an ADA van parking space
for a seven -unit multifamily dwelling. The idea then is at the back at Fernand
is to take that large RSA 5 portion property,
which is still about 4 ,000 square feet,
which is still pretty large,
and subdivide that down the middle
and create two single family lots.
So instead of having one 13 -unit building
stretching across all of this
very extremely oddly shaped and configured property,
we split it in a way that makes sense
and made one property RM1, the other two RSA5, RSA5 having two single families,
which is a permitted use, and the RM1 having the multifamily.
Our refusals are – let's do this again.
There's a couple.
There's a number that have to do with the odd shape of the lot at Fernand Street,
And that has to do with the lot width, that has to do with the front yard setback, and it also has to do with the decks and rear yard depth.
And to go over those real quick, relatively quickly, as quickly as I can.
Again, as I was describing about the changes that we've made, the latest changes we've made, based upon the site visit with the abutting neighbors on Fernand Street.
the the we have 10 foot nine here at the front we've split that down the middle and what we have
is um each each half is five feet four and a half inches wide rsa5 the minimum lot width is 16 feet
so we have a refusal for that and that is solely created because of i mean even at 10 foot nine it
doesn't comply but again this the idea is is that this has always been a driveway with a curb cut
and to utilize that curb cut in the driveway to get back to the two single -family dwellings.
The other thing, as I mentioned, is that buildings in RSA 5 and RM 1 can't be any closer or further away than the buildings either side.
And because we've pushed the buildings back into the wider portion of the lot, the two single -families,
we now have a refusal of not having the buildings up at this 10 -foot -9 strip, but further back here.
So those two refusals are created because of the extremely odd configuration and size of the lot.
The other thing is, even the way it is right now, the back of the property of the RM1 portions and the RSA 5 portions is at an angle.
of the RM1 portions and the RSA 5 portions is at an angle. As such we have decks off the
rear of the second floor and if you zoom in here you'll see while we have a decent amount of depth
at the longer side at the shorter side we don't have the required nine foot from the rear of the
deck to the rear property line. The buildings are nine feet except in the area where we've created
We needed to create an easement to get out to an existing alley for the single family on lot C.
And because rear yard depth is measured from the rear of the building to a rear property line, easement, alley, or street,
we don't meet the rear property rear yard depth requirement as a result of creating this necessary easement,
which is another reason for one of our refusals.
We do have a height refusal of 41 feet.
The main reason for that on the RM1 portion is that we had to provide the ADA van space.
ADA van spaces, and Alex Duller from Fusil Design will adopt my statement, requires a greater clearance, floor -to -ceiling clearance, which pushed this building up to 41 feet.
The building at the rear, the RSA -5 buildings, are also 41 feet.
But what we've done as a result of all this is that we've reduced the parapet height so that the overall height of the building to the outside, which as a matter of rate with 38 -foot roof and a 42 -inch parapet could be 41 .6, is actually at or just below what you would see.
because we've lowered the parapet down to the roof height so that it looks from the outside again
the same as what a biorite building would look like. We did do shadow studies
of what we've proposed. Let me just go to those real quickly.
but essentially what those shadow studies show is that here we go here you go we've
compared we compared a by right building on each of the on each of the lots to what we've proposed
As you can see, and we're a little short on the lot area for the RM1 portion. We're 226 .75 square feet difference. We could have gained that square footage by buying into the back of the RSA5 portion.
That would have just served to push the proposed building forward, create more irregularity at where the two parcels meet.
So we just kept it straight, and we're looking for the de minimis lot area variance for the RM1 portion for the additional unit,
because it's six units in change that will be permitted as a matter of right based upon the lot area.
But you can see with the by right buildings, it's a little smaller for the multifamily, but much larger on the RSA 5 portion.
You can see at wintertime, 9 o 'clock, there's no appreciable difference, if at all, between what's the two proposals or our proposal and by right, other than obviously the building's much more massive at the Fernand Street side than what we're proposing, as you can see over here to the right.
At 12 o 'clock in the winter, there's additional shadowing over in this area that I've circled compared to what you would have with what we're proposing.
wintertime three o 'clock there's no difference summertime you could see additional shadowing
with the by right building to the west as opposed to what we're proposing
no appreciable difference at all between the two at 12 o 'clock and then at three o 'clock you can
also see not only the mass of the building up against the fernan street properties to the south
and southwest of us at 133 and 131, Fernand, but also additional shadowing compared to what
we're proposing. There's a teeny bit of additional shadowing to the west, as you can see here,
although I believe most of that is being created by the buildings that are to the west of us.
I do include, as I mentioned, at tab 15 through tab 17, what the original proposal was,
where we started with this. That was the notice of refusal that I referenced for the 13 -dwelling
unit with six -car parking. There was an open area roof deck access structure refusal, and then
because a whole lot was deemed to be RSA 5, because the RSA 5 portion was more than 10 percent of the
total lot area, we got the refusal for the multifamily in the RSA 5 portion. But you can
Um, but you can see what that structure looked like. This is what we started with. So this is
and see what that structure looked like.
what we started with. And now where we are right now is we're right here. And you can see here
that we're very different. So you have the two, you have the multifamily up at the front of Tasker,
but then you have some, sorry, it keeps jumping around, but the much smaller two single family
dwellings with two -car parking each. And by the way, I just wanted to confirm that through the
single curb cut at Fernand Street, we're getting two cars off street for each of the single family
dwellings. So we went from 13 units with six -car parking to essentially nine units with six -car
parking. So as many cars were off street now with a far less number of units than what was
originally proposed. I've included tab 21, the zoning archives for the subject property that
show that the property was approved for the single family with, and I've circled the areas
that talks about it, with the warehouse in the rear. The plans do show historically that there
was a driveway, both from Tasker Street and from Fernand Street, that we're looking to use.
with this proposal. Also, the zoning archives for the funeral home abutting us to the west
on Tasker Street. You can see from the Sanborn maps, which we've provided, as we often do,
um 1917 shows what the build the property looked like at that time but you can see in 1946
1950 1951 1976 you can see the automotive non -residential use of the property uh and
looking at the aerials and the photographs of the subject property you can see that we're located
within the first block between Front and Second Street, just to the west of I -95.
There is a, you can see here, we have a building right to the east of us on Tasker Street that
occupies to the rear, 100 % of the lot, backs right up to our lot. You can also see here to
the east of us buildings that back right up to our property line uh on the tasker street portion
and then even as you head uh towards fernan street very small rear yards not don't believe
that they have conforming open area the properties to the east of us the residential properties
further to the east of us on tasker and on fernan have larger rear yards and again this is the one
property here to the left of us on fernan we had we had the site meeting with here the abutting
property that kind of also fits into the shoulder right here of our property from Fernand and then
this is 131 Fernand Street who we met with and made again talking about the heights of the
the walls and the fencing that's to be erected or maintained at the property. You can see from
the aerial as well as the photographs that I've included at the next exhibit tab or exhibit 26,
Tasker Street has a real mix of uses and buildings. It's largely, it's garages, it's commercial mixed use and commercial. You can see these two larger buildings here. Again, you've got the larger garage right to the east of us at 136 Tasker Street.
Obviously, the commercial use is down on Front Street.
Front and Street is largely residential for most of the block until you get to the corners at Second Street and at Front Street with two -story residential.
I've highlighted in the aerial here at Exhibit 25, page 172 of our exhibit book.
Again, the very odd configuration of our lot, which showed up both on the zoning map and the survey.
But you can see that presently the building that's there occupies, goes side to side, goes all the way to the rear, occupies on the Fernand Street property, takes up all that.
You're now going to have a lot of a more open area at the front in this area that I'm circling here before it narrows down, and then pull back from where it narrows down to the Tasker Street lots.
So we're going to be creating a lot more additional open area.
In fact, although 25 % open area is the minimum that's required in RSA 5 and RM 1, on the tasker street parcel, we're right at 25%.
But for parcel B, which is over here, the one to the right, we're at 46 % open area.
And then parcel C to the left is 43 .1 open area.
is 43 .1 open area. So we've created a lot more open area here than what presently exists at the
So we've created a lot more open area here than what.
Fernand Street of these properties. Again, and I think that's borne out by what the shadow studies
show. This is a exhibit 24 that shows of the portion that we're creating Tasker Street,
that's going to be all RM1. Initially, the Fernand Street portion of the property that was RM1 was
is 1 ,164 square feet. And then the actual Tasker Street, the existing Tasker Street parcel is 1 ,323
square feet. Exhibit 29 does show the deed for the property, showing the current owner. Again,
the agreements of sale with my clients. The tax compliance documents at Exhibit 30 showing
the current tax balance. Exhibit 31 shows the copy of the zoning notice for today's hearing
that per Exhibit 32 was posted at both the Tasker Street frontage and the Fernand Street frontage
of the subject property with a copy of the notice of refusal. Here you can see that first was
Tasker Street, and here's the Fernand Street side. We sent out 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 3, 0, 3 notices
throughout this project and process with the community group. There was one that was sent
out before we had confirmed a meeting date and time, and that's at 33C.
and then there and that was sent sent back out back in october on october 12th to 21 then there
was another one that was sent back before the meeting uh and uh at the end of october one for
the meeting in november i mean on december 21 one for our meeting um on um february 6th of this year
and then the one that we just had on May 1st last week with the Penn Sports Civic Association.
So we had three meetings, and I think I said 11 -22 was a meeting.
We thought originally we were going to have a meeting that week,
but we actually ended up having it at the beginning of December.
So we had three meetings with the community group, as I mentioned,
and then the on -site visit with the near neighbors on Fernand Street.
you. So again, I think that we have a hardship here because of the extremely irregular shape of
the lot, of the two lots, because of the split zoning of the Fernand Street parcel. I feel that
we've divided this up and designed this in a way that's as close to conforming with the
concepts of the zoning code have been achieved here. I think the refusals, most of the refusals
have to do and relate specifically to the odd shape of the parcel and or the requirements of
the zoning code. And all of the variances or differences that we have with the requirements
of the zoning code are de minimis. The impact on air and light is negligible, if at all. And
as you can see, is actually less than would be with a by -right project at this location.
And for those reasons, we request that the requested variances be granted.
I would have Alex Duller and Greg Guzman identified and promoted to panelists so they can adopt my statements.
Mr. Duller, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
So, Alex Duller, D as in David, U -L -L -E -R.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hey, Alex.
Yes, Alex, did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
I did.
And are they true, accurate, and complete to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
Okay, thank you.
And then Greg Guzman.
was alex the owner no alex is the architect he's with you okay go to the next person i think greg
could explain the uh the purchasing yeah sure greg please state your name and spell for the court
reporter? Greg? Maybe unmute yourself. Hi, Mr. Guzman, could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter? Greg Guzman, G -R -E -G -G -U -Z -M -A -N. Do you swear or from tell the truth,
told truth nothing but the truth i do proceed sir greg did you hear the statements that i made to
Prasheed, sir.
Greg, did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
the board today
Yes, I did.
Are they true, accurate, and complete to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they are.
And would you adopt them as your own?
Yes, I would.
And just real quickly, can you explain the difference between the different entities?
Is it, did I miss the...
No, I emailed you and texted you an abandon from previously, but the current abandon you
have those say gerard acquisitions and i have an email i sent you just now with one that
but yes we can't we can't understand them the current the current addendum that you can see
here that i forwarded to hillary today um which runs the extends the agreement through may 30th
2023 just does have gerard investment properties llc as the buyer okay and i sent you another
I've done them as well, David, because of that.
And do we know who Tasker Fernine LLC is?
Greg, can you explain?
The previous LLC.
You can hear a better note, I'm sorry.
So, yeah, Greg, go ahead.
That was the previous LLC, and then we decided to change LLCs and form a new LLC.
And so the tasker for an LLC assigned the agreement of sale to Girard Investment Properties, LLC, correct?
Correct.
Hillary, are we okay?
Yes, that is fine.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Orphanidis.
If we needed a brand new agreement to take over what is included in the addendum here, we can do that as well, whatever you need.
Are you sure you're done with your clients?
I'm sorry, say what?
Are you done?
Questions from the board.
I just have my request of my evidence, the documents and the testimony being made.
Yes, sir.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Michael Harrigan with a handout.
I could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
My name is Michael Horrigan, H -O -R -R -I -G -A -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor, sir?
Yes, I live at 132 Tasker.
Okay, proceed.
You know, when the lawyer spoke earlier about the effects of light and sun being negligible, that's simply not true.
I mean, all the houses which are east of this proposed structure on Tasker Street, we get full sun all year round, including the winter.
That structure, the big lollipop part of Fernand Street, right now is only 15 feet high.
What he's proposing is two 41 -foot high individual homes.
and it shows in the shadow during the winter that's going to block the sunlight from entering
our homes during the winter and parts of the summer so he's comparing a by right building
to these two structures he's proposing but what's there right now is only 15 feet high
and it allows plenty of sun all year round now if these two homes go up 41 feet high
that's that blocks our sun into our yards and our homes so that's one of my points of contention
is that you know my house is going to be worth less and be far less enjoyable because of these
two large houses getting built really in the back of our backyards these aren't being built along
the curbside where all of our other houses are this is being stuck in the back in the middle of
our yards. If you take a look at the aerial shot, you'll see a lot of big oversized yards
to the east of the proposed structure. Mr. Harrigan, did you attend the community meetings?
Yes, I did. And on that note, the last community meeting was May 1st, which was a Monday. And the
The letters didn't arrive to any of my neighbors homes until the Saturday before that Monday.
So really, if people open their mail, possibly on Saturday, maybe they could have made the meeting on Monday, but there was virtually no notice for people to show up.
But yes, I did attend all the meetings, but there would have been support at the meeting, Mr. Harrigan.
Yes, not support for the buildings, but support for making these structures smaller or lower.
or lower yeah but what i'm saying is the rco you know has no opposition to this
Yeah, but what I'm saying is the RCO...
uh i'm not i didn't see the the rco's letter i'm not sure if they said there was some
there was definitely some opposition because i was at the meeting okay all right all right
well thank you for do you have any other comments about it yeah i mean in regards to the tasker
street um building i would just encourage you to take a look at the proposed structure that's being
built in his plans i mean you can see how completely out of out of context it is it's
towering over the two the two floor homes built right next to it i mean it's huge and it's enormous
and putting 14 bedrooms is going to put a lot of cars on the street we'll lose one parking spot
due to the construction and i i just think they could have done better you know we're all single
of family homes for the most part on this street, and they're kind of jamming a lot of apartments in.
Mr. Hargan, thank you for taking the time to call in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, Patrick Fitzmaurice.
Okay. Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Sure. My name is Patrick Fitzmaurice. It's P -A -T -R -I -C -K -F -I -T -Z -M -A -U -R -I -C -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm not. I am the president of the Penn Sports Civic Association.
Okay, fine. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Proceed.
um here i we submitted our letter um as the letter notes um i actually abstained from that
vote and any consideration thereof i just wanted to clarify something that was just said and that
was um whether our letter reflected some of the concerns voiced by the neighbors um you know i i
did have a chance to look at the letter even though i didn't contribute to it and i did see
that the neighbor who just spoke um his concerns were reflected in our letter so i just wanted to
assure him and the board that you know the neighbors concerns were reflected in our
communication that's all i wanted to chime in but right but the letter of non -opposition
is from penn's port civic association that's correct chair i just want to clarify that
neighbors concerns were voiced by us thank you very much for taking the time to call us and
tell us i appreciate that and if um excuse me if i may chair was he sworn in i i believe so
Yeah, I did.
Yep, yep.
Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Board Members.
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily and residential single family zoning at the location of these lots.
The variances for proposed building height, lot width, and lot area required for seven dwelling units on lot A are minor and in keeping with the spirit of the code.
Proposed rear deck variance above the second floor will not injure the use of adjacent properties.
However, the variances for required front setback for lots B and C are significant and are the result of creating two new flag lots.
the city planning commission recommends the board deny the variance from the setback provisions for
for the code for lots b and c but grant all other dimensional variances thank you um
i understand we have to hold this until we have an amended refusal
but the record is otherwise closed am i right correct hillary yes that is correct mr share
okay uh thank you council for and uh we will be in touch can you hear me mr chairman
who i did david yeah can you hear me uh we don't see you either you know something happened with
my computer i'm not exactly sure what okay all right okay so the record's closed and we're
wanting to wait till we receive the amended refusal to vote
Mr. Orphanetes?
Can you hear me?
Yes. Are you okay with what I just said?
I just wanted to have just two very quick responses, if I might.
One of the things I wanted to say, I've circled, if you can see it still on the screen.
I'm still sharing the screen. I'm not sure I hit a wire or something on my...
now we don't we we have looks like your desktop like the top of your desk hold on one second
um give me one minute i'm sorry give me one second
let me see if i can share again hold on one second
Let me see if I can share again. Hold on one second. Can you see that now? Yes. Yes. Okay. So just real quickly, in response to the neighbors, I've circled on the shadow studies, which I'll submit following today's proceeding, I'll submit to the zoning board attorney.
But what I've circled is his property. And as you can see in the shadow studies, that even with the buy right building versus what we're doing, there's no shadowing on his property.
And you can see here other than there's a little bit right here on the shadow study in the summertime, but it's no different than what a buy right building would be. It's no greater.
The issue that he has is that he's grown a cut. He bought his property when there was the existing building there. Doesn't want to see anything that's built, whether it's by right or otherwise. And unfortunately, that's just not the way it works.
And so we'd like that to be taken into consideration.
We've mitigated as much as we can.
As you can see to the right, we could have the pilot houses out at the outside edges of the building closer to his rear yard.
But what we've done is we've moved the pilot houses towards the middle so that they don't shadow his property or any of the other neighboring properties to the east of us or to the west of us, for that matter.
We've also pulled the deck railing in the revised zoning drawings.
The deck railing is pulled back or the deck is pulled back three feet from either side that wasn't on the original proposal.
We've also put in a clear railing so that it doesn't cast less shadow than it would otherwise.
So we've done a lot. Again, even though we have 41 feet, we've dropped the parapet.
So the outside wall of the building is actually the same height, if not a couple inches shorter than what a by right building would have on the outside between a 38 foot roof and a 42 inch parapet.
In terms of what the Planning Commission stated, again, there's just no way, like, you've got 10 foot 9 inches at the front. You can't even build a building up there. You can't, I mean, it would be a hallway. It would be a 41 foot long hallway leading to the building.
You cannot have habitable space in that where the driveway is and where we're proposing it to be.
So there is a hardship to for the setback and the lot with the only it is an existing it's I won't call it a flag lot.
It's a lollipop lot. But yes, we are creating two.
But by itself, as a single lot at over 4000 square feet, it's just too large for one single family, which we've actually shown in the by right shadow studies.
reporting in progress anyway with that um i rest okay thank you very much the case is closed and
we're waiting on an amended refusal okay thank you all right thank you number six mi 2022
007 534 6046 cedarhurst street alexander perry is the attorney letter of non -opposition from
the Third Ward Executive Committee. Mr. Perry is coming in as a panelist. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Perry. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, sir. It's Alexander Perry, P -E -R -R -Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes. It's Five Shop Real Estate LLC, and it's represented by its member here, LaTosha.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can you see that?
We can, sir.
Excellent.
I will try to be as brief as possible, respecting the board's time.
This is a request for multifamily use, three units at 6046 Cedarhurst Street.
My client purchased this property in December of last year, and it was marketed as a previously used multi -use family.
And I'll get to some pictures showing there are actually three electrical meters at the property.
We've submitted our documents, and I'll go through it quickly.
is the notice of refusal. There's a single refusal, refusal, sorry, single refusal for
the multifamily use, our application for appeal, and project information form. This is the deed.
and project information form.
This is the deed, it's a December of last year.
And our current tax, sorry,
clearances for the property.
Our request is to make each floor of the property
a single dwelling unit, two bedrooms in each on the first floor, second floor, and third floor.
This property is unique. It does not have a basement. It has a first floor at the ground
level with the entryway on the second floor. Each will be similar with two bedrooms and a bathroom
with separate entry to each unit.
Here's a picture of the property as shown.
The entryway is actually on the second floor.
And the first floor is at ground level,
which traditionally would be a basement,
but it's a first floor level that's at ground level
and accessible from the ground level.
When my client purchased this property,
It was a very dilapidated shell property.
This is a picture of the first floor.
This is a picture of the second floor, the rear of the second floor, and I believe the third floor.
And there were three meters outside representing the prior multifamily use that was not zoned when my client did not own the property.
Here's a notice of posting at the property up front and close up.
And these are similar houses along the block.
All of the houses along the block do have this.
It's about 10 to 12 feet off the ground access on what is the first floor, but it's actually the second floor.
Here is notice to the neighbors and notice of mailing.
We're requesting the three use of the property, I'll go back to the picture, to, in order the renovations to be cost effective and be able to provide more reduced rents in the neighborhood as the neighborhood would command.
I'll go to the proposed layout.
Now, I believe Latasha is here and I believe she can accept my testimony as her own if we can have her brought in.
Mr. Perry, so he bought a vacant property?
What's that? This was the -
He bought a vacant property? Your client bought a vacant property?
It was a shell property, yes, as the -
Okay, so let me ask you this. The remainder of the block, are there multiple family units?
I'm not sure, sir.
Latasha are you still there? So when they bought it it wasn't broken down as a triplex then?
It was but it was in shell condition I'll bring up those photos again. Yeah I saw that but let
me ask you this did you do the history of the property was there a history of it being a triplex?
It was being used as I believe a duplex with the first floor that ground level basically a basement
but it does prior to the purchase and for a long time have those three meters from the electric
company. The three meters could have been two units and then the common? That's possible but
that's possible. All right thank you but please bring your client on. Okay Latasha are you there
can you raise your hand? Hi can you hear me? Hi yes could you state your name please and spell
for the court reporter? Sure. My name is Latasha Harrison. It's spelled L -A -T -A -S -H -A, and Harrison
is spelled H -A -R -R -I -S -O -N. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, counsel. Ms. Harrison, have you heard my testimony so far?
Yes. Is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge? It is. And you adopted as if it were
your own? Yes. Do you have anything to briefly add regarding the property and your intended use?
So it's what you said, it's intended to be used as three apartments. The person that I actually
purchased the home from though, she did say that it was used as three apartments prior. So before
she started to demo, she was actually going to just remodel the entire thing, but she had the
same plans. Thank you. Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location.
This property has a documented history of use as two dwelling units.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from continuing to be used as a two -dwelling unit.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the proposed use variance for three dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022 -007 -534 -6045 Cedarhurst Street. I vote yes, proviso, no more than two units.
my vote is yes with proviso
it's no shaheed my vote is yes with proviso thank you counsel thank you mr chairman
number number eight mi 2022 007 536 98 45 frankfurt avenue alan knockamson is the attorney
um letter of support from east tarsdale civic association letter support from council member
driscoll mr knockamson is coming back in as a panelist thank you mr knockamson you've already
been sworn just state your name for the record please alan knockamson right and could you
identify your clients in the relationship to the property uh yes my client is barbara hannon the
owner of the property. Okay. And our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to
its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of its heritage? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed
and share your screen. Thank you. I think this is going to be a rather brief presentation. It's
pretty straightforward, 9845 Brinkford Avenue. We'll first review the notice of refusal. Then
we have a letter of support from the coordinating RCO and district council member. Every property
on this block is a duplex. Unfortunately for my client, who's now retired and looking to sell
this property and move into a retirement community, her property didn't have a rental license.
And so we have to go through this process to legalize this duplex use. So we'll go over plans
and drawings which my office created simple floor plans she actually has the original agreement of
sale when she bought purchased this property almost 50 years ago which says it's a duplex
so we have maps of the area photographs of the property our uh interior photographs just give
me a flavor what we're looking at here or rco meeting notice or application for appeal showing
that miss hannon purchased uh excuse me as the uh applicant here her deeds of property and
certificate of tax plan. It's a conclusion of my presentation. I would ask that she virtually
raise her hand, be sworn in, and then I can ask her some questions
so she can adopt my testimony as her own. Notice of refusal.
This is an RSA -4 property. We're asking for two -family household living.
We're just trying to legalize the use here. Letter of support.
It was unanimous.
25 to zip.
uh city council member uh driscoll also supports this project map of the area we're the we're the
one in green every other property here uh he either has a history or active multifamily use
on this block every property almost on this block plans and drawings these are i'm mistaken this
isn't even my plans and drawings. These are the plans and drawings from AP Orleans and Company
when Ms. Penn purchased the property. Two -bedroom duplex apartments for rent. So she purchased this
as an investment that she would live in one and rent the other one out.
Graham in the cell. I know somewhere here said there was a duplex. Let me just take a look where
setbacks uh where did i say that oh right here duplex so next is the uh maps of the area we're
in the northeast of you know on frankfurt avenue photographs of the property the front of the
property uh showing multiple water meters here um in 2013 showing uh you know the notice
um in 2013 showing uh you know the notice poster being uh posted for today's hearing as you can see
this is the only thing holding up the sale of this property is to legalize the shoes
frankfurt avenue to the right of the property frankfurt avenue to the left of the property
interior photos it's in this original condition meters water heaters
RCO meeting notice we met on March 13th at 7 p .m.
105 addresses were notified.
25 individuals, including members of the executive board of the RCO, voted in favor of this project.
Proof of mailing of that notice or application for appeal that we filed on Ms. Hannan's behalf.
Her deed to the property, showing that she purchased this property in 1975, almost 50 years ago.
And the certificate of tax plans. With that being said, I would ask that Barbara Hannon virtually raise her hand and be sworn in.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Ms. Hannon, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Hi, good afternoon. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Barbara Hannon, H -A -N -N -O -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed, counsel. Oh, yes. Ms. Hannon, you heard everything
I had to state about your zoning matter.
That's a yes or no question. Yes.
Oh, thank you. And is my
testimony true and correct about your zoning matter? Yes, except
Yes, except for one comment I'd like to make.
We purchased the house.
My husband and I lived in one apartment, his parents in the other.
We never rented either apartment.
I apologize for that incorrect statement.
And finally, do you adopt my testimony as your own other than that one incorrect statement?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no no chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david vecto
with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change the residential single
family zoning at this location this appears to be a legalization of a two -unit dwelling
The applicant has shown that a hardship will accrue if the structure is required to be converted back into a single -family dwelling.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant these variants for two dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022 -007 -536 -9845, Frankford Avenue. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Counselor. You have your three votes.
Thank you very much. Have a great night.
All right. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose two o 'clock case has not been heard?
I see no handshare.
We're going to take a five minute break and come back and go through the 330 list.
OK, thanks, everyone.
Recording in.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing a 330 ZBA hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And I believe our Board Member, James Snell. Is he here?
Okay, he might be coming in shortly.
Also with us is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunk at phil .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we are asking attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
to enter an appearance statement call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and the address
of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for
comments or testimony. All comments have to be directed to our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkit. Let's look at our continuances for this afternoon's hearings.
for this afternoon's hearings.
Number one, MI 2022, 001, 056, 22, 23 to 29, North 31st Street.
That case is continued.
Number four. MI 2021 -003 -593 -4829 Longshore Avenue. That case is continued. Mark must be tried the next meeting.
And number seven, MI -2022 -003 -546, the case is continued, attorney moving party.
Are there any more comments relative to the three cases I just continued?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
What was the address of the last case that you called?
308 Quinch Street.
Thank you.
a continuance attorney moving party
i see no hands chair thank you are any other requests for continuance
no hands chair i also have a case with with no exhibits number six mi2022
003 509
601 Rector Street
Douglas Manger
we have no exhibits
this is the second listing
there are no hands chair
MI 2022
003 509
601 Rector Street
I vote to dismiss
i vote to dismiss thank you both
we're going to go to um number two first mi 2022 003 404 100 east tayoga street yvette carasquello
is the owner
Ms. Carrasquello has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Thanks, sir.
Hi. Ms. Carrasquello, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Okay. First of all, good afternoon. My name is Yvette.
Good afternoon.
My name is I -V -E -T -T -E. My last name is Carasquillo, C as in Charles, A -R -R -A -S -Q -U -I -L -L -O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, so this application is for food, beverages, and groceries for a takeout restaurant in an existing structure.
The proposed use of food, beverages, and groceries is prohibited in the RM1 zoning district.
The proposed use as a takeout ration is prohibited in the RM1 zoning district.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
thank you please proceed and share your screen and i will also mention that mr yeah go ahead
no i'm sorry mr i just wanted to jump in briefly um miss carasquillo um there's in the documents
you submitted it showed that they were outstanding tax balances on a couple of years prior to 2022
um those will need to be taken care of before the board can vote on this matter
but we can proceed with the hearing today yes you can because i did pay for them i paid for
them yesterday. If you could submit proof of payment, then to the board, we could have this
voted on next week. Okay, yes, I have all the documents. There goes one of the documents right
there. The ACI payment, that's it. That's when I paid. I paid it online yesterday.
Just for a point of information, the RCO has a letter of support and there's a letter of
non -opposition from Councilmember Lozada? Yes, yes. Okay, so why don't you tell us what you
want to do? Okay, the thing is, what brings me here is an update for the use of this existing
structure, which I have resided here, all of my guys, and purchased. I purchased the building in
2000, and OU's was torn, but it has been vacant for at least 13 years.
and OU's was stored, but it has been vacant for at least 13 years.
I need to update the new zoning for grocery store and takeout.
Attached, you will find appeal, refusal, project information, mailing, deed,
poster letters of support from our community, pictures of the interior
and exterior of the poster, plans of existing takeout of, well, existing layout of the second
floor and on the first floor, which will be for the hot kitchen to take out hours of operation
will be from 730 to nine. We will have lighting and cameras connected to police link. Also,
I have attached the payment for the balance of my real estate taxes, which I paid yesterday
online for this reason i request that this um that i'm so sorry i'm a little nervous yeah
yeah how about a picture of the store may be gotten granted thank you the variants be going to
yes so the first floor there is what you're talking about yes okay
And when was it last open?
It's been 2010.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I can confirm that the taxes have been paid.
They're showing a credit on the account now.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
I believe I was sworn in this morning.
You are. Ron, you're already sworn.
Thank you.
Wireless property is currently indicated for residential use under city plan.
Given the physical circumstances of the site and the use history,
we recommend the inquest of variance be granted. MI 2022 -003 -404 -100 East
Tioga Street, I vote yes with proviso, limited use to first floor, and specify the existing
single -family household living above to remain. Yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Number two, MI 2022 -007 -004, 1731 West Thompson
Street. Eunice Francis is the owner applicant. It's pro se. This is for a single room residence
in an existing structure the proposed use single room residence is prohibited in the rsa zoning
district mission needs has been promoted to panelists hi could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter hello
Hello.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Eustace Francis, first name E -U -S -T -A -C -E, last name Francis, F -R -A -N -C -I -S.
Do you swear, affirm, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you turn your video on so that we could see you, please?
Thank you very much, sir. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance?
Yes, I have. Well, some documents were emailed.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Should be a green share button at the bottom.
That's not working.
Green button.
Can you see me?
You're breaking up a little.
you're breaking up a little. You're coming up. You're coming up now. You're good.
You're coming up.
You're coming up now.
You're good.
You're going to be good.
You're going to be good.
Now it disappeared.
Hello?
It disappeared.
It started to come up and it stopped.
Let me try that again.
How about that?
do you see the green button at the bottom of your screen that says share screen yes
yeah i see that i see that
now could you see my screen now no you have two devices on
no i only have one device on okay
can you hear me we hear you you break up a little bit but we're hearing you
you started to share a couple minutes ago
after you hit the share screen button it should be another option asking you what
files you would like to share?
I don't see that.
Chair, if you'd like, we could continue this
and I can try to give him a short,
continuous state.
Why don't we do that?
So, Mr. Francis, what we're going to do
is we're going to continue
your case, but it's going to be
a short continuance.
We'll get you back in as soon as we can.
And then if you have any problems, call the office and they'll try to talk you through on how to do this, okay?
Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Can you see this, girl?
Wait one minute.
Oh, here it is.
Is that it?
Yeah, that's it.
Yes, and you just have to open up your documents that you would like to present.
Here we go.
Now, as I said, my name is Eustace Francis, and I'm the owner of, I'm appearing on behalf
of myself as the owner of 1721 West Thompson Street.
I'm here basically seeking a variance to change the use of the property to a rental property
for up to four unrelated individuals, primarily Temple University students.
Now, I purchased this property back in August of 2021.
At the time, the property was being rented as, was being used, utilized as a rental property
for four unrelated, as far as I know, unrelated Temple University students.
Now, at the time I purchased the property, you know, I had the option of having two of the four students as holdover tenants.
However, I felt that it would be in my best interest to not have any holdover tenants, thoroughly investigate and review the property, make whatever repairs that may have needed to be made, and also to acquire whatever licenses I needed before doing so.
But fortunately, I, you know, I did the right thing because, you know, once I purchased the property, I closed on the property, I suddenly realized that apparently the property may not have been properly zoned, you know, for the use that existed at the time.
Now, just to give you a general sense of the, you know, of the property itself, the property was built in 1920.
It is located, as I said, between 18th and 17th streets.
The property is approximately 1 ,290 square feet in size.
The size of the lot is about 630 square feet.
Why do you put a picture up while you're talking?
Oh, sorry.
Can I picture the property?
Yes, I do.
Oh, that's...
No, um...
Oh, okay, that...
Oh, okay. Yeah, I'll continue to speak while I try to locate that particular clip. So the property itself, you know, is a zone for residential single -family attached and semi -detached households.
Yeah, I'll...
The property, currently the property shares the block on which one side of the block is entirely occupied by a Catholic school, the Jisoo Catholic school.
And the other side of the property, the block itself is, you know, is basically used by single family households.
Now, at least three of those households historically have been used, at least four of those households have historically been used previously, you know, as rental units.
Based on my research of the LNI website, it appears that 1711, 1713, and this particular property, 1721 and 1745, have previously been issued licenses by the city.
And as you can see here, you know, if you look at exhibit five, which I have up here right now, you'll see that some of these properties, some of these, these very same properties were previously issued licenses by the city.
Here, for example, is 1711, and you can see here that it was issued a license 468 -743.
If you go to the other one here, this is 1713.
Mr. Francis, it would be much easier if you showed us the house.
We can understand that.
Just show us what the place looks like.
Okay. Now, this is a picture of the front. Unfortunately, my computer is very slow. So this is a copy. This is a picture of the front of the property.
You see the upper left -hand corner there is a notice of the zoning hearing. So that's what the frontage of the property currently looks like.
Right. Are you going to be renting single rooms?
Yes. Ideally, what I would like to do is to my son, my adult son currently resides there as his principal residence.
And what I'd love to do is to be able to to rent, you know, single rooms, you know, to Temple University students as it was done prior to being purchased by me.
Okay. So my son will remain, you know, as the on -site landlord or you want to say property manager. He would be in a position to enforce any decorum or any other law rules that may be applicable.
I'm not sure that the various loaning requirements are met and enforced.
I believe that the requirements here, the request here is a reasonable one, given that this particular property was previously used as a rental property.
Other properties in the area have also received rental licenses in the past.
I don't believe...
I'm sorry, go ahead.
You went to the RCO and they're in support of you, right?
You should have a copy of the.
I have it.
All right.
So thank you, sir.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
planning commission. So Ron Bednar, city planning, the properties indicated for residential use on
the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential single
family zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship is self -imposed due to illegal
unauthorized construction. Therefore, we recommend the request of fairness not be granted.
All right. Thank you. MI -2022 -007 -004 -1720 West Thompson Street, I vote yes for a temporary variance that will expire 5 -11 -26.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes with proviso.
Sir, you have your three votes for a temporary variance.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
I applaud you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Number five, MI -2022 -007 -198 -1449 North 75th Street. Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
Number five, MI -2022.
There's a letter of opposition from the Overbrook Park Civic Association.
Ms. Nichols is coming in as a panelist. Thank you.
hi counsel could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
you're muted
you're muted muted okay can you hear me now you're good right good thank you lynn nichols l -y -n -n
last name n -i -c -h -o -l -s right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
is nothing but the truth. Yes. Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
My client is Stanley McDaniel, Harvard Chair. He wasn't able to be here today. He's a flight
medic and he had to work, but he's the owner of the property. Okay. And our Vice Chair has just
a few questions. Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Hillary, did you get the tax clearance?
Yes, Ms. Nichols, I did.
Thank you.
Okay, so yes.
All right, thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Chair, before I begin,
may I ask if there are any interested parties
on the call that intend to testify? Are there people that want to testify when I open up their
virtual audience about this case? I see no hands here. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sharing my screen.
can you see it? We can. Thank you. Here we have the petition of appeal form, the deed,
project information form. And as I proceed, this project is a legalization request from the owner
who thought that he had hired individuals who pulled the proper permits, as you can see the
tax clearance certificate. This project is, I'll get to the pictures in a minute. We notified 91
neighbors, near neighbors. We actually had two meetings with the RCO, one on the date listed,
which is March 16th, and then they asked us to come back. Here's the zoning notice posted
on March the 30th for a vote. And we accommodated them. The questions from, here you see photographs
of the property. This is a view looking at the front of the property. Here's a view looking to
the left of the property. It's a duplex, by the way. This is the rear. What he did was, the owner
is a retired firefighter. When he retired from the fire department, he bought this property and
And he had other properties that he owned as well.
Here's another view of the rear of the property.
So he had been paying someone for storage for his equipment, lawnmowers, et cetera, that
he used at his other property.
Here's another view of the rear.
This is a side view of the property on 75th Street looking towards the rear where he closed
in the garage doors.
These are the plans that we submitted for the property.
And this is the RCO letter. So back to the pictures, what he did was he closed in what there were two garage doors here and he didn't want to pay someone, continue to pay someone to store his equipment that he had been using at his other rental properties that he owned.
So he hired this company. He thought they pulled the permits. As they were finishing, he realized he was made aware that they hadn't pulled the proper permits. So he hired us in order to legalize this.
this hardship for him would be economic because he invested in something that he legally thought
was happening the proper way. As you can see from this photograph, it doesn't encroach upon the
driveway, nor would it harm any of the neighbors. It won't affect the public right of way in any way
whatsoever. So he just wants to legalize this. The questions from the RCO, basically, they were
trying to allude to the fact that he was trying to develop this property in order to have more
than the two rental apartments that he has here, which he lives in one of them. And then
rental apartments that he has here, which he lives in one of them. And then they ended up
sending this letter, which was a little confusing to us because they said that they felt that this
variance wasn't done properly. And because it wasn't done, he hadn't done this work properly.
They weren't in favor of it. But he explained to them the whole project and how it got started
and why he did this and what he intended to continue to do with it, which is to store his
equipment um so that's why he's seeking this variance from the board which again so council
let me let me read what i have in front of me for the legalization of the erection of an addition
to a semi -existing semi -detached structure no change in use from single family household living
i i don't so is this single family living or is it a duplex well it it it's been when he bought
it it was a duplex um there's he lives on one level he's not asking to change the use at all
whatsoever and someone else what i'm saying it says here it's a single family household living
i don't understand the glory am i right hillary yes it looks like miss nichols it looks like
ellen high only recognizes this property as a single family dwelling not as a duplex
um wait so that that that needs that needs to be addressed because the board is
yeah can't can't grant that because that's not before them today all right so what do you
recommend that we do i think you need to amend the refusal and uh and then once it's amended
let the community group know and come back to to the board I think we should do well we could we
could hear the whole case today arguably but planning may want I don't know if planning is
prepared to weigh in on that we may need to do a resumption hearing based on the amended refusal
okay that's fine with us I mean we just have to go back before them I assumed let me look back
on atlas because i thought that it was well you would know hillary so i'm not uh you know
disagreeing with you so your recommendation is that i finish what i say here and we and we just
put this on hold until we do an amended refusal correct you just need to yes seek permission from
the board to amend the refusal and once we do that i think we should have a resumption um hearing
okay good catch chair i apologize i thought that um it's fine it's fine it's fine okay all right
um so all right well we were here to legalize this portion of mr mcdaniel's property but we'll
come back before you after we've you know amended our refusal and then you know discuss the um
duplex which it was already not that it was zoned but it was already being used in that manner prior
to him purchasing it is there anything else um no um and and uh we're gonna your testimony is fine
you you're officer of the court um questions from the board questions one other thing chair um just
so i can note there were two garage doors at this property before he um closed it in so again i have
that yeah it was you know it was being used as a duplex although it's not currently zoned that one
okay fine um questions from the board no mr chairman
ish i'm here chair phone people out but yeah no questions right questions or comments from the
virtual audience. I see no hands, Chair. Planning, can you take a position now? Yes. Or do you want
to wait to a resumptive hearing? We can take it now. Okay, go ahead, sir. Okay. The property is
indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change
the existing zoning. Single family at this location, the applicant's hardship is self -imposed
due to illegal, unpermitted construction.
Serious structural encroachments are present.
Therefore, we recommend request of variance not be granted.
The case will be closed until we get an amended.
Am I right, Hillary?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
We'll do a resumption hearing based on the amended refusal
so that the public has a chance to weigh in
on the duplex piece of this.
thank you council thank you all right thank you okay um is there anyone in the virtual
All right. Thank you.
Okay. Is there anyone in the virtual audience who's 3 .30 hearing has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, everybody. Thank you.
We could done quicker than I thought we were.
Thanks, Chair.
Thank you for all your help and your hard work.
Thanks, Chair. Have a good night.