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.