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