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.