They were for full disclosure. There was one document that I just sent this morning because the city tax system had not updated a payment to reflect.
But that was I kept checking it since five days ago and it finally reflected today.
Okay, please proceed.
Thank you very much.
So, as discussed, let me just share my screen here.
Is everybody able to see that?
We can.
Great.
So, as stated, we are here on 1001 Walk-In Street, located in the East Pass Yonk section of the city.
Originally, the refusal issued in October of 2023 was for three-dimensional variance requests, one being maximum occupied area where the required is 75 and we were proposing 84, a minimum rear yard depth of nine feet is required.
We were proposing a seven-foot yard and a maximum height at the time.
We were proposing 42 feet, nine and one quarter inches, excuse me, and the maximum allowed at the time is 38 feet.
We, after two, and I'll get into it in a little bit, but after two meetings with the coordinating RCO where we discussed the height,
we have decided to amend our plans and submitted this proviso and are no longer seeking the
variance for the height requirement so the property is plans have been reduced to a three
story property and now fall within the purview and within the requirements of the code
here's such proviso application and then the plans itself
So, we are seeking to build a single family home on the lot currently, and I'll jump to
that in a little bit, but currently on the site is this garage here, the garage.
this garage here the garage is by way of a little bit of background the property was previously
owned by Lillian Itomo a longtime resident of the neighborhood and actually the owner of the
adjacent parcel the Antonio is her son who's the member of the LLC that has bought it so it's being
redeveloped however it's being redeveloped you know with someone who's part of the neighborhood
actually grew up in the neighborhood so back to the plans and the reason we're seeking these
variances and you'll see from the plans in a moment is this property is abutted by two
alleyways by two easement alleyways one along the side here and one in the back the deed of
the property actually extends about halfway into that alleyway and hence the necessity for
the rear yard variance it's basically we can't build a nine foot rear yard because we would be
going into the alleyway there in the back and the maximum open space requirement too is a
hardship for us to meet as a result of the alleyway that is here between the two buildings
if you can see we also have the architect on the line so we'd be happy to answer any
dimensional or specific questions about the plans but I'll quickly take you through the rest of our
exhibits and then would be happy to answer any questions when we did speak
we actually had two meetings here's the deed to the property so currently it is
this as I said the garage here and then you can see the fence right now for the
for the alleyway that runs along the side of the property this is looking in
both directions down Walken Street. Here's our application for appeal, our project information
board form. We met with the RCO twice, once on December 11th and then again December 16th.
Most of the discussion with the RCO was centered around the height as that would have the most
impact on neighbors. So originally, we proposed 42 feet, nine and one quarter inches. Then after
our first meeting, we had some internal discussions and amended the plans to still try to include a
fourth floor. However, we did reduce the height of the ceilings and some of the lower floors to try
to lower that the total structure height. That was also not something that the community wanted
to support. So after we received their their opposition to it, we, you know, went back and
decided that given that that was the main issue for the RCO, we would amend our plans
and negate that height variance requirement. Here's our certificates of mailing for both
meetings. Hence, there being so many of them. Here's the letter. And as you'll see from
letter most of what was discussed is again the the height issue as that is the thing that most
impacts the neighbors so and also you know it the discussion was whether or not that was in
conformity with the remainder of the block here's our zoning posters at the property
And then lastly, this was submitted as part of the original exhibit, the payment of the final outstanding balance for taxes.
And then this was just amended and added today to the exhibit packet and sent to Ms. Emerson and RCO's EVA.
At this time, if I can bring Antonio on the line to just adopt.
Mr. Sokoloff, can I ask before you do that?
Sure. Did the neighborhood change their position?
They didn't. We didn't have time to have another meeting.
The previous meeting was January 16th. Right.
So they did not change their position. But as you can see from from their letter, if you have it in front of you, as I stated, the majority of the issue was the height.
Right. OK, bring your client on.
Thank you, Mr. Tomo. Would you raise your hand, please?
Mr. DiTomo has been unmuted and allowed to speak
sir could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
hi Antonio DiTomo a-n-t-o-n-i-o d-i-t-o-m-o right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please proceed counsel thank you
Mr. DeTomo, you've been on the line for my testimony here today?
yes and would you adopt my testimony as your own yes is there anything you'd like to add for the
And would you adopt my testimony as your own?
board to consider uh no what questions from the board no chair
no mr chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary ems
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
Y'all see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family residential at this location.
We feel the limited dimensions of the property represent a hardship,
and the proposed variance is the minimum necessary.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
M-I-2023-006-256-1001-Walkin Street, I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, February 7th, 2024.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. You have your vote, sir.
Thank you very much, Ward.
Number eight, MI 2023-006-301-1635 South 17th Street.
Ronald Patterson is the attorney.
Letter of support from the East Point Breeze neighbors.
Sarah, Ronald Patterson is coming back as a panelist now.
Hi, Mr. Patterson. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N. I'm with Claire Harrison, Harvey, and Bransburg in Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify or client a relationship to the property?
yes i represent a j m f and company llc principal is justin fiordamundo f-i-o-r-d-i-m-o-n-d-o
it's also my son-in-law okay all right do you leave that disclosure oh thank you do you waive
the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy yes i do and all your exhibits were
sent in within five days prior.
Yes, they were, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, please share your screen
and begin your presentation.
You can see my share?
We can, sir.
All right, great.
So this property is mid-block.
It's located in RSA 5
Residential Zoning District.
A couple of years ago,
it was listed as a duplex for sale.
It also had a trash license
for picking up two units.
Justin purchased it in May 2023. It existed as a duplex, and both units were occupied at the time, and as a matter of fact, still are.
So he performed some minor renovations to upgrade it with the tenants there, and as you'll see in these photographs, this is the door entrance.
The hallway then splits upstairs. It's a two-story building, one to the right. Had existing, you know, separated utilities, electric, gas, water. Pictures of the interior. There's a modified interior there.
And so, you know, knowing the city and he does have other rental properties, wanted to do the right thing, and he applied for the rental license.
He was denied because there was no zoning permit for a single-family dwelling, which brings us to today.
So we're seeking to legalize this duplex use based upon the conditions that has a common entrance hall, separate entrances, separate utilities.
So there is definitely a hardship that exists that convert this back to a single-family residence.
But yet, in all the years and operating as a duplex, it has caused nor created any adverse impacts and is not any greater than would be if it were a single-family residence.
I would note that this is 1635.
I think 1639 is also a duplex.
We did meet and present to the Point Breeze, East Point Breeze Neighbors, Civic Association.
Get their letter here.
Yep. Okay. Okay. We took a vote and, you know, talked through this and I guess they actually made some nice comments here at the end, which we, which we appreciate.
Who took a vote?
So, with that said, if we could promote Justin, some, a few questions.
Justin Fierre DeMondo has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's synopsis.
Unmute.
Justin, could you unmute?
Mr. Fiori DeMondo, can you please unmute yourself?
Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Patterson, you're an officer of the court.
We're glad we take your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we discussed this, and Mr. Fiordamundo stated that he would adopt my testimony no
differently as if it were his own.
Questions from the board?
No questions, Chair.
No questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Hi, Planning Commission.
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change for the existing rsa 5 single-family zoning at this location
we feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship accordingly the planning commission
recommends the board grant the variance mi 2023 006 301 1635 south tevin t street i vote yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
LeVar and Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes
Thank you
Mr. Patterson, we have your second case here
Beautiful, thank you
MI 2023-006-335-220-224
South Broad Street
letter of non-opposition
from the Center City Residence Association.
Mr. Patterson, you've already been sworn.
Could you just state your name, please?
Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N,
Claire Harrison Law Firm.
Mr. Patterson, could you identify your client,
their relationship to this property?
Yes, I can. One second.
So, I represent 220 South Rossery Property Owner LLC, which is a company that's owned by
the Lubert Adler Group. And with me today is Vice Chairman Leonard Clare, if you could
promote him when you have a chance. I will go through my exhibits here.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And all of your documents were submitted five days prior?
Correct. Yes, they were.
Okay. Please start your presentation.
Thank you. As identified, the property regards 220 South Far Street, which is the garage that supports the Bellevue Hotel office and apartments.
And atop of this garage on floors seven through, I guess, 11 or some mezzanine levels in there is the Sporting Club.
And the Sporting Club had closed when COVID had hit.
And it was an opportunity at the time that both the Bellevue and the Sporting Club were purchased.
And the opportunity allowed for a complete renovation of the Sporting Club.
which here's a view across the street that we all know, you know, the area.
And so during the renovations, this will, I'll show you here.
Sorry, trying to different magnifications here.
We're here to talk about a deck.
There's an existing deck on top of the roof here at the seventh level, and you'll see it's surrounded by the Bellevue and an office building.
at the seventh level. And you'll see it's surrounded by the Bellevue and an office building.
And on this deck, what we're proposing to do is you have it utilized for
the patrons of the sporting club. Here's a view that would lead out onto the deck.
It already has a parapet wall there. It's high enough in elevation that it would impact
no one the buildings to the right here the Bellevue again is owned by the same owner
building to the left is an office building there we know the residents that would be impacted
by this and so we believe based on that that there will be no adverse impacts on anyone public health
safety welfare traffic or any greater than what would currently exist because no one's impacted
by that. Again, it's for the use of the Sporting Club members, you know, and Mr. Clare, we'll get
into further what the purpose of the deck is. We did meet, as you mentioned, with CCRA, and they