And the use has been consistently three-family dwelling going back since the 30s.
And it fell into major disrepair at some point.
My clients have breathed new life into the property.
It's one of the nicest houses on the block. We did a mailing of 97 individual households. And as you know, we received a letter.
With all, but 1 person in attendance, fully supporting the granting of the variance.
Let's take a look at some more interior photos if you'd like.
Here's some exteriors.
It's all very well done, very high in finishes for them to have to gut the property upon purchase and turn it into a single family home.
Not only would it be a Herculean task and an expensive one, but they'd be underwater for probably their entire ownership.
This was a property that was already Frankenstein into three families.
And they're going to have to go through the process of getting a retroactive certificate of occupancy.
Of getting a retroactive certificate of occupancy, they'll be subject to the international building code and all of the requirements that the building code entails so that safety and well being will, you know, will be, of course, top of top of list for them.
So, because they've enjoyed the support of nearly a unanimous membership of the RCO meeting, because they're known on that block as good caretakers of the property in its best condition in decades, despite being a three-family dwelling since 1937, we respectfully request the granting of this variance, legalizing just what they purchased.
Thank you.
You want to bring your client on?
I do, Mr. Justin Flax, if you could please raise your virtual hand.
Let me, Vern, before he comes on, let me ask you a quick question.
Is there a lacking refusal for three parking spaces?
Well, there is.
Yeah, Mr. Anastasio, I just, so, because it's RSA 3,
typically that requires one parking space per unit,
and I couldn't tell from the photos if there was any parking.
We're offering no parking, and it's not a refusal.
Right.
It's not on the refusal.
It may have been missed.
So I just wanted to note that for the record, it may have been missed.
And just verify that there was no parking.
Thank you.
And there's no off-street parking on the block at all.
And there are several multifamily properties, by the way, on the block.
It's not just exclusively single-family, not in the least.
So with that, Mr. Flax, if you could raise your virtual hand.
I'm here.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
I'm Justin Flax, J-U-S-T-I-N-F as in Frank, L-A-X.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please foresee counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Flax, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
And I'm showing on screen right now the MLS listing for the property.
This property was marketed as a multifamily dwelling.
Is that right?
Correct.
It's right here, Mr. Chairman, at the top.
It was not only marketed and sold to them as a multifamily, but the subsequent appraisal
done by the bank that too was based on multifamily is that correct sir that is yeah and we do have
the appraisal here as well mr chairman uh where the bank treated the property as a multifamily
property they believed it was a legal three-family dwelling as well they used the comps for other
three family dwellings in the immediate area. So this flew under the radar of not only my client,
you know, and he's no investor or big developer. He's just an average guy who works in the
neighborhood. But it also missed the listing agent, the brokerage firm, and the bank that
financed it so for all those reasons and the reasonable reliance my clients had
on those who marketed and sold it to them we respectfully request legalizing just what's there
thank you question question or comments from the board
no chair no mr chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time
Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with the first name
Melissa. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Can you hear me? I can. It's Melissa Joe Hanningsmeyer.
It's M-E-L-I-S-S-A J-O-H-A-N-N
I-N-G-S
m-e-i-e-r sorry it goes on why don't you go why don't you do that one more time i think
interrupted you that's okay m-e-l-i-s-s-a j-o-h-a-n-n-i-n-g-s-m-e-i-e-r do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i affirm are you a neighbor yes i am
i'm 913 south saint bernard street well you don't have to tell me that but that's fine
please proceed with your testimony okay i'm gonna try and um i don't have the share my screen option
I don't have the share my screen option here.
in here.
Does anybody know how I get to share my screen?
Because it's not on here anymore.
You don't have that option, ma'am.
I object, Mr. Chair.
I haven't seen any exhibits by this witness.
So, Melissa, listen to me.
Why don't you do this?
Why don't you give me some testimony first and tell me where we stand?
I did submit my objection five days in advance with photographs.
I guess I can't do that.
My position is, first of all, this property in 2016 was verified as a vacant building.
It was renovated by the person that this person bought it from without permits.
Um, so there's no, there's been no work on the codes on this. It was renovated without any LNI supervision. Um, this is happening a lot in my neighborhood. It's basically, if you build it, ZBA will approve it. And we're seeing this again and again and again. Um, people buy these properties, they chop them up and then, oh my God, I can't get a rental license.
And then they go before ZVA. So this applicant has not shown hardship, in my opinion. They say that it's it's too financially. First of all, these people are Wharton graduates. They are not average.
Objection. So not only is that not true, but how would my client know their education level?
okay because it's on the web all right why why don't we do this why don't we just tell me you
object okay can i present i will present the hardship uh argument the heart there there one
argument was that it would be too financially stressful to convert this back and in my
presentation that i cannot show i show that there are 12 single family homes on this block
There are two slated to be built in the next year.
Permits have been pulled for single-family homes.
Single-family homes generally appraise for more than all the three-family homes based on the BRT assessments.
The other thing is this did not have a refusal for parking.
That should have also been there.
We are really experiencing very negative impacts of over density, which my photograph showed.
People are parking in front of the fire hydrants.
They're parking in front of areas they're not supposed to park on.
They're parking in crosswalks.
um the additional that in order for this to be changed it should be the minimal amount of change
that should be done so if you're going to do minimal it should be two family with no parking
um without my photographs i'm kind of off um we are highly dense um the properties
There are 35 lots on this block right now.
There are 12 single-family, four, two-family, nine, three-family, two, four-family, five vacant lots,
and two properties that are illegal, this one and another one.
That right now, the existing density is 128 people.
if all the vacant lots are converted it's 148 people families and if the vacant lots are all
converted to three families 156 people um i think this hardship was created by the individuals they
knew what they were buying they knew it wasn't legal and they thought they could get away with
it just like everybody else on the block um my position against cedar park is that they did not
list any of the addresses. It is my position that no one who lived on the block voted for this,
and I don't think they were there. And the last thing is, is that the leader of the Cedar Park
Committee has several properties in the area, none of them which have rental licenses or
certifications fire alarm certifications so it's my position that is that they haven't proven
hardship the property is not too big to be single family or two family we are over dense um and
um this is a it's not in keeping with the zoning which is rsa3 which is low density
um it's just becoming extremely stressful to be here because
It's just becoming extremely stressful to be here because every time I turn around, somebody else is doing the same thing.
You know, they're taking these properties, trapping them up illegally.
They can't get a rental license.
You're required a rental license.
And if you're out of state, you're required to have a management company.
A management company won't handle your property unless you're properly zoned.
and real estate agents are not required to check out your zoning.
I read the Pennsylvania law.
If you are allowed to back out of a sale,
if it's discovered that the zoning is not correct,
but there's nothing that says they have to be honest.
Did you attend the zoning board?
Did you attend the RCL meeting?
Yes, I did.
And you presented your case there. I presented my case, I guess. And they voted against your position? No one who voted against my position lives anywhere near here.
I object, Mr. Chair. There's nothing to substantiate that. Well, there's nothing to substantiate the addresses of those who.
All right. I guess like my question was the Cedar Park neighbors voted against your position and not saying where they live, but Cedar Park neighbors, which was the RCO, voted against your position.
Yes. And my position is, is that the person who runs that.
I don't want to hear anything about somebody's position, but thank you for calling. We do appreciate your position.
Mr. Chair, I just want to just do a couple. I'm not even going to cross-examine the witness. I appreciate her comments. She did testify that there's already nine three-family dwellings on the block. That was her testimony. This property has been a legal three-family dwelling since 1938.
At some point, it will become a vacant three-family dwelling, and at some point, a previous owner renovated it, but again, it was marketed, listed, appraised, and sold to my client as a three-family dwelling.
I think I heard you mention that. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Thank you.
Chair, we have Kathy Dowdle. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Kathy Dardell, K-A-T-H-Y-D-O-W-D-E-L-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm co-chair of the Cedar Park Neighbors Zoning Committee.
Okay, so please, please start your testimony.
I just want to correct a couple of things.
Number one, Lisa is right. This is an issue that we're seeing all over the neighborhood. We've had a lot of cases like this. In this particular case, as Mr. Anastasio has shown, I think there is long history of this being three-family property.
Our bigger concerns are when these things are not built out as three-family and are converted to three-family. There are a lot of building code and fire code implications that we want to make sure are being implemented, and we have confidence in this particular building. We don't have confidence in all of them, to be blunt, but in this one we do.
So I'd also like to add, Lisa is correct.
There were not a lot of near neighbors at the RCO meeting.
However, all of those near neighbors got a letter.
Cedar Park Neighbors does its best to put posters up, flyers up.
We put notices of the RCO meetings in our community newsletter.
We put them on a public Facebook page.
We really do try to make sure we get turnout from both near neighbors
and from the slightly broader community.
A couple of the neighbors who came were near neighbors.
They were in the radius of mailings,
but no, they were not specifically on the block.
As I said, you know, we do our best to get everybody notified.
If they don't come to the meeting, they don't come to the meeting.
That's all I have. Thanks.
I thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
this is ron bednar city planning
property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the documented use history
the site we recommend the course of variance be granted thank you mi 2023 004 835 939 south
St. Bernard Street. I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Mr. Anastasio?
Yes, sir.
Number eight, MI 2023, 004-830, 5844 North Camac Street.
Number eight, MI 2023-00483.
No RCO letter, but meeting was held by Concerned Community Association on 129-24.
I think we got an RCO letter while this hearing was being held.
Yes, we did.
Thank you.
We have a letter of non-opposition.
We're also requesting some points of clarification from a concerned community association.
So, Mr. Anastasio, could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Shinelle Pearsal, and she is the occupant of the property at 5844 North Camac.
He waived the reading of the referral and agreed to its accuracy.