Thank you.
hello hello hello hello we hear you mike okay all right okay good we ready good morning everyone my
name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this meeting of the philadelphia zoning board of
adjustment with me is our board vice chair tenetta graham president's chairman our board secretary
charlotte l gaston present mr chairman board member michael johns present mr chairman board
member ty win she's here i see her she should be here very shortly and our board member ryan mcadams
present mr chairman also here is our board attorney hillary emerson our zoning board
director in haggerty and our board administrator lakeisha dandy recording of the hearing will be
posted on the zba website by participating you consent to be recorded this is an in-person
meeting with remote capabilities whether remote or in person if you're called to speak you must
state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in once you've been sworn in please state
your name each time before beginning your testimony any person may enter their appearance
to become an interested party you can identify the case property address on your zoom webinar
you can see a staff member or you can call the zba appearance line by the close of business tomorrow
call 267-270-5548 leave a message that includes your email address and the address
the property of the appeal case the following guidance sources are remote attendees when
directed you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak if you're called
to testify you'll be prompted to join as a panelist please accept the request and turn on your camera
third the webinar q a is for questions about the hearing do not comment on cases in the q a
and fourth if you are participating by phone press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute for our in-person attendees please refrain from talking eating or drinking
during the hearings verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated restrooms are across from
the elevators a water fountain is just outside the room to the right when speaking on the record you
must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court reporter
in the event of an emergency please follow the directions given over the public address system
or by the staff the main exit is through the double doors at the rear of the room
the nearest stairwell is to the left outside the doors in case of an evacuation the rally point is
love park directly across archery please remain here so we can account for you um
so just a little uh uh point of interest um we have several cases today and some of them are
going to be cases that are just a little bit longer um what we're going to do is we're going
to try to hold cases about 20 minutes or so and then we're going to have resumptive hearings uh
We're going to do everything we can to move through as quick as we can.
So let's start out by looking at our schedule.
And let's first look at number five.
And the Spanish interpreter is here.
Thank you.
Number five, Spanish interpreter first, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I will be your calls for this session. Mr. Aubain is coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning. My name is Stephen Aubain. My interpret ID is YM288. My last name is spelled A-U-B-A-I-N.
Good morning, Stephen. Do you swear or affirm that you will interpret accurately, completely and partially from English to Spanish and from Spanish to English to the best of your ability?
to you yes idea okay could you please call let's see here number
number five was am i oh so it's 4707 to 11 edmund street angelica perez garcia is the owner
Así que la 4707-11-M Street, si Angélica Pérez García pudiera entrar a la llamada o levantar la mano.
So, the 4707-11-M-S-Tree, if you have a 4707-11-M-S-Tree,
do we see anyone
mr chair i do not see anyone answering to that name in the virtual audience this morning
Okay, call one more interpreter, please call one more time for Angélica Pérez García,
por favor, se puede levantar la mano o entrar en la llamada, por favor.
Okay, so.
Okay, so interpreter, could you please state MI 2025?
Así que el MI 2025 000438 4707211 Edmond Street
El caso es continuado para mayo 19 a las 9 y media de la mañana y se tiene que escuchar ese caso.
Muchas gracias. Interpreter, por favor, permanece.
Sí, voy a estar en el camino.
number two and my 2024 0 0 5 6 2 4 just do the address for me 2068 east and street
elliot perez barrios is is the complainant as the appellant así que 2068 east and street
este y ellie perez si puede levantar la mano
they'll come back in as a panelist now
good morning good morning um could we have the name of the inter of the appellant please
si que si nos pueden proveer el nombre del apelante por favor si habla con elliot perez
so it's elliot perez all right and could you please say to him do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth usted juri afirma decir la verdad the whole truth and nothing but the truth
toda la verdad y nada más que la verdad si yes so this is a result of hearing así que esto es
una audiencia de resoluciones and this is what we're going to do today the applicant will present
plans and supplemental documents then they'll be questions from the board and testimony from the
public and a recommendation from planning so would the applicant please start his presentation and and
show us updated plans and supplemental documents so that's what we are going to do today is that
the applicant will present his plans and he will present his supplemental documents and
there will be questions from the board, there will be testimonials from the public and other
recommendations from the planning department. If the applicant can please start your presentation
y enseñarnos sus planos actualizados y documentos suplementales sí pues mira aquí te voy a enseñar
el plano del primer piso este hubo un error la primera vez pero ya lo corregimos permítame
so i'm gonna show you the plans for the first floor there was an error the first time and now
it's corrected okay why don't you say what the air why don't you tell us that
y empieza con cuál fue el error el error fue que donde está la cocina con el comedor hay una puerta
ahí y ya se sacó la puerta se eliminó y aquí estaba enseñando donde el dining room que era
a living room so the error was that there used to be a door where it was the kitchen connecting to
the dining area and that door was eliminated and then the um and dining uh or the living
room area was changed into the dining room um how about the second floor is there any changes there
um how about the second floor is there any changes there y el segundo piso ha habido un cambio ahí
no todo igual nada no no everything's the same and the basement please y el sótano por favor
so the basement is just space for storage okay um questions from the board
so this is an existing condition correct así que esto es son condiciones existentes
y hay este otros duplex en la cuadra sí creo que creo que la esquina de la calle
entry and frankfurt yes i think in the corner of the street entry and amford there are thank you
other than other than that one based on what i see on google earth it looks like there are no
other duplexes on the block así que basado en lo que yo estoy viendo en google earth no veo que
este hayan otro duplexes en el en la cuadra de más de los que mencionó aportar entre yo solamente
mencioné la esquina por como te digo no sé pero también que fue lo que sucedió en la reunión del
rseo de la comunidad de la comunidad fíjate por la gente fueron y participaron y votaron
al favor mío gracias a dios so the people came and participated in my favorite thing
car and there is also a letter from the council members escuela y este también hay una carta de
este uno de los miembros de la junta de la escuela si hay otras preguntas de la junta
y preguntas y preguntas o comentarios de la abogada de el gobierno que es
time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience?
Pregunta o comentario de la audiencia virtual o la audiencia presente?
I do not see any answer, Mr. Chair. Planing Commission. Comité de Planeo.
Madison Matera, M-A-D-I-S-O-N, M-A-T-E-R-A, Planing Commission Staff.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
Así que el plan comprensivo recomienda que no haya cambio al RSA 5 de residencial unifamiliar para la zona en esta ubicación.
The city rezoned this neighborhood in 2017 in a community supported map change.
Y la ciudad rezonificó esta urbanización en 2017 con un cambio de mapa apoyado por la comunidad.
Y esta propiedad se ve que se ha estado utilizando como un lugar o hospedaje de dos familias desde por lo menos el 2014.
Sorry, the zoning board grant the proposed request to legalize a second drawing unit.
Así que el Comité de Planeo de la Ciudad recomienda que la Junta de Zonificación le dé las variancias propuestas y legalizar la segunda unidad de vivienda.
mi2024-005-624-2068 east and street i vote yes
can we can we can we include the proviso for a co and no basement living yeah we we can i think
they all get them but yeah so proviso um certificate of occupancy to be obtained
and ck and i'm sorry can you please repeat that last statement
is the interpreter requesting clarification yes please i couldn't hear the last statement
oh i'm sorry so so i'll start from the beginning am i 20
So I'll start from the beginning. MI 2024-005624, 2068 East Ann Street, I vote yes with proviso, certificate of occupancy to be obtained.
y voto que sí con improviso de certificado de ocupanza que tenga que obtener michael
johnson my vote is yes with proviso michael johnson sí con provisos cheryl gaston my
vote is yes with proviso cheryl gaston votos y comprovisos tenetta graham my vote is yes
with proviso the night a grand votos y compromisos brian mcadams my vote is yes with proviso brian
mcdams vota si con unas condiciones thank you sir you have your vote and interpreter thank you again
right thank you do you require further interpretation that was that we had two
and you handled both for us thank you all right thank you for using the service interpreter
disconnecting sure so number three mi 2024 006 693 7200 summers road joseph consul is the attorney
this is a resumptive hearing
they will be coming back in as a panel of shortlands the chair
good morning
morning mr consul could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes it's joseph consul it's j-o-s joe you're a little low last name consul c-o-n-s-o-l-e
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do so this is a resumptive hearing um you're going to present amended refusal and any
supplemental information there'll be questions from the board from the public and also the
planning commission okay um why don't you start all right uh let me share and why don't you give
us a little idea where you where you were with this and where we stand yeah yeah okay
all right so joe console here for true family partnership llc uh mr hi true uh is on the call
with me today to the extent he needs to adopt my testimony and testify so we were here in October
we presented plans at that time that included parking spaces and a reduction in the number
of units compared to what we had originally filed so while we had support for reducing the
number of units from three to two and support for the parking on this lot, we needed to get
streets approval and we needed to submit our proviso plans and get an amended refusal. So
we left, produced what we needed to, went back and forth with the streets department, and I'll
scan through their letter in a second, just to make sure that all the T's were dotted and I's
are crossed. And so we're back with the two unit plan with the parking. So this is an amended
refusal. It does include the parking. However, it still lists three dwelling units. I'll show you
my proviso forms in a second. You'll see that we only asked for two. So we're anticipating and
And obviously fine with the proviso to limit this to two dwelling units.
But this amended refusal from the end of January does contain the parking space requests.
So our streets approval letter, nothing further.
Like I said, we went back and forth regarding turning radius studies and a couple other things.
But ultimately, there's no conditions to the streets department approval.
Parking in this behind this building or proposed building should be fairly straightforward.
Here's the proviso plans that we submitted noting the parking spaces as well as the reduction in the dwelling units from three to two.
Here are the plans that were submitted with the proviso forms.
It's two bi-level units. This is the first unit looking at the lowest level.
this is the first unit looking at the lowest level again I can stop and go
back to any of these this is the surface level with the parking spaces behind the
property that about the existing alleyway and unit 2 starts on the second
floor both units are three bedrooms unit two goes on to the third floor
these are the zoning plans with the turning radius analysis that we submitted
it was approved by the streets department these plans were done in november
some photos
pictures showing the posters but also kind of giving you an idea of what the lot sort
of looks like. It's a large corner lot. It's remained undeveloped, was a multifamily property
but, you know, we're talking decades ago and it's sat vacant.
You're looking at the alleyway that has a curb cut
and will provide the two parking spaces.
And then there's our tax clearance certificate.
So we believe this is a good project.
provides two units in a building I show one thing
the rendering we have support from from the community they wanted the spot developed they
didn't want three units we had two meetings with them ultimately getting their approval
and coming before you guys now twice.
So with that, we're taking a blighted vacant lot
and providing the community with two units.
So I'll call my client, Mr. True, to adopt my testimony
and help me answer any questions the board might have.
What's your client's name?
H-A-I, last name T-R-I-E-U.
They put promoted to panelists.
I'm back in short.
Hello.
Hi, could you please state your name as spelled for this phonographer?
Hi, true.
H-A-I, last name T-R-I-E-U.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
we'll see you counsel uh good morning hi did you hear my testimony just now regarding uh your
revised submission for 7200 summers i did do you adopt what i said as your own i do okay um that
that's it leave them open to any questions from the board questions from the board
is the existing structure getting torn down there's nothing there it's a just i'll take it
it's a lot just empty lot got it okay yeah i think that the comments some of the comments
that were made that last um hearing were about the context and the fact that it doesn't go with a
sort of the rest of the character of the of the block face i know that was a concern um
and then the rather the rendering that was prepared is wrong you know it doesn't show
the actual what the what the houses look like next door to it
so it's it's a three-story the rest are two um
and some of them have these sort of a frames in the front and they have these sort of
yeah it's like it's not the block right so so I don't know whether that matters to anybody at
this point but there seems to be support that was part of where my comment came from because the
house next to it has the a-frame right at least the a-frame the pent uh pent roof in the front
so i think we had yeah go ahead oh no i was just going to ask if there's any particular hardship
for not um maintaining the single family zoning uh the hardship as we see it is the fact that it had
uh the hardship as we see it is the fact that it had existed as a multi-family and but also
existed.
this is a large lot um i'll get you the the dimensions as well uh it's a 2553 square foot
uh lot is the intent to keep the tree in the front yard uh hi could you speak to that well we we do
intend to keep the tree in the front yard um that's that was uh already discussed i think
at the last hearing as well and can you show the basement plan again please
Okay, thank you. I have no further question.
Questions from our attorney?
Yes, just to clarify, I know you're asking for two dwelling units now and not for three.
Is there any change? Was there any change to the envelope of the building as a result of that?
Because there was not a new site plan submitted?
Oh, hold on. I might have put the wrong thing up. Hi, did I put up the wrong document?
I see your email.
I believe so. So I think speaking to the basement, we've added light wells as discussed in the last hearing, as well as a rear egress. Yep, here it is.
All right. So let's start with what caught some flack. And Board, I apologize. For some reason, this was not in my folder.
That's a little different.
Now you've got the houses that fetch the neighborhood.
All right. So blame Joe, please. My client fixed it.
All right. So that hopefully appears a little more palatable.
I will say, I think like all of the pitch roofs are twins, like they're next to another pitch
roof and there was an opportunity here to continue that down the street and continue the like
uniform look of the block um understanding that this was the third floor but that's my only comment
okay now i'll go back i think i think i think i have the same comment uh and i think it would be
easy to accomplish even if it's not a real uh a frame there could be something done with the
front facade to at least give some respect to the rest of the facades on
the block okay and then back to the plan time what would you want me to point
out so we added the rear egress at the top right there you can see there's
stairs and doors leading out to the surface level as well as more light
wells in the bedroom living areas with the addition of the basement walkout can you still walk
out from the rear of the first floor as well that's that's correct okay i'm on the first floor
two exits to that carport okay all right and just to for for my clarification purposes if
If you are proposing changes to the exterior layout
of the building, those need to be submitted
as a site plan.
If the board grants this, we can't stamp floor plans
and we need a site plan,
just an updated version of what was submitted to L&I.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I do not see any hands raised.
Planning Commission. Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff. The comprehensive plan recommends no change from the current RSA 5 residential single family zoning at this location. The appellant has supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property. Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for multifamily with proviso maximum two units.
right Hillary I want to hold this to next Wednesday and take it to executive
session and vote on it at 930 okay no problem and and mr. console in the
meantime can you please submit revised site plan and proviso form indicating
the changes from the original proposal yes thank you also just just all just
also just one thing on this site plan I thought of on the basement plan I
believe i saw something that said carport now is that a covered carport or it says carport as opposed
Now, is that a covered carport or it says carport as opposed to just parking stalls?
Are we going to mean this carport?
So I'm proposing a roofed area.
No, no, we're not proposing a roof area.
It's it's going to be just a parking space for residents.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Consul.
Okay, we're going to move on to number 6 and number 7, MI 2025 002 577 59 East Clappierre
Street and number 7, MI 2025 003 898 61 East Clappierre Street.
These are both resumptive hearings, Mr. Counsel, could you please state your name and spell
for court stenographer certainly good morning chair sean whalen w-h-a-l-e-n here on behalf
of the owners of the property right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do and i understand what updates from you on where we stand then
there'll be questions from the board public testimony and then the planning commission okay
yes so why don't you just give us a brief overview of where you were and then start
your presentation? Yes. So very briefly, I filed this appeal back in April, began, as I told the
board, May through roughly early October, trying to schedule an RCO meeting with the coordinating
RCO, the Wakefield 49ers. That's Ms. Roz McKelvey. She did eventually schedule one for like the first
second week of november and then when i called to confirm the date with her and the information
for the rco notice letter roughly a week and a half two weeks before that she advised me that
unfortunately she had to have some serious medical procedure and had to cancel that meeting so we
were not able to have after all that time have the meeting eventually so at the suggestion and
support of the councilwoman's office charles richardson we had a here and hold on december
16th before the board so i presented the case and we are seeking only two duplexes here the entire
neighborhood was originally set up in the 60s and 70s as duplexes this is a very dilapidated block
61 east clapier is structurally set up as a as a duplex it was most recently as i stated before
used as an illegal rooming house there were kitchenettes put in all the different rooms
all of that's going to get cleared out we're just trying to legalize that as a duplex
59 east clapier we believe but cannot testify to is a duplex i have interior photos it's
uh so dilapidated and deteriorated inside uh you can't even really get upstairs so there are just
a few photos from the downstairs showing what bad shape that's in um so what we then did is
immediately after the hearing i reached out to both the 12th ward democratic committee which
is the other rco in the in this region as well as the wakefield 49ers to try to set up another
meeting i forwarded that email to the board i received no response from either rco to try to
set up a meeting in advance of this hearing then sean smalley from the councilwoman's office
separately and independently reached out to both rcos in an attempt to try to schedule an rco meeting
my understanding is that because i was cc'd on the email and provided a copy of the email
that neither RCO responded to that email either I posted the property for the December 12th in
advance of the December 12th hearing and I also sent out an RCO notice letter with a certificate
of mailing for both properties in advance of that I also reposted the property for this matter and
And to my under, I have not received any communications from anyone in the neighborhood, honestly supportive or in opposition, and to my understanding, based on, you know, either the letter that went out or the two postings, neither has the councilman's office.
So at this time, I would respectfully request to move forward to a vote without doing it again.
We have two existing structures.
The hardship is already in place, and we're only seeking the least minimum variance, which is a duplex in each one.
Both will have roughly two 1,500-square-foot apartments.
um apartments so these are going to be very large family-oriented apartments uh most of the block
So these are going to be very large, family-oriented apartments.
from down from us to the south is uh actually has been demolished by the city over time
so we have i think it's six or seven vacant lots uh next to us so this is an attempt to try to
revitalize this neighborhood um and the i don't know that you will need to speak with her but
Saba Tedla is the woman behind this. It's just a single woman developer who's trying to develop
these properties. Thank you. So, why don't you show the plans again real quick? Of course.
Sorry, joining us. Do you have anything? Are people in the basement sleeping in the basement
there? There are going to be no basement bedrooms. We're happy to accept. Okay.
right that was yours right that was you
need my hearing notes um okay so the first thing that just came up sorry is uh oops
all right hopefully you can see this this is the historical map from the zoning archive
it shows when this was built all the twos and threes on each property show the number of units
for each one so this property what you know sure most of these properties have no zoning archive
just to be to be clear because they were all built at the time back then there are a number
of indications of duplexes you know multiple trash cans you know with a one and two out front
mailboxes uh things like that um but not legalized so let me again each of these has
you don't need the map uh here is the property on the left is 59 east clapier it is a standalone
61 east clapier is right next to it it is a twin that is fully built out and what you can see here
to the left or those are all the vacant lots the this side of the block that you can see on on my
side of the screen is essentially the same again most of these having been you know demoed by the
city because of dilapidating conditions everything is rsa3 again for both i include both refusals
both refusals are solely uh one use refusal for multi multi-family housing to a duplex instead
of single family here's a copy of the letter i sent
and the RCO notice I'm trying to get here we go so here's a picture of what it
looks like you know last fall obviously no four feet of snow in front of the
property this is 61 right here on the left and then right adjacent to it is 59
um here are the interior photos for let me see so there we go
these are the interior photos for um 61 you can see it's still in decent shape there's
not going to be any new structural uh reconstruction of what you're seeing right
now this is all going to get skinned i mean it's it's not well kept at the one
And he shows the drawings of what it's going to look like.
Oh, sure.
Plans.
Okay, so.
Didn't zoom in. So this is 61 clap here.
You can see the 1st floor. You'll enter on the 1st floor.
Have living space, the shared hallway, and then you immediately go up to the 2nd.
I'll do the top floor 1st.
um these are the top two floors again you have you come up these stairs you have this hallway
you have a bedroom in the back two bedrooms in the back bathroom in the middle
two bedrooms in the back bathroom in the middle bathroom for this master bedroom in the front
and then actually the kitchen is going to go on the top floor with the living room and laundry
up there and there will be what's already approved a existing walkout I believe this is technically a
balcony even though it's labeled as a roof deck you walk out this existing third floor onto this
is the roof of the second floor that's already existing um and then the
first floor you walk in immediately into the living room you have the kitchen the hallway
and the bath that that again is all existing and then in the basement you would have some
extra living space purposely and again we are accepting of a no bedrooms in the basement
yeah the next one joe i mean um sean yeah that's what uh i apologize 59 i didn't have open i
I actually accidentally fat-thumbed it and closed it while you were asking.
There we go.
Here we go.
So this is 59 East Clapier.
So you come in here.
This is the entrance. This is the existing porch, living room, dining room. I apologize for that. Kitchen. And then upstairs, you're going to have actually one, two, three, four bedrooms. So this is very large. And then this is the existing basement.
and those are the existing conditions and then what we have now is again the first floor come
in you have this shared hall exactly built out like the other one go in you have a living room
dining room here the existing kitchen and then there's one bedroom in the back and then you have
uh the three bedrooms up at the top and then in the basement and here sorry the third floor
so the third floor again will have the dining room living room and kitchen
and uh the walkout deck in the rear why don't you bring your client on certainly
can you go back to the basement
this is 59
and again the intention is to make it
you know it is currently unfinished I can show you the picture of it being
entirely unfinished and we are accepting of a no bedrooms
in the basement proviso
client's name again saba s-a-b-a tedla t-e-d-l-a she told me she'd be on she had
kids home on a school delay this morning so as many of us are scrambling
Sabatetla please raise your virtual hand away to be sworn in
I know she was on earlier Sabatetla she says she's on the call Mr Whelan she's the owner for
both of the llc's that are both properties she's the sole member of both sorry thank you um all
right raise all right she said she's on and she'll raise her hand now
Do we see your hand?
Not yet, Mr. Chair.
Sabatetler, if you're still in the virtual
If you're still in the virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand to wait to be sworn in.
Sean, as an officer, the court will take your testimony.
questions for that what's the question more a comment I mean I said it before I think there's
no way we can skin it the basement has two bedrooms and a bathroom a full bathroom that's
how it's going to get appraised that's how it's going to we could say whatever we want and that
is what those two rooms are going to end up being used as so I don't really understand why your
client would be open to a no bedrooms in the basement proviso because it would say no basement
living and would render the entire bottom floor like infeasible from a real estate perspective but
she's not here so i understand i i i agree i mean if it's if it looks like a duck and cracks like a
duck it's a duck right you know you've got egress windows you've got a full bath you've got full
closets in both and to think that there would only be one bedroom on the first
floor with this huge amount of space dedicated on the basement with just
office and gym and all those things it's a it's it's it seems somewhat
species other questions questions or comments from our attorney not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience or the current audience
i do not see any hints mr chair on any commission i think we already gave our testimony but i have
no additional comments okay um we're going to hold this the next wednesday and we'll talk to
the board about it um hillary i want it to be closed unless he wants to respond in any way
next week i mean is that i mean if he if he talks to his client and changes his mood about
or changes their ideas about the basement um i don't want to give it a resumptive hearing what
want to do is okay all right so it's closed unless your client has additional comments
to share about uh the basement issues the board are we not leaving it open for the rco too
well they i mean no they've already now okay yeah i mean yeah three times yeah okay we're just we're
just holding it for a week there's not really time to hold a meeting so and if i could just be clear
That is for both 59 East Clapier and 61 East Clapier?
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Number eight.
Number eight.
MI 2025-004-514-3922 Mellon Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
um this is a resumptive hearing there is support from mantua civic association
they'll be back in as a panel shortly mr chair
morning mr chairman members of the board good morning council could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer sure henry clinton h-e-n-r-y clinton c-l-i-n-t-o-n and my client
Leffler-Dema, L-E-F-T-E-R-D-H-I-M-A is also on the call.
Right. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
This is a resumptive hearing. We'll have an update from you regarding revised plans.
There'll be questions from the board, there'll be public testimony and possibly planning commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Why don't you start, sir?
Sure. By way of background, I was here, we were here back in December. It's a request for a three-family dwelling on a 3,900 block of Mellon Street. We're across the street from two, three-family dwellings, albeit that's their own Union Street, to be perfectly frank.
The subject property is the end of a row adjacent to an alley.
It's long been vacant.
I couldn't really establish how long it's been vacant, but I believe in excess of a decade.
It is one of the two largest lots on the block.
It's 78 feet deep.
We have the unanimous support of the Mantua Civic Association, and there's been no attempt
to build on it from anyone that I talk to in the neighborhood.
And if I could share my screen, I will walk through the presentation.
Show the board all the changes.
Show, show the board all the changes.
Is his screen shared?
Not yet.
There we go.
Let me see.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman?
It is.
All right.
So I'm not going to go through all the table of contents because we have it all.
Right.
The key issue here is we've eliminated one of the two refusals.
We had an overuse of the dimensional aspect of the property.
We had 83 percent, 84 percent rather.
We've reduced that occupied area to 75 percent.
So the sole issue before the board today is is the use a triplex in a single family zone residency.
There's a letter, unanimous support of Mantua Civic.
Photographs, which I showed before, it's a vacant lot off the corner of Union Street.
The two properties here are three-family.
This is an adjacent two-story property, and one of the concerns was the elevations didn't match,
and I think if you see all the changes that we made, hopefully the board will be somewhat satisfied.
This is looking eastbound, vacant lot.
This is the two-story adjacent.
This is another three-story on the block at the end of the block, 3902, with a mansert roof, which we are mimicking in some way.
So here are all the seven changes we've made.
So we've eliminated the dimensional variance, as I said, reducing it from 84 to 75.
So we increased the rear yard from 9 feet to 18 feet.
We've added spiral stairs in the rear yard for an egress well.
that larger yard permits us to do that for the basement egress. We've eliminated the balconies
on the second and third floor of the front and the rear because really they don't match the block
as one member of the board said back in December. We matched the window sizes and location of the
adjacent property on the first and second floor elevations. We also carried the cornice line of
the adjacent property onto the subject property, the second floor level, and it's going to be wood
to match next door. We added the mansert roof at the third floor level rather than going straight
up, and we installed trash closets in units two and three. So here is the new elevation.
Again, the windows match up, the corners line matches up, the mansert roof, and here's a side
view of the mansert roof. I'll blow that up a little bit so you can see it's on a 45, so it's
setback a little bit, taking away that canyon look that you often get when you get three
stories straight up on a small street.
We've eliminated the balconies on the front as well as on the rear.
And over toward the left side, and I'll blow this up, is the egress well in the rear yard,
able to enlarge the egress well.
Actually, not really enlarge it, just install spiral steps to get out of the basement in
the event of a problem.
We also have an egress well in the front of the house.
In terms of the floor plan, it's basically going to be the same as it was prior,
except in the rear, I have a sliding doors to go out to an egress well to get out to the rear yard.
The bedroom in the front, there's also an egress well there.
Unit one will be the basement of first floor.
Excuse me, there's access to the rear yard from the rear bedroom.
Go up to the second floor, bedroom in the front, bedroom in the rear, washer, dryer, trash closet adjacent.
going up to the third floor really didn't change
let me go down one page really didn't change anything from the last time except the elimination
of the balconies we still have two bedrooms uh and two baths on the third floor with a
rooftop deck that is only accessible uh by the unit on the third floor um that's it mr chairman
and basically tried to take all the comments
from the board into consideration.
And I really think the issue obviously is use.
It's a single family zone.
We're looking for three families because a lot's large.
It's at the end of a row, not the end of the street,
but the end of the row,
because there's an alley between the west side of the property
the west side of the property and the homes that the rear yards are on union street
and the homes that the rear yards are on you.
and there is another mansart roof on the block so i'll entertain you have your client come on
and adopt your testimony mr leffler leffler dima can you unmute yourself
leffler he's on the call they'll be coming back in as a panel shortly
good morning good morning could you please state your name and spell for this thought
my name is lefter l-e-f-t-e-r and last name is vima d-h-i-m-a you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i swear please proceed mr demon were you on the
call when i presented your revised project yes and if you had the opportunity to testify would
you adopt my testimony as your own and it's true and correct yes thank you sir questions from the
board yes um well one i just want to say that i think classifying this as a large lot when it's
1100 square feet and 1400 is the minimum in philadelphia is a little bit of a stretch um and
i do want to understand the hardship for three units i also think this is a lot of construction
for all of the bedrooms to be seven feet wide,
like they're under eight feet wide,
which isn't even like a decent-sized bedroom.
And I think at this point that this is just,
it's dense to try to squeeze in a lot of units
on a block that's mostly two-story
and mostly one family.
Miss, when I hear you,
I was not trying to misrepresent anything.
I'm just saying it's a large lot in comparison
to the rest of the block.
And I said, it's one of two.
here's our lot and here's the adjacent lot and you know they are quite it is quite larger than
or deeper than the other lots on the block so no no misdirection meant uh at all okay i understood
and and your comments basically reflect what my notes were from december uh you made similar
comments and also commented about the elevation uh we we did address the elevation but you did
I think all of the things that you guys addressed were positive.
I think it still stands that there's still these things that aren't quite working.
And I think a duplex would make more sense here.
I think understanding that it's deeper than the other lots on the block,
they are not typically, those are undersized lots even for that neighborhood.
So I do think that looking at that property, I think a duplex would make more sense.
i understand any other questions any other questions
questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the audience
of the virtual audience i do not see any hands raised mr committee commission do you already
take a position um yes i don't think we have any additional comments okay um henry we're
to vote on this next week wednesday morning at 9 30 a.m okay thank you very much very much
thanks for letting us come back to the board i'd really appreciate it appreciate it so number four
So MI 2024-006-832-4238-4283 Viola Street, TA-63838.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from the RCO,
the letter of opposition from Council Member Gauthier,
Meredith Ferliger, and also Steve Masters is the attorney for the Protestants.
Good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Great. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Masters, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S, with the law firm of JustLaws.
We represent the Viola Street neighbors and other objectors.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
murder could you identify your client a relationship to the property my client
is Haverford Square Viola LLC which is the deeded owner of this property and
and our vice chair has a few questions good morning have you submitted your documents and
our vice chair has a few questions good morning have you submitted your
exhibits five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusals and
stipulate to the accuracy uh yes except this is a referral our referral okay thank you you can
share your screen proceed with your case so for both councils um you know we have several cases
and that this is one of the cases
that's going to be a little bit more protracted.
And the way we stand now,
we have L&I review board coming in here at 1230.
So we have to be done by then.
So, Meredith, how long do you think
your particular presentation would take?
Mr. Chair, I think my presentation
is no more than 20 minutes.
I can't, yeah.
So here's what we're trying to do
is we're we're trying to hold this to 20 minutes steve and then she'd make her presentation and
we'd back and you could start with a presumptive hearing when we come back okay i mean there's just
no other way we can do this so uh meredith why don't you start yes mr chairman if you give me a
moment? Sure. Just to make sure, can you all hear me okay? I have a new microphone. I just want to
make sure that it's working. I can hear you. We can hear you. Okay, great. Thank you.
All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the request before you today concerns 4283
Viola Street. You have an exhibit packet in front of you up on the screen that contains 19 exhibits,
which as always we do request be moved into evidence at the conclusion of the presentation.
I do also have representative from Haverford Square Viola, Mr. German Yakubov, who will come
on at the end of my presentation. To summarize the basis for today's request, and I'll bring up the
or the referral, this application requests a special exception for a group living use
in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Much of the background information I will provide today may seem familiar to this board
in light of a prior case that you heard, so I will try and move through it quickly, but
I do need to repeat everything for the purpose of preserving our record in this particular
The deed is included at Exhibit 3 and is up on the screen, and we did also include tax clearance as well at Exhibit 2.
The aerials of this property at Exhibit 7 show that the property is a vacant lot on Viola Street, just east of Belmont Avenue.
And you can see here in this photograph, the context, this is the fire station that fronts on Belmont Avenue.
From the rear of the property, you'll see that this property directly adjoins structures which front on Parkside Avenue.
And then by way of a more complete context, in the next aerial up on the screen,
you will see an outline of the applicant's recently approved development on Parkside
Avenue, which received a building permit in the spring and is currently under construction
for 48 units.
And we show you this just in terms of the context because it is highly relevant in terms of
management of the property.
At the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll note that the property is zoned RSA 5.
Current street view photographs of the property are shown at Exhibit 8.
And again, you'll see here the vacant lot, with portions of this lot having been vacant for many decades.
The next photograph here shows the property in relation to Belmont Avenue, which is just to the west.
And then looking in the other direction, this photograph looks east on Viola Street.
This is a view from across the street from the property, again on Viola Street.
Then just looking here, this is a view of the intersection with Belmont Avenue just at the end of the block,
where you'll see the context right across from this intersection is the Discovery Charter School
over in the image here at the right-hand side. And then, as I mentioned to you previously,
just essentially fronting on Belmont Avenue, immediately next to the property is the Philadelphia
Fire Station. And then, as I mentioned earlier, by way of context, this property is contained
And then, as I mentioned earlier, by way of context, this property is contiguous to my client's other development on Parkside Avenue, which in this photograph, you can see this is slightly out of date prior to the start of construction.
But this looks right through to Viola.
And then we did also include updated posting, which was posted timely on February 4th, 2026.
As shown on the Consolidation Plan at Exhibit 9, the lot itself is 3,920 square feet.
The proposal for 4283 Viola Street is shown on the Zoning Plan at Exhibit 10.
And I will zoom in on this.
The proposal includes one new four story structure to be used for group living for a maximum
of 50 occupants, which we'll discuss in more detail momentarily.
The building itself is proposed to be a detached structure, leaving a five foot wide buffer
to the east and approximately an eight and a half foot wide buffer uh to the west you can see five
feet here and about little over eight and a half feet here a four foot curb cut is proposed on
viola street to facilitate the efficient removal of trash commercial trash pickup will be required
the building itself is only proposed to occupy 63 of the lot which is less than the code required
75%. No basement is proposed for this building. I'm going to skip the floor plans for just a
moment and just skip to a rendering at Exhibit 12. The floor plans, which I will return to
momentarily, are at Exhibit 11. Starting first from just a general perspective, this plan shows
that the trash enclosures are proposed to sit behind an enclosed fence to shield the area from
public view. The first floor will also have a common mail room and a lobby. Electrical panels
would be installed in the rear. Before I go into more details on the floor plan, I'm going to first
introduce the special exception standard so that we can very carefully and granularly establish
that the proposed use qualifies for a special exception. As the board is aware, a special
exception is not truly asking for an exception to the code. It is proposing a use that is already
permitted by the zoning code. Our burden, as established by Section 143037E.1-3 is to first
establish that the proposed use meets the definition of a use allowed by special exception,
that all dimensional standards are satisfied, and that the application complies with all criteria
and conditions applicable to the proposed use. First, it is without dispute that the application
meets all dimensional standards of the code, as no refusals were issued for any aspect of the
proposed structure for lot development. There are also no use-specific standards for group living
in the Philadelphia Code for which the applicant must comply. Second, the applicant must establish
that the use meets the definition of a use permitted by special exception. Here, group
living which indisputably is permitted by special exception at table 14601-1 of the zoning code
as I have up on the screen highlighted in yellow and shown to the board. You can see
group living highlighted RSA 5 and the S which indicates it's a use permitted by special exception.
by way of
some further detail bring this back up
all right the zoning code defines group living let me zoom in on that defines group living
as a residential occupancy of a building or any portion thereof that is not categorized
as a household living use, and that typically provides communal kitchen slash dining facilities.
Backing into this definition, we can first establish that the use proposed today is not
that the use proposed today is not one that is characterized as household living.
not one that is characterized
Household living is defined as a residential occupancy of a building or any portion thereof
by one or more families, commonly broken down into categories of single-family, two-family,
or multifamily. Again, and I apologize having to get into such important granular detail,
multifamily is the use of a lot as a residence for three or more families with each family,
and I will highlight the word family for you, occupying a single dwelling unit.
Importantly, family is defined by the zoning code as a person living independently or a group of persons living as a single household unit, using housekeeping facilities in common.
But, and again, I'll highlight this next part, not to include more than three persons who are unrelated by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster child status.
or are not life partners. Here, and as I will now show you on the floor plans,
the project does not provide dwelling units for families. Instead, the proposed use is seeking
to fill a missing need for both transitional, highly affordable housing for persons who are
otherwise entirely independent and not requiring of any form of specialized care.
As you can see on the floor plans, the design here includes separate living pods.
On the first floor, there are two pods containing four beds each.
The third pod on the first floor is combined with two kitchens.
I'M JUST GOING TO OBJECT TO SAYING THAT THERE ARE BEDS THAT ARE PROVIDED.
THE APPLICANT IN A MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT
PROVIDING ANY BEDS, THAT ANY BEDS THAT WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE OCCUPANTS.
DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
APPLICANTS COME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD ROUTINELY WITH FLOOR PLANS FOR MULTIFAMILY PROPOSALS
for any form of a proposal uh where this board has come to expect that the layout of those uh
of those facilities is going to be provided with the location of bedrooms so it's entirely irrelevant
hold on i hear your point but i'm going to allow it for now okay yeah we agree that there will be
bedrooms okay but not i think she's okay she's shown where the bets are going to be thank you
the third pod on the first floor is combined with two kitchens six bedrooms two bathrooms
and shared living space with direct access outside and as you can see there is the door
the layout of the second through fourth floor is similar except that those levels are designed with
one large open pod each with 12 beds per pod four kitchens four bathrooms shared living spaces
the total number of occupants may not on the record i will object to the notation of beds
sure okay and mr chairman um i i would like uh mr masters to allow me to get through my
presentation here so i i i think he's he's making a point i i didn't agree with him so why don't you
continue thank you the total number of occupants may not exceed 50 per hour application the living
spaces will have privacy barriers in between the uh the location of the beds the pods will
not be rented on a per pod basis they will be rented with flexible leasing terms per individual
for lease terms up to a year, but with lesser lease terms available as well, but no less than
30 days. For the avoidance of doubt, any lease term less than 30 days would constitute visitor
accommodations, and that is not the proposed use of this space. The layout here is quite similar
to one you might see for a group transitional shelter. The difference here being that this is
a step up into a space of a much higher standard of living, where an individual requires
into a space of a much higher standard of living where an individual requires no on-site support
is capable of paying rent but may be unable to afford a single apartment for the time being
importantly this use is not one that can be classified as a personal care home
home, nor a single room residence, which are subcategories of group living.
And again, just to bring up the actual definitions from the code, you can see here at Exhibit
17, the definitions of personal care home is one where food, shelter, and personal assistance
is provided.
That is not the case with this proposed use, which is intended for entirely independent
adults.
Further, a single room residence is defined as a building containing rooms rented as living quarters without private bathrooms.
The design of the interior of this proposed building renders it unmistakable that there are no rooms being rented as living quarters without private bathrooms.
Here, each pod has private bathrooms. The rentals are not on a per room basis.
Notably, there is significant precedence in the city's public permitting systems for this type of use being classified as group living.
Even beyond transitional living facilities, this board has granted relief for group living uses in, for example, many student housing facilities,
where the only basis for the use being group living versus multifamily was the fact that there
were more than three unrelated people living together, as is the case here. For example,
around universities, there are many single-family homes that have been approved for group living
purely because there were more than three students living in that property. This proposal is no
different, albeit a higher density. During the RCO meeting, many members of the community
expressed concern that this was intended to be a drug rehab center or other similar type of
medical facility. Let me be abundantly clear. The proposed group living use here is not for a drug
rehab, recently released offenders, or any other population who may require on-site services or
support the board can certainly issue a proviso to that effect so meredith i don't want to interrupt
you but you're 20 minutes you're 20 minutes into your 25 minutes so i'm just giving a little sense
of where we stand okay okay i i i maybe need five five ten minutes and i'll be i'll be done i i i
think i'm good for five if not we're going to have a resumptive hearing okay okay uh there was also
concern from community members about who would live in this building we have been very clear
throughout the meetings that my client would be renting in accordance with established
fair housing standards philadelphia code regulations and any state laws pertaining
to landlord tenant standards according to standard rules of statutory construction
we submit that the board is bound to apply the clear language of the code as written and find
that the proposed use as presented constitutes group living. Even if the code were ambiguous,
which we dispute, the board would still be bound to interpret the code in the landowner's favor,
planned at the exact same conclusion.
mr chairman my my next section here is really um more in the legal argument so i'm actually
going to suggest this may be a an even place to stop just in terms of picking it back up again
so so let me let me let me say this um tell me what the rest of your case will look like when
we come back so the rest of my case is just walking through the rest of the legal standard
that we have to establish to the board in terms of the special exception and how how long meredith
how long do you think that would be 10 minutes 15 minutes and then how many witnesses i have one
witness uh and i only have at the moment i only have three questions for him so i don't have i
don't have anything extensive for my witness at this time thank you very much steve um i'm not
asking you to show me your case for anything could you give me a sense of what your case would entail
and how long you think it would take because i think if i'm not mistaken you can just already
give us a list of potential witnesses why don't you just give me an idea of what your case looks
why don't you just give me an idea what your case looks like so oh hold on uh i think i did
So I'll.
i swore them both in the beginning yeah of course go ahead absolutely um
so we're going to be focusing a lot on um the applicant's uh statements to the community at
a meeting a few weeks ago, which vary considerably from his attorney's representations at the
moment. We're going to also have some of our community people are going to be focusing
specifically on why this particular use is going to be much more damaging and hurtful
to the community. The question here really isn't whether this is group living. The question
is whether the special exception should be granted and that only is granted if both the the applicant
and the and the community meet different burdens so we're going to be looking at the burdens that
the that the applicant has to have a burden to show that what he's proposing is not is not
damaging and dangerous he has to have that burden first and then it slide it shifts to us to say that
it would be more burdensome so we're going to be having a lot of testimony about that
we're also going to be looking at how the the code actually um defines transitional housing
how the the the state laws um define it and how the courts have defined it and that's important
because what they're telling you here well you don't you don't tell me now just just i mean you're
gonna have a chance to explain all that to me just give me a sense of how long you think you
need and and if you if it's if we're gonna have to repeat another date we we look we we had very
many hearings at the in the first go-round and and that was not a popular thing for for for um
for our side to have to keep coming back i understand so we would really appreciate if
we could have a big chunk that we could just get it all all over with i think that we'd be talking
about 45 minutes to an hour okay all right so for both of you we're going to continue this for
resumptive hearing to April 17th at 9 30 a.m.
And I want to thank everybody for coming down here. I see your signs and things of that nature
but for both of you Meredith will be back here April 17th at 9 30 a.m. and and thank you thank
you both. Thank you thank you Mr. Chair over the board. Mr. Nockamson please.
MI 2023-002-047-2231 Green Street.
Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
So, Mr. Nockmson, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes. Excuse me. Alan Nockmson. A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. My client to the left of me is Jack Jallo, one of the owners of the property.
Mm-hmm. Okay. And there's a letter of non-opposition from the Spring Garden Civic Association, and I have updates here, right, Hillary? We had an update from, so I see an update. Standing issue resolved and amended to the declaration of condominium that has been recorded and signed by all unit owners plus condo association, and we received the proof of tax compliance. Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Okay. And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay. Thank you. You can show your screen and proceed with your case.
Great. If I could just be promoted to a panelist.
Thank you.
all right so we're here to present 2231 green street unique circumstances here
my client actually just purchased trying to do full screen mode
my client just purchased a property this is a site plan right so here's the 22
My client just purchased a property. This is a site plan, right? So here's the 2231 Green Street condominium. They also have this as a limited common element right here, which is a two parking space, two parking spaces. Mr. Jallo and his wife Gage Johnston purchase unit number one, as well as this limited common element here, which is the entire thing.
there's a driveway easement here coming off 23rd street i know i say this a lot but i actually
passed this property every single day really i live on 23rd street in fairmont so i passed this
coming into the city i passed it today and i said okay you know hopefully we're going to be uh you
know you know fixing up this property in the way it should be sure um so um my client actually also
owns these five parking spots and he lives here at 2240 mount vernon street so he uses these five
parking spots currently for himself family and actually neighbors i was joking with jack i said
you know if we get this approved am i am i one of those people that can arc over there it's a
little too far for me but um but yeah but he honestly uses it for the neighborhood and if
anyone knows vermont it's definitely struggles with parking and having these five off street
parking spots plus hopefully to like make this we're changing configuration of it but into
additional parking spot will be very helpful. So anyway, so that's where we are. Jack owns five
here. He owns this now as a limited common element for 2231 Green Street, and he owns 2240 Mount
Vernon. What he's trying to do here is just literally subdivide this property here and make
it its own parcel and have it as non-accessory parking. So it's not changing. It's just going,
it's parking connected with the condo building and it's going to be parking now basically to
make this almost into its own little parking lot. So you'll see we'll go through 10 exhibits here
which include the notice refusal, a letter of non-opposition from the Spring Garden Civic
Association. We also entered into agreement with Spring Garden Civic Association. One of their
concerns was if we took that parcel away from the association would this be like a way to for us to
develop that parcel that's not our intention at the present moment we agreed have an agreement
where we're limiting our ability to just keep that for parking for a significant period of time
it was also a concern of the spring garden civic association to clearly spruce up this
this parking lot because we didn't have control of that front parking parcel until recently
so by code not part of this presentation but by code we're going to make submissions for zoning
and building permits to make it look nice and you'll see kind of what conceptually we're going
to do here so again we have three refusals for you know sub this subdivision and then taking this
two car uh space parking pad to one car parking pad separated from the association to make its
its own parcel so the first thing is is that because this is an rm1 property this this parcel
is 440 square feet in size. So we're, we don't meet the size limitations of 1440 for RM1 properties
because we're subdividing the parcel, the preexisting building structure at 2231,
we're cutting it right where the parking is. And so right now, then we don't have a rear yard
setback, but it's form over substance because nothing's changing physically with the properties.
And then third, this is a non-accessory parking lot, which is not allowed under R1 zoning classifications. Again, this parking is parking. It's basically being used by Mr. Jallow at 2240 Mount Vernon, nearby neighbors, things like that. And Mr. Jallow and his wife has lived there in the Fairmont area for some time.
Letter of non-opposition, again, through extensive negotiations, because there were concerns about us potentially trying to subdivide it and one day develop it, but also, more importantly, is to make a commitment to fix up that parking lot, now that we have full control of that parking lot, and make it something that, you know, when you pass by, it's going to look like something that we should all be proud of.
and again i just gave you like a zoning permit it had two open air parking spaces previously
approved for this parcel so again all we're trying to do is just reconfigure it make it into one
parking space which i think is the more appropriate thing and then aerial views of the property you
really can't see much here but this is coming down 23rd street
and then maps of the area this arm one property we're not increasing density we're actually
making the parking situation better in fairmont by doing it this way and the photographs of the
property this is from green street this is from 23rd street and then you'll see the parkings right here
oh these are the postings so do we
Oh, these are the postings. So do we have, I'm sure we have pictures of, of the parking. This is Green Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property. This is the parking lot. You know, you'll see it probably more direct somewhere else. North 23rd Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property. Shocked that we don't have the actual picture of the actual parking lot, but I'm sure we'll see it somewhere. This is the site plan that we reviewed at the beginning.
here you go here's the difference between what it looks like now and what the intention is again
this is just conceptual this is not part of this application this is something we worked with with
the coordinating rco um obviously everything has to be done as of right so in terms of fencing as
well as anything else that relates to it we're going to repave it and such
rco meeting notice our firm was involved in this so this this matter has been about was in existence
for some time so but that's the rco mean notice the notice of refusal proof of mailing of that
notice our application for appeal it was under the former owners the notice of refusal the project
information form the amendment to the declaration showing that we have standing to do this because
there was some question before of whether or not we could. So we, you know, got all the unit
owner's approval in terms of this application. And I think we also have the deed to the property
that Jack owns with his wife. Let's see. Yep. Here's the deed to the property showing that
they own unit number one in that condominium as well. So anyway, oh, and I think we have a tax
clearance certificate. I guess we sent it
separately. So anyway, that's it.
Please state your name and spell it for the stenographer.
It's Jack Jallo, J-A-Z-K-J-A-L-L-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Helen, just to get my Barron Street, is 23rd Street where the large church is?
What do you mean the large church?
Green Street, isn't that?
that that's 24 24 24 oh 24th it's not 23rd okay all right questions from the board
oh can i just have him at can i ask him three questions okay sure go ahead you heard everything
i had to state today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes is it true and correct
yes and do you adopt this your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board do we have the
the traffic study or plan or how you're going to turn into that particular lot.
And doesn't it go uphill? I think that's the building.
Again, I walk it sometimes, not a lot.
so um yeah but i mean you can yeah um it's it's an existing parking lot now so i understand yeah
so we did not do a traffic study or not traffic study but at least what we're talking about
turning radius turning raises let me let me see again we weren't involved in the initial filing
oh mr jallow so that was done in the past uh that is in there with ambric i don't know that yeah let
me see i presented here but they've done a traffic survey to look at uh that's part of the reason why
it was converted from two car parking originally to one car parking because of the turning radius
to get into that one spot yeah because there's parking on both sides of the street and there's
also the bus stop near there correct yes but ambric has done that traffic survey and that's
if you look at the original deed it was two car parking the current request is for one car parking
yeah but it's currently being used as yeah because i can't even imagine how that is
two car parking like our parking uh space is i wrote it down is uh 15 and a half by 28 25 and
that's that's the parking pad that was supposed to be for two spots obviously they didn't take
into account the 12 foot dry vial and then there's an easement area um here let me just pull this up
to the front it just makes it easier uh but yeah there's an easement area for those five parking
spots as well so when the board approved this some time ago i don't know how that was possible
because like here this is all existing so this parking pad is existing actually here's a little
history this used to be a laundromat here and i guess it got demolished at one point and then
through a variance this became a two-car parking pad based on 15 and a half feet this way and 28
and 28 and a quarter that way which is impossible and again because like you need to have this
and a quarter that way which is impossible and again because like
you know the obviously the drive aisle for here but also the easement area and here so we're
actually cleaning things up a little bit more not just in terms of physically with with the paving
and and the fencing but to actually make this a true legal parking spot and uh board member gaston
the the bus is a little further down i would say like that's not mid-block but it's not
really the corner either the like the opposite the corner yeah but on the other yeah the bus
stops at the corner this is a little on the opposite side of the street yes on the opposite
side and a little bit before the bus stop yes i i'll agree with you right there and isn't there
But isn't there a that that that area? It's like it's like a slope. It's not like flat ground.
Well, I think it's like a hump. It's a hump. I think she's talking about the site itself.
Yeah, actually, it's a little it's a hump because the parking that sort of to the back of it, it sits higher than the pavement.
There's there's a hump, maybe about two feet. There is. Yes.
if i may um want to get closer to the mic sorry the the intent is the flat it was a flat uh
it was a flat parking space when they were trying to park two cars there because of the
traffic survey demonstrating only one the previous owner inclined that that um that top left
photograph inclined it down uh if you look at the wall behind it you can see that sort of a
white line across the wall that's where the lot was flat but then it was inclined to it
in an attempt to accommodate two cars which was never approved um i think okay the goal would be
i mean with some with the local rco and an architect to see if flattening it and raising
the wall that you see in that right side it's sort of proposal this was done by the prior owner
actually i think makes it both more attractive and probably safer and easier to get around
okay and again you showed what uh amber had to say um have you presented this
have you do you have anything from the um uh our own uh parking um folks about this turning radius
here again um we took over this from former council whatever we're showing you is what we
have in the file so i i can't speak to that but obviously you know this was previously approved
by the z by you know or reviewed by lni and approved by the zba some years ago it was submitted
as non-accessory parking which had to get streets of review and approval in terms of this um so i
can't i apologize i only have what i have okay so the answer is no you don't have a streets approval
of this plan but but but l and i does and you know you know as part of this process
okay and the previous process as well where they allow for two car parking which i don't know how
that's possible okay thank you you're welcome questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any hands mr chair planning commission madison matera planning commission
staff comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rm1 residential multi-family zoning at this
location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 1974 and a council supported map change
there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the proposal is to use parcel b
for parking once the property is separated it would become a legally non-conforming non-accessory
parking space but also a developable lot the creation of this new lot is not strictly necessary
to enable the appellant to drive value from their property the city planning commission recommends
that the board deny the reduced variance for a non-accessory parking lot and the proposed
dimensional variances for lot area and rear yard depth i may just quickly respond um so again this
was previously approved for two-car parking in order to clean up this this lot we're asking to
subdivide from the condominium association or the condominium structure and the use is not changing
and actually it's probably more appropriate use on this one from two to one to the one and then
to the one and then we have the five behind us and we it would be very difficult to to develop
we have the five behind us and we it would be very difficult
this property without having to then consolidate this and we also have agreed to a restriction
on development of this property which was one of the conditions of the associate the spring gardens
approval thank you all right mi 2023 002 047 2231 green street have vote yes michael johns my vote
yes daryl gaston my vote is no tenetta graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes hi owen
my vote is yes thank you thank you council um mr chair can we actually move to number 10
next we're waiting for somebody or number nine sure thank you
So, number 10, MI-2025-006-149, 3411 Bering Street.
Paul Bonney is the attorney.
Rachel Pritzker represents the permit holder.
And Jim Kelly or Leonard Reuter represents the city.
Hilary, what are we looking at here? 40 minutes? We need some time or we want to do the time
for the lesson. Give me where you want to be.
A half hour?
All right.
All right.
All right.
So we're targeting to finish this up in a half hour.
When I say finish up, as much information we get today, and if we have to, we'll have a resumptive hearing.
So, Mr. Bonney, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Paul Bonney, B-O-N-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is the Powleton Village Civic Association, which is the neighborhood group and RCO in this area.
And we are the appellant in this appeal against Illinois.
Yep. Rachel Pritzker?
yes um good afternoon or i guess good morning still rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l-p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes but you identify your client in relationship to the property
yeah so my client is jayden chen who's the current owner of the property
jim kelly could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes jim kelly j-i-m-k-e-l-l-y
on behalf of the city what happened oh do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do and your client city right okay um so we've had testimony on this
before and this is where i believe we stand uh thank you paul finishes his presentation
and then rachel would be next for her presentation and then mr kelly if you need do more we'll do
that okay so mr bonnie could you please um finish your presentation thank you mr chairman and maybe
you want to give us a quick overview sure thank you thank you and ladies and gentlemen of the board
This is an appeal against L&I brought by the Civic Association, Palenton Village Civic Association, and it involves a property of 3411 Baring Street in Palenton Village that had received a zoning variance in 1940 for four dwelling units.
a new property owner came on the scene just recently in 2025 and applied for and obtained
a building permit to renovate four units and that building permit relies on the 1940 variants
it's our contention that that building that that variance from 1940
has been unused or abandoned for a period of three years or more.
And that is the legal basis of our case is that when you don't use it, you lose it.
And if there's more than three continuous years of not using the variants, that it lapses.
Not using the variance that it lapses and then the underlying zoning then comes back into place. Here the underlying zoning is two units. So it's the difference between four or two units. Last time you heard from my clients from the Civic Association, they testified that as soon as they saw that this property had been listed for four units that they rang the bell to everybody.
And then the underlying...
They rang the bell to L and I. By submitting something through the portal, they rang the bell to the real estate agent. They rang the bell to the prospective purchaser and so we're following the process that the permit having been issued, we filed an appeal within 30 days and we're here to present evidence mostly today that the property was in fact unused for
many, many years. The variance was unused for many, many years. So that's, that's the background,
Mr. Chair. Okay, so why don't you, why don't you, why don't you finish up your presentation? Is that
it? Yes. So the first witness we have, I believe, is online, and his name is Tony Dominic. Mr. Dominic?
chair council i do not see anyone answering to that name in the virtual audience
we'll we'll try and rouse him but i can move to the other money move on to another witness okay
thank you um my next my other witness is david crawford mr crawford
oh can you sit here please
and why don't we push the mic next door
yep mr crawford could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer david crawford
c-r-a-w-f-o-r-d do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
counsel mr crawford um as the board will hear you're a neighbor of the subject property
but by way of introduction just tell us your occupation and your age please i was a software
developer until i recently retired and i'm 77 years old and where do you live and how close
is it to 3411 bearing my family lives at 3413 bearing street which is adjacent to the 3411
and when did you purchase 3413 bearing we purchased the property in 1978
and you've lived there ever since yes and you're saying that's it that's that's directly that that's
next door to 34 11 is that correct yes and who was the owner of 34 11 for you know almost the
entire time you were there uh clarence wilson and uh did you know clarence yes does your house
and clarence's house 3411 share a party wall or is there space in between we don't share a party
wall there's a space between us okay um can you just explain the the the uh you know what's on
the side of your property what's on the side his well the two units face each other uh properties
face each other and these and the entire length of our houses windows have faced each other as well
Okay. So the entire length of windows on your house face the entire length of windows on 3411. Yes. Thank you. Um, when you purchased in 1978, how many people lived at the subject property?
There were three people in three different units. Okay. So that's Clarence and two tenants. Yes.
and when did that and when and if when and if did that change sir
uh somewhere in the mid 80s uh one of the tenants moved out
and then it was just clarence and one of the tenant
okay uh thank you um and what was the name of the tenant uh that remained in the house uh with
Clarence? His name was Walter Grant. And Walter Grant stayed as a tenant for how long?
He stayed until he passed away in 2012.
He stayed until he passed away in 2012.
Okay, so after Walter died in 2012, it was just Clarence?
Okay, so to be clear, from the mid-1980s, which is basically the past 40 years, the property never had more than two dwellers.
Is that correct?
that two renters, right? It was Clarence and one tenant. Oh, okay. All right. Clarence,
the owner, and one tenant. Okay. Since the mid-80s, according to this witness.
And you're saying that since 2012, when Walter passed away, that tenant, it was just Clarence.
Yes. To switch gears a little bit, do you remember any
that Clarence at 3411 Bering had any problem ever with any significant problem with the plumbing?
There was an incident where the sewer line to the street broke and it was, you can't have that
replaced. Okay. And by himself? No, somebody came in and fixed it. As we've talked about earlier in
this hearing there came a time in 2025 when the subject property was put up for sale you're aware
of that yes okay thank you well maybe we need another microphone all right i i think you just
push it towards them that's all it'll be it'll be fine did you have occasion to interact with
any of clarence's family members around that time yes his niece was um wanted him to uh relocate him
and to live with them her and her partner in florida and i had many contacts with her over
the it took about two years for the process to evolve before it was actually sold so i had many
much contact with her during that time. Okay. She was helping himself? Yes. She handled all the
sales and that kind of thing. Thank you. Did some of the topics that you discussed with her
involve zoning and the 1940 variants? Yes. We told her that, me and my wife and I, that
it was our understanding that
since he had just been living there by himself
that the underlying variance
would have lapsed.
Did you have any suggestion
about what she could do with the house?
Once it became known in the neighborhood
that the house was coming up for sale,
there were several people that got in contact
with the PBCA and myself about speaking to Clarence as to their family, two families
about purchasing the house. Do you know the asking price that was being asked at that time?
The asking price that his niece told me was going to be 675,000. Are you aware that any of the
families that looked at the property made any offers there were two offers both uh relatively
a hundred thousand dollars less than that did you ever speak to mr jaden chen the name of the
gentleman that ultimately brought ultimately purchased 34 11. uh yes my wife and i saw him
looking over the house one day and as we were prone to do we go out and tell people who
uh looked like his prospective buyers but although at the time i realized now that he
would actually purchased it that there was uh it could not be used for four minute uh rental um did
Did you have an understanding of whether Mr. Chen attempted to obtain a mortgage for the property?
yeah i told us uh that day that he um had been turned down by the bank for a loan
because they considered the house to be uh in in uh uninhabitable
Can I object to this? This is all hearsay, and I don't know why it's relevant.
can i object to this this is all hearsay and i don't know why it's relevant
Well, should Bonnie respond, please?
Sure. He's talking about a statement made by a party to the case. Mr. Chen will be testifying.
He can certainly say he didn't say it, or they can...
Why don't we continue? Then we'll get to the point when the cross comes.
Okay. Did you ever speak to the listing agent?
uh miss gina anderson uh yes um she enlisted my help to uh hold the key she gave me a key to the
the property so that if people came to wanted to come to look for it she'd let me know and i could
let them in to view the property did you ever speak to her about the zoning and the old variants
yes um thank you mr crawford do you have any closing thought that you want to convey to the
board just one briefly one item that came up in the previous hearing that that we were looking
for a certain type of person to live in palton and and live and we uh if that isn't true what
we really are looking for is a certain type of neighborhood and uh to make it uh family oriented
as possible and in fact the the city feels the same way because they they just they zone it
appropriately how they want a certain play uh parcels of the city to be used and so
our our aim is just to get the the property to fall back into the zoning underlying zoning
that the city applied to it.
Thank you very much.
Council, Pritzker, Rachel.
Thank you.
Mr. Crawford, you mentioned that you're a software engineer for a living.
Is that correct?
Do you have any expertise, certifications, education on non-conforming uses
or zoning and land use law?
So would you agree that you're not an expert?
in constitutional property rights or non-conforming uses no i am not um and you mentioned that uh you
were the next door neighbor um and you're aware that the property was uh put on the market for
sale yes so uh and am i correct to say that it was not a private sale it was not an inheritance
It was a public sale that anybody, including yourself, could have purchased?
I also gave some testimony about the maintenance that the prior owner had on the property.
Is there any testimony that you have that is relevant to the intent of him removing any improvements, removing walls, trying to make it two units, removing plumbing, removing meters?
or was your experience that is the best he could he maintained the property up until when he fell
ill at 90 some odd years old uh he did not try to make any changes to the property um he didn't
really maintain it that well but it's but there weren't you're not aware of there being overt acts
of him removing meters or trying to turn it into a two unit, anything that would have been obvious
to you as the neighbor, show his intent to abandon that use? No, that did not happen.
Thank you. I just, last thing I just wanted to, you know, make mention is that you made it clear
that um you your your goal is not to um i guess dictate who lives there but um you know with the
base zoning being rt1 you are aware that most of the properties on your block are three and four
families as well as they were what's called grandfathered in or legal existing non-conforming
uses meaning that before they were down zoned rt1 they had gotten legal approval for multiple units
is that your understanding that some of the properties on your blocks are yes uh but they
well yes okay um that's all my questions i appreciate mr kelly oh hold up
well when we bought our house in in uh 78 the difference between the neighborhood then
and the neighborhood now is that all the all the properties almost all the
properties on our block were owner-occupied so it wasn't it's a
it's a difference between that's a different than the trend that's been happening where outside
difference between but that's a different trend that's been happening
outside parties buy this just to make money but up until so to that point but up until
the uh prior owner who was in his 90s i mean you can only live so long uh was unable to
stay in his home due to uh old age and an illness and needing to be taken care of by his family it
was owner-occupied. And had he stayed in good health or been able to live to 100 or whatever,
however old we're all lucky to get to, it would have still been owner-occupied. So you're
sharing that your concern is that people have property rights and we can't dictate that it's
owner-occupied? I don't understand the question. I guess my question to you is one of your issues
with it was is that it's it might not no longer be owner occupied but up until but it was owner
occupied as a four unit up until um clarence had to move out of the property due to him being
elderly is that what you're stating objection i don't think there's any evidence that it was owner
occupied as four units well he just said that it was owner occupied by clarence and that there were
there was no intention or he didn't see any overt acts to you know downgrade it or remove walls or
anything like that yes uh and had it he lived to a hundred uh there would be we wouldn't even be
here so i don't understand that's my point exactly thank you thank you thank you mr kelly nothing
from the city next witness mr pony thank you mr crawford and uh my next witness is the gentleman
online who i believe is there now oh sure tony uh dominic please mr dominic
i am sorry council mr trust you don't see that individual in the virtual audience this morning
is he anthony dominic yes please okay okay here he is i'm sorry
please accept the invitation to be promoted to pen
Mr. Dominic
coming back in now
Mr. Dominic?
Mr. Dominic, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Anthony Dominic, A-N-T-H-O-N-Y, D-O-M-I-N-I-C-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Counsel, please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Dominic, good morning.
you were a neighbor of the subject property. Just by way of intro, can you tell us your
occupation and your age? I'm a computer consultant, 54 years old. Thank you. Okay,
let's get into it. Tell us where... Sorry, Mr. Dominic, can you just speak up just a little
bit more so the stenographer can hear you? Thank you. Yes, I'll repeat that for her or for that
person. I'm a computer consultant. I'm 54 years old. Thank you. Sir, please tell us where and when
you lived near 3411 Barron. Yes, I lived at 3407 Barron. That is, there's one house between 3411
and the house I lived at.
That was from 2001 to 2005, last year.
Did you know the owner, Clarence Wilson?
Yes, I knew Clarence.
Did you consider him?
I mean, how did you know him?
Well, we lived two doors down,
so I would see him when he was coming and going.
I found out later that he was working at the library
down at Penn,
and I worked at Drexel's library for three years.
so we kind of talked about those things and just general neighborhood stuff thank you um uh
uh so you're saying you moved onto the block in 2001 correct i bought that house with my
wife at that time yes okay and at that time um and moved there so yes to be clear thank you
Thank you. And at that time, who was living in Clarence's house?
So Clarence is what I saw and actually knew Walter Grant earlier before I really got the
So Clarence is who I saw and actually knew Walter Grant.
new Clarence. Walter was more of a social person. Clarence was more of a quiet person. So it was
easier to talk to Walter. Walter lived on that house at 3411 bearing on the second floor.
Okay. So you're saying at that time it was Clarence and one tenant by the name of Walter
grant correct okay and um when if at all did walter um uh leave the property
um i mean for working but eventually i think i'm gonna forget to the point that he he died
um yeah so yeah he died in 2012. okay so after walter grant the tenant died
So let me back up. So from 2001 to 2012, you're saying Clarence lived there with his tenant, Walter, and that after 2012, it was just Clarence. Is that correct?
Correct.
Clarence never had any other tenants after 2012?
no i had asked him if he was going to rent it out um and at the time he said that he didn't want to
be bothered with tenants anymore and he'd rather just live by himself he was a personal guy so i
didn't i figured he owned the property and could do whatever he want with it in 2012 how old was
clarence um so 2012 14 years ago he just turned 93 so uh 79. okay so at that time when walter died
um clarence was 79 years old yes was it your understanding that he didn't want to rent the
property out because of his age um i didn't ask him that specifically uh but he gave me the general
impression that he just didn't want to be bothered with tenants anymore okay uh uh i'm also just
gonna object for the record because again it's hearsay and clarence isn't here to say if he
said or didn't say any of this well in in your opinion mr what do you respond what do you agree
with her well she just i i agree paul knows the rules i mean he i guess the chairman is asking me
I'm going to ask her, what's his position on what you just said?
Yes, it's not admissible for this witness to say what somebody else who's not here said.
So I agree with that.
Okay, thank you.
Proceed.
Did you consider, from your observations and interactions,
with Clarence, who was 79 at that time.
Did you consider him old and infirm?
Old, yes.
I mean, older than me because I'm 50.
Infirm, no.
Okay, thank you.
Can you tell us generally the condition?
You were inside the house?
Yes, I've been inside the house.
Can you tell us generally the condition of the interior of the house in, let's say, early
in early 2025?
In early 2025?
Yeah, sure.
The house was sold in the spring of 2025.
So, yes.
Yes, I've been in the house before then.
So, that's why.
Yeah, so in a general sense, it looked like not a lot of work was being done on the insides.
it's what I would consider deferred maintenance.
I'm not sure if that's an appropriate term,
but it looked like maintenance hadn't been done in a while.
There were some sections of the ceiling
that were collapsing in two of the units that I remember.
Some of the walls could use some touch-up.
Yeah, I'm not sure if that's the question.
Does that answer the question or?
Yes, thank you.
Have you looked at the photographs that are indicated as Exhibit A in our Exhibit, in Appellant's Exhibit Package?
These pictures, let's see, I have it in front of me.
I mean, these are the same pictures I've seen before, I assume.
Yeah, yes, yes, yes.
I haven't seen them this morning, but I've seen them before, yes.
Okay, thank you. And when you look at those photos, are they a true, fair, and accurate?
When you look at those photos, are they a true, fair, and accurate representation?
Paul, let me ask you, do you have the photos there?
Could we see them too?
I'm about to.
Oh, okay.
All right.
You're repairing them for this.
I got it.
All right.
Two seconds.
Are these photos a true, fair, and accurate representation of the interior of the house?
Yes, they are.
So I'm just going to flip through on the Zoom, the photos.
And Mr. Dominick, I'm just going to point out a few basic things in some of these photos.
You'll tell me if there's anything wrong.
So this is the first floor hallway.
You see an extension cord on the ground.
I'm flipping through the photos one by one.
In this photo, you see around the doorway, what looks to be an extension cord.
In this photo here, you look to see wires or extension cords draped around the doorway and
out through the door? Yes. Okay. This is some crack in the wall above that bookcase.
Yeah. This is a bathroom with a ceiling. I think it's fair to say falling down. Is that correct?
yes plaster work is coming off okay there's some
damage on the ceiling this is another part of the structure where the ceiling looks to be
in poor condition is that correct uh in my opinion yes okay and this is uh another
shot same room different angle yes okay thank you
this is uh orange extension cord uh going from one floor to another uh yes that is correct okay
this is that this is enough this is uh this shows also an orange extension
cord going down the hallway yes this will be on the third floor okay thank you
that continues again that extension cord right through the middle of the photo this is uh the
banister with um showing some damage this is a another it was disconnected from each other
yeah it wasn't firmly attached okay thank you
some ceiling damage
more ceiling damage yeah um okay thank you well um mr dom how much longer do you think you have
because i with this witness i'm finished okay uh so and then um i think the next
the only other thing for us to do is which i'd like well can i finish with this witness
for a second sure if it's five minutes yeah so i have no further questions
of this witness at this time rachel yep so uh thank you uh mr dominic you stated that your
profession is a computer consultant is that correct that is correct do you have any
certifications education licenses or expertise in non-conforming uses or zoning and land use law
no um and um you stated that you lived two doors over from the property is that correct
yes do you have any testimony to offer related to um the uh prior owner mr clarence wilson's
removal of any improvements uh necessary sorry necessary for the current the use which was a
four unit or do you have any testimony offer that he made modifications to make it unsuitable
um for the property removing meters removing plumbing um breaking down walls
or just was your testimony that he just got old and tired of running out the remaining units
i don't think that was objection i don't think that was his testimony
that he got old and i'm asking him i'm asking him what for him to clarify his testimony
that he got old and i'm asking him i'm asking him what for him to clarify his testimony
uh yes could you repeat the question please yeah sure do you have any affirmative testimony that
you that you're aware of the current of the prior owner modifying the building to remove
anything that would allow it to be a four unit so removing meters removing uh water meters
electric meters removing walls or anything like that i have no knowledge of that okay and you
gave testimony that he was continually living in the property until he stopped running it based
on i guess you give testimony that he was he stopped running it or you thought he wanted
to stop running some of the units um i don't say i thought he he told me but i guess it's hearsay
so i can't really say that i'm not sure how to present that um but yeah he lived there
and he stopped running it so that's as much as i know okay and that that's that is my point so
and would you agree that um there was no when you walked through the property although i understand
some of the deferred maintenance that there was no walls removed that there was it wasn't built
out as a two unit there was no meters removed bathrooms removed or anything that would indicate
um that it was not still laid out as a four unit building i have no knowledge of any walls
removed or bathrooms removed thank you all right so how much more do you are you okay no no how
much more do you have? So I have one more witness, but that witness is Ms. Pritzker's client. So
I'd like to ask the chair and Ms. Pritzker, you know, I could call him right now. I don't have
the time. We're not going to do that. Okay. So yeah, we're going to have as a resumptive hearing.
Okay. So all I have left is the owner to cross examine. Okay, fine. So Rachel, give me an idea
how long your case will take i'm just doing this for the next time to figure out how much time yeah
all i want to do chairman and members of the board is put the law on the record what the actual
law is and the code is and the and and so that we can talk about what the law says about this
specific matter that's all that's all i'm wanting to do and show a few exhibits that align with what
the law says okay and mr kelly the city's witness is already gone i'm just along for the ride all
All right. Okay. So, but, but Ms. Pritzker is agreeable to, uh, make Mr. Chen available the
next, at the next hearing. Yeah. He's, he's ready and able to. Ready and able. How's that? So,
all right. So the next year will be April 28th at 9 30 AM. It'll be a resumptive hearing. Okay.
And that we're looking to get it done that day. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Charming members. Thank
you thank you uh all three attorneys thank you mr o'brien
So MI 2025, 004706, 184 Cotton Street.
William O'Brien is the attorney.
There's non-opposition from Manioc Neighborhood Council.
Mr. O'Brien could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes chairman William O'Brien from the Manion Law Office W-I-L-L-I-A-M-O-V-R-I-E-N
could I ask the attorney to please get closer to the microphone thank you thank you did you hear
my spell can i go one more time state your name and all william o'brien w-i-l-l-i-a-m o'brien
o-b-r-i-e-n from the maniunk law office but you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client a relationship to the property
my client is cotton street partners of pennsylvania limited liability company
purchased the property i think back in 2022 our vice chair has a few questions
good morning have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this
good morning have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing
yes okay and do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy
i do okay thank you share your screen and proceed with your case sure hold on sir can i ask who you
are are you a neighbor yes i'm the adjoining neighbor okay direct adjoining neighbor of
four three three four and four seven three four you'll testify when we call for people in the
audience okay i also have a uh mr chair he is a he is a party he's entered us in the party his
is your attorney here my attorney uh is on a um retreat i have a person that's not a code lawyer
online to help ask for a continuance because this is a very complicated case
I'm very well prepared, but when the current lawyer couldn't handle the case with the snow and the holiday,
because I just hired this lawyer to help with the snow and the holiday to get a new lawyer 10 days out,
nobody's available today, so I need to get a code lawyer.
I'm very well prepared.
I've been working on these stone walls for 31 years.
Listen to me.
Listen to me. Are you saying that your attorney is not available? You hired a non-code attorney. Are you comfortable with him representing you?
She is an assistant to him. No, I'm not. I'm not. I have a code attorney ready to go, but no, I'm not.
But he's not here.
Good morning. I'm here from Mr. Ramsey's office.
No, no, no, wait. What am I saying?
I have a new code attorney ready to go, but he's not. I didn't sign the deal yet. He couldn't read all the documents.
So you don't have a code attorney you're saying right now.
Correct. I need to get one. I like Bill.
You like Bill, but you can't hire him.
Mr. O'Brien, how do you feel about a continuance?
I'm opposed. Vigorously.
If I may, briefly, Mr. Chairman,
this hearing was last scheduled on December 3rd of last year.
The day of the hearing, Mr. Piller's attorney, Richard Banderslice,
reached out and requested a continuance and issued a letter raising two objections on
behalf of Mr. Pillar. A complete response to those objections was provided to Mr. Vanderslice,
and I've heard crickets. And neither of the issues that Mr. Pillar raised is a zoning issue.
Okay. You say you're more than well prepared.
I have all the documents, but I can't, I'm not prepared to present the case. I'm more, I'm more than well prepared to hand it over to an expert zoning lawyer.
It's fair and square.
So it's, you know, it's, it's the board's discretion as to whether we hear this today or not. I know we're most likely only going to get through, um,
builds a presentation why why why don't you listen to me listen no no you don't have to
listen to me why don't we let mr o'brien make his presentation and then if he needs an attorney he
brings it back to next time we're only going to hear your presentation today anyway bill okay
do you hear what i said yeah i don't know what you're saying i'm i'm thinking go ahead i don't
know if i'm allowed to speak and not being alert oh may i speak oh um i fully expected to work this
out with the developers between christmas and now so i i expect the work is yeah it's moving a lot
line so if you move a lot line you get together with the neighbors now listen to me mr o'brien's
going to make his presentation we're going to end it then and we'll come back for a resumptive hearing
okay so mr why don't you go ahead you did go mr o'brien why don't you start thank you so on the
This screen is the, this is the amended or revised or corrected refusal.
It was issued December 3rd of last year, the same day as this hearing was scheduled.
There was an additional refusal that didn't belong on here and that's been corrected.
So there are two refusals.
One is attached housing in the RSA 5 district in this neighborhood requires access to parking
in a shared driveway.
because of the topographic conditions that's just not possible uh the second refusal is
for disturbance of steep slopes and again as you'll see uh that disturbance is unavoidable
and actually provides a benefit uh to the neighbors especially mr pillett um the uh
as you said the neighborhood council held a meeting 55 people were attendance only 33 i think
votes were tallied, but the position of the civic.
Votes were tallied, but the position of the civic is non-opposition.
This is a map from Atlas, and you can see the property is right here, and it's about a block and a half from that area.
it's green right here. That's Pretzel Park, a very popular neighborhood park,
and it's about three blocks from the Main Street Business District.
Oops, sorry. Here are some photographs of the existing conditions.
So the existing house depicted here has been tagged as unsafe for about 15 years, I believe.
And behind it, you're going to see, you see a little Wissick and Schist wall that comes
into play.
And I'll go into some detail about that in a moment.
The next image, I don't know why these are all differently sized.
This is from Boone Street.
So the property is bounded by cotton to the south, Boone Street to the east.
and you can see the staircase here so that is the bed of cotton street which is
not open it's on the public city plan but it is improved only with a staircase
and this is the that wall from boone street in the foreground looking down and you see behind
the foliage the outline of the house at 184 cotton street so the whole lot is just under 4 000 square
feet so this is a image of that wall that was to the left of the house and you can see it's
not in great shape. I'll come into some detail in a second but briefly let me say that in 2008
a surveyor from the city of Philadelphia came out and did an inspection determined that it was
unsafe. The wall bill? The wall itself was unsafe and issued a determination that the responsibility
for repairing the wall was on this property 184 Cotton Street and on the two properties to the
north adjacent to this wall uh 43 34 and 43 34 and a half boone street mr pillar lives at 43
uh 34 and a half um when we made the app i'll come to that in a second let me just show you where we
are um so this is the exist this is the subdivision plan approved by the ninth survey district
I'll first show existing conditions and give some context to the site and to the wall.
So here is, to the left is Tower Street.
To the top is Boone Street.
And then where the stairs, where you see the stairs, that's Cotton Street.
And this three-story stucco, that's the house, which is unsafe.
and then the lot continues 77, 78 feet up to Boone Street and then Boone Street
there is a 48 foot wide lot and then the property line continues to pretty much
a rectangular lot. Now this is the wall that I showed you the photograph of and
as you can see, it's outside the lot lines. What's proposed is to subdivide and create
three lots, one house going back to where the existing small house is, and then two
new houses facing Boone Street.
This is the facade of the proposed homes on Boone Street.
This shows one of two changes that are referenced in the Proviso Form and Plan.
This shows one of two changes that are referenced in the Proviso form and plan.
Originally, the driveway, the garages shared a common curb cut in the middle.
It was pointed out during community meetings that if you move the garages to the outside of each structure,
that would allow a parking space in between.
So that modification was changed.
It was introduced.
produced. Another change, this is the roof deck you see at the top of all three proposed
houses. On the Boone Street houses, the first configuration had the pilot houses on the
outside of each house. And some neighbors observed that that created more massing and
interfered with views. So we changed the configuration house to move the pilot houses next to each
other so there was less obstruction and then this is a view from cotton street in the foreground
this is the proposed new structure replacing the unsafe house and then you see the back
this would be the south side of parcel c and then parcel d next to it
so when we made the applicate when we tried to make the application um we discovered that we
knew there was an unsafe condition and we believed it was the house and so we filed a demolition
application for the house and filed attempted to file a development application for this
development and we're told no no no you can't do that until you correct the violation well no we
filed a demo permit for the house no there's another demo there's another unsafe structure
What's that?
It's the wall.
Well, the wall's not on our lot.
Nothing we can do.
L&I has cited you.
You've got to deal with it.
So we filed an appeal to the Board of Building Standards, and for some reason I can't...
You'll be here any minute, by the way.
I can't.
Oh, there we go.
So the appeal was filed, I think, in September of 23.
We had a hearing in December of 23.
At the hearing, the board proposed that the foundation for the northern house on Boone Street, that that foundation be engineered to bear the load of the failed retaining wall that's right next to it.
My client agreed to that as long as Ellen and I was directed to accept the development application, that we were not going to repair the wall in absence of being part of this development.
uh ellen and i the board agreed with that and directed us to file a complete set of structural
plans for this structure they were submitted they were reviewed and they were approved so page 14
and 15 is the recommendation and decision of the board of building standards page 16 is page
S3.0 of the approximately 25 page, uh, structural plan set. And
this detail right here is showing the retaining wall
and the proposed new wall that will be basically, bear with me,
If I can get it back.
Oh, wrong one.
So if you can see this detail right here on this side,
SIDE IS THE WISHICK AND SCHIST WALL, AND THEN THIS IS THE PROPOSED NEW FOUNDATION WALL OF THAT HOUSE AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE SISTERED, AND THE NEXT PAGE IS THE CERTIFICATION OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, THIS IS THE CERTIFIED THAT WE HAVE EVALUATED THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AT 184 COTTON STREET AND 4334 AND 4334 AND A HALF BOONE STREET, AND AS OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THE WALL CAN BE AND WILL BE INCORPORATED AS
as part of the Structured Design Foundation wall system
for the proposed building on 184 Cotton Street.
pages 19 uh through 30 in the plan set and in the exhibit set um are photographs of 13 existing curb
Pages 19.
cuts in this block of um uh boone street uh i'm not going to linger but they're they speak for
themselves that many houses some of them old some of them built very recently uh have curb cuts
that's a relatively brand new house um so having a curb cut in this block of main block of boone
street is is not uncommon um there are no other uh refusals uh dimensionally it is it is compliant
heights compliant areas compliant i will point out that at page 62 and 63
of the materials there is a response
to the two issues that mr vanderslice raised on behalf of his client mr pillar who's here today
So for the record, I summarize those two responses. Mr. Piller seems to believe that I don't want to put words in his mouth. The attachment to that memo is a 1948 plan of property shown here, which again shows the lot lines of 184 Cotton Street, Boone Street again on the right.
and you can see the property line marked in its
meets and bounds 59 degrees 33 minutes 33 seconds east
79 feet 7 and 8 inches long and the retaining wall
is outside it it's north of the north of the
property line and what we found out is that
43 34 and 43 34 and a half
their legal descriptions create a three-foot gap and if you can see this
I'll try to you see the handwritten note on this plan so you see the dimension
along Boone Street 140 184 Cotton Street is 48 feet and then you see the two
arrows and the handwritten note 51 point either one nine or seven nine so there's
a three-foot gap between the end of 184 cotton and the beginning of the two properties above it.
And within that gap sits the retaining wall. So to the extent that Mr. Piller even has standing
to address issues regarding this wall, I doubt. Okay, thank you. All right. So may I have my
client? That's what I was going to say. Could you have your client come on and adopt your testimony?
uh will steve washefsky please raise his hand
that's coming back in as a panelist shortly sure
i i sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
sure uh steve osjeski uh first name is s-t-e-v-e last name is o-l-s-z-e-w-s-k-i
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth counsel uh thank you
Mr. Shesky, you're a managing member of Cotton Street Partners?
Yes, I am.
And were you present during the presentation that I made on your behalf?
Was my testimony truthful?
And you adopted as your own?
Thank you.
So, counsel and Mr. Piller, we're going to call for a resumptive hearing now.
And I know you're, I can see you're ready to go, but I think you probably need to at least check with your counsel, okay?
Yeah, a couple things.
No, you don't have to, listen to me, listen to me.
Engineering reports from the city.
Yeah, I know, I know, but what I'm saying, all that I want to see when you have your attorney, okay?
So what we're going to do is we're going to reschedule this for a resumptive hearing on April 17th at 9.30 a.m.
for a resumptive hearing on April 17th at 9 30 a.m and then by then hopefully you'll have your
attorney and um if if in fact you're some of the comments you made earlier about you're working
something out with the developer if that's the if that's the case then we'll we'll hear from that
the next time okay but I really need to say something your honor why I I think listen to me
No, no, no. I think let me let me I'm not I'm not I'm not an attorney, but I've always known you're you're better off front of things for your attorney.
And like one of the board members is attorney here and she she's like, you know, an our own attorney.
I think you need to talk to your lawyer. I just want to say I want to refute.
No, we're not going to refute your lawyer. Your lawyer will refute it when you sit with your attorney.
OK, so you will do that. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pillar, for coming in.
And you brought an awful lot of stuff with you there.
And Mr. O'Brien, thank you.
And this will be April 17th, so it's not that long of a wait.
And by then, maybe you'll figure out who your attorney is.
You want me to show you this?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, members.
Is there anyone in the 930 list whose case has not been closed?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, everybody.
and we'll we'll be back here tomorrow morning at the uh 8 45 right for our pre-meeting right yes