go ahead I'm sorry you know hands raised all right thank you Mr. Council Matthew would you
Go ahead.
I'm sorry, Jason.
just briefly address what Ms. Alford said yes sure yeah she reached out or we communicated
she she when she moved in she said that she she sent a picture that she saw two roaches when she
moved in, she contacted the property management company, Otter Property Management, who manages
this place for me. A pest control maintenance was set up, and apparently it wasn't to her liking as
far as how quickly it happened. I have been billed for this. I have made several payments, so I am,
you know, under the impression that the pest control maintenance has been, you know, at least
initiated i believe the contract was for like six six springs excuse me six treatments to spray for
for roaches in in her apartment and i think we're a few months into that um and as far as uh
yeah she said oh her i'm sorry she and i uh spoken uh it was november 10th i had so i had a violation
in order to get this door put into the basement.
My initial plan was, again,
I have not changed any layout of this property in 20 years.
It's always been a duplex.
I put a door going to the basement for storage.
The basement is empty.
It's not a unit.
Janelle can attest to that.
There's nobody down there.
There's not even anything down there.
So whenever I had some work done to the property,
the uh the the basement became a separate entrance now i when i i i i had to obtain a zoning i'm
sorry a building permit from the city to put this door in so when the inspector came out to check
the door he said he needs to see steps leading to the first floor apartment so my contractor
reattached steps going to her apartment which like she said it was her closet when she moved in
um they were initially the steps going to the basement originally right um those steps were
removed and it was sealed off to go to the basement and the basement access was now from
that front of the part of the property from the street the city said they wanted to see steps or
i'm sorry not the city the uh l and i wanted to see the steps reattached going to her apartment
which is what happened and and and was explained to her as what happened okay thank you planning
commission thank you chairman and good morning david fecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential
single-family zoning at this location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2019 in accord with
recommendations in the comprehensive plan at some point in its history an owner converted this
property to two dwelling units the city planning commission recommends the board grant a proposed
legalization of the second dwelling unit um mi-2025-004-116-613 west courtland street
i vote yes with proviso certificate of occupancy to be obtained for building
michael johns my vote is yes with proviso cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso
tenetta graham my vote is yes with proviso brian mcadams my vote is yes with proviso iowen my vote
is yes with proviso. Thank you, sir. Mr. Consul, we have one more, I think, here for you. That's
correct. So MI 2025 004184, 1720 60 A Street. Mr. Consul, just for the record, state your name.
Attorney Joseph Consul. Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
yeah my client is uh shabrara samson um and she was she emailed me um she she's not on the call
but um she works for the philadelphia prisons department i believe and is in mandatory firearm
training today and she had a break until 10 30 um and so i was going to try to get her to go first
on my call but I didn't start until like 10 to 40 so it didn't even matter um so the point is I'm
here to adopt her testimony and she's she's uh an employee of our vice chair has a few questions for
you good morning again have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of
this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy I do
all right you can begin all right um just one minute um you have some notes here
yes so when i see your red notes i yeah and i had spoken
when i see your red notes i yes and i had spoken on one second um and i had spoken with mr consul
about this um so we we did receive um proof both from him and from zba staff that efforts have been
made to reach out to the rco um on multiple occasions to schedule the meeting um the rco
did not schedule a meeting um and the proper letter to the near neighbors and posting was done
so the board can hear this today um the board can also make a decision on this case today if it
wishes it has been more than 45 days um which is the required uh period in which the rco needs to
have a meeting okay thank you hillary um why don't you start uh and just a preliminary um to the
extent that that's detrimental, you know, we're fine with the board, you know, asking us to try
more, you know, prior. But the point is, we don't want that to hurt our case here. But we did try
as hard as we could to get in front of the RCO. I'm here on 1720 68th Avenue. The owner and my
client is Shabrara Sampson. We are here seeking a permit to permit a two-family household living
within an existing semi-detached structure. I'll just give you kind of the lay of the land.
All four corners here, as you can see, are large properties compared to the properties that are
next to it and that is because in the past they have been either multi-families or uh or homes
with commercial units uh this is ours you can see the single family homes behind it
this is directly across the street again you can see the single family homes behind it and i'll
give you the unit count and that sort of thing in a minute but just to give you uh to level set for
what these corners look like that is directly across that's caddy corner across the street
um again big property with lots of little ones behind it and then um the fourth corner was
torn down but at one point that was a six unit building uh so we're here seeking a two-family
dwelling in a cmx1 district because uh it abuts an rsa5 district we are required to seek approval
for a multi-family home but it is cmx1 uh the zoning history on this property uh is critical
is far back as we could see in 1969 a variance was granted allowing a beauty shop to operate
on the first floor with a unit above at one point it was also a food store with a one unit above
the building's shell layout and scale were designed for multi-family or multi-use occupancy
not a single family dwelling and we believe based on the size of the property a simple two-family
residential home is less intensive less intrusive than other properties on the surrounding corners
and other things that have been granted in this neighborhood there's a proof of mailing
photos
and as you'll see this is a property that is in need of love
and uh my client is prepared to take it on as i mentioned she's a long term city employee
and i wish she was on the call because she's really great at talking about her property
Scan through interior photos ownership she got the property in 2024
you'll see your tax clearance go to the architecturals
So this is, should be viewable.
should be viewable
architectural plans showing the layout of the units
go down to the next one
it's first floor first floor plan do i have it
the second floor plan i believe we didn't need a plan for the second floor because that's remaining
uh as billed as a single family and i don't so the commercial place remains vacant the commercial
place is vacant and in a state of disrepair and that's the one that she wishes to convert into
a unit per the architecturals included here and this the second floor is a functioning
uh one family home can you zoom out so that the whole plan is visible thank you yeah
1715 uh 68th one of the corners uh has an active rental license for three units 1714
uh received uh zba approved two family variants in 2019 um and 6802 north bouvier the third corner
uh had a rental license for uh four sorry i said six means four dwelling units um issued in 2004
although it appears to be a vacant lot at this time uh without my client here i'll as an officer
of the court adopt my own testimony and to the extent that's appropriate so just so i understand
it so this vacant space is baked i'm going to call it the first floor right where the commercial was
yep and then the floor above that is the new apartment right is that what you're saying
there's an existing one family above uh let me go back to the next side photo
so there's a one family on the second and third floor here and she's seeking to use the what was
a beauty shop and a food store is what the license said so but we don't we don't have
drawings for that joe we don't have drawings for the existing single family home that's been
approved as a single family home since the 1960s yeah but is it currently occupied uh i'm it doesn't
look like it it doesn't look like it is so she will have to get a co for both units correct
the architect i believe told her that he didn't need to submit plans for that he also didn't put
it's a title block on his plans but um is there an image that shows the stairwell to the second
floor i'm just trying to understand the unit separation uh let's see if any of my photos
do that and to the extent uh you know some kind of resumption that that's that sort of main level
floor plan the second floor i guess the main level it read it's reading as a separate apartment
It's really, but there's no access to this actual second floor.
You know what I mean?
You've got the basement level, which is that great, and you've got the plan to the right, which is a, appears like a three-bedroom apartment, but there's no access to, there's no stairway to take you up to the second floor.
There's also discrepancy between the number of doors that are shown on the actual building and the doors shown in the plan.
Right.
It could be that one of them was turned into a window, but it's confusing.
Yeah, so I mean obviously the access point for the the this new unit would be this door on the side here.
So would it have to have access to the unit above?
I think it's just the plans right like the way the plans are showing how you enter shows that there's a stairwell to the second floor.
that's visible in photos yeah there's a stairwell to nowhere yeah where where are we seeing that on
at the bottom so look so look here right here floor here right here see this is the stairway
up from the pavement right it goes no this is the door that literally is out to above nowhere right
it's above it's like up it's like 10 feet above grade but there's a doorway that goes
like nowhere there's no stairs to get there and then this whole thing shows up as a three-bedroom
apartment with no way to get to the second floor this makes absolutely no sense the plans make
so we we need better we need better plans and that's that's that's totally that's totally fine
um and i'm fine with returning with with more accurate plans but i think just a secondary
question is it looks like only the commercial space that's turning into the first floor
apartment's gonna have access to the yard is that correct i believe that's correct yeah okay and so
then what's the plan for trash storage okay well we'll come back and for both yeah we'll come back
okay well we'll come back and for both of you yeah we'll come back and address that
address that does anybody else have a
does anybody else have any other questions that joe can come back with
so question but a comment again i have this problem with these bedrooms that
where you have to wander through the living room to get to a bathroom okay you know so all right so
all right so i'm going to make this a resumptive hearing 3 17 26 at 9 30 a.m st patrick's day
great 3 17. all right let me just make that note and then i'll get out of your hair
thank you board all right thank you number 10 mi 2025 004 118 902 south 47 street
pasquale calavita is the attorney
there was a meeting held with cedar park
there was an email sent that they would not object to the project
we're coming back in the span which will mr chair okay
good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell before the
stenographer pasquale colavita pasquale colavita attorney referring to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do but you identify your client the relationship with the property
The client is GMT Properties, but the individual that will testify is Carlos Giraldo, G-I-R-A-L-D-O, and I'm pretty certain that he's on. I've been in community.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, Mr. Calabito.
Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. You can begin your case.
Every time I do this, I feel like I'm getting married again.
Okay. So if Mr. Geraldo can be brought on.
As soon as you need him, we'll bring him on. Okay.
Okay. Okay. Great.
So, again, attorney for GMT2 Properties, owners of 902 South 47th Street.
And as you had indicated, you received the email.
Unfortunately, I did not receive the same email from Cedar Park neighbors.
We did have a meeting with them.
And today what I will be doing is presenting the deed to notice the refusal, the application for appeal, project information form, the architectural plans, which are not really truly relevant as this is a change of use.
Notice to the neighbors with the proof of mailing, a copy of the zoning archives, which will reflect its present use as a fraternity house and previous use as a four-unit property.
Also, Exhibit 8 will show five different properties within feet of the property that have from four to nine units.
It's also photographs that we've posted the property, photographs of the property itself, as well as the neighborhood photographs.
We have a certificate of tax clearance.
And as you had indicated, there was an email that I received, but I did not receive anything else other than that one email that there was no opposition from them.
So, as indicated on March 4th of 2024, GMT Properties purchased the property.
This is an RSA 3 district for which they are attempting to obtain a variance from an existing fraternity house of 10 units to reduce it to a long-term four-unit property.
The application was filed. We believe that this is the minimum and the least amount of modification. There will be no change in height, width, or length of the property. It actually will have a decrease in congestion. And again, the adjacent properties will not be injured by this variance.
and here's the project information form and copy of the floor plans which were again previously
provided to you notice to the neighbors was done on two separate occasions one i had
unfortunately listed bella vista uh with your documents pardon me why don't you put your
document something. Oh, shoot. I'm sorry. I was referring to all of them.
Oh, shoot. I'm sorry. I was referring to all of them.
You said you were nervous because it was like getting married.
So I noticed in your face you did get a little nervous there.
So, again, here's the table of contents with everything that I just read off.
Copy of the deed. Copy of the refusal. Copy of the appeal.
the PIF form, the set of plans, again, based on the – and I was up to Exhibit 6, which is our notice to the neighbors.
Initially, just to – not that it's that overly important, but I had initially listed, instead of Cedar Park, I had Bella Vista neighbors,
but then I reissued it, and it actually says Cedar Park.
A copy of the zoning archive, which indicates that the present use is that of 10 rooming units.
What I want to do is also show you that prior to that is that the property prior to the zoning units was always a four family dwelling.
And just to show you that, again, at Exhibit 8A through E, the property right next door is four units and has the requisite rental license.
The rental license for six units is two doors down at 906, and then five units at 916, and then we have a larger one of nine units at 90103.
So, in essence, that would look like there's two properties, four plus five, we'll call it.
And here's a copy of, or not a copy, these photographs showing that the property was posted.
And this is boarded up, and I'll give you the reason why, because it is presently vacant.
we were hoping to move this along and there were individuals that were using the porch as a place
to sleep. No one was inside, but just to make it safer for the neighborhood, they decided to board
up the uh the front and this is a cop photograph of the uh the neighborhood itself
so it's just south of uh baltimore avenue and a copy of the tax clearance certificate
And as previously indicated, this is the email that I received. CPN zoning at CPN. Cedar Park neighbors will not object to the project.
And the argument is, and also once I put Mr. Rado on, he's also he is not only just the owner, he's also a real estate broker plus owns a construction company.
And his additional argument is that he purchased the property for $365,000.