that we sent out the notice and who we sent it out to and then proof of mailing. We sent it to
the coordinating RCO and other relevant parties. And then we sent, we mailed that notice to 93
addresses. This is the list of addresses the Planning Commission gives us. This is proof of
mailing to those addresses. And then our application for appeal that Kabat Street Holdings
filed, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form, the deed to the property
showing Kabat Street Holdings. It's the owner of the property. And finally, the tax clearance
certificate. As you can see at the conclusion of it, there is a payment plan agreement between the
city and my clients. With that being said, I'm going to stop sharing my screen. I can always
reshare my screen if there's any questions about any of the presentation materials,
but I would ask that Mr. Borgioli virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Jared Borgioli is allowed to speak. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer. Yes, my name is Jared Borgially. It is J-A-R-E-D, last name Borgially, B-O-U-R-J-O-L-L-Y.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed, counsel. Jared, you heard everything I had to state today about your
zoning matter. Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt as your own testimony?
yes thank you questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary uh i'm sorry ryan mcshary
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition of this property that would prevent it from being
used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variants for
an accessory off-street parking space accessed from a primary street.
We also note for the board, as we did for 516 East Cabot Street, that if a space is
approved there is no mechanism that the city has which can limit the owner to only parking a compact
vehicle in this location david am i 20 hello yeah mr chick i just briefly respond yes all right so
again we're not in a situation where we're we're putting a curb cut where we're taking a parking
spot off of the street and it's also not out of character for the street to have similar type of
parking. Thank you. MI 2024-001-892-518-East Kabat Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Michael Jones, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes. Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Thank you. Mr. Nockman, I think you have the next two.
So, MI 2024-002-032-5235 Chester Avenue.
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Alan Nockamson.
There's a letter of support from the 51st Ward Democratic RCO.
Mr. Nockamson, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Wendell Holmes, the owner of the property.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed in this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. Thank you.
Oops, I accidentally hit the raise my hand by accident. Sorry about that.
all right so 52 35 chester avenue is in the southwest portion of philadelphia
this is actually a really sad story in the sense of this my client owned the property
for a long time he was a victim of deed fraud so when he owned the property it was multi-family
we're asking for four units which is you know you look at the history that's kind of falls in line
I feel like there's even a reference to this being a five-unit building.
Someone stole the property by way of defraud.
It took my client a few years to get the property back by way of a court order.
In the interim, the zoning of the property changed from RM1 to RSA5.
And then the property fell in the state of disrepair during a time period that someone illegally owned the property.
So my client's essentially trying to legalize the use of what was previously a multifamily zoning classification and to fix the property up.
So we're here today to hopefully get that property back into this from a zoning perspective, what it was previous to the time someone sold the property.
So we'll review the notice of refusal. We have a letter of support from the 51st Ward Democratic Executive Committee, letter of support from a nearby neighbor.
shown the use permit, which shows the previous use of the property. Also not out of character
for this block to have multifamily uses, even though it's an RSA 5 block now. It has a long
history of RM1 use. I think the zoning changed in 2019, but you'll see many instances of
multifamily structures there. And then you'll also have a copy of the bill, which changed the
zoning in 2019. But again, my client owned it before then as an RM1 property, used this
multifamily. Unfortunately, he lost the property via deed fraud. And because he didn't have a
rental license for more than three years while he was fighting this litigation, the property
reverted back to what now is current zoning, RSA 5. And that's why we're here today. Then we'll
review maps of the area. Again, this is an RSA 5 property, but was RM1 when he used it. Photographs
of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice,
our application for appeal that we filed with the CBA, our deeds of property showing that Wendell
Holmes is the owner of the property, and our certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion
of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Holmes virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Notice of refusal, again, this is an RSA-5 property, has a long history of non-single-family use.
Again, most recent is multifamily.
I think it was either four or five units.
We're asking for four units, and if this was on an R-M1 property, it would be allowed as a right.
So we did receive a letter of support from the 51st Ward Democratic Executive Committee.
and we got a letter of support from a nearby neighbor at 5203 Chester Avenue and then you
can see from the permit this was RM1 in 2013 and this had four units back then in my client's name
so it's just a shame we have to go through this process we understand there's a technical aspect
of it when you allow your housing inspection elapse and your zoning is RSA 5 even though
you have multifamily use, but this was not his fault. And then the maps of the area. So I just
took the zoning map, and it's yellow. It's RSA 5. And the orange is not to indicate that these
are R and 1 properties. I think my team just put that out there. But there are multiple instances,
as you can see, nine instances on this block and the next block over of multifamily use,
even though these are RSA 5.0.
And then these are the backup data for those, you know,
for those properties as well that we found online.
And again, we only looked at properties that have rental licenses.
There may be other uses, you know, but, you know,
we're only looking at legal uses.
And then the legislation which changed the zoning of this property was in
2019, the tail end of 2019, from RM1 to RSA5. And then maps of the area, again, we are RSA5.
We're not denying that. It's just unfortunate what happened. You know, you can see there's,
You know, you can see there's, you know, plenty of, you know, public transportation on Chester Avenue.
you know, plenty of, you know, public transportation on China.
And again, there's a lot of multifamily within the vicinity of this property currently.
And then photographs of the property.
Again, my client didn't cause this, but the property fell into a state of disrepair when he lost legal ownership.
And he's looking to fix this property back up.
This is the orange notice posters, you know, acknowledging today's hearing.
Move Chester Avenue to the right of the property, to the left of the property, are plans and drawings.
And, you know, as you can see, there are four units here.
You come on the porch, you have a 4A, which is the first floor and lower level.
And then you go up a flight of steps and part of the first unit is also in the rear, on the second floor.
And then you have unit number two, which is on the second floor.
And then unit three and unit four are on the third floor.
We're only re-violizing what the previous use of this property was.
In our RCO meeting notice, we met with the community on June 17th at 6 p.m.
We emailed that notice a few weeks before the community meeting,
showing proof of mailing of that notice and the notice itself.
That notice went out to 111 addresses.
These are the list of the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on Mr. Holmes' behalf to the CBA, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form.
The deed to his property, current deed, showing he's the owner of the property again.
And then, most importantly, certificate of tax clearance.
He owes no money to the city of Philadelphia as it pertains to real estate taxes.
I would ask that Mr. Holmes virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
We see Mr. Holmes.
Yes, Mr. Holmes will be allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Wendell Holmes.
W-E-N-D-E-L-L.
Holmes, H-O-L-M-E-S
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, counsel.
You heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
no chair actually i do have a question please proceed yes i'm i looked at your your plans and
i guess i'm concerned with the number of units for it looks like it's probably better as a three
unit uh building only because the way that the you've laid out the units there's really
those living spaces are just you know not not very good for to even furnish the kitchen is
literally the living room and it's in the third floor units particularly
so that's so that's my concern i think i think uh a decent two bedroom units would probably work
better than the four so then i completely understand what you're saying all we're doing
is revitalizing the previous use of this property uh the lot size for this property is 1988 square
feet uh the building size is around 3600 square feet the square feet of the of the one bedroom
one baths are on the light side but not unreasonable um i would also say that and correct me if i'm
wrong Mr. Holmes you do your your attendants do avail themselves of veterans affairs supportive
housing is that part of the program that you have used in the past and will use now well yes this
is what we're planning to do for veteran housing yes so if we didn't have the property stolen from
us we wouldn't be here so we're not trying to convert it yeah but that I think that the units
need to be livable, and they don't look livable, the living space of the units.
That's my concern.
Anyone else from the virtual order? Anyone else from the board?
There was only one vote at the community meeting?
Yeah. Mark Harrell, who's the head of the, or at least the zoning chair of the 51st
Democratic Committee, was the only one who attended that meeting.
we actually waited for a half an hour more um you know just to make sure we didn't miss any
um you know just to make sure we didn't miss any you know anything but i mean it was a properly
you know anything but i mean
posted you know meeting um mailed out um from my experience if no one shows up it's because
no one has opposition if there's you know people show up if there's an issue and like i said this
property has been used as multifamily before and the only reason why we're here is that use was
discontinued through no fault of mr holmes anyone else from the board
our attorney
nothing Mr. Chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands
any commission
thank you Chair Bergman and good afternoon
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission
Chairman and Board Members
the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the RSA 5
residential single family zoning
at this location
this property was rezoned in 2019
and a community-led map change.
This property has a documented history
as four multifamily units dating to at least 2013.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant their proposed use variants
for four dwelling units.
MI 2024, 002, 032, 5235, Chester.
I vote yes.
proviso
maximum three units
my vote is no
Michael Johns
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
counsel you have the next one too
So MI 2024, 002-035, 1613 East Erie Street.
There's a letter of opposition from Fishtown Neighbors Association, 43 opposed, 12 supportive.
There's also a letter of opposition from a neighbor in the 1500 block of Palmer Street, citing several reasons why they oppose the variance.
Could you just state your name for the record, please?
And could you identify your client relationship to the property?
My client is Argo LLC.
And in the virtual audience should be its member, Alex Gritsyuk.