and I'll swear you in. Certainly. Name is Leo Mulvihill, L-E-O. M as in Michael, U-L, V as in
Victor, I-H-I-L-L. You swear we're from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. My address is 315 Green Street, First Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19123.
Mr. Plaza has a few questions.
Mr. Moverhill, you agree to waive the region of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to this?
copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this uh hearing i have
and have you uh met with the rco and have a letter yes thank you please proceed all right
good afternoon chairman members of the board i'm here today on behalf of p b as in bravo jack
properties llc and this is an application for uh multiple what are essentially single family homes
on a single parcel, which would be governed by a PUD, but under the zoning code, this then gets
classified as multifamily because we have multiple structures on the same lot. What I have now on the
screen, I hope, is my zoning packet, including the following, the refusal appeal and project
information form at page one, area zoning maps at nine, with my client's deed at 10, commercial
activity license at 14, tax clearance information at 15, my zoning notification proof of mailing at
16. The RCO letter I have separately, as we just received that, I believe, earlier today.
I have photographs of the property at 19, and I have revised plans at page 35. What I'll do,
members of the board, is first I'll go to the area zoning map to indicate where we are. So we're in
the East Mount Airy neighborhood, just referring to page nine of my packet. Our parcel here is
approximately 5,000 square feet, give or take, and we are located in the area indicated in blue
in RSA 5 district. Looking overhead with a site from Google Maps, we can see approximately where
we're located on the 200 block of East Sharpneck Street. Zooming out, this is my client's feed at
page 10, commercial activity license at 14, tax clearance at 15, showing no taxes owed.
This is my RCO notification letter at page 16, including the certificate of mailing,
showing that 151 mailing pieces went out on the 29th of September. There were two community
meetings held. One was informational. The second was a voting meeting at which we provided
revised plans to the community to eliminate one of our refusals. For purposes of the record,
I'll just go through those refusals here. So initially, because we were essentially seeking
to build six single-family homes oriented perpendicularly to the street with a common
drive aisle and all-street parking for each, we were issued refusals for multifamily, as I
discussed earlier. We were also issued a refusal for minimum rear yard depth of nine feet. Our
revised plans have been amended such that that refusal has been eliminated. So essentially what
we're talking about today is a lot where we're seeking to build more or less six single family
homes on one lot governed by a PUD or HOA. At page 19 of my packet, what I have here are photographs
of the posting for the property. I'll proceed through those. So this is the subject property
members of the board. It includes the structure to the left, which is a two-and-a-half-story
home that I believe has previously been used for a two-family dwelling, although I don't see any
history in LNI regarding that legalization. There's then this little gate and this one-story
structure, which has essentially been used as a garage, and there's a curb cut more or less there.
Whether it's legal at this point, I don't believe it is, but it has existed for quite some time.
now this is looking down sharp neck street and what i'll do is i'll just do a 360 degree view
there's the subject's property covered in that beige stucco and another shot of the subject
property you can see a lot immediately adjacent as both open area and a one-story structure
because we have one-story structure on the side of us we did not receive a refusal for a third
fourth setback uh the community group disagreed with the reading of the code but as this board
knows unless you have structures on either side of you that are both two-story you don't receive
that third floor setback refusal so we didn't receive it in this case
this is looking down the other way of sharpneck street and then directly across the street
as you can see there is parking on both sides of the street but we do have a curb cut essentially
in front of that garage this is the subject existing house which is proposed to be demolished
And this is our proposed development. As I stated before, members of the board, there's going to be, these are oriented perpendicular to the street to allow for the construction of six single family homes.
Looking to the size of this lot, because it is relatively wide and deep, we tried to look, approached it as how many single family homes will be allowed by right based on this square footage of the lot.
and under that mathematics, it's six. The way the lot is shaped is impressively deep and not
impressively deep and not quite so wide. So our hardship in this instance, which we explained to
quite so wide. So our hardship in this instance, which we...
the members of East Mount Airy Neighbors Association board and community, which they
rejected, is that the dimensions of the lot are such that we can't really develop on it unless
we did three narrower sort of styles, single family homes facing the street, which would be
allowed by right. But the dimensions of this lot are quite so deep that the hardship would be
developing it in a way that was economically feasible for this RSA 5 zone lot. For each of
these homes are three stories tall. They have interior all street parking as we can see on each
of the homes that are presented and we're asking for six overall based on the total lot size.
This is our amended site plan. As you can see this is our common drive aisle. We have six units.
They were originally slated to be 25 feet wide a piece. After our initial community meeting
consulting concerns of some of the neighbors with respect to open area and wanting to eliminate some
of the refusals, we actually shrunk each of the units from 25 feet to 23 and a half feet. And what
that did was provided us with a rear yard of nine feet, which eliminates our rear yard refusal.
Note that each of the single family style homes also have their own rear yard behind the units,
Although under the zoning code, it would be defined as a side yard, just since we're kind of going perpendicular.
It is a side yard, but it acts as rear yard for each of the units.
So it's a two way drive aisle, 20 feet wide, and we propose some street trees or pardon me off street trees and a privacy fence to the rear to try to buffer this property's development from any of the properties behind it.
these are just additional photos of the subject property which we've already seen
this is a view of the property from the drive aisle again each of the houses three stories
not to exceed 38 feet each of them does have a roof deck and there's no pilot house on them
because we sought to reduce the overall massing of the properties so there is a staircase but
it's not there's no need for a pilot house for access to the roof deck and we can see that from
the side view of the property here again basement one two three and then these stairs are recessed
actually into the third story to allow for roof deck access um the structures themselves are
relatively sizable we do have a basement which has a space for storage and mechanicals there's
a non-excavated area for purposes of the garage. So in the first story of the properties,
we do have a bathroom and a proposed bedroom, office, something along those lines as well,
access to the rear yard for trash and recycling, which is denoted here.
Going into the second story, as you go up the switch back stairs, you have a living room to
the front, dining area to the middle, kitchen to the rear, with mechanicals and a powder room.
Here's a storage closet as well. Going up those stairs, we bring us then to the third story, which has a bedroom in the front, bedroom in the rear, decent sized bath for each of the properties as well as decent sized closets.
The laundry is also located on the third floor. On the roof, we have the proposed roof deck. Again, we have stairs that are accessed and recessed into the third floor, so we're not going to be towering over any of the properties on the block. There's no pilot houses whatsoever.
What we have, I'm going to attempt to share this now since I just received it and was not able to keep it and provided this part of my zoning packet.
We received earlier today a copy of the zoning letter from East Mount Airy Neighbors.
Ultimately, they brought up a couple of concerns. Some of them were based on a misreading of the zoning code, specifically the required setback for third stories.
EMAN zoning committee insisted that we needed a third floor setback under the reading of the zoning code as interpreted by L&I and plans examiners.
We don't. And that's strictly because we have a one story building on one side of us and a two story building on the other.
So the third floor setback does not apply.
They also had some concerns that our property was not set back sufficiently from the street.
Namely, a two-story apartment building is set back on one side, and there was contention that the one-story building on our other side was set back, but we received no refusal from this from the plans examiner.
Neighbors brought up some concerns about stormwater, but with respect to this parcel, we're going to have permeable pavement.
We have significant open area. Approximately 50% of the lot, if not more, is open to the sky and will be covered with either permeable pavement in the drive aisle or open area will be grass, trees, things along those lines for both the rear and side yards under the zoning code.
One moment, members of the board.
One moment, members of the board.
There was a concern that was brought up regarding the fact that this is classified as multifamily.
Members of the community were concerned that perhaps these houses could even later be parceled up additionally.
And I attempted to explain that that would require additional zoning applications, variance requests, refusals, etc.
But for whatever reason, the community was still concerned that this could be further subdivided, even though more or less these are single family style homes.
As I said, simply under the zoning code, they are defined as multifamily because we're looking to have an HOA or a PUD govern them all.
that's the ultimately they also prepared some other documents um with respect to the property
but i'll just defer to whatever they sent into the zoning board at this point um and i'm going
to go back to my presentation in chief there we go now i believe my client david jackson is on the
line mr jackson if you can raise your raise your hand and wait to be unmuted we're going to swear
you when to testify you can unmute and wait for the chair
oh can you hear me yes please spell your name sir and i'll swear you in certainly my first name
David, D-A-V-I-D, last name Jackson, J-A-C-K-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Mulvey. Yes. Now,
Mr. Jackson, you've heard my testimony today. I have. Okay. And it's in this instance,
our specific hardship is that the lot is overly deep and insufficiently wide to maximize or have
a property that you could develop without some of hardship in this instance is that correct
it is okay and the suggested three uh homes fronting on sharpneck street uh that's simply
not feasible with a project of this scope is that correct i don't think it is no
and you've heard the remainder of my testimony and it's true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge and belief? Yes. You'd otherwise adopt my testimony as your own in this instance?
I would. And is there anything else you'd like to add at this point? No. Thank you. I have no
other questions for you, Mr. Jackson. Just one more thing, members of the board, some community
members did bring up the question of affordability. And I did explain to the community as best I
could that with building six units versus three uh the prices of the homes are going to be
significantly lower because there are certain fixed costs that are associated with construction
building six versus three means that there's more affordability uh inherently to the homes
that would be constructed um so that's how we tried to address that issue with the members of
the community as well at this point i'm happy to take any questions that the board might have
thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no no anyone else like to testify in
this case please raise your hand chair we have nina curl it miss curl it you can unmute yourself
or wait for the chair charlotte please spell your full name and i'll swear you in sure
I'm muted to our chair. This is Tanya. Ms. Curlet, may I ask that if you have two devices on,
you mute one or close it out, turn it off, and then utilize the other because we're getting
the echo from the two devices. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Sorry about that.
very well thank you yes we can thank you please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
um my name is nina curlett n-i-n-a-c-u-r-l-e-t-t
you swear or affirm the title of truth the whole thing about the truth i do yes please proceed
so we we did have two meetings about this project um
to be very frank the main issue here is that the applicant still has not
been able to demonstrate hardship um other than financial which was repeat
Other than financial, which was repeatedly the reason, we are still unclear what the hardship is about building on this lot by right.
um we we would also contend that even if this were to be built by right as um the claim
has been put forth to us that as it's been designed it cannot be based on the code because
there is no front setback at all as it's been shown to us and that not only would it need
a front setback in relation to the properties that surround it the buildings that surround it
but it would also need an additional eight feet on the third floor totaling 14 foot at that level
regardless of that the community does not see that this in any way actually adds value to the
neighborhood um the structure is far overly dense and this lot clearly can be built by right
preferably we'd like to see the house that stands on it which is an existing home
renovated and two built but if it they chose to demolish three could be built
and by doing so would not need any variance at all neither dimensional or um use
It is concerning that this is being suggested to be a planned unit development, because as was stated by the applicant, there are concerns with how and what those implications will be in the future.
um not only whether or not if these were to be turned into apartments by separate owners as they
are apparently going to be deeded if it were to be built um would they be able to be broken up
into separate units and not need to go through another variance process um it seems to me based
on listening to arguments go on and on and on at the zba that that's very well possible which is a
very big concern to neighbors. This is already the most dense neighborhood in East Mount Airy.
It's being targeted to build like this, sideways properties on what seem to be
not very safe drive aisles onto a one-way street that is one of the more narrow streets in the
neighborhood. And given that, it seems that these overly dense propositions are detrimental
to existing neighbors and to new neighbors that might move in, given they are not
having the opportunity to have any outdoor space due to this. Open space is a huge concern.
Permeable pavement is better than complete, you know, full paved driveway.
However, on a lot this size, that is a very, very big amount of area that no longer will be able to support any life in an area that right now is completely overtaxed with not only the existing infrastructure over the Winnahawking with a combined sewer shed,
but new building that is going up, new development that is going up, creating even a larger flood
threat for not only us in the neighborhood, but everyone downstream. There is no hardship.
We have not been able to, we repeatedly asked to please explain the hardship, but I would contend
that there is no necessary hardship here the lot is not particularly different than others in the
neighborhood um it could be built by right uh in such a way that it did fit into the neighborhood
with yards as opposed to roof decks which are becoming a a concern for neighbors as well due
to their inability to be able to utilize their yards in a way they feel um they've been up till
now, which is in a safe and private manner. And the burden on the infrastructure was
definitely a point raised, considering that if this were to be built as a planned unit development
with an HOA, we feel that the burden could easily fall on near neighbors if for some reason
that infrastructure broke down and the HOA did not make these repairs. That burden will either
The HOA did not make these repairs. That burden will either fall onto the city or neighbors, which means that the trash for six times the amount of people that currently are zoned to live on that lot will then have to fall on neighbors.
fall under the city or neighbors, which.
And that is not something anyone looks forward to, either for the new neighbors or the existing neighbors.
um and dimensionally again as i said the the fact that each the fact that they cut a foot
and a and six inches off each of these units to to afford a nine foot rear theoretical rear yard
uh really to the neighbors that means nothing to the neighbors they are simply proposing something
that needs to be conformed to based on the code as it's written and it's sort of a thinly veiled way
of simply giving something that they would need to have need to give anyway if this could indeed
be built by right which we believe it cannot not having any street frontage for for any of these
units um i could i could continue on i will say that the very first question asked when this was
brought back to the neighbors um happened to be so your takeaway from everything we discussed at
the first meeting was a nine foot rear yard um which clearly was not it's great but again it's
something that they would need to have provided anyway. And every other concern that the neighbors
had was essentially ignored. The change to multifamily, the demolition of an existing house,
adding six times the amount of current density, the lack of outdoor space, the safety concerns
with the drive aisle now being essentially a street, a dead-end street off a one-way street
for six families 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that's a big deal, especially if building
like this were to continue. The stormwater and flooding issues are huge. We're seeing the effects
of that every day. I mean, we all just lived through something that we never want to live
through again. But if we continue to do this, we will. And certainly the neighbors in this
neighborhood will and everyone downstream it is not it is not something any of us look forward to
so continued development above the winnihocking is is detrimental and um already severe severe
flooding has proven uh has shown that not only is it possible to lose property but lose lose lives
um and again removing removing the trees that exist there the tree that does exist there that's
that's that's a big deal we're losing tree canopy at an amazing rate the quality of life
is being reduced what makes this neighborhood what makes this neighborhood appealing is exactly