hopefully to purchase this property upon zoning approval and our certificate of tax clearance.
So first things first, this is an RSA 5 property. We have no dimensional refusals. The only refusal
we have here is for our requested for family dwelling, which will be a condominium. The owner
this property, Keith Aliats, has in the past done work in Philadelphia. He focuses on these
corner properties. He feels like that's the most appropriate use to have these multifamily
structures, multiple forms of egress, to have garbage stored in the rear for light and air
purposes. So he focuses on these boutique condominium buildings in Philadelphia. You'll
old kensington neighborhood association uh again overwhelming support for this project
and as you can see in here uh akna and their neighbors are excited about the fact that the
proposed project brings home ownership to our community that was very important to them
especially the affordability aspect of it like many neighborhoods in philadelphia there's been
new construction with a focus on single family new construction which has priced a lot of people
out of these neighborhoods, they want a diversity of housing, which will make it more affordable
for people to stay and to move into a lot of these neighborhoods in Philadelphia.
So you can see the permit. Again, this was a four-family dwelling back in 1985 before it was
knocked down. You can see maps of the area. We're right off of a commercial corridor,
we're right off of a commercial quarter germantown avenue again from a city planning perspective
Germantown Avenue. Again, from a city planning perspective.
it makes sense to have density as close to a commercial quarter as possible to support that
commercial quarter and especially when you're dealing with a corner property as well maps of
the area from a google perspective photographs of the property you can see we're a vacant lot
we're a regular shape lot but what you can see is next door is multi-family next door
side of the property from west montgomery avenue to the right of the property on north 5th to the
left of the property on north 5th to the right of the property on west montgomery to the left of the
property on west montgomery again the multi-family structure at 1802 north 5th street which is right
next door to us and just examples of the interior of other projects mr aliotts and this company has
done in the past. As you can see, they really focus on having quality materials in there
for their new construction projects. Example, the bathroom, example, the delivery room with
an open floor plan. Again, just an example with more of a rendering of what his properties
look when used. Example of a bedroom. And then just our plans and drawings. Again, what
we're trying to do is a traditional brick facade with a modern touch. Again, you can
see there's multiple forms of egress for this building. And then just to kind of go through
the drawings, you know, quickly, let me just first floor plan. So unit number one, you
go through Fifth Street. It's a bi-level, lower level, and first floor. You have an
open floor plan on the first floor. And then you go down to the lower level where you have
additional living unit number two is you one of the entrances on montgomery avenue again you go
you go in direct access you have an open floor plan on the first floor as well as the lower level
as well as access to the rear everyone has access to rear in terms of garbage so you see here the
receptacle so everyone has access that would be a common element in the condo uh the second the
third and fourth units you go up the this separate entrance to the second floor the second floor has
unit number three which is the whole floor right here again right there and you go up to the third
floor and that is unit number four which is right here our application for appeal
proof of mailing to you know in terms of our community notice just going to make a little
bigger you can see that we had our meeting in mid-september we notified 66 addresses of this
meeting you know the addresses that were sent and our proof of mailing and then the remaining
documents are just our agreement of sale showing that we have an interest in this property as well
as a certificate of tax clearance where we are in good standing with the city with that being said
um i have mr aliats on the line so mr aliats can you virtually raise your hand
mr aliats you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
yes please spell your first and last name
Sure. Keith, K-E-I-T-H, last name Alliotz, A-L-L-I-O, T as in Tom, T as in Tom, S as in Sam.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Knockinson?
Mr. Alliotz, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Great. Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
no mr chairman no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have slow folks with his hand up mr folks you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr folks i think you're still under oath from earlier today please identify yourself for the
record yes chairman chico my name is sloan folks s-l-o-a-n-e-f as in fire o-l-k-s representing
the office of council one maria quinones sanchez room 508 city hall uh the applicant having met
with the uh coordinating rco and receiving a letter of support uh the councilwoman offers
no opposition to this various request thank you thank you anyone else to testify in this case
Chair, we have
Frances Mangubat
Ms. Mangubat, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Ms. Mangubat, you can
unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Thank you
Hello, can you hear me?
Sir, good afternoon. Please spell your full name.
My name is Francis Mangubat, F-R-A-N-C-I-S, Mangubat, M-A-N-G-U-B-A-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yep. So I live on 1917, or I own a property on 1917 Lawrence Street. There's not a lot of action going on on this corner of Fifth Street. I think just having a corner property with density, bringing more people into this area is just going to make the neighborhood better, especially in a city where development costs are so expensive and other developers are staying away from this project.
And on top of that, this developer builds an incredible product and just way better than other developers.
Other developers put like, you know, the metal side, the corrugated metal or like the hardy to save money.
This developer puts up brick and a very quality product.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify?
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission this property is indicated
for single family residential in the comprehensive plan we feel the proposal represents an overuse
and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship the multi-family use is not grandfathered
in at this location while the triangular lot is unusual nothing about the lot justifies the
proposed higher density accordingly the planning commission recommends the board deny the variances
okay mi 2021.0029241800 north fifth street my vote is yes confessor plaza yes
James Snell yes
Thomas Holliman
my vote is yes
thank you
number case number 4
MI 2021
that's 003376
Fairmount Avenue
Mr. Boland you're still
under oath from earlier
and Mr. Bertil you're under
oath as well
So, I guess, who goes first here?
Mr. Bolin?
Mr. Bolin, if you're still in the room, please raise your hand.
Or Mr. Battelle.
How do you want to proceed?
Yes, I'm here.
I'm sorry.
When it was making me, panelists, it blacked out.
You want to proceed with your case?
And then we'll hear from the appellate.
I mean, if Mr. Bolin doesn't want to start with his appeal, I'm happy to do so.
Mr. Chair, I apologize.
I think we can streamline this a lot if I go first.
Terrific.
So I'm not sure whether or not Ms. Saleta got a chance to review the applicant's letter. I got it at about 830 last night. But based upon what is in that letter, this is a lot simpler than I thought it would be, because the applicant ignored our primary argument here.
there's I'll just walk you through a summary and then I'll walk you through in more detail
the sole issue here on appeal is whether a non-conforming structure that occupies 100%
of the lot when the code only allows 75% can be gutted and have the interior reconfigured
so they get rid of two floors inside the existing structure and they have three which would increase
the square footage within that non-conforming structure. Here, I believe the examiner got
confused because it's a little weird because there's a fourth floor addition. As far as today's
concerned, the fourth floor addition means nothing. We're not challenging anything with respect to the
fourth floor addition. It's just what can they do inside the existing building envelope. As I'll
explain section 143056G of the code, it governs renovations of non-conforming structures. And it
says you cannot increase the square footage when you engage in interior renovations. And here,
this isn't a de minimis. This is about a 50% increase to go from two floors to three floors.
and this might still be in the board's mind, but there was a long hearing back in April involving
And this might still be in the board's mind, but
there were
this, and at that hearing, there was a refusal for height, and the applicant actually agreed
that Ellen and I had missed a second refusal, which was that the fourth floor needed to only
occupy 75% of the lot, so they refiled their plans here, and they fixed the height refusal
by using a bonus, and they got rid of some of the additional space on the fourth floor.
But at that last hearing, there was an unresolved legal issue, and that was the same issue we
raised today. Can you demolish the two existing floors and add three? And I don't know on what
basis the board made its decision and whether or not that came into play because there was a
height variance. But as the board knows, it denied the variance. So we're here today. This is a very
simple, I'll try to speed it along. This is a 35-foot hall building. It has two stories. It
occupies 100% of the lot. It's non-conforming because under CMX2, you can only occupy 75%
of the lot as an intermediate lot. And here it occupies 100%. The plans that were submitted last
night um by the applicant um show that we're that the plan here is to demolish the two floors
and to add three with it um and here's here's the argument the argument is pretty simple
and if i can share my screen
if what I have up here is my letter which um has excerpt from um section 143056 of the code
governing non-conforming structures and I'm just going to scroll down to the subsection
here, which is G. And that provides here repairs or renovation of a non-conforming structure or
site improvement that brings the structure or site improvement into greater compliance
with the building code as permitted. It then goes on and states that
interior work, which does not result in increased gross floor area. And here,
this is not a permitted repair or renovation because it increases the gross floor area.
So what we simply want is L&I to issue a refusal and to go back through the process. It's as simple
as that. That's the primary argument here. The other argument, which is quite frankly academic
because it's a fallback argument, is that under the first provision here of subsection six,
It states that a non-conforming structure, if you expand or extend it, that it does not increase any existing non-conformity.
And here we believe, because you have a non-conforming structure, that by increasing the density within that non-conforming structure, you are increasing the existing non-conformity.
We are not contending that they can't build the fourth floor up.
they can do that. They're limiting it to 75% of the occupied area, which the code allows. That's
fine. They just can't take this space and make it infinitely larger inside. That's the problem here.
We also argued about the one-year rule. And again, Mr. Chairman, this is completely academic
because if they missed a refusal the first time and the second time, the one-year rule,
it's academic. It really would only come into play if you rule in my favor today and we have
subsequent zoning board hearing so again that that really isn't that really is not important today
but if the board wants I can take them through anything else in more detail
I just think this is a pretty simple legal issue and I don't want to waste any of the board's time
thank you for that does the board have any questions for Mr. Boland no Mr. Chairman no
Mr. Bertil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I'm going in the right order or not in the wrong order,
just let me know. I see Ms. Culligan, I believe, is present as well. So we'll go with you,
Mr. Bertil, then we'll go back to the city. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let me start here.
I'm pleased and surprised, but pleased to hear that counsel for the appellant is stating that
the addition on the property um is not an issue here um the the the the appeal that was filed
made um in multiple paragraphs mentioned of it and had addressed that issue um but i won't
address that if um if council is con is uh is is stating that that is not an issue of his appeal
um because we believe that that that we agree that that's not an issue
because we believe that we agree that that's not an issue and that addition is by right
and not an extension of the non-conformance. Now, regarding to council's main point,
and I'm glad that you still have this section up. I was going to share, but I can just use
what you have here. Counsel, in his reading of the section, sort of conveniently omitted
a sentence. What this section states is repairs to a renovation to a non-performance structure
or site improvement that brings a structure or site improvement into greater compliance
with the building code is permitted. For the purposes of this section, a repair shall be
defined as one of the following. A, interior work that does not result in the increased floor area,
or B, replacement of up to two-thirds of the structural framing members when work involves
the replacement of any portion of the exterior wall. So what this section is saying is to be
defined as a repair in this section, you need to meet one of these two definitions. Either the work
doesn't increase the floor area, or section B, replacement of two, it's up to, it's under two
thirds of the structural framing members. That section of, this section of the, of the code,
It's only to establish whether what you're doing is a repair or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can actually increase the floor area of a nonconforming structure. Because if you think about what Mr. Bolin is saying, it essentially doesn't make sense.
You can't say that you can't increase the ground floor area of a structure, but you can put an addition on the structure.
I don't know how you can put an addition without increasing the ground floor area.
It's counterintuitive.
Furthermore, the ground floor area of the structure is not the nonconformity.