by five feet.
A 20-foot rear yard is left in the back, which connects to a three-foot wide alley.
Each unit occupies a full floor.
As you can see on the floor plans at Exhibit 6, Unit 1 is just over 1,100 square feet containing
two bedrooms and two bathrooms, and Units 2 and 3 are one-bedroom, one-bath units of
around 750 square feet each.
The roof deck is a shared space providing common outdoor areas for gathering.
Trash will be stored within ventilated trash storage closets in each unit, and there is
additional space in the large rear yard and within the lower level which is half
reserved for storage and mechanical space. A rendering of the proposed
structure is also included at Exhibit 7 and we do also have the architect
available should there be any questions on the layout or the design. From the
front you can see that the facade is a combination of white brick and gray
siding. And then we do also have some views looking down from overhead as well. This is a similar
design that my client has used on surrounding blocks in Mantua to try and activate and blend
the facade where the existing structures on the block are somewhat diverse in terms of color and
height. Now regarding the refusal, this proposal received two refusals for the proposed multifamily
use as well as the lack of third floor setback. The applicant submits to hardship in terms
of the use concerning the viability of constructing a new single family home due to both unique
features of this property and the block which subject the property to unique conditions
warranting grant of relief. Constructing a new single family home on this lot would
represent a deviation from the predominantly dense multifamily development in this area.
As you can hopefully very clearly see on the map I've shown at Exhibit 11, this block alone
has other dense multifamily, such as the three unit just at the corner of North 36th Street,
an approved 18 unit on the opposing corner, four units recently approved just diagonal
from the property on Mount Vernon, and a five unit just a few doors down from there.
As the board knows, every single one of these proposals has needed to come before this board
to seek relief for those multifamily uses, with the one that I showed mid-block being approved
most recently in 2023. Although not reflected on the map, public records would also suggest
that the property immediately next door at 3529 Mount Vernon is at minimum occupied as a duplex.
It's not clear from public records, but at minimum it looks to be occupied as a duplex.
Furthermore, just a block away is slated to see the construction of over 140 new residential units
with commercial uses that will thrive on additional density in this immediate neighborhood.
Larger developments aside, from this map you can also see the proliferation of other similar
multifamily homes immediately surrounding this property, many of which exceed the three
units proposed with this development.
This map is only a sampling of the streets that are immediately abutting the property,
so a lack of a star on this map should not be taken as a representation that the rest
of the area is necessarily single family.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, this property is obligated by its recorded history to be
this property is obligated by its recorded history to be developed in some capacity.
developed in some capacity.
PHA's lack of interest in the land can be evidenced by the repeated extensions they've
granted to this and prior owners to fulfill the reversionary interest terms, but the fact remains
that the lot is contractually balanced to be developed. That obligation was put into place
before the land was rezoned from RM1 to RSA5, with the prior RM1 zoning allowing the density
that is proposed with this development.
This is further evidence that the proposal is the least minimum, particularly given the
density in the surrounding neighborhood, which all greatly exceed three units.
As presented, the project was designed to include large, comfortably appointed units
that are consistent with other units my client has constructed in this neighborhood.
In terms of the required third-story setback, the applicant submits that compliance with this
particular requirement of the zoning code would represent a significant deviation from the
character of new construction in the immediate area and would further significantly jeopardize
usable living space. As was shown, although the lower level is predominantly above grade,
over half of the below grade level is reserved for storage and mechanical space. Intruding
into the third floor by eight feet would eliminate nearly the entire front usable space of the
third floor, unnecessarily in this case, given the precedent of the new construction in this
neighborhood, which has no evidence of third story setbacks. This requirement of the code is
applied ununiformly in this area in particular, given the proliferation of existing vacant lots
around Mantua. Where the vacant lots abound, the requirement is not triggered. So this has created
a clear hardship to any lot, particularly this one, that will be an infill, particularly on
blocks where there has already been new three or four-story construction that is not subject
to this requirement.
Overall, we submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air.
A full analysis is provided in the Memo of Law that I've submitted to the Board at Exhibit
12, and I would be very happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
If the administrator could look for Rami Shrine.
Will you see him?
I see no hand.
He should be on here.
Yeah, he's on there.
please promote Rami Shreim thank you
I'm back in moment here sure hello this is Rami I could you please state your name
is spelled for the stenographer sure it's rami shreim r-a-m-y last name s-h-r-a-i-m you swear
affirm the tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth i do counsel thank you uh rami
you were present and heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the
board today yes and do you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would
you adopt it as if you had provided it to the board yourself yes happy to answer any questions
questions from the board how many uh can you hear me yes can you hear me michael yeah we're good can
can you yep yep can you go back to the plans the floor plans yes it looks like you've got
decent height under out of the basement correct and so the rear part of the
basement is just for utilities is that it that's correct yep okay and how is how
was one so we've got with this this condition where we're going through a
bedroom to go to the backyard on that ground floor unit I see that's that's
problematic and the the basement is part of the first floor unit correct that is
correct yes and the access to the roof is only for that second floor but for
the third floor apartment in this case everybody yeah in this case the access
Yeah. In this case, the access to the roof deck is common. It really depends. My client has been in front of this board many times. Sometimes it's private. Sometimes the design will allow for it to be accessed by everybody. And in this case, it is a common roof deck.
to the roof deck is common.
It really depends.
How are you dealing with trash?
Rami, if you want to address how you deal with trash on your properties.
sure so we what we do is we have a private hauler that is contracted so they pick up the um uh the
trash from the properties um uh three days a week we have it uh um on some of the larger properties
some of the smaller properties they go two days a week um but we they are on a route that that
will go on as meredith mentioned we um developed several properties that are in the immediate
neighborhood so you had pick up how many times three times a week for this so we have three
times for the large uh uh properties and two times for the smaller ones so this would be
considered property so it'll be twice a week okay and where were the tenants store the trash
in between those pickups um so so typically they leave them and ventilate we have we will
what we do is we provide closets that are for trash so that's what they were not showing you
plan we also we also um i mean in in in this case there is an alleyway we've in properties that
don't have access uh like from the front um we we could take out a a portion from the backyard uh
because there are 20 feet there, and we can enclose that and store there if needed.
Well, on your first floor, you're going through a bedroom to get to your backyard, which is problematic.
So you can trick your trash through the bedroom.
Yeah, so actually, I'm not sure we've, in our previous, and I apologize, this is an older rendering.
So what we've done in the past is we've actually put in the kitchen area to be in the back so that it's accessible to the backyard.
And then we put a bedroom in the front of the property.
So I'm not sure why the design is not reflecting on it right here.
But typically, yes, we have the kitchen in the back so that it's access to the backyard.
Okay, so these plans are not correct.
Well, just the bedroom kitchen on the first floor.
Everything else seems to be accurate.
So swapping the kitchen with the, you know, opening up the area in the back.
Yeah, I'm not sure why these.
So opening up the area in the back and this becomes, and it's still a two-bedroom unit?
So if this actually would end up being a one-bedroom unit with the kitchen
and the two-back bedrooms will be kitchen living opened up
and then the room would be in the front of the apartment okay that better that makes better
sense say it again yeah sorry i apologize about this the um we actually re we revised the plans
a bunch of times when we met with the community um and actually uh the uh the uh uh some from the
the rco uh uh vice president is on here as well to speak about this but that's why i think that's
where the mix-up happened where we went back and forth and changed the plans a
few times but apologize about the mistake okay all right thank you will
they will you submit revised plans that show that change yes we can do that if
you'd like to hold the vote for one week we can submit revised plans within a
couple of days okay I have a question about the neighbors this is an infill
correct yes and do you have the support of uh both neighbors on either side
rami if you can address we held we we held a community meeting um um actually there was an
official community meeting that is that was the where the vote took place but we spoke uh uh uh
to two immediate neighbors i'm i'm honestly not a hundred percent sure if the if the uh next door
neighbors were present when the vote happened, but the overall consent from the community
was that they were in support of the neighborhood, of the development, sorry. There was no objections
from anyone, but I'm not, to be honest, I'm not 100% sure if the next door neighbor was
present or not, but we flied everybody and we did all the notifications that we're required
to do.
Yeah, well, that will be the most most impacted, given that this is infilled and just, you know, thinking about the underpinning stuff.
So I think that would be a good idea to make sure that they are aware of what's going on.
The to the left is owned by the housing authority. So I don't know how they handle any form of notifications to tenants and things of that nature. So that that that always presents somewhat of a challenge. But certainly, you know, in terms of construction, they would be required to provide notification.
The to the left is owned by the housing authority. So I don't know how they handle.
In fact, based on the current administrative code, they're required to get sign-off from
the neighbors.
So, there is a heightened level of interaction that is required to address some of those
concerns relative to construction.
And just as an addition, I think that there's some new legislation to provide even more
notification requirements in situations like this.
Noted.
We'll keep an eye out for that.
questions from our attorney Hillary Emerson just in terms of the revised
plans that's just a change to the floor plan that's being requested to be shown
correct that's my understanding yes that's correct we're swapping the the
kitchen to be in the back where the access to the backyard and the bedroom
to be in the front okay so we don't need revised plans in that case because we don't stamp floor
plans because those don't get reviewed till the building permit stage so um there's no need for
revised plans in this case unless the envelope of the building is changing understood right okay
questions or comments from the audience for the virtual audience i see two hands one from easy
need home care I'm gonna allow them to speak she's allowed to speak I could you please state
your name is bell for the stenographer okay i have another hand her name is sure iman i'm gonna
allow her to talk i could you please state your name is bell for the stenographer
hello hello my name is iman alfaban my spelling is e-m-a-n alfaban e-l-k-a-l-b-a-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told you nothing but the truth
yes are you a neighbor yes i live at 522 north 35th street okay and i attended the rco meeting
and i didn't vote in favor and in support of this project myself and other community members
we expressed our support for the project because it will have more desirable like one and two
bedroom units rather than you know these larger single family homes that eventually just end up
getting occupied by you know college students may become like more party houses but these smaller
and like more affordable units are needed in our area for young professionals and young families
like myself and you know some of our senior neighbors who are looking to downsize as well
thank you very much for taking the time to call do we have anybody else with our hand
no more handy chair planning commission
thank you chairman and good afternoon david facto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning
committee swear or firm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do please
proceed thank you sir mr 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 2017 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan there are no unique
physical conditions or circumstances 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 requested use variants for three dwelling units and the proposed dimensional variants for not
setting back the third story thank you mi2025 004 602 3527 mount vernon street i vote yes
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Iowan, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Is there anyone who, any cases left from this morning?
We're good.
All right, thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman.
I will be chairing this meeting of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment.
with me is our board vice chair tenetta Graham president mr. chairman board
secretary Cheryl L Gaston president mr. chairman or remember Michael Johns
president miss or board member board member Taiwan was it mr. chair board
member Ryan McAdams president mr. chairman so here is our attorney Hilary
Here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board