My client then revised his plans to eliminate the roof deck, eliminate the parking space, but held steadfast to the six units, and there were going to be a total of six bedrooms for those six units, each one-bedroom units.
We thought that the density created by six one-bedroom units was low in comparison to the amount of bedrooms we could have put into the property, and instead, you know, did not take advantage of the request of the community before units.
we made that presentation we received a letter from the uh community group that the board has
where they stated a preference for uh three to four units they indicated that they would
you know not have any objection to that we then presented it from the zoning board
um you know it seemed like there could be further communications between the parties as to that
unfortunately those communications were not fruitful. We did not have another certified
meeting with the RCO. So where we stand now is we've adhered to every one of the community's
requests regarding the roof deck and the parking. We did reduce our unit count to four
at the initial hearing on this matter. So the question is whether the board would grant
you know a variance for three what the community has been asking for or for now there is some
there is a letter that came in front of my desk last late last night where they indicated
that you know that they're now their preference is to have single family use ultimately which
again is not economically feasible this lot has been a vacant lot for some time and we're looking
to develop that lot responsibly. But we still have a low bedroom count of six bedrooms for
four units. And in the letter that we received last night, it indicated that their preferences
for single family use. But again, they indicated that if this board feels so inclined,
they would ask for only three units with a total of six bedrooms. We're four units with six
bedrooms. So either way, this is clearly a property that should and needs to be developed.
And we're hoping that the board would grant a variance with a maximum of four units. And we
also have revised plans, which eliminated the roof deck and eliminated the parking space. But
if this board does not feel like it's appropriate for four units, we would ask that the board then
adhere to the three-unit request by the community. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nocromson. Is the RCO present in the audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I see Pamela Andrews from the RCO present. And I did want to note,
because I see a couple other hands raised, we are not taking further public testimony in this case.
We took it at the prior hearing. This resumption hearing was for the limited purpose of discussion
about, yes, about additional conversation with the RCO. Thank you.
Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court
reporter? Good morning. My name is Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A.
Good morning. My name is Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A Andrews, A-N-D-R-E-W-S. I'm the chair of West
Pout and Saunders Park RCO. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. Well, we're here this morning
because we've met with this client on numerous occasions. We have always said from the beginning,
our preference for this lot was to uphold the RSA 5 zoning. We've attempted to work with this
client. We requested that if we were going to approve any type of variance for a multifamily
unit, we wanted only three units at that site. Our particular community, when we tend to approve
of variance for a multi-family lot that is zoned RSA 5, we always basically attempt to keep
to keep density low by requesting that the client only be allowed to build a three-family unit.
In the letter that we sent to you prior when this case was heard, we did say
three units but preferably four units but preferably three and at this point we went
back to the attorney we met with the client on numerous occasions we asked them we asked him to
please we would allow a variance for three units they refused and came back and presented four
So at this point, we feel as if there really is no hardship, which would keep the client from being able to develop that lot as a single family home.
There is a current house next door that was built there back in 2017, I believe, and that property is sold for almost half a million.
So, our RCO's goal is to maintain and increase single-family dwellings in our area, and we feel as if he would not agree to us allowing a variance for three units, then we wanted to hold him to the request to the RSA-5 zoning.
Thank you.
Thank you.
and Mr. Chair Becker just respond um I appreciate um Ms. Andrew's frustration um my client has been
very strong on his belief that you know that you know four units and not three units but as you
heard the group this this community has you know stated you know an allowance for at least three
units and I would say just point out that this is a 1900 square foot lot so this is a rather large
rsa black property um so we defer to the board in the planning commission
good morning chair david fecteau f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir i do proceed thank you sir uh good morning chairman and members of the board
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This neighborhood was rezoned in 2015 in accord with the recommendations in the comprehensive plan.
The community requested that the zoning for this block remain the same.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance 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 use variance for six dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007-037-431-North 41st Street.
I vote yes with provisos.
Revised plans, one page,
stamped by ZBA, June 7th, 2033.
Maximum three units,
no bedrooms in basement.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheem, my vote is yes with proviso.
Mr. Knackenstein, could you stay on, please?
Number eight, MI 2022-007-061-315 North Preston Street.
This is a resumption hearing.
I noticed from the council person
that has no opposition
to the revised proposals per provisos.
The provisos directly respond to change requests
by near neighbors and brings the proposed use
by near neighbors and brings the proposed use and building footprint to be more in line with the
and building footprint to be more in line with the strength.
surrounding properties. My understanding from our council, this resumptive hearing will be
update from Mr. Nockleson yourself, comments from the RCO, and then to the Planning Commission. So,
Mr. Nockleson, could you just state your name for the record, please? Alan Nockleson.
Proceed, sir.
And identify your client, please let your...
I'm sorry.
It is Preston Berkeley, LLC.
And in the virtual audience is the owner's representative, Bill Murphy.
Thank you.
Proceed, sir.
So we also dealt with Ms. Andrews' organization for this project as well.
I am glad to say we did reach an agreement with Ms. Andrews where we would have a maximum
of six units.
Okay, thank you.
And it's receptive in our revised proviso plans.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Ms. Andrews is still here, Chair.
Ms. Andrews, please unmute yourself.
Ms. Andrews, could you just state your name for the record you've already been sworn?
Pamela Andrews.
Okay, thank you very much. Proceed.
I'm just here to say we are happy to report we were able to work with Mr.
Nockmson and his client regarding this property and the community is happy with the results that
we were able to achieve. Thank you very much for calling in for both cases. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property.
We'll prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed use variance for six dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007061, 315 North Preston Street.
I vote yes.
Revised plans.
One page, stamped by ZBA, June 7th, 2023, maximum six units.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 14, MI 2021-002-828-6516-20 Upland Street.
Edward Quinn is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Southwest Philadelphia Consortium of RCOs.
Chair, Mr. Quinn is coming back in as a panelist now.
good morning mr quinn morning chair bergman good morning could you could you state your
name please and spell for the court reporter yes sir my name is edward quinn e-d-w-a-r-d
q-u-i-n-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth. Yes, I do. Could you identify your client the relationship to this property? Yes, sir. I'm
counsel for Lamb Agencies, LLC, the single member LLC and owner of 6516 Upland Street. All right.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir. Yes, sir. Good morning, counsel. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you
emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing? Yes, sir. We have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. Sorry, I'm one of the few millennials. It's probably tech challenged here. Just figuring
out how to share screen. The green button on the bottom there says share screen. Thank you chair
Bergman. Here you go. Okay. Okay good morning. Good morning all. I'm a counsel for this matter
for land agencies. 651620 Upland Street is located in the ICMX district concessing neighborhood.
was purchased by my client in 2019.
He inherited several violations, which initially caused an issue
when he went to apply for his license to run the garage, which
which necessitated the application here today.
necessitated the application here today.
We actually been, unfortunately, had to continue the case several times due to COVID, language issues, and then travel.
So this matter has been going on for a while, but we had a meeting last April with several RCOs and community and received a favorable response.
response. My client has been running a very professional workman-like shop.
Here these are some of the photos of the property right here.
This is where the parcel is located near McCreech playground in Concessing.
This is a zoning overlay showing the ICMX mixed use. On the street there are
several manufacturers like custom carpentry, custom cabinet shops.
There are also several auto shops located in this region, but not on this block of Upland Street.
Photos from Google Earth showing to the left here is the cabinet manufacturer and wood shop.
On the right is the property before my client purchased it and began clearing the violations of painting.
There's an inside photo of the shop.
Just a photo showing we've been posting the notice requirements.
Some of the feedback we got initially when we applied for this with the ZBA was vehicles
being left outside or work being done outside of the garage.
That's something my client has been very cognizant of.
And just we have some photos just showing what the shop looks like during work hours.
This is obviously from last year, but we've been continuing to just run a very professional shop with a copy of our application for special exception.
And sorry, my computer is freezing here.
Project information, these are the required submissions.
This is the notice of referral from L&I, title, and tax clearance, recent tax clearance.
And also our letter of support from last April's community meeting.
what is your client present to adopt your testimony
uh my client is not present unfortunately he's dealing with a medical issue
okay all right you're you're an officer of the court we will accept your testimony
questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
Chair, we have Craig Melodosian. Mr. Melodosian, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Craig Melodosian, C-R-A-I-G-M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
All right. I'm the coordinating RCO for this project. And while we did submit a letter of support and we still support the operation, based on repeated visual inspections of the facility, we're asking that proviso language be included.
uh the uh we believe the applicant has abrogated his agreement with us to not park cars on the
sidewalk we regularly find including as of 3 30 p.m this past monday uh a black mercedes benz
always parked facing the north elevation of the building on the right hand side of the main garage
entrance and there are usually cars uh parked on the left hand side of that entrance in front of
the front door. We still agree that the internal shop is outstanding compared to the other
facilities that we've dealt with in that street or in that area. We are working with multiple
applicants, automotive-related uses on Upland running between 68th Street and 65th Street.
We're trying to set a standard, and that includes no parking on the sidewalk regardless. And on all
of those occasions, there was ample street parking to park on the street. If they don't want to park
the Mercedes Benz on the street, then they need to move it into the shop. But it should not be
on the sidewalk. And we would ask the proviso language to indicate no parking or servicing
The proviso language indicate no parking or servicing of vehicles on the sidewalk.
of vehicles on the sidewalk.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for calling in and taking the time.
Mr. Quinn, before I give it to the planning commission, do you want to respond?
Yes, thank you, Chair Bergman.
Those are valid points, well received.
Mr. Melosian was kind enough to call yesterday.
Okay, good.
I would just add that I spoke with my client.
The Mercedes is his head mechanic, and he has been instructed to not park on the sidewalk.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.