quote resoundingly in favor accurately characterizes the full meeting including
the part that you were admittedly not present for obviously i wasn't there mr chairman i'm i'm happy
to uh to conclude with mr rubin now and and describe from a legal standpoint why you want
of variance. I would press for a vote at this time because, frankly, I believe this is a little
bit sandbagging by Mr. Rubin, who had numerous phone calls with me personally, numerous emails
that I can produce and provide with the board. The plans, the revised plans were submitted
admittedly through Larry Friedman, the president of NLNA, well in advance of this hearing.
There's simply no basis for any kind of a continuance or further discussions, I think, at this point.
I think we've met all of the concerns and considerations of the neighborhood and the RCO, and now at the last minute, we're getting told that they want something different individually than we were told all along.
This has been months in advance.
thing that we vote on this as opposed to continuing it and any further dialogue with
with the community uh i i believe at this point uh frankly i'm trying to get my um
i'm trying to get my client on the phone to make sure he agrees with me
uh but i would suggest that we've gone over and above to meet with the rco provide them revised
plans. We then, after actually providing the documents directly to Mr. Rubin in advance,
meeting with him via phone directly in advance, then proceeded to the RCO meeting,
then had everything going forward. I mean, I can't tell you the number of phone calls I've had
between Mr. Friedman and Mr. Rubin. Well, that happens. I mean, when people are concerned about
things i mean that's not unusual that's what that's what the process is and uh the dialogue
uh the dialogue between the applicant and the nearby community that's why there's a zoning
between the applicant and the nearby community that's why
board to listen to all the stuff that you guys talk about and hopefully come up with it to make
a decision uh on what we think is the best uh for the community at large but again i i just i mean
i'm not forcing you i'm not suggesting anything but uh i still hear i heard what you're saying
that there's been numerous conversations back and forth but apparently there still was that piece
about some of the revised plans that we spoke about you spoke about today uh there's a claim
by mr rubin and mr malecki that uh these this revised plan has not yet been they had not seen
it until today i believe or this morning so again did you get your client on the phone because
we're well over an hour and again you know we don't like to rush things but no i i certainly
understand uh to be fair chairman my client says look what you know we've delayed this already to
meet the uh nlna meetings uh they had a meeting at the end of you know we have that year-end
deadline for the tax abatement that we've got to push forward on it would get a hearing before the
end of the year we're well on what i am personally well aware that 10-year tax i'm okay with voting
now because we don't okay okay this has been over a year and while we would get a hearing before i'm
not sure who's talking i'm sorry that that's uh that's my client mr rodriguez all right so let's
let's let's move on then okay all right any questions from the board yes frank i just have
one no i i have one question frank please was there refusal for open space did you have a
refusal for open space no no no to to to be clear and i appreciate uh mr holliman that you you raise
that um just to be clear and to make sure that everyone can see it i'll throw it up on the screen
we had three refusals hopefully you can see it all one is max building height which we reduced
in accordance with the request of nlna and mr rubin specifically so you know concerns about
height are are very surprising to me at this time rear yard depth seven feet this has not changed
This is the same in the original plans as presented, as always seen.
This has not changed at all.
And then the third refusal we got was for front-loaded parking, which nobody has any
issues with, and we actually reduced the overall demand there from larger curb cuts
to single smaller curb cuts.
and i would i would simply like to point out you know obviously i i won't belabor this but
i believe we've met the marshall test for you know a variance uh we've discussed the unique
hardship of this property that there's no adverse impact on public health safety welfare i think
everyone agrees uh that this is also the least minimum variance test that we've requested
is met as we've even further reduced our requests. And notably, I think Mr. Rubin raised this,
but I would point out that hardship is not self-created. In fact, there's no adverse
inference allowed when an applicant knows its intended use of a property would be restricted
by the code at the time that it purchases the property or moves forward. That's a Commonwealth
health court case from 2002. And so on that basis, I think we've legally met all the requirements.
Again, we've met with everyone. What you're hearing now are just general concerns
at large, as opposed to any direct impact on either of the individual neighbors.
And therefore, I think they do not warrant the refusal of this variance request.
Thank you. And I appreciate the time today.
we have one more hand chair uh we're going to move for our planning commission
uh chair this is peter bernard for the planning commission
are you swearing the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do by the way my name is spelled p-e-t-e-r-b-a-r-n-a-r-d
these properties are indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
we feel there is no hardship to vacant land and that the proposed use could be done as of right
if redesigned accordingly we have no objection we have we object to the granting of the variances
you said something about redesign i missed that part
we um so i said we feel that there is no hardship to vacant land and that the
So I said, we feel that there is no hardship to vacant land and that the proposed use could be done as of right if redesigned.
proposed
Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I won't go into the details.
If we were to propose three individual houses on each of the three individual lots, we would receive more refusals on those three proposals than we would for this single proposal for these two houses.
and uh my expert architect applying to that as well all right thank you um i wish you guys would
continue but that's it is what it is mi-2020-000673 332 west will be street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is yes look okay next one up
it's mi 2020-000765 4815 baltimore avenue
you have now been promoted
uh can you hear me yes please identify yourself for the record uh yes good afternoon mr chair
members of the board my name is alan occamson of knockamson pc one two three south broad street
suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 um i don't have the ability to share my screen um it's the how i
see the zoom right now okay we'll take care of you mr knockinson you trying to find the
truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth he went out to come back in i just promote him to
a panelist. Okay. Thank you. Gotcha. So, Nakasim, you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you agree to wait the reading of his refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or referral
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have
a letter? I have and I do. Please proceed. Thank you. All right. I'm going to share my screen.
In front of you is a packet of materials which include eight exhibits. The first exhibit is the
deed to the property showing that Beachwood Property Holdings 4815 LP owns 4815
uh baltimore avenue which is in the cedar park area of philadelphia the second exhibit is the
certificate of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing with respect to the property
the third exhibit is the notice of refusal this is an rsa5 property
although it is an rsa5 property currently it's legal to use it as six units we are asking to
legalize the seventh unit and you'll see from the pictures and here's the application for appeal
that we filed with the zoning board of adjustment as you can see we're on baltimore avenue between
49th and 48th we're on a commercial corridor with a trolley line as well and you can see
this is our property we're not changing the physical dimensions of this property in any
respects. So as you can see, this is the front of our property. Here is the front door of the
property where the seventh unit is. The other six units are on the other three floors of this
property. Again, we're not changing anything. I took a little zoom shot of this picture.
So this seventh unit, which is in the lower level, like a step down, has its own front door.
You'll see pictures to the right of the property, to the left of the property. You'll see our zoning
notice poster. Again, this is a legalization. There are eight separate electric meters.
Previous to our purchase of the property, the property was used for a generation by the previous
owner of the property. He actually wanted to stay and remain in the property after our acquisition,
but we stated that we could not because the seventh unit was not recognized by way of a
zoning permit, and that's why we're trying to legalize it here today. You'll see the pictures
uh from the unit itself right so these again you can see we are at grade right here we have
windows that open up you know here's you know the window closed but here's the window opened up
we have three separate windows along the side of the property
where you know for emergency egress um but again the front of the property
The front of the property is this front door.
We'll be right back.
We're not trying to legalize a basement unit that has interior access only.
We're looking to have an exterior front door, which is already there, and there are three exterior side windows which open up, which also have been used for over 20 years.
Again, here's from the outside.
This is not uncommon to have a property of this type, right?
So in the West Philly part of the city, you'll see 614 South 48th Street, you'll see 4746 Hazel, you'll see 523 South 48th Street, you'll see 4653 Hazel, and then 4752 Hazel.
here's a simple layout of our of our property again we're not changing any physical dimensions
in this property you walk into an open floor plan with a living room a kitchen and then there's a
bedroom and one bathroom now we did meet with the uh we met with the coordinator of the rco the
cedar point neighbors association and ultimately they did not come to a decision there were people
that were for it uh there were people who um who were against it really the reason why they you
know the people that are against it was mainly to the fact that they didn't want to create precedent
right uh not that this property has been used for 20 years not for the fact that there's you know
eight electric meters here uh also you know that you know this is a property where we're not changing
any of the dimensions of the property but they didn't want to create precedent so they took no
position with regards to this what i would say is that we're we're actually affirming the precedent
created over the course of 20 years for this property there are eight electric meters the
front door is like again we're not this was built this way this property like this is a you know
again this was built in a way where the front door for the for the lower level unit had its own
you know egress into it so if anything we're affirming the precedent and also not just the
precedent for the property but the precedent for the neighborhood in general with regards to all
these other properties which are similarly used where you have lower level uh access so i mean
that's our presentation in a nutshell um i do i do have my client here that can uh verify the uh
our presentation, the facts of the presentation.
Brandon, can you virtually raise your hand?
It should be Brandon Fox.
Yes, Mr. Fox, you've now been promoted.
Wait to be sworn in.
hello mr fox yes good afternoon please identify yourself with the record spell your first and
last name brandon fox b-r-a-n-d-o-n-f-o-x we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do mr markinson yes uh brandon uh you heard everything i stated today
yes and is it true and correct absolutely and would you adopt this in your own testimony
Now, you also own one of these units as well, right?
One of these properties on Hazel Street, right?
Yeah, 4653 Hazel Avenue.
That's correct.
All right.
So, it's not uncommon to have a separate entrance with a lower level unit in the West Philly part of the city, right?
That's correct.
And then, who manages these properties for this property in particular?
4815 Baltimore Avenue is managed by a third-party management group, which we oversee in great detail.
Okay. And how often do you visit the properties in general in the West Philly part of the city?
We're in the neighborhood two to three days a week, just checking up on things.
Okay. And then how many apartments do you have in this part of the city?
37 uh not not including the unit in question uh which i just want to again point out as as mr
knockamson did that this you know was occupied by the prior honor uh for many years i think in
excess of 10 years with it has its own kitchen and bathroom uh as it sits today gotcha i i have
no further questions thank you questions from the board no no anyone else would like to test
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
mr lewis you have now been promoted wait to be sworn in
yes okay i'm here yeah mr lewis please identify yourself for the record spell your first and
last name and give us your address i'm lewis baum l-e-w-i-s b-a-u-m i live at 4724 hazel avenue
where is that in proximity to uh 4815 baltimore uh it's i guess two or three blocks away
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do sir please proceed uh i have uh i was present at the uh rco meeting and uh i have a
couple of comments here uh first of all the it was stated the building was built like that with
that door um i have no way of knowing but that's extremely doubtful more than likely that was done
during a remodel when it was built changed over to apartment buildings the second point it was
stated that it is not uncommon to see these uh uh basement apartments in west philadelphia
if you uh parse that that means it is common to see them and that is certainly far from the case
There's a few, certainly, but not many.
Finally, I'd like to make a point about setting a precedent.
If buyers think they can easily get a variance, they will bid up prices and then come to the Zoning Board of Adjustment claiming hardship.
The only hardship that exists here that was not self-opposed is the difficulty of finding affordable housing in a community where prices have been up to a high degree.
To my knowledge, the owner in this case has not made a statement that the unit will be rented at a city determined or other independently determined affordable rate.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would like to respond.
In terms of the configuration of the property, there's no way to actually get into this lower level but for that front door.
There's no access through the interior of the building.
So it's not like we're trying to jam in a unit into the ground level, this lower level.
Secondly, and Mr. Fox can affirm this, we actually did talk about what would happen if the board would not agree to this.
We would have to reconfigure this lower-level space so there would be access for the lower-level space where we would create potentially bi-level units for that first floor, and the cost would be well in excess of $50,000.
So it would be rather expensive to completely change the configuration of a building that's been used in such a manner for the last 20 years.
And again, I think the gentleman stated that he was on Hazel Street. We do have 47-46 Hazel, 46-53 Hazel, 47-52 Hazel. So those are just examples of similar type of units that are legal in this part of town.
Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry, questions from the board, I think I asked already. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
please raise your hand no more hands here thank you just uh to assure mr lewis this board
uh does not uh we take every case on an individual basis this was not going to set a precedent i can
assure you of that uh planning commission good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning
commission this property is indicated for multi-family residential in the comprehensive
of plan and has not yet been remapped. The building has previously been approved for six
units. We feel the addition of another unit represents an overuse of the property. Accordingly,