Alan Nockmson.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
His name is Kwame Barnea.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, Counselor.
Please proceed.
we have m clark business uh oh you know what i am i am wrong so the principal is kwame
of the of m clark business you're right okay no you're right i'm not right yeah
yeah all right uh so this is the third property i'm corner property i'm legalizing this is
actually third one for you today right third one for me today mr goldberg legalized the pizzeria
today um so 1753-55 south ringold street it's in the point brie section of philadelphia
this is something the board saw a few years ago to make it into a form for unit dwelling
except the previous owner uh decided to add a floor on top of that and not get any governmental
approval and got foreclosed upon and it's been vacant for a few years and it's been an eye sore
to the community so my client decided to take this project on and legalize this first by getting
zoning and then obviously getting the building permit but a very interesting situation all right
notice of refusal we have a letter of support from the point breeze community development
a coalition unanimous support my understanding is is that the council member is in non-opposition
to this project letter of support from nearby neighbors uh we have the zoning permit you know
for this you know for family dwelling which will also show in the notice of refusal as well
that this board approved this rsa5 property as four units uh aerial view of the property kind
showing you what we're dealing with here um and it's just a structure that just needs to be
finished up which my client is hoping to do by way of this various process maps of the area
photographs of the property or plans and drawings or rco meeting notice or application for appeal
or deeds of property and certificate of tax clearance uh i also have bruce cheatham who is
the architect's representative here as well as the principal of the corporate entity that owns
of property who will be sworn in at the conclusion of my presentation notice of refusal so we actually
have two refusals first is we're trying to legalize what the board previously approved
which was a four-family dwelling which you can see here as well uh that this was approved in 2020
by way of proviso no bedrooms in the basement to be fair about it we would agree to that proviso
no bedrooms in the basement to be consistent with what the board previously approved um and the
second uh variance has to do the fact where we have a non-conforming building structure and all
we did was build well we didn't do it someone else built on top of it and so like it's just an
extension of a non-conforming use uh and so that's why we're asking for that's why that refusal exists
letter of support again the the community uh was overwhelmingly in support of this project
i believe it was unanimous um nearby neighbors 1750 south ringgold and i can't read this but
looks like 1750 i can't read this it's i believe next door but i could be wrong i think 1759 south
ring gold um zoning permit again showing allowing this for to be used as a four-family dwelling
right here per zba proviso no bedrooms in the basement and here's the zoning permit
aerial view of the property this is a built structure the bones are there we're just trying
to legalize the zoning to get the building permit and finish up the project it has been an eyesore
in this community for many, many years, that's what we were told. And they unanimously enthusiastically
supported the approval of this variance request. And again, what happened is, it looks like
and again what happened is it looks like two structures it's really one well yeah it's just
four family dwelling with you know two units in each structure essentially photographs of the
property again this is existing my client didn't do any of this and you know again they're not a
bad actor they're just trying to clean this up and you can see this is the old remnants of the
church building. I think there's a site, an elevation, which kind of shows you what the
old church building looked like. Right here, you can see this is the old building structure.
And without city approval, the old owner just put this building on top of that. So again,
we're going to have to go through this whole process in terms of building inspections as such.
So, you know, and my client's willing to take that burden on.
And then in terms of the use, we have two bi-levels here.
We have one, you know, and think of them as two duplexes.
You have a living room, a kitchen and a dining room.
You have a bedroom here.
So each of those are one bedroom, one bath.
And then there's a lower level where it's just an open floor plan.
And then, you know, going up a flight of steps, you have, again, a living room, kitchen, dining
room. This is one bedroom, a bath, and then you go up another flight of steps, two bedrooms and
two baths. RCO meeting notice January 27, 2025. We went with the community at 6 30 p.m. We gave
them proof of mailing of that notice a few weeks beforehand via email, showing that we mailed it
229 addresses these are the addresses the planning commission gave us these are the the proof of
mailing certificates application for appeal that we filed on m clark business's behalf
along with the nose of refusal and the project information form deeds or property showing you
know that we represent uh you know m clark and that they own the building or the property
and filing a certificate of tax clearance.
They actually paid their taxes in full early.
I would ask that Kwame virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
sir who is his hand hello thank you hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yes uh dominic long d-o-m-i-n-i-c-l-o-n-g you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel yeah dominic you're
an authorized representative of m clark business is that correct oh i am so sorry no no i'm not
I am from the second district council person.
That's what I thought.
I didn't think that was my client.
Well, while you're on, sir,
why don't you give us your testimony?
Mr. Long?
You scared of me, John.
I know.
Mr. Long?
Kwame, can you go unmute yourself?
Sure. Am I audible?
Yes. Yes, sir. We see your name. Could you put yourself on the on the screen, please?
Thank you. Could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
So my name is Kwame Banya. It's K-W-A as in Apple, M as in Mary, E as in Eric.
Banya is B as in boy, A, I like Robert, N as in Nancy, I-E-H.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do. Please proceed, counsel.
Kwame, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I did. And is it true and correct?
It is correct. And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Yes, everything is correct. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No questions. How much of this is currently constructed?
It looks like the building, the shell of it is.
Kwame, you're the one who purchased this.
What are we looking at in the interior of the property?
So all the framing is done. Electrical, I mean, was done. So we just need to really re-look at the framing to make sure that everything is fine and complete plumbing and electric, just because it's been sitting for a while, we can't rely on that.
So all the framing is done, electrical.
We have to go back and reassess everything and probably redo that. But the structural part of the building is done. Yes, thank you.
And then to be clear, this was not fully new construction.
This was additions that were put on top of an existing church building.
One-story church building.
That is correct.
I mean, if you look at it from the outside, if you just look past by,
you're thinking this is a completely new constructed building, and it's not.
It's like, again, if you look at the elevation,
it shows what the existing building was and what was built on top of it.
And then to the knowledge, has anyone talked to the property owner at 1751?
Have there been any other impacts of the non-permitted construction that already occurred that hasn't been updated since 2020?
Do we know of any effects that it might have had on any adjacent properties?
Kwame, have you reached out to the adjacent property owner about this project?
Yeah, so we got the signatures from them, and I don't think that there's any sort of harm at this point to anybody. So those were the signatures that I got, that I gave you.
And then is the plan still to consolidate this into two individual lots with OPA? Because I see there's a previous zoning permit to split it into two separate addresses.
um i think that is the case i i don't want to speak to that but i believe that there was
a consolidation of these to make it in well if it's a consolidation it's not gonna be two
separate addresses just making sorry but make it into one yeah i think that's how into one address
but it looks like two duplexes but yeah i mean all we're doing is just getting this approved
again just for the use and then to legalize the top part of the property that was not done legally
you know i get i get what we're trying to do i'm just trying to walk through order of operations
yeah no i looked at that today i understand what was previously zoned i think my concern i'll just
put it on record is that almost none of the construction here was done with any permits
like literally it was pulled with a minor alteration permit for a single wall and there's
now four units there that have
not been permitted, and so I do
just want to put that
concern on the record. Well, and everything
is going to have to be re-blessed, or
blessed by L&I. Correct.
That's a good thing.
questions from the board?
Questions from our
attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Virtual audience?
Yes. We have calling you
User number two will be promoted.
Hi, Tiffany Green, Concerned Citizens Appointment.
Hi, could you do me a favor?
State your name because you've already been sworn.
Right, Tiffany Green.
Hi, Tiffany.
Please proceed.
It was an issue with this property initially.
The initial owner had some financial issues, but as well there was issues regarding, like I think one of the commissioners just said, in terms of not following proper procedures and stuff like that.
So I don't remember this actually being passed.
I know it came through RCO meeting.
We had concerns in terms of him trying to get some government support or whatever.
So I say all that to say that according to the owner and the lawyer, that these are supposed to be four individual properties, I mean, four individual apartments.
In one building, the owner and the son is supposed to live in that.
That's why we agreed to the changing of the RSA 5 over to the apartments.
It stated that they would live in there.
The other apartment, we had a concern.
We wanted to know if they're going to be affordable units because this area here is mainly a low and moderate homeowner area.
Initially, when the project came through, a lot of the neighbors were not supported by the project.
So my point I want to put on the record that he did agree to participate in the Philadelphia Housing Voucher Program.
We are still talking with the Planning Commission in terms of proviso because we believe that can be tracked.
So we want him to make sure that he will put on the record they agree to participate in the Philadelphia Housing Voucher Program, and that him and his son will live in the other property.
And that him and his son will live in the other property.
And I'm also asking, and I'm not sure if this is proper or not, that if him and his son does not live in the property, then that property can be brought back to RSA 5.
And I'm also asking, and I'm not sure.
Because we don't want to be told one thing and then a couple of years go by, they're not living in there, and then surrender out as a market rate apartment.
So I know I'm asking a couple of things here.
Excuse me?
I said thank you for your input.
All right.
so i just hope we can get some confirmation on that commissioner thank you okay thank you
other anyone else in the virtual audience no more hands chair planning commission thank you chairman
and good afternoon david effecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential single-family zoning at this
location the zoning in this neighborhood dates to 1985. this property received permits for a lot
line relocation in 1980 to combine two lots then a use variance for four dwelling units in 2000.
a substantial amount of work appears to have been built without the benefit of permits through no
fault of the appellant the city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed use
variance for four dwelling units and minimum rear yard depth and rear yard setback and we will note
for the record the proposed provisos mentioned by the caller are both unenforceable thank you
thank you very much um so mi 2024 007 266 1753 to 55 south ring gold street i vote yes
and can we add a proviso that a co be required i i think i i think it i i thought of that michael
but i think you would see it it is required it is going to happen anyway okay they they can't get
into it without a CEO. In fact,
Mr. Notkinson is shaking his head.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think
we're going to have to resubmit for a building permit.
I mean, we are, because there's no
building permit that exists, so
we have to, and we want
to get the tax abatement.
But yes, Michael, that'll be taken