Belmont neighborhood. You have an exhibit packet which contains 15 total exhibits that we do
request be moved into evidence at the conclusion of today's presentation. Among other reasons that
I'll discuss today, the primary basis of today's request is that my client purchase this property
in 2022 as an RM1 lot that would have permitted the application before you today. Almost one year
to the date after it's purchased, the lot was rezoned along with many others in the area to
RSA 5. Given that this lot has not had a structure on it since prior to the 1940s, this rezoning
effort has rendered any buy right development on this lot impossible. Tax clearances included at
Exhibit 2. At Exhibit 3, you'll know here that the deed shows that this applicant purchased the
property on February 17, 2022. As you can see here on the zoning map at Exhibit 5, although the
property was rezoned to RSA 5, this property sits on a block that served as a point of division
between the new RSA 5 and RSA 3 and the retained RM 1, actually RM 1 and 2, on the opposing side
of the street. By way of context, I have also included aerial images at Exhibit 9. Let me zoom
in a little bit for you there. 623 North 44th Street is a corner property right at the corner
of Wallace Street. So up here to the north is 44th and then perpendicular is Wallace. With this first
image, you will clearly glean the context of this particular block, which only has a couple of
structures as you can see here. To the west are both a senior housing apartment complex with over
100 units, as well as a nursing home on the opposing corner. You'll also notice that there
are large twin structures further down the block here there's really two sets of them which were
developed some time ago by pha to the rear is a school run by the archdiocese fronting wallace
street are predominantly single-family homes moving along to the photographs at exhibit 15
you'll see that there are only two other attached structures on this block.
The blue is a single-family home.
Immediately next door, the yellowish-beige structure,
the last registered use of this property, according to L&I, was as a three-family dwelling.
Although members of the RCO seem to indicate at the meeting
that its current use may actually be as some kind of a boarding house.
I was not able to verify online whether it is a triplex or some kind of a boarding house.
On the vacant lot in question, you'll notice in this image that this lot has not only been vacant
for nearly a century, but has recently struggled with some trespassing activity as well.
From the corner, again, you'll notice the PHA-developed single-family homes further down the block.
From the corner, again, you'll notice the PHA.
Next is another view from Wallace Street, where, again, you'll notice the dense tree cover across the street that really insulates this side of the street.
You'll see that apartment complex across the street a little bit better in this next image here.
While 44th Street is mixed in terms of use and structure character, Wallace Street, as you can see here, contains predominantly two-story, single-family homes.
We have also included photographs of the zoning posters, which were timely posted on the property.
The original zoning plans that were filed with L&I and were presented to the community are
included here at Exhibit 6. Revised plans are shown at Exhibit 7 that were modified directly
in response to concerns that were expressed during the RCO meeting. Originally, as you can see here,
the proposal was for a four-unit dwelling, which was predominantly oriented towards
Wallace Street. That design would have had two egress wells on Wallace Street, as well as two
pilot houses and two private roof decks. Admittedly, the original design was contrary
to the Planning Commission's determination on the plans that 44th Street should be the primary
frontage. As revised at Exhibit 7, the proposal before the board today is for three units,
consistent with the last registered use of the immediately attached structure.
A front porch that is consistent with the two adjoining structures is now also designed.
one pilot house has been removed as well as all of the egress wells on wallace street
you'll see on these zoning plans that a trash storage area is designated in the rear behind a
fence that can be efficiently accessed directly from wallace street the structure has been designed
to align with the front setback of the adjoining structures on 44th street and further matches the
height of those structures at only 30 feet high and three stories. On the next image, actually,
and again, you can see here in the two-dimensional, the porch that I mentioned. As you can see here
on the next page, we have included a rendering. Of course, corner properties have the unique
benefit of providing ample light and air to residents that interior properties cannot provide.
The applicant also intends to work with Parks and Rec to add street trees that are lacking from this corner, despite the newly constructed sidewalk.
And that was also something that the community had requested during the meeting.
Floor plans are included here at Exhibit 8 and include three large units.
The first floor and lower level are over 2,000 square feet and include two-bedroom, three-bathrooms.
The second floor unit is a unit of 881 square feet and is three bedrooms, two bathrooms.
The third unit is on the third floor, which is just under 1,100 square feet and includes three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and access to the private roof deck.
All units have in-unit washer and dryers, ventilated trash storage areas.
These units are large, covered in windows, and are designed for families, which is something that's often expressed by the West Belmont community.
Now, as I mentioned, with respect to the community, we presented the proposal to West Belmont Civic Association back in November.
They expressed concern about the four-unit design and layout, as well as a general preference for single-family homes.
Following that meeting, not only was the proposal redesigned to accommodate the suggestions given at the RCO meeting, but my client was also further able to secure a petition of support from 23 nearby residents who were unable to attend the RCO meeting.
I've included that petition at Exhibit 14.
With the four that voted in support at the meeting, that represents 27 expressions of support for this project and only nine expressions in opposition.
In addition, as Chairman mentioned, the council person's office has expressed a neutral stance given my client's sincere efforts, as she indicated, to establish consensus, particularly in.
as she indicated, to establish consensus, particularly in light of the underlying
circumstances of this case. With respect to the application, we did receive one refusal for the
proposed multifamily use in the now zoned RSA 5 zoning district. Should the board be inclined to
grant the request today, we'd ask you do so with a proviso for revised plans one page, as well as
maximum three units. As I referenced, this case presents a hardship on multiple grounds.
Most importantly, and as mentioned early on, the applicant purchased this property with the
specific goal and intent of developing a multifamily project. The applicant's investment
in this lot was specifically based on the then-by-right three-unit dwellings. This board
often asks applicants if they did due diligence to determine how a lot is zoned prior to a purchase,
and in this case, that due diligence was done, an RM1 lot was purchased, and about a year later,
that was changed. That remapping bill is included in the packet here at Exhibit 10.
As the board may be aware, when a remapping is introduced, no advance notice is provided to
affected property owners. Accordingly, it was not until this bill became effective around February
of 2023 that the applicant even caught wind of what had transpired, fundamentally frustrating
its investment in the property without recourse other than seeking the relief requested before
this board today. This was actually the same argument I presented to the board for another
property on this same stretch of 44th Street just over a year ago, which the board granted for a
very similar three-unit project. It is a fundamental prejudice to a property owner,
such as Michael, to have his expected investment squashed by a rezoning for which there is zero
due process provided to any owner to challenge, let alone to even have notice. Furthermore,
more, despite the rezoning effort, the area surrounding this property remains a mixed
compilation of single-family, multi-family, and even some commercial uses, such as the school,
which begins a mere 90 feet from this property.
The fact that the rezoning line was drawn essentially down this street accentuates the
hardship facing this property. As I mentioned earlier on, directly across the street is
extremely dense with over 100 units, plus a nursing home. While we were unable to verify
the exact current use, directly adjacent to this property is either a triplex or a boarding house.
The only single-family homes developed on this block recently were done so with significant
subsidy. The only new developments on this block have been for similar triplexes at 709, 733,
741, 753, and 755 North 44th Street. 607 North 44th Street is also a multifamily dwelling.
Similarly, even beyond North 44th Street, the only instances of recent new developments have been
for similar multifamily dwellings. Prior to my client's ownership, this vacant lot was subject
to significant blight and repeated visits by L&I to cite the then-owner for lack of maintenance.
In addition to the history of vacancy and blight, the intervening rezoning of the property,
and the overall consistency of this proposal with the surrounding character of the area,
the board has ample evidence to find this property suffers a unique hardship warranting of granting relief.
Excuse me.
The applicant further submits that the proposal represents the lease modification to provide relief from the requirements of the code,
given again that the entirety of this proposal would have been permitted by right at the time the applicant purchased the property under the prior RM1 zoning.
The density is well in line with the character of the surrounding area and results in extremely spacious, well-appointed units designed for families, which is a design feature the community often requests when reviewing multifamily proposals.
The proposal will not contribute to congestion in the area. As you may have noticed as I walk through the photographs, the block still has ample parking on each side of this street.
This property, like so many others in West Philadelphia, benefits from ample public transportation in close proximity.
The variance will not impair light and air or harm the neighbors. No dimensional variances are requested, and the proposed structure is below, significantly so, the allowable 38 feet and only three stories to better harmonize with the existing attached structures on this block.
The variance will not impair light and air or harm the neighbors.
This proposal will fulfill the intended goal for the reactivation of this property set in motion when the applicant purchased it in 2022 and will result in the first structure on this lot in just about 100 years.
Simply put, this application will ensure this lot sees a modest development that history has shown will be impossible if relegated to a proposal that is by right under the current RSA 5 classification.
In addition to these reasons, we submit that the proposal complies in full with all of the standards outlined at Section 14303 8E of the Code, as is more thoroughly outlined in the Memo of Law I submitted to the Board at Exhibit 11.
At this point, I would ask Michael Matlin, if you're in the audience, to hit the little raise hand button at the bottom.
do we see him
okay thank you
excuse me chair I'm sorry
they're being promoted to panelists
thank you
you're more than welcome
hello hi could you please mr matlin could you turn on your video
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer my name is michael m-i-c-h-a-e-l
matlin m-a-t-l-i-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I affirm. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you. Michael, have you heard all of the
testimony and evidence that I offered in front of the board today? Yes, I have heard. Do you agree
that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt that testimony as if you had
given it yourself? Yes, I agree. Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions. Meredith,
did the RCO change their views if you made the changes? You know, Mr. Chairman, I did follow up
with them to let them know that the changes were made. Without holding another meeting,
the chairman of the RCO group, he didn't feel comfortable updating his letter.
Right, right, right. Questions from the board.
Yeah, I have a question about the hardship. So I understand that the zoning changed after you
purchased the property. I think that's just the risk you take as a property owner when you
purchase something. And given that this is a vacant lot, I would like to know what's the actual
hardship from putting back a single family home on this lot. Well, it's not a matter of, respectfully
so, it's not a matter of putting back. We're talking about a lot that the last time there
was a structure on this lot was, according to city maps, possibly around 1910. And since that
since that time, there has been no single family home developed on this lot by any of the prior
owners. It's been vacant. I mean, I get that we have established that 100 years ago, there might
have been a multifamily property on this block, that it was once zoned multifamily, and that it
is now not. My question is that given there's millions of properties in this city, they change
statuses all the time, what's the hardship for complying with its current status right now,
today in 2025, moving forward? Well, again, I mean, the character of the area is very much
relevant towards the board considering the hardship. And the fact that the property owner-
My question though is like, at base, what is the hardship? I can understand context. I can
understand history, but what is the hardship that prohibits this from being a single-family home?
Unfortunately, economic realities. I mean, we don't, you know, as I pointed out in my presentation,
the only new single-family homes that were developed on this block were done so by PHA
with subsidy. So unfortunately, it is a situation where absent that type of public subsidy,
the the value of selling a new single family home in this area is not going to support the
cost in construction and although that is not the primary hardship because you know much of the case
The primary hardship, because, you know, much of the case law dictates that the board not
law dictates
rest its decision predominantly on an economic hardship, when you consider that in addition to
the fact that, A, this property owner purchased it with the expectation and the right to develop
a multifamily structure, and in addition to the character of this area, all of that together
goes to establishing a hardship, especially given the length of time that it has
not been developed in accordance with any form of classification.
Understood. I mean, I will just point out like there's process to change the zoning in this
neighborhood went through an extensive community planning process. So it's not like this was like
a surprise and it happened overnight. So there was ample time should a developer wanted to do
multifamily that it could have been applied for while it was still arm one. So I don't know.
Right now, I think to like argue this is a hardship to me feels like a little bit of a
stretch. And I think too, um, the second and third floor plans are really, really tight. Like there,
it is not a comfortable multifamily unit. And I have reservations because of that.
So, I mean, just in terms of the rezoning effort, I mean, again, that, respectfully speaking, there is no notification provided to property owners. So it's not as simple as suggesting that a property owner can insert themselves into the rezoning process and to suggest that, you know, they can weigh in.
unless they are in tune to you know everything going on in the city that is not something that
is publicized um quite widely so it is often as it was in this case that property owners don't
find out until that that process has been completed so um you know i certainly i certainly
absentee property owners absolutely don't i think if you don't live in the neighborhood
and you're not a member of the neighborhood,
yes, you might not be aware.
But I think to state that the city process
and notification of rezoning is not public,
I think it's a bit of a stretch.
Again, my personal opinion.
All right, we're going to move on from that issue here.
Does anyone else have something from the board?
So would there be a problem allowing the RCO
to respond to the new plans?
Like, can we try to see if they can get
some type of input with the new plans?
i i think we we can certainly consider that um you know again we we did go through and you know
the the property owner did go out into the community and did secure significant petitions
of support um you know we're we're happy to give that give that a try if if the board would like
that but i mean again the the petitions of support were really signed by people who very likely would
not attend a second meeting um as you know again they they already sort of weighed in here so i'm
not i'm not sure if that's going to necessarily change anything but certainly if if that is the
board's prerogative to ask that of the applicant um you know we can certainly do that okay let's
see what other input we have. Anybody else on the board? The only other comment I guess I have to
make is the issue around the basement, of course, because it's fully underground. That's a concern
for me because it looks like you'd have pretty much a zero-step entrance into the unit. So
that's problematic for me. So I don't know that I can support that.
so it was designed to ensure that there's some flexibility but it's not meant to be a primary
living space um this unit really is is quite large on the first floor and the living space
is really meant to be on that first floor so uh again it's meant to provide some flexibility just
in terms of storage or you know again the whole idea here was to try and design these four families
so um you know it's really just meant to be a flexible space it's not meant to be any form
of primary living space okay that's it but based on the plan it's literally 100 underground