Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's meeting. With me is our Board Secretary, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board members, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Kaia Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our Attorney, Lynn Reuter-Huber, our Executive Director, Ian Haggerty, and our Board Administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
This hearing is being recorded and will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
this is an in-person meeting with remote participation whether in person or on zoom
if you're called to testify please state and spell your name wait to be sworn in and then
each time you testify please start by stating your name to enter an appearance indicate the
property address on your zoom webinar speak with a staff member call this ebay office
If I close a business tomorrow, please call 215-686-2429 and provide your name, email, and the case address.
Remote participation.
Raise your virtual hand when directed so that we can call you to speak.
When we do call you to speak, make sure you click Join as a Panelist button.
Use the Q&A only for procedural questions, nothing to do with the individual cases.
If you're joining my phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
In-person participation.
If testifying, get close to the mic so that all attendees and the court reporter can hear you.
No talking, eating, or drinking during the hearing.
Aggressive behavior will not be tolerated.
In an emergency, follow staff instructions.
The main exit is the double doors at the rear, and the stairwell is to the left.
if we do evacuate go to love park which is across our street and please remain there
so we can account for you so let's look at our schedule for today
number one mi 2025 004 680 5830
whitby avenue this case is continued until 11 426 at 9 30
Number two, MI-2025-003-648-1000-North 48th Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney, and I believe she wants to come on and request a continuance.
Ms. Pritzker.
They're being promoted to panelists, Sharon.
Thank you.
good morning good morning could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer yes
Rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes could you please give us an update on this case yeah so we um have we
need to kind of redo a lot of the aesthetic which is what the board was um had mentioned last time
So it's just taking time to connect with the owner and the architect on this.
So one wanted to request a continuance attorney moving party just so we have a little more time.
So MI 2025, 003-648-1000 North 48th Street.
This case is continued attorney moving parties.
Thank you.
And you'll be back on later, right?
Yes, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
And number three, MI-2026-000-272-118-Hilcrest.
This case is continued until 2-2-27 at 9.30 a.m.
And Mr. Chairman, if you can say must be heard.
Must be heard.
We're going to go to number four, which will be our first case we're going to hear.
MI 2026-002-609-3737 North 15th Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
They're being promoted to panelists, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Consul.
Could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Yeah, it's Joseph Consul, J-O-S-E-P-H.
last name c-o-n-s-o-l-e do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and not think
about the truth i do sir counsel i understand this is a resumptive hearing we'll start with
presentation of additional evidence then questions from the board and council public
testimony and then planning and then hopefully we'll vote so why don't you start your presentation
okay uh would it be all right if my client shared his screen for the walkthrough yep
Okay, Kirk, could you raise your hand, please?
Okay, Kirk, could you raise your hand, please?
It's Kirk Richter.
It's Kirk.
They're being promoted to panelists.
So, good morning.
This is a resumptive hearing, Chair Bergman, members of the board.
We were here on August 26th.
We're seeking approval, re-approval of three dwelling units, which within a property that is now zoned RSA 5.
We did the substantial merits back in August, talked about the prior zoning history, it was zoned RM1, it was built and designed as a three unit.
We showed support from the RCO and a petition of support from the neighborhood.
The board sent us away because the floor plans that we provided were confusing.
We agree with that. And my client wishes to present the walkthrough himself so it's clear how the units are laid out in this in this property.
Is your client on? He is. Yeah. I mean, I believe so.
Yes, I'm here. Hi, sir. Could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
sir wector k-i-r-k w-a-e-c-h-t-e-r right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
is nothing but truth i do please proceed uh kirk would you start from the basement and just move
upwards and give everyone the full walkthrough sure thank you so can you see my screen we can
very good uh so front of the building front little cellar these are steps from the basement here
everything else is you know pretty much clear regular philadelphia basement
first floor front entry vestibule here's the unit entrance for unit one
there's a room middle room bathroom kitchen pantry and exit to the rear yard
second floor stairwell entry to second floor unit front room bedroom bathroom
bedroom, rear bedroom, in the front room you can see the galley kitchen, third floor, front
bedroom, bathroom, staircase up, kitchen, and bathroom.
Thanks, Kirk. We had provided photos last time, but again, I believe the stairwells
were the confusing piece for the board so that we're hopeful that he can answer any questions
that may still remain questions from the board yeah can you go back to your plans again to the
second the second floor plan well in the first floor plan too because you described kitchens but
there's no living space on either and the yeah so can you go to the first floor first floor
it's not designated not designated so that's it's just front room it's a living room is that what
is the proposal is for correct okay so it's a living room and it's so you've got a so it's a
one-bedroom unit correct okay so the first floor is a one-bedroom unit kitchen in the back okay
and let's go to the second floor I guess it's weird because you just you just say
room and not bedroom and then on this floor plan you call the front you say
front bedroom but I guess it's just labeled incorrectly and am I right that
that should be yeah that would be true because here's the kitchen here as well
right so that should be kitchen living right kitchen right yeah and so this is
The second floor is a two-bedroom unit, one bath, and then what's happening on the third floor?
There's no way that's a two-bedroom unit.
So are you again labeling things incorrectly?
I think, yeah, this should be a living room area here with the bathroom, and this is the bedroom with a closet.
so so so why do you have a door on the living room i'm just just curious why is that a mistake or
like why would you close it could be held open um this is just how the contractor and the architect
drew it up so they drew up a living room with a door on it that you okay anybody i'm good okay
i think you clarified i think just a suggestion i think you
Clearly now know that you have a lot of rooms that are labeled as bedroom that are the living space, and I would not put a door on them, but what you do with your money is your decision.
clearly now know that you have a lot of rooms that are labeled as bedroom that are the living space
I have a question because it does look like you updated the stairwell so that everyone has common access to the basement.
Correct.
Is it plans to allow the tenants to access the basement, and what's your plan for trash storage?
so the basement we intend to build out with a storage room for the trash i have a weekly service
that contracted to pick up the trash from the basement take it out uh next day come back put
the trash cans back in the basement and we intend to build out storage units for the tenants as well
lock storage units and a washer dryer unit in the basement okay go back can you go back to
that first floor plan again where is that where's that stair happening again to the basement
okay so that's so you go down okay and there's no door to the basement it's just open just open
and then only the first floor unit has access to the rear yard correct okay
all the questions uh trash storage in the units
the basement would be the trash storage okay so as they yeah they would take it to the basement
when it's full questions from our attorney no questions at this time mr questions or comments
from the virtual audience or the audience here no hands at this time chair planning commission
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff, M-A-D-I-S-O-N, M-A-T-E-R-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
This property has a documented history of three-family use.
planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed variance for three dwelling units
and by 2026 002 609 37 37 north 15th street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes hi when my vote is yes
thank you board thank you council number five mi 2026 001 018 148 west spencer street
gabrielle fellis is the attorney
they're being promoted to panelists
good morning everyone good morning council could you please state and spell your name for this
stenographer yeah my name is gabriel fellis g-a-b-r-i-e-l my last name is fellis everson frank
e-l-l-u-s do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do um council could you identify your client the relationship to the property sure
my client is latasha seals she's the owner of the property at 148 west spencer our board secretary
has just a few questions um good morning counsel did you submit your um exhibits and documents
21 days in advance of this hearing i submitted most of them 21 days i did have to submit another
um picture of the zba posters last week and then a little bit of supplementation about some emails
that we had with the rco earlier this week okay and do you waive the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy yes thank you you can now begin your presentation thank you can you see
the table contents we can thank you all so we're here today seeking to legalize the existing use
of the property for two-family household living so it's a bit of a unique situation because we
believe the property has already been granted variance for two-family household living that
should still be in effect today. The property was originally granted a two-family variance in 57,
which I'll show you in a bit. To our knowledge and to our client's knowledge and belief,
the property has been continuously used as a two-family since that variance is granted.
When my client purchased the property, it had been marketed as a two-family. The previous owner had
used it as a two-family and it's been configured as a two-family ever since the previous owner took
place and actually years before that owner took place the only reason we're here today is that
when our client tried to obtain her rental license for a two-family property it was denied because
according to lni the most recent rental license issued for the property was for a single unit
uh the most recent rental license issued for the property was for a single unit
so we believe that there's might have been a mistake by the previous owner where he got
the rental license for just one unit in 2009 rather than the two unit license he should have
applied for so because the permit history shows a one unit rental license l and i interpreted
that to mean that the property had been put back into a single family home configuration
and my client does not now have the variance for the two family so it's a bit of a weird situation
I'll put all that supporting material up in our presentation in just a sec.
So this is our refusal for a two-family in an RSA 5 zoning district.
Here we have some photos of the property and its existing condition.
Again, my client purchased the property with this two-family configuration.
This is a two-story structure with one unit on each floor with no basement living.
From the street here, you can see the structure itself is in character with the majority of the properties on the block.
I'll go a little quickly.
So this is the basement showing no living area, it's just used for mechanicals and exit
out to the garage.
This is the second unit on the second floor.
here we have some aerial views of the property in relation to other properties on the block
here we have our zoning map again the property is located in a predominantly residential corridor
but like we saw earlier the property itself is in character with the rest of the properties
on the block and has been continuously used as two family for over 60 years
here we have the redfin listing for the property that my client first saw when she was considering
purchasing it as you can see the property was in its current condition at the time that she
purchased it and it was actively marketed as a duplex for investors in fact the first floor
unit had already had tens in place when the property was being marketed to my client so
right now there is one unit being rented out but ms seals didn't want to try to rent out the top
floor unit because of her inability to get the rental license for the second unit and because
of this uncertainty around the zoning so here we have a copy of the zoning archives to the property
and as mentioned the most recent zoning permit on file was issued in 1957 for a two-family living
and here we have the permit history um so this is why we believe in seals is running into a bit of
an issue trying to get a rental license so even though the property have been in continuous loose
use since 1957 and we have an affidavit of continuous use supporting that contention
it looks like the previous owner mistakenly got a rental license for only one unit when we spoke
representatives from L&I to try to explain the situation and the mistake they said that getting
the rental license for one unit essentially means they can't accept the property was in continuous
use but just to be clear again the two-family I'm sorry the property has been used for over
60 years as a two-family further we believe the variance request meets the standard for undue