Questions from the board.
So when did we get the third residential unit?
Hi, board member Gaston.
So based on the best investigation we could do, speaking with community members and looking at old photos with those mailboxes I showed you,
It appeared that the third apartment was present no later than 2007, so that would be 17 years ago.
It's really not clear why, and we even spoke to an attorney for a prior owner.
It's not clear why the case that went to court only highlighted two of the units.
That could have been a clerical error.
It also could have been somebody not being forthright in their paperwork, but we just don't know.
we just don't know. And did I hear you correctly that the board, that I'm sorry, that you were
able to obtain or your clients were able to obtain licenses for these three, for the three units?
Yes. Yes. Until when?
Yeah. So they purchased the property in 2017. They immediately were granted a rental license
that covered all of the units and they held it for five years until the city raised an issue
for the first time so they relied on the fact that nothing appeared to be wrong for five years
okay so okay
okay and i'm sorry so no how did it happen that you that they went to apply they went to renew
their license yes there was some uh objection then to that that that's correct so the the the prior
owner also had a rental license um as you know rental license do not run with the land unlike
zoning permits. Right. Yeah. They have to be renewed every year. Okay. That's right. So my
client, you could say my client either applied for a new one or in a sense, renewed the prior
owner's license, had no trouble. Then my client renewed its own license four times, had no
trouble. And then when it went for, you know, the sixth year on the license, Ellen, I said, no,
So didn't, you know, if you've ever kind of dealt with this, the business licensing examiners that do this, they don't readily offer explanations.
But the one that we were able to get ultimately was that the building did not have a certificate of occupancy.
That was it. That was short and sweet. That was the explanation.
It wasn't that zoning was cited as the reason, but once we had to go get a new CO, the zoning came up.
but once we had to go get a new ceo the zoning came up okay thank you of course all the questions
Thank you.
questions or comments from our attorney
not at this point mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i am the hand up by a phone number
hi this is uh daniel goren uh sorry i was having trouble with uh uh attending the video on my
computer i'm on my cell phone now mr goren could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Daniel Gorin, D-A-N-I-E-L-G-O-R-E-N. You swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please proceed, Mr. Saverin.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Dan, did you hear the full extent of my testimony in your zoning case today?
Yes, I did. Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Can you confirm that you have the legal authority to speak on behalf of the Alder Group, LLC?
Yes, I confirm.
And would you therefore adopt my testimony as if it were your own?
Yes, it would.
And specifically, all the issues that we just addressed through the board's questions about
the timing of these issues and the duration of your ownership, was that all correct?
Yes, it was all factually correct, yes.
Thank you.
any other questions from the virtual audience
I see no more hands at this time
any commission
the property is indicated
for residential on the city
plan given the site's established
use history and its current
physical conditions we have
no objection to the granting of
requested variance
Hillary what was your
comments you wanted to oh yes mr chair i just um i think if we just include a proviso um that
would clarify um approved use is multi-family household living three dwelling units and
equipment and materials storage yards and buildings um and if you if you'd like me to
read that proviso into the record i can i i think when we get to that point you you can do that
Thank you. Okay. So, MI 2024-005-498-2337-41 South Alder Street, I vote yes. With proviso?
Yes. Approved use is multifamily household living, three dwelling units, and equipment and materials, storage, yards, and buildings.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
And we say that this equipment and material storage yard is just going to be on the first floor.
I'm sorry.
We can add that if you would like.
I mean, it may not mean anything.
I mean, there's no saying about changing the configuration, but this is supposed to be on just the first floor.
from it. So I'll start it over again. MI 2024-005-501. Oh, I'm sorry. I've already moved
on to the next one. Wait a minute. MI 2024-005-498-2337-41 South Alder Street. I vote yes
with proviso. It'll be approved use is equipment and materials, storage yards and buildings on
the first floor with multi-family household living three dwelling units above thank you
my vote is yes with proviso general gaston my vote is yes with proviso
tanata graham my vote is yes with provisos ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
thank you brandon thank you all very much thank you so number 11 mi 2024
424-005-501-1108-Webster Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Unanimous support from Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, 8 to 0.
Alan Nockamson will be rejoining us as a panelist.
Mr. Nockamson, you've already been sworn once today. Could you just state your name?
Alan Nockamson.
could you identify your client in relationship to the property yes my client is eric stern the
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Eric.
owner of the property and our vice chair has a few questions sir good afternoon counsel do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do 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 we have thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen
Hi, so I'm here to present 1108 Webster Street, just trying to get to full screen mode.
Here we go.
We're looking, my client is not a developer.
He's owned this property since 2003, so over 20 years.
This board granted a similar request for a planned community of what we're asking for in terms of refusals a few years ago.
And what he's looking to do with his property is kind of mimic what the board previously granted next door to him.
And he plans to live in this property.
So and this can be a single family house.
So first, we're going to review the notice of refusal.
This is an RSA 5 property.
There are four refusals and we'll review them.
Really, there's one, and we'll explain the other ones, but we did meet with the community, the Horthon Empowerment Coalition, and again, as the chair stated, that, you know, there was unanimous support, a well-attended meeting.
My client's a known quantity there. So, and the refusals are really not that egregious under the circumstances. And so we'll review an aerial view of the property. So two of our refusals have to do with open area and rear yard setback.
um basically we already run afoul of those requirements under philadelphia zoning code
and that aerial view show that and there's an explanation as to why we don't have any open
area or any rear yard setback so we'll look at that as well then we'll review maps of the area
again we're not um trying to increase density here we're just trying to create a single family
structure here where one exists um and you know one of the refusals really the only one that's
really pertaining to this matter is height. And the board will, you know, see that we're
across the street from the Palumbo High School, which is 80 feet high, literally. So, and, you
know, so no issues in terms of light and air to any of the other neighbors in regards to what
we're proposing. Also, this board granted a similar height refusal to the property to the
left of us as well. So what we're proposing is really not going to have an impact at all
on the community. Photographs of the property, you'll see where we are in the neighborhood.
Our plans and drawings, you know, these plans were designed by Nome Architecture and
in the audience is Justin Bright who can answer any technical questions we have or the board has.
We have our RCO meeting notice, again, the well-attended meeting and, you know, proof of
mailing of that notice. Our applications for appeal that we filed on Eric's behalf,
or deed to the property, showing that Eric's owned this property for over 20 years, and the
Certificate of Tax Clearance showing that he owes no real estate taxes to the city of Philadelphia.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Eric virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him. And again, we have Justin Bright,
one of the architects at Nome Architecture. And if there's any technical questions,
he can answer those as well so notice refusal so this is an rsa5 property and we're trying
the proposal is to demolish the existing single-family structure which already has
off-street parking and to erect this new structure here we have four refusals first refusal is a
technical one it's saying that the front of our building facade is not matching the building
facade to the left of us. Right now, LNI recognizes that the property to the left of us
doesn't have a building facade, but that's not correct. As indicated, the board in 2023
granted a variance request for a 10-unit planned community, 10 single-family homes,
all going to be 45 feet high in nature. The foundations have been placed on that property
to the left of us. And the facade is to, you know, to the complete left of us. And we're matching
that facade, just like we're matching the facade to the right of us. But because I guess there's
not a CO yet for the property to left of us, we're getting this technical refusal. The second refusal
we're getting this technical refusal. The second refusal has to do with open area.
has to do with open
We're asking for zero open area for this project. You know, typically you would say, well,
zero open area, that doesn't really make sense. Two things. First, there's zero open area for
the current building structure there. That's a single family home. And this property used to be
essentially two parcels. And the parcel behind us on Christian Street, we share an actual deck
that is on the Christian Street single-family structure. And our building facade currently
attaches to the end of our property for that shared deck. So all we're trying to do is reattach
that shared deck for the new building structure. So it's a little atypical situation. But that's
why we have zero open area because there's zero open area now and we're attaching to a deck that
is shared that's on the christian street property by way of an easement so a typical in nature
same thing has to do with the rear yard setback we have no rear yard setback with the current
building structure why because we're attached to a deck currently with the building structure
on the Christian Street property, and we have an easement to use that deck. So when we
hope to demolish the current building structure and erect a new one, we just want to reattach
to that deck as well. Really, the only refusal that is different than what is currently there
in terms of the current building structure versus the proposed building structure is the height of
the property. This is an RSA 5 property where 38 feet is allowed as of right for the height of the
property. We're asking for 45 feet. Again, the building, the proposed 10 units or 10 single
families to the left of us are all going to be 45 feet in nature. The ZBA already approved that
project in 2023 um and so not out of character to have that type of height to the on that block from
for single families on our side of the streets and across the street is the palumbo high school
which has which is 80 feet high in nature so um not atypical to have properties rather high on
that block and we're not taking anyone's light in there essentially because of the structures that's
45 feet to the left of us, as well as the structure across the street from us, which is 80 feet high.
Again, we met with the community, and as you can see, we had unanimous support from them.
Twelve members of the community, four board members of the coordinating RCO, as well as eight members of the community support this project.
And then there was a description as well about the project.
and indicating how it's similar in nature in terms of the variance requests
as to what this board previously approved at 814 South 11th Street.
And then aerial view of the property.
So this is our property, probably not the best aerial view,
but it's full lot coverage.
We're attaching to this property on Christian Street as indicated
in that we share their roofed, what's called, I guess, rear yard deck.
But you can see it's not out of character.
Here's the Palumbo High School, which is 80 feet high across the street from us.
Here is an older photo.
We got this off Atlas.
But this is the property that's going to have 10 single-family homes as a planned community,
45 feet high in nature.
And, you know, again, all we're trying to do is build a building facade that equals the property to left and right of us.
So that technical refusal about us matching the front building facade is technical in nature.
Maps of the area. Again, we're not trying to, this is a zoning map.
We're not trying to increase density here. This is an RSA 5 property.
We'll note that there's definitely mixed zoning in this area, multifamily and mixed-use zoning.
And then here we are in the neighborhood, too, on Webster Street.
So we're between Christian and Catherine and 11th and 12th Streets.
And then photographs of the property.
As you can see right here, there's off-street parking.
This garage, that's with the current building structure, only allows for one car in it.
The proposal that we're seeking in terms of the garage is allowing two cars off of the street and we're not and there's no parking on the streets.
So it's really a net positive of two cars coming off of the street.
And then you can just see from an aerial view point of view, like, you know, this is the Plumbo School.
And then you can just see from an aerial viewpoint of point of view.
It really does tower over the properties on Webster Street.
It's 80 feet high in nature.
And then this is our property as well.
Currently, as you can see, there's full coverage here.
And this is the Plumbo School again.
And you can see there's no on-street parking here.
Not that there's a variance request for it, but just, again, the net positive is we're repurposing the driveway curb cut for two parking spots.
And then, inspirationally, from our design, this is where we got, like, you know, what our building facade is going to look like.
So, you can see different, you can see the curved bay windows in different properties in the neighborhood.
And that's where the architect got his inspiration to build this new building structure.