Our RCO meeting notice, it went to 84 addresses.
These are the addresses.
This is the proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on the property owner's behalf, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form.
deed to property showing that my client owns the property since 2018 prior to the change in
zoning classification from RM1 to RSA5, and our Certificate of Tax Clearance. My client pays all
of her taxes to the city and meets all of her obligations. So again, it was an intention that
she did not get the rental license. With that being said, I'm going to unshare my screen.
I want to ask that Ephraim virtually raise his hand, and we would be more than happy
to take any questions from the board.
They've been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Ephraim.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Ephraim, E-P-A.
E-P-A.
Last name is S-U-R-E-P-A.
Ephraim, could you do it one more time?
You're breaking up a little bit.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel yes uh ephraim you you heard everything i had to state today about
your zone e-matter yes that was perfect thank you and is it true and correct
sorry is it true and correct what i stated true yep true right yeah and do you adopt as your own
testimony yes and specifically this you know the fact that you didn't get a rental license until
now that was not intentional right yeah that was unintentional thank you questions from the board
thank you all right comment is generally similar to other comments i made that second floor unit
doesn't quite work it's just two bedrooms and a kitchen it's not really a living space
so that's my only comment thank you other questions or comments
I'm sorry
I'm not sure what that is in the background
Ephraim I think that's you
can you mute yourself
I'm sorry
I'm sorry
I've got two questions
so one
were there tenants in this
property when it was purchased
yes the answer is yes
So when my client discovered, so there was only one tenant when he was seeking to rent a license.
So he got a rental license for one unit and then purposefully did not add a second tenant in there.
So and to go to Mr. Johns's comment about the second floor, this is how the property was configured when he purchased it.
And this property has been a two unit since 1966.
66. So this is not an illegal conversion on his part. He purchased it this way. It was an RM1
property when he purchased it. It was legal at that time. It was advertised for sale at that
time. He, you know, when the son took over, he was trying to get the rental license. And then
that's when he discovered that the zone, that he couldn't get it. Like he just thought, oh,
it was advertised this way. He didn't know the difference between RM1 and RSA5. He's been
educated about this process, but if the zonie didn't change, he would have been able to get
this as of right. And what are we doing about trash storage and disposal? So the trash would
be stored in the rear, and we would agree to that as a proviso. This is a corner property,
so there's ample room in the rear for a covered trash container system.
for a covered uh uh trash container uh system and both um units have access to the rear of
this property for yes they did that yes they do as a corner property they do they do all right
thank you other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr share questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no further answer mr chair mr chair one one other comment i would make you know in terms
of our hardship it would forget about the financial devastating aspect of just having
one tenant in there um the cost involved to reconfigure this property from a duplex to a
single family would be cost prohibitive and i do believe there's legal grounds that would exist
based on the history of this property
and the cost to reconfigure this property
to allow for this board to grant it
based on that hardship alone.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Hi, Meg Cavanaugh for Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning
at this location,
although this property has documented use
as a two-family dwelling unit.
The City Planning Commission recommends
Board grant the proposed use variance for two dwelling units. Thank you. MI 2023-006-340-5401
Regent Street. I vote yes with proviso. Trash stored in rear. Michael Johns, my vote is yes
with proviso. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with
proviso iowen my vote is yes with proviso james snell my vote is yes with proviso
ishmael shaheed my vote is just with proviso thank you counsel could you please stay on
thank you number 16 mi 2023 006 841 5601 north park avenue mr knockamson is the attorney
No RCO letter, but notice was sent to near neighbors with proof of mailing.
The meeting was held on August 19th.
Mr. Chair, there's an update.
We actually received a letter from the RCO this morning from Concerned Community Association.
The letter did indicate support with some provisos that I'm sure Mr.
Nockamson will discuss, and then I can explain what I believe the board could enforce if the
board decides to grant. Thank you. Also, the applicant has provided a petition and support
signed by approximately 14 neighbors. Our vice chair, Mr. Nockamson, could you identify your
client? Yes, my client is Miranda Welch, the owner of the property. Okay. And our vice chair has a
questions good morning council do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes we have thank you council
Please proceed on the share screen. Thank you.
Hi. So I'm here to present 5601 North Park Avenue.
This is an RSA 5 property. I will say that the Philadelphia 2035 plan recommends that this property be converted to a CMX 2 property, which would allow what's there to be, or at least what's proposed to be allowed as of right.
This is on the corner of North Park and Alney, and we're a half a block essentially off of Broad Street, where there is the train station stop for Alney and Broad.
So first of all, we'll review the notice of refusal.
And then we do have correspondence that came in this morning from a concerned community association, a conditional support of this project or this use.
I don't know if Sandra from ACCA is on, but we'll go through the letter and the provisos.
We also had community outreach by my client where they have a petition of a little more than a page of people in support of what we're seeking.
This property has a long history of mixed use.
Commercial on the ground floor, configured commercial on the ground floor, you'll see substantial.
This property is for the lot size is 4,300 square feet.
Upper floors have always been residential and we have legal residential use of.
Upper floors have always been residential, and we have legal residential use of three units.
The only thing we're trying to do is legalize the commercial use on the ground floor, and we'll talk about what we're seeking.
There's a hair salon right now, and we're seeking to do allowable retail use for, hopefully, a tenant, and then allowable office use, hopefully, for a tenant.
But you'll see from the use registration permit that this has a long history of mixed use.
And then you'll see the rental license.
Again, not the subject of this appeal, but I always like to show you, hey, there are parts of here that which are not subject to this appeal.
But my client is doing the right thing, got a rental license for three units and has maintained that rental license.
And as I indicated early on, while this property is RSA-5 right now, the Philadelphia 2035 document, which is the Upper North Plan, because that's where we are, proposes or recommends that the property be CMX-2, which based on what we're proposing for the commercial use would be allowed as a right.
Then we'll review maps of the area and, you know, or a map, a map, a zoning map, and as well as a Google map of the area.
Then we'll have interior residential photographs.
Again, not the subject of our appeal, but this is what we showed the community.
So I try to keep it pretty, like, you know, straight and narrow where whatever we show the community, we show the boards.
Same thing with the interior commercial photographs and the photographs of the surrounding area and the exterior of the property.
Simple floor plans, our RCO meeting notice, we just had the meeting, I believe, on Monday.
So we really appreciate ACCA for squeezing us in before this meeting.
Our RCO meeting notice will show proof of mailing of that notice as well.
Our application for appeal to the ZBA, our deed to the property, showing that my client, Miranda, owns the property as well as a certificate of tax clearance.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I will ask Miranda to virtually raise her hand, to be sworn in, and I have a few questions for her.
So the notice of refusal for this RSA 5 property, what we're looking to do is we're looking to do for business and professional.
So that's in the office use.
And then retail.
So we have two types of retail.
Retail sales of consumer goods and retail sales of wearing and apparel and accessories.
And then finally, we have commercial services, personal services, excuse me, on the ground floor.
There's an existing hair salon there that we're trying to legalize that use as well with all other uses, you know, to be confirmed, which is the upper floors are residential in nature.
And then our refusals have all to do with the fact that we're trying to put commercial use in technically a residential property.
But you'll see, well, we'll go first through the letter that we received from ACCA, but you'll see through the permit that we'll show you that previously approved for this property, it has a significant commercial past.
So we met with ACCA, and these are their provisos. Use to three commercial units. I mean, that's, you know, we agree to that in the sense of we have broken out three commercial units. I don't know if we need to do that, but we have no objection to that.
Use limited to business categories as defined by and agreed by applicant, of course, because if we go outside the bounds of those requirements or what we're asking for, we would have to come back.
A stipulation for no sale of food, groceries, smoking materials, and no drug rehabilitation, no video game machines.
So again, I defer to the board. We have no objection to a proviso of that sort, but I don't know if that's an enforceable proviso because we're asking for X. And if we do Y, we have to come back here. And what's, you know, in terms of sale of food, groceries and such, that would require an additional variance request and review process.
Yes. Hours of operation limited to 7 p.m.
So my client originally proposed to have 9 p.m. as the closing time, especially the hair salon.
It's an African-American hair salon that deals with braiding, which takes a long time.
The clientele for the hair salon and what we're hoping for the other, the retail and the office, like that clientele.
um is work is this a working uh working community where people you know come from work afterwards
to do whatever they need to they you know they have family obligations as well we understand
We understand that we don't want things open, you know, you know, unlimited.
that we don't want things open you know you know unlimited um but
But, you know, especially with the hair salon, you know, that the braiding takes a while.
So if someone comes from, you know, finishes up work at like, say, five o'clock and then they have to go to the hair salon, that can take a few hours.
So we defer to the board, you know, in terms of when the closing time for all these businesses should be.
But we're asking if, you know, if the board feels so inclined to put hours of operational limitation, we would ask for eight o'clock.
We originally proposed nine. We're always willing to work with the community.
We just want these businesses to be successful. Right.
So I think eight o'clock is a fair time, but we defer to the board in that respect.
And then commercial trash collection at the rear of the property. No objection.
We have we're fine with that. And then there is express concerns.
concerns. There's unpermitted signage on the commercial aspects. This is the signage that
existed prior to my client purchasing the property. If there's any new tenants in there,
I'm sure they're going to change the signage and will obviously require these new tenants to
fulfill whatever obligations they need to do any filings, zoning permit filings or building permit
filings to put new signage that's legal, you know, according to the law. And let's see,
one small heater and hot heater proposed to remain. So I don't know about that, that Sandra
can, if she's on, she can mention that. And the property exterior is overgrown and unmaintained.
I don't know if we agree with that, but we will do a better job of maintaining it if that's the
case. But my client takes great pride in her property. So the petition, again, my client
walked around the neighborhood and tried to get solicited as many signatures as possible within
the affected area. And then you can see here, just as an example, there was a dentist office
and such and different offices and different commercial use as far back as 1954. And you'll
see how the property is configured, this is a mixed-use property. It may say it's an RSA-5
property, but if you look at it, it's a mixed-use property. And then, again, more zoning permits,
just as an example of the commercial use or uses of this property in the past.
And then just a rental license. Again, my client is legally using the three residential units above
the commercial portion or at least proposed commercial portion and then the 2035 plan here
if you look right here the proposal is or recommendation is to make this a cmx2 property
which makes sense it's corner property the lot size is almost 4 300 square feet and the way it's
configured you'll see that it's commercial on the ground floor and residential above
of. And then maps of the area. Yes, we are all RSA 5 here, but we're on ALNI and there's a lot
of commercial use here. And then right here is where you have North Broad Street. And as you
can see here, here's North Broad Street. Here's ALNI. So yes, does it transition into a residential
neighborhood yes but right here not so much so it's usually good to again transition from higher
commercial use or density to smaller commercial use and density to eventually residential single
family and what we anticipate is that the people who are using our commercial space
will be individuals who live in the neighborhood and then this is our interior photographs for
Apartment 1, Apartment 2, Apartment 3, and the interior for the commercial.
This would be the office space that's currently unoccupied.
Obviously, we're cleaning it up, assuming someone rents it out.
the retail space
and then the hair braiding or hair salon space
and this is photographs of the property from north park street and that's where you go up just steps
to go residential and this is the property in 2012 as well showing that there's nothing been
to change in this property for the longest period of time.
These are orange notice posters from both North Park Avenue
as well as Omni Street.
And then you can see, oh, I thought someone said something.
This is the hair braiding place, the hair salon.
This would be the office.
This would be the office. And then this would be the retail space.
And then this would be the retail.
As you can see, like this is defined commercial space.
So in terms of our hardship, it would be a substantial expense to convert.
Well, we only have three units, right? And this is RSA 5.
We would then have to come back here potentially to even get more residential units, which I don't think is appropriate here.