easements. Those agreements have already been prepared with the adjacent property owner who
sold these slots to my client. And that was page 41, which is the last page of my packet.
Going back to page 36, which are the proposed renderings, we're happy to answer any questions
you may have at this time. But ultimately, the hardship here is this is a commercially zoned
property on a residential block, pardon me, an industrially zoned property. It made sense probably
in the past when there was some larger industrial structure here, considering the fact that this
block, as you saw in the photographs that I showed, is entirely residential but for people form.
That's why that's the hardship here, so that's why we're asking for our variances.
And nothing else at this time.
Does the board have any questions?
And are there any witnesses?
Not from me.
Does anyone have their hands raised?
Not at this time.
Okay, planning commission?
Good morning. This is Greg Baldwin, City Planning. This property was rezoned from
medium industrial to industrial commercial mixed use in 2017 as recommended in the comprehensive
plan. Greens Grove Farm was using that property at the time of the rezoning. However, single-family
residential use would be consistent with the rest of the block. Accordingly, we have no objection to
with the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1299, 2511 East Perth Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Great, thank you Chair Tenere, members of the board.
You have a good day.
Okay, if everybody could hold on, you too, Leo.
um number four uh calendar number oh four five seven one four two eight south 23rd street
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes excuse me this is Sharon Saleta with
my vote is yes excuse me this is sharon saletta with proviso one revised plans one page approved
today please you got it my vote is yes with one page revised plans yes sir proviso yes for proviso
yes with proviso thank you thank you sharon calendar number you're welcome
1297-2951 South Broad Street.
Sorry for that.
Xin Chen is now coming in as a panel.
good morning mr jen can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last
name sure zen jen zhen j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here
on behalf of the applicant do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
And again, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal referral, photos, plans of this property five days in advance of the hearing, and have
you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
I will go ahead and share with the Board the information relating to this case.
this is an application for a legalization of existing conditions. We have submitted the
refusal letter from the South Philadelphia Community Civic Association along with their
petition, the photograph plans, LNI certification statement, property sale listing, appraisal,
agreement of sale, D tax compliance, and other related documents. So this is an application
for use as a two-family dwelling at this location. One of the key reasons that we're here before the
board is because when this property was originally purchased, it was certified as a zoning
classification of RM1. And this was done at the end of 2019, August of 2019, when my client
purchased the property. It was certified as RM1. Not only that, at the time of appraisal,
I'm going to scroll down a little bit here to the layout of the property in the appraisal report.
The property had existing, right here, existing two units set up. One kitchen, living room,
bedroom and heater bath and garage in what is essentially the basement level, but it's a kind
of a walkout basement situation. And then the first floor and second floor again is with additional
kitchen and bedroom. So when the property was purchased and even as when it was listed for
purchase, everything in the record showed it was RM1 and that included the city cert, which came
to my client. However, once it was purchased, the zoning for this district apparently was
changed to RSA 5. So when my client went to apply for a rental license, he was given a refusal
stating that you must now legalize this existing use of duplex because the zoning district has
changed. The community is not in support of a duplex at the location, both at the meeting on
Zoom from the community RCO leadership who ran the Zoom, as well as petitions provided. It seems
that the surrounding neighbors are not supporting a legalization. But I want to point out that
there is a hardship here for my client because this is not a situation that was created
by my client this is a rm1 zone district that had a existing long-term existing apparently duplex
that was sold as a duplex was appraised as a duplex and was existing as a duplex at the time
that the property was acquired i'm going to show the board the photograph of the property as you
can see these properties, this one's on the corner, the first floor is actually elevated
off of the street level so that there is one entrance at the upper level.
so that there is one entrance at the upper level, and then what is called the basement level that
was the other unit actually has its own entrance on the street level. So this is not a sub-ground
basement, this is actually more or less on a ground level as far as the basement level is
concerned. The property itself has the two electric meters from some time back. It is
set up as a duplex from the time of purchase. None of this stuff is really new. The kitchens
were existing. My client wanted to do some renovations to update the interior, and I think
that's what triggered between that and applying for the rental license both triggered the city's
feedback that this has changed now to RSA 5. I am not sure that the property was actually vacant
for very long because at the time of listing, if you look at the property, it was still being
occupied by prior owner as far as we can tell. So it wasn't a situation where it was vacant for
more than three years and the zoning reverted because of that. So I'm not sure what happened
between the time it was certified in 2019 and the time my client went to apply for their rental
license with the zoning classification or whether the city simply made a mistake but the end result
is my client has purchased now what is an existing duplex but is now stuck facing having to re-renovate
it back down to a single family dwelling which is a hardship in this case because that is not
something he created or that he had contemplated would be the situation he would face. So we're
asking the board in this case to look at the situation in the whole and understand that this
is not again not an intent to illegally convert any property this was an existing duplex that
simply was transferred as an rm1 district and then somehow the districting changed i'm gonna
show the floor plans here this is basically the layout that is existing inside the property i'm
zooming in to give the board a better view of what's here. So as you can see, again, the setup
is that the property has a floor level basement that has its own kitchen and living room and
bedroom. And then it has the entrance from the upper floor that goes into the second floor and
third floor that is one unit. So once again, I totally understand the nature of the opposition
from the community. But I do want the board to understand that there is, again, hardship here
that was not created by my client through any action on their part. It was a change somehow in
the zoning during dependency of a transaction in the end of 2019. This is not something that
happened a long time ago where he should have been more aware of the oncoming change. So I want the
South Philadelphia Civic Association was in favor or in opposition?
No, they're in opposition because...
And isn't there another RCO down there?
They were the coordinating RCO.
I don't know if the other RCO...
We reached out to everyone that was listed on the RCO notification,
but they are the ones that actually coordinated the meeting on Zoom.
And they did receive a petition from a neighbor, I believe,
that went around and got a petition against converting the property. So as you can see,
the vote from their side is opposition. And we discussed the same facts that I'm presenting to
the board at the meeting. They do not see it as a hardship because they don't feel that
the change in zoning affected my client's rights in any way, which I disagree with, but
that is the position they have taken in this case.
So as you can see, we did have the virtual meeting.
They had obtained their own petition in the area.
We did not do a petition.
I believe this is a legal issue more so than a issue that the neighbors may actually understand
from the perspective of a pre-existing condition that was legal and then the zoning district
being changed in the area. Does the board have any questions? No. The floor plans show like
it is existing two units. Yes, it is existing two units, correct.
This is the quote basement level as you can see from the elevation plan it is above ground
And that is the first floor and that is the second floor, according to the building's elevation and also the floor plans you see before you.
and that is the first floor and that is the second floor according to the buildings.
Correct.
And even the appraisal report indicated that was an existing kitchen, both in the basement as well as the existing kitchen that was on the first floor.
So it was not a, when he purchased the property, it wasn't that there was no kitchen in the basement and we put it in.
It was there even at the time of appraisal.
We understand.
Are there any witnesses on this case?
I believe my client, he does not speak English.
So if I may stipulate, but his daughter is present who can speak English and answer and confirm my testimony.
Okay. Can you ask her to adopt your testimony?
Sure. Sophia Lin, she should be available.
Yes, she's coming in now.
good morning all my name is sophia lynn s-o-p-h-i-a-l-i-n
good morning do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
yes i do thank you okay thank you uh miss lynn you heard my uh representation to the zoning board
regarding the history and the current conditions of the property um can you verify that my
representations are true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own yes thank you thank you
if i can jump in can i before you go i apologize i got in a little bit late um
the next door neighbor 2941 south broad is he the owner um let me let me um let me see i have
the property sale agreement the seller was uh carmilla salvo i'm not sure if the next door
neighbor i'm not aware if the next door neighbor is still related to this seller i see i'm trying
to get a handle again i apologize i was i had to i had to get off and i was not here for the full
presentation. No problem. There were two votes that were submitted by the RCO, opposing?
Yes. Well, the RCO, so the RCO's board was present at the Zoom meeting, and they voted against it.
There was one attendee who voted against it, and I believe the attendee or someone submitted
a 35 signature petition in opposition from the neighbors.
okay i see frank phaby that's why i asked 2949 he okay he was the one who um i assume circulated
the petition is that correct it's possible yes frank the name frank does sound uh like the
individual you just had it uh on one of your exhibits right there you just passed it oh
i'm sorry all right he's the next door neighbor okay okay yes all right and and again i apologize
guys for my lateness. Was there a letter from Councilman Swilla's office? I have not received
a letter, but I'm not sure if someone from that office is present today. Yeah, so Carol, if you
don't mind, I know you were going to ask the board. No, I don't mind at all. Not at all.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
no hands at this time chair yeah planning commission
good morning this is greg waldman planning commission staff
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
it was part of a bill in 2019 that rezoned the block for multi-family residential to single
family to reflect the existing land use of the block however because of the property's recent
use as multifamily, we have no objection to the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you. And with the Board's approval, I'd like to close the record on this and that
we render a decision on next Wednesday's Executive Session 1216, I believe it is, at 9.30 a.m.
I agree.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next case is a resumption hearing, calendar number 0037, 3114 Frankfort Avenue.
this is Sharon Saleta do have a letter from the RCO and from Councilman Squilla in non-opposition
And from Councilman Squilla in non-opposition.
Ms. Hamill, are you out there?
I have a...
No, we're looking for Dorothy Hamill.
She's coming in down as a panelist.
Thank you.
I am here.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Dorothy Hamill, H-A-M-I-L-L, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. You may proceed. Good morning, chairman, members of the board, Dorothy Hamill on behalf
of the applicant, Avi Oslick, who is also on the call. We had previously presented at the
last zoning hearing, but we had been waiting for a rehearing with the Powergate RCO because we had
agreed to original application was for seven units and in our presentation had modified that
and presented plans for six. We had the meeting with the Powergate RCO and presented they as you
have in the letter they voted to a letter of non-opposition to the proposal provided we are
we've agreed to put additional lighting and additional cameras on the building.
We already have cameras on the building,
but we've agreed to put additional cameras and lighting on the building
as part of our proposal.
And I think that's it.
okay um questions from the board no no no no
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair
Good morning. This is Greg Waldman from Planning Commission staff. This property is indicated