you in our floor plans in a moment, the building can very easily accommodate. I'll just go to
exhibit 11 and quickly show you a rendering of by our architect of what this might look like when
it's completed. So it's a purely vertical addition that we're proposing. And again, the height is by
right. There's no horizontal expansion of the building on any floor. For instance, this bay
window that you're seeing on the Oakford Street side, this already exists on the second floor.
So we're just, you know, basically putting another layer of the cake directly on top.
The bay window will be, you know, extended perfectly upwards.
I'll show you our notice of refusal at Exhibit 2A of my exhibit binder that I sent in.
And I'll address that sort of perhaps incorrectly written refusal in a moment.
um the the the proposal generated um two use refusals which are highly related um and then
one dimensional refusal so let me start with the use refusals um we're zoned cmx2 that means that
we're required to have a commercial use on the ground floor um the other corners or or at least
I believe, two of the other corners on our intersection of 26th and Oakford are also zoned CMX2.
But those properties also do not have commercial uses at the ground level.
So because of that, we felt that despite the zoning, there is no market.
So because of that, we felt that despite the zoning, there is no market in this location for commercial use at the ground floor.
You could kind of see that in my photos. It's a purely residential context, at least right here.
And the RCO is in support of that concept of, you know, keeping this residential.
So that was the cause of one refusal. The cause of another refusal is the number of dwelling units.
So, we have a lot that has a property, a lot area at the ground level of 954 square feet. If our property was only six square feet larger, that's six, so really de minimis little amount, what we would be permitted is one commercial unit and two dwelling units.
So that would be a total of three units. And what I'm sort of asking in layman's terms, the board to do here is to give us the benefit of the doubt and treat this property as though it were 960 square feet as opposed to 954.
and then instead of allowing us to have two residential units and one commercial unit
to have three residential units I have sort of more technical legal justifications for these
variances in my memorandum that said exhibit one of my exhibit binder but I'll spare you sort of
talking through those they are in your possession though and then with regard to the one-dimensional
refusal. I think the examiner got this one wrong. It's for rear yard depth. And while there should
be a refusal for rear yard depth, this is not the correct refusal, because what we're doing,
and I'll show you this on our plan in a moment, is we are continuing an existing condition.
So what that should have triggered was a refusal for an unpermitted continuation of the existing
size of the rear yard under the, I believe it's 143056, that section of the code, that's about
non-conformities. The examiner wrote this up as though, you know, we're making the rear yard
smaller. That's not the case. So let me go to our zoning plan at exhibit 10.
okay that is way too zoomed in excuse me
um so here's what we submitted to l and i in order to draw our refusals um you know bird's
eye view site plan of the property here um just to give you a sense of uh of a visual with regard
to that rear yard issue so at the ground level our rear yard is over 10 feet deep so that exceeds
the code minimum. At the existing second level of the home is a bay window in the rear. Now,
you are supposed to count the depth of that bay window. And if you do so, it does put us at seven
feet, eight inches of rear yard depth. So that is what the examiner picked up on. And we will be
extending that bay window upward, as I mentioned, just as we're going to do with the other bay
window I showed you on the side of the property. But again, this is an existing condition because
the bay window is already present at the second floor. And there's more than nine feet of rear
yard depth at the ground level with an entire floor of a clearance to walk under the bay window.
So as a human being experiences that rear yard, it is deeper than the code allows. It's a genuine
backyard. There's going to be a trash storage facility back there. So anyway, that's to say
that I think it's a hardship to, you know, make us, I suppose what we'd have to do is not extend
the bay window because it would result no benefit to the users of this property and this sort of
ugly architectural asymmetry where we're going to have a bay window on the second floor, but not
the third floor. Our architect Chris did prepare some really nice looking floor plans. No offense
to him, but I'm going to kind of breeze through these pretty quickly. It's one unit per floor.
Every unit has at least one whole floor to itself. So the first floor is configured as a one bedroom.
I mean, you can see this is very spacious. It's over 600 square feet. It's got, you know, a living
area in the front with this front patio at the street level. The first floor unit has its own
entrance off of Oakford Street with sort of like a stoop that's already present. The second and
third floor units are accessed off of 26th Street, so off of that front patio area, and we're going
uh patio area and we're gonna uh sort of replace uh some concrete along oakford street with some
to sort of replace some of that.
uh plantings um and the last thing i want to go over is just the context of the block
at exhibit 12 um this is a sorry it came out a little grainy but this is a photo from atlas
atlas.phila.gov of our block if you were to walk out of our front door and turn left to look at the
remainder of our block of 26th Street. What you're going to see here is what I mentioned earlier.
It's a mix of two and three-story buildings. You know, here's a genuine three-story building.
Here's a two-story building, but with a roof that sort of, you know, extends its height. Here's
another three-story building. Here's another three-story building. So it's a mix. And, you
know, our addition is by right again in terms of height. And then finally, I know the board takes
an interest in the question of are there other multifamily uses on the block? I just pulled a
couple permits for examples to show you the answers yes. This is the property on the other
end of the block at the intersection with Federal Street. This was permitted as a duplex in 2018 by
this board. This next one is a permit for a building in the middle of the block, so closer to
us at 1216 South 26th. This is a three-unit building with one unit being commercial or at
least registered as at that time and two units being residential. So sort of a similar layout
to ours, I bet this was granted by this board as a variance in 2013. I think that's my presentation.
Happy to answer questions. I have our architect, Chris Karakoff, here to answer questions.
and how about the the clients the client here to adopt your testimony yeah so there are a couple
the owners and it's either yuri jacobson or uh cindy securo there's yuri
i could you say good morning could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer
yuri jacobson u-r-i jacobson j-a-c-o-b-s-o-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Yuri. Did you hear my testimony on Zoom in your zoning case this morning?
Yes, I did. Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, I do. Would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own testimony?
I do. And finally, are you authorized to speak on behalf of Paramount Property Investments?
Yes, I do.
That's your company?
Yes, me and my wife.
Thank you.
All right, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at the sign.
Planning Commission.
David?
David?
Apologize, Chair.
No, no, no, fine.
Okay, let me pull up my chart here.
Thank you, Chair, and good morning.
David Fechtow with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from commercial mixed use to residential single family.
Converting the ground floor of this building to commercial use would be impractical, which is why the comprehensive plan recommends residential use.
The appellant has shown that the non-compliant rear yard is an existing condition.
However, the appellant has not shown why a third dwelling unit is necessary to allow the appellant to derive value from the property.
So the city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed variances for rear yard depth and lack of commercial space, but deny the proposed third dwelling unit.
Thank you.
Quick, just real quick response.
I mean, the reason we need the third dwelling unit is because our property is in terrible
shape and it's documented by L&I.
Our neighbor is in terrible shape and has partially fallen into our building.
So we have to fix this.
We have to have a way to subsidize the cost of doing so.
And again, if we were six square feet larger in terms of lot size, given our zoning, we'd
be permitted to have a total of three units, although one of them would have to be commercial.
Thank you. MI 2023, 000925, 1230 South 26th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you very much.
Number 14, MI 2022.
Number 14, MI-2022-003-865-4063 Holland Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Juniata Park Civic Association with Proviso.
Minister Anastasio, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
Proceed, Hillary.
Yes, I was going to say, we've also received a letter in non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
Okay. All right. Mr. Anastasio, just state your name for the record. You've already been sworn.
Sure. Vern Anastasio, representing Carlos Rivera.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, Council. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
receive this case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you please proceed and
share the screen thank you
bear with me for some reason the computer is acting slow today all right
Okay, Mr. Chairman, 4063 Howland Street.
We're trying to legalize a two-family household living
in an existing structure.
This property is a two-family dwelling.
You're on the first floor.
As you can see, large living room, the laundry room.
Two, one bedroom, a kitchen and a bath.
And here's the second floor as it currently exists.
I've got your overhead and we've got,
as you can see here,
the electric has already been divided with two,
one for each unit and one house account.
We have interior photos, we've met with the community, show them the photos, and explain to them the history of the property.
I will share with you, as you can see, two-family dwelling as far back as 1956, I'm sorry, 1988
is this particular document.
So it's been 40-plus years as a two-family dwelling was also a variety store at one point on the first floor.
But it has not been a single-family dwelling in modern history.
We, as I said, met with the community.
We mailed 159 individual households.
the community had a proviso that there be no living space in the basement be strictly for
storage of the other two for the other two units we agreed to that and given the history of the
property of it being multi-use being that it was in fact at some point a two-family dwelling
It still has separate electricity. And given the fact that we have unanimous support from the community pending that proviso, we respectfully request the granting of the variance.
Is your client here, Mr. Anastasia?
He should be. Mr. Carlos Rivera, I would call to raise his virtual hand.
Carlos Rivera, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Morning, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Carlos Rivera. C-A-R-A-O-S-O-R-I-V-E-R-A.
Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Rivera, did you hear my presentation to the board?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
and do you adopt it as your own testimony
yes sir
thank you
questions from the board
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no chair thank you questions or comments
questions from the board
from the virtual audience yeah i see no hands at this time planning commission thank you chair and
good morning david effecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
change the residential single family zoning at this location this property has a documented
history of use as two dwelling units. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant
the use variance for two dwelling units. Thank you. MI 2022 003865 4063 Holland Street. I vote yes
with proviso. Use of basement limited to laundry, storage, and mechanicals.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 930 case has not been called?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Thanks, everyone.
See everyone at 2 o'clock.
All right.
my name is bill okay we're ready we're ready
i'm sorry sorry you're going to check on a court reporter please mr kelly
i'm sorry yes i am here all right perfect i'm sorry continue please ready to go
Yes. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's
EBA hearings. With me is our Vice Chair, Ishmael Shahid. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman. And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney.