and that there are some unique circumstances that really compel the granting of a variance.
There are some unique circumstances that really compel the granting of a variance in this case.
We're simply seeking to legalize a long-time existing duplex. Ms. Giannarelli is a first-time
home buyer. She's not in real estate. She doesn't touch this stuff for money. She works as an
executive with Microsoft. And when she was working as a first-time home buyer, she wanted to purchase
a duplex so she could defray some of the cost of a mortgage by having a rental unit.
Once she purchased the property, she did work with a realtor.
The marketing for the property indicated that it was two separate units.
And more importantly, when she walked through the property, it appeared to be two separate
units.
There's two separate entryways, two separate services, electrical service, water meter
separate.
There are, each unit has its own kitchen. It's a three-story building. Ms. Ginnarelli utilizes the downstairs unit as her, it's an owner-occupied property. It's her home. Upstairs is a second unit that's a rental unit.
currently there is somebody uh living there who she rents to it's an employee that she has but
long term uh she's going to need to legalize this unit for a number of reasons one uh so it can so
she can rent it uh if it's not somebody she's friendly with like uh her current uh occupant
uh she needs to be able to get a rental license because if she has a deadbeat up there she needs
to be able to evict them and under the current rules of landlord tenant court you can't evict
somebody without a proper rental license, which you can't get if she doesn't have a legal duplex
in this case. Her downstairs unit is a split level unit. The upstairs unit is,
well, it's upstairs. And I can show you some of the context photographs.
Here we have new water meters. She put these in herself just because the property was old,
needed some upgrades, actually a lot of upgrades. The ones she put in were purely aesthetic.
She got, you know, I think a new fridge, a new stove, and some new water heaters. It's separately
metered, as I mentioned before, and you can just see some of the, this is sort of the layout of
the space. Over here, where I've got my cursor, is the second, is the entrance of the second unit,
and each unit has its own kitchen, bathroom, etc. There's a strong legal argument. I think in this
case, you know, the Hertzberg case recognizes that while typically, you know, a hardship applies
to the land, but our courts have long recognized that a hardship can apply to a building itself,
specifically when you're looking at trying to retrofit an existing structure to legalize it,
to make something that is already there legally conforming with the code it is already there it
is a duplex and it has been a duplex and i think it's important to note that we have a support
letter from the owner of the adjacent property it's ron donatucci and his son own the next
store property which is a multi-family property before i get to that i just want to note at
exhibit six uh in our submission um we have uh the uh approved permits for both adjacent properties
on either side both of those properties at uh are are multi-families on um on the north side
of miss generale's property at 15 45 south 13th street there is an existing duplex that is legal
and on the south side there is a multi-family property a five-family dwelling on the other
side and then on the other side of that uh uh there's a pizza place um uh it's right there on
south uh 13th street 13th street uh so we do have a support letter and i think it's important to note
that uh mr donatucci uh he pointed out that is as long as he can remember uh miss the property that
is now miss generelli's property was built out used as a duplex um and uh he said so to his
knowledge and submitted this letter. He also acknowledges that for a first-time homeowner
like Ms. Ginnarelli, it would create a substantial hardship to come in and have to basically gut the
building if you wanted to take it back to a single-family home. It would be cost prohibitive,
true undue hardship, and the value of doing something like that would far exceed
um uh what uh probably the value of the property um another important note is uh is just this
Another important note is just this issue of safety. In the long term, if Ms. Ginnarelli has a renter in the upstairs unit, she can't get them out, like I said, if they fail to pay their rent or they just want to squat on the property through legal channels because she first has to have a legal duplex in order to do so.
issue of safety in in the long term
So another issue, it's not just the safety, but this will give L&I the ability to properly regulate this property as a duplex, as it has been used for decades and decades, and as it's currently built out.
And as I said, there is a duplex there, and in order for there not to be a duplex there, you have to do substantial structural work to retrofit the building, and that creates the undue hardship.
And just on a note, we met with the RCO, and I have a lot of respect for the folks who do it.
I sat on the SOSNA zoning committee for a number of years.
I know that it's a lot of tough work.
Nobody thanks you for it.
You don't get paid, and you get beat up a lot.
And so I respect and understand their position.
I've got nothing bad to say about them.
I think one thing I just want to note is that when we were on the Zoom meeting, it appeared
that there was a majority of the community voted in our favor.
In the letter, Ms. Tavani noted that there was a tie, a 3-3 vote.
I asked her about that, and she said that there was two individuals who voted outside,
who were from outside the area.
I don't have any way to see that, but I think we anticipated that the community vote was
going to be in favor, but I have no reason to believe that Ms. Tavani is not telling
the truth.
I think there's a couple of things in the basis for the opposition that don't really
address the hardship issue.
One is, I think in the highlighted information that I have up here on your screen, Ms. Tavani
in the zoning committee acknowledged that contrary to how this building was marketed
by the previous owner and the realtor, the building was designed, constructed as a single
family home. They're acknowledging that there is a duplex there. And again, the fact that there is
an existing duplex there that would require a structural rework is what our argument is that
there is a hardship. I think that there was some confusion at the hearing. In our context photos,
we showed that there are three, they said there were three doorbells there. Those were there when
Ms. Genarelli bought her property. They were confused because there were three water units
in the basement. There were three water units there before, and Ms. Genarelli replaced them
before her family came to visit last year for Christmas just because she wanted her house to
be fully functional um but those are new but as you can see there's simply uh two uh electrical
meters two water meters what it seems like uh um uh passing square civic association was saying
without saying it a little bit was that yeah we're asking for a duplex but uh it appears that there
was uh there's a triplex there uh ms uh generelli will confirm and i can assure the board there's
absolutely there are two units there there's no desire to um to to backdoor or try to legalize
two units and then sneak in a third nothing like that um we don't know why those three bells are
there uh i don't know why the the three units uh water heaters are there except that it's probably
really great if you want to take a shower there um because you can last uh have hot water as long
as you want. But the final issue is, I believe the Pasadena Square Civic Association, I know
that there's been a lot of changes in the neighborhood, a lot of construction that has
changed things, and density is always an issue. They don't raise parking as an issue as it's
savvy, but I think that parking has always been an argument against density, and Pasadena Square
civic association knows that that's not really a strong argument um ms generelli as a matter of
fact does not own a car has never owned a car she does not drive so uh and she can confirm that um
and i'm not going to interrupt this and summarize it that that could change and i'm i am personally
familiar with this property i knew the fire owner before he passed away mr leonetti understood
I've known him, but he's always used as a duplex.
Understood.
And I'm not trying to preempt anything.
I'm just like, I am familiar with the property.
I understand that you're on into Chico, and I knew those are your stomping grounds, and that's why.
I understand that, Chairman DiCicco, and I knew those are your stomping grounds, and that's why I just wanted to...
Well, I'm also the councilman who put in place the limitation on the number of multifamily units.
So, unfortunately, Mr. Leonetti, I guess, did this prior to that legislation being passed back in the early 90s.
Yeah, I understand that.
And when we looked at the record and we talked with some folks in the area, there was a use permit hold, I think, for doing some work on the interior.
And they listed the property as single-family home.
That was, I think, before the change in the legislation.
Because the property was – and so the work that was done was, it appears, was permitted.
but the um but the list says single family and our best guess is that uh because it was occupied
by i believe a couple and and and their son uh who occupied upstairs they were one family
but the units they were developing were in fact two families and um uh so you know that that's
it's unfortunate but that's that's what the record says um you know and and uh mr chairman
chico i i hear you i understand um i i would say that uh you know if um if if the board is uh you
know i i don't want to preempt anything or or jump to any conclusions but i know that
ms generelli is uh vested in this property in her neighborhood in a community um i guess two things
I do have a legal memorandum sort of in support of our factual arguments that we believe strongly
do set a case for a Hertzberg hardship in this case. That, you know, we do think that the facts
and circumstances here are pretty unique. Ms. Ginarelli, she's not a developer. She doesn't
want to be a developer. She just wants to live in this house and rent out the upstairs unit. I
understand that's not necessarily uh forever and ever but uh that's this current owner and uh and
and and the predicament that she's in um and uh we would just ask that if um if that we would have
an opportunity to email a legal brief in support of our argument uh following this hearing and
that's it um but that's basically my my factual presentation and i know miss uh generelli if you
can uh raise your virtual hand on on zoom so um uh the board administrator are you there
okay uh hey uh miss generelli did you hear my presentation i did maddie thank you sure and
And did the factual statements that I made, were they accurate?
And do you adopt them as your testimony?
I'm sorry.
Would you spell your full name for the record, ma'am?
Vanessa, V-A-N-E-S-S-A, Generelli, G-E-N-N-A-R-E-L-L-I.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
My apologies. So let's just do that again. Now that you've been sworn in, Ms. Genarelli,
did you hear my presentation? Yes. And the factual statements that I made,
were they accurate? Yes. Do you adopt them as your testimony? I do. Okay. And I guess
with that, that concludes my presentation. We're happy to answer any questions.
and um thank you questions from the board no no anyone else wish to testify on this case if so
please raise your hand here we have andrew andrew you can yourself and wait to be sworn in
sir please says identify yourselves by your name for the record and give us your address
my name is andrew albergo a-n-d-r-e-w albergo a-l-b-e-r-g-o my address is 1226 annon
street philadelphia pa 19147 i'm here to represent the passion on square civic association zoning
committee thank you please proceed your your honor and board the gentleman the
the applicant appeared before our committee back in August and they
explained to us the situation as the attorney has mentioned we had problems
with little confusion over the hot water heaters and the three bells and so
little confusion over the hot water heaters and the three bells and so forth
forth.
the biggest issue really stems from the facts which he stated himself
The biggest issue
that the property was used by the adult son
in the apartment that was what it was used as a rental it wasn't used as a
rental to the general public i understand uh chairman that you have
some experience in the neighborhood and you know this property but that was
presented to us additionally we feel that the cause of
action is with the realtor and with the people who've represented that this was a legal duplex
and that it's not the responsibility of the neighborhood to correct these errors or these
transgressions the zoning committee has a history of voting against legalizing illegal duplexes
especially in the situation where the new buyer claims they were misled by the in the purchase
of the property for those reasons the zoning committee voted nine to o in opposition and
as you can see in the letter the straw poll was three to three thank you very much for hearing me
out thank you and if i may just uh state for the record i and i appreciate the passing square
civic association's participation but i just want to uh state just an objection for the record uh
based on lack of standing for the the committee voting against but that's just a technical matter.
Anyone else wish to testify? That's all Chair.
Planning Commissioner. This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Given the
site history's pre-existing configuration we have no objection to the granting the variance provided
two units only. Thank you. Pre-existing. Okay. MI 2020-0009751543 South 13th Street.
I'm going to give a reluctant yes with a proviso maximum two units.
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
your client we get these kinds of cases quite often where realtors mislead
buyers i think you should have another case lined up
if there is any way that the agreements of sale let us go after these people believe me i would
It was a hard work for me because I did the remapping that made all that stuff single-family
because we don't want to be overrun by multifamilies, but I sympathize with your client.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Do we have any unfinished business, Tanya or Sharon?
Not from me, Chair.
We're all good then?
Not from me either.
okay everyone uh thank you for all your cooperation today uh and everyone please
stay safe let's talk we'll see you next week okay thank you all righty take care
thank you to the court reporter for hanging out to the court reporter
when i say thank you to everyone it means the court reporter
have a good night good night good night