I did have more of my presentation before residents, if the board would allow me to finish that before the residents.
finish that because the residents absolutely um so but i'd like to just address some of the
Absolutely.
So, but I'd like.
statements made um initially well i'll start with the design of the building here's a i don't know
why this keeps zooming out apologies here's uh another view of the block regarding the design
standing out. As you can see, on this block of Stanton Avenue, there's literally four different
home designs. There isn't one uniform. I understand many a times some of the neighborhood concerns of
a house on the street that sticks out because it's like a uniform look to the block or the street.
that's not the case here as you can see literally every house is different
stands these two next to each other but every house has a different design and
the houses on the corner as I stated our residential or multifamily residential
nature much more density than what we're proposing which is two-family that when
In regards to the massing, as I stated, this building is 38 feet.
It's not any bigger or any wider than any other houses that will be on this block.
The width of this lot is 24 feet 2 inches.
So we can't put a building on here that's bigger than the size of the lot.
In addition to that, as you can see from the renderings, we're including a walkway on the
side for main access into the building which means our building is actually smaller your design is
completely different from any other home on that block that's correct that's correct i'm not uh
i'm my point wasn't to to to say that it's the same my point is that no house on that block is
the same. Right. A little bit different from the block. Yeah, it is different than any other house
as every other house on that block is also different. It's really the point I was getting
to with the design. When it comes to the rear parking, the refusal that we have on the rear
parking is due to the zoning designation as RSA 3. We actually meet the
dimensional requirements for an exception of the under the rear parking
under 14803B which states that residential parking shall be permitted
in the required rear yard of an attached building when the lot area is served by
rear alley or shared driveway with a minimum of 12 feet in our uh the alleyway behind this proposed
project is 12 feet i don't see that so you would access the parking through the rear alley
exactly there's a rear driveway that's 12 feet nine inches which is larger
than over than what the code requires for the um exception under the rear parking
prohibition for residential properties. The only distinction here is that this property
is semi-detached and not attached, and that's the only difference. In terms of the dimensional
requirements for this exception, we meet all of them. I think what the representative from the
council's uh member's office was stating um was not that the rear main access driveways raised i
think what she was referring to in terms of uh a raised driveway was the fact that there is if you
can see here a retaining wall in the front of the property that runs along the property on next to
the next house as with any no that is not what I was referring to and if you look if you go down
the side street on Gorgas and look half of the driveway is elevated with a retaining wall and
then the other half is lower by the buildings on Cornelius Street and so you're referring to
the retaining wall on the main access driveway for all the homes correct okay so in response
to that I mean that driveway again has been if you can look at the I'll go back
to the aerial if you look at the aerial of this block as you can see there's
rear parking on almost all the houses behind behind our our lock
almost all the houses behind our lot that all access the same driveway and all has the same
path in and out to their lots. The only difference here is that where we would be parking is next to
this home, but it would be parked there. In terms of movement on the driveway, that would happen
along this main uh driveway as it does now for every other house that utilizes it um so that
shouldn't be a substantial difference um for anyone that's currently living there um or plans
to live there in the future but if i can just get back to the because i do want to address some of
the other um refusal which is um the two-family dwelling in this district as i stated although
this entire area generally zoned as RSA 3 or 5 and or RSA 3 you can see that in
many or RSA 2 excuse me you can see that many of the lots that are zoned as such
have multiple multifamily uses and not just on the corners as I stated or this
lot here is multifamily and those are the corner but it runs the entire left
up to the middle of the block. This lot here is in the middle of the block. It has not only
residential but commercial uses. And the increase of two family units, again, if we're talking
about density and size, it's not a substantial difference to this neighborhood when you consider
Do you have any witnesses to present?
Yes, I do.
I have with me the owner of the property, Mr. Darren Hardiman, who is here, if you could raise his hand.
All your witnesses need to unmute themselves to be sworn in.
Darren, if you can unmute yourself.
Good morning.
Good morning. Name and address for the record.
darren hardiman d-a-r-e-n last name is h-a-r-d-i-m-o-n 6024 ridge avenue suite 116
number 300 philadelphia pa 19128 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do and what is your relationship to this property i am part owner
of Hardiman Hall Acquisitions LLC. Okay. You may proceed. Thank you. Mr. Hall, did you hear
my testimony this morning? I did. Okay. Could you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it
as your own? Yes, I would. Okay. And is there anything that you'd like to add regarding your
proposal to the board? Yeah, I think that you highlighted everything. I don't think that there's
anything more for me to add um if the board has any questions or anyone has any questions for me
i would be uh happy to answer but i don't think i have anything further to add aside from what you
said okay does the board have any questions for this witness no no no i should uh oh i'm sorry
is there another you have another witness yeah we just i just wanted to make sure that the board
was aware that we also have the architect on the line if there was any questions that would be
for an architect, Mr. Johnson.
So I don't know if we should swear him in
or if the board doesn't have questions for him either.
I have no questions.
Does the board have any questions?
I have no questions either for the architect.
I have a comment for the architect.
I think that this design is better than next door,
the one-story building.
is there another witness that you have uh no that concludes my witnesses thank you
okay does the board have any questions
no and miss sunkett are there any other witnesses
um if anyone wishes to testify on behalf of this case raise your hand because at this time no hands
are up okay you can proceed okay planning commission
brian winrich city planning this property is indicated for residential single family use on
the city's comprehensive plan the proposal is out of character with the single family uses
and style on the immediate block this is an overuse accordingly we are opposed to the granular
This is an overuse.
Accordingly, we are opposed to the granular variances.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry about my call.
Thanks for the 50-bop program.
Thank you.
Calendar number MI2020-000236.
The address is 8017 Stenton Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
calendar number mi 2020 000215 the address is 7956 burry road apartment 2
we have alice
alice you've been promoted to panelists regarding burry road
you can unmute your mic and wait to be sworn in. Good morning. Good morning, Alice. Can you put
your name and address on the record, please? Certainly. Alice Hughes, that's A-L-I-C-E Hughes,
H-U-G-H-E-S, and that's an S like Sam. My address is 4 Terry Drive, Suite 3, Newtown, PA,
18940. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. I'm sorry, are you an attorney? I am. Okay, thank you. Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with the required documents, which would be proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
the refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the RCO and if so do you have a letter yes
to both those questions thank you you may proceed thank you I'm gonna share
my screen my name is Alice Hughes and I represent Christopher Shank who is the
current owner of the property. The application before you is for 7956
Marie Road. The refusal appears at page 102 of your exhibit binder
and the request on these circumstances
was to convert a non-conforming use or use with a variance from two apartments
two apartments and a medical office to three apartments. The reason for the denial or the
refusal was because the zoning is RSA3 which is single family residential only and then of course
if there were three units we would have to deal with the parking. Just would like to briefly
recite the ownership. The deed appears at exhibit A which is page two. This property was owned by
Lisa Schenck from 2008 until 2017 when she died. My client Christopher Schenck was the executor of
her estate and is now the trustee of the trust created under her will. In his role as executor
and now trustee, it is his obligation to determine the best use of the value, best use, excuse me,
of the property, generating income for the trust beneficiaries while preserving the value of the
real estate. It's important to note that this part of that function included him obtaining a real
estate appraisal, which appears at exhibit A beginning on page 17 of the exhibit packet. I'm
just going to quickly show you what the property looks like by turning to page 52. This is a three
story building at the corner of Verree Road and Ripley Street in the Fox Chase section of
Philadelphia. The first floor is pretty much above grade. It has a separate entrance from
Ripley Street, and that is the doctor's office as it exists presently. The second and third floor
are two, one, I'm sorry, two, two-bedroom apartments with one bath. That's a two-bedroom
apartment on the second floor and a two-bedroom apartment on the third floor.
So these two pictures show you the front and the rear of the property as they existed on
the date of the appraisal inspection.
As part of the process of that appraisal for mixed-use property, the appraiser was required
to determine the property's highest and best use.
and best use and I'm just going to direct your attention to the highlighted portion of that
And I'm just going to direct your attention to the highlighted portion of that report.
report which states that the highest and best use given the current circumstances, the condition of
the property, and the demands for real estate in the community would be for three apartment units
and that as such that would be in conformity with the predominant land use in the community.
As part of the process and clearing title, we uncovered a number of use and occupancy return violations and had to establish to the benefit or the satisfaction of the city that the property had not been used commercially for a period of time.
Attaches Exhibit F on page 100 is a letter from the rental manager who has handled the property for more than 40 years, indicating that the doctor's office had been empty for approximately 10 years.
Since 2017, in accordance with his responsibilities as executor and now trustee, Mr. Schenck has
determined that there's no interest in this property being leased as a medical office on
the first floor. This is a result of accessibility issues under the American with Disabilities Act,
but it's also a question of how physicians' offices have changed over time, and that is
primarily we don't see physicians in such small spaces as this one with only two exam rooms.
What we're seeing now is the migration to these large multidisciplinary offices that are run by
health systems or hospital systems and urgent cares. So that even if we were able to come to
compliance, come into compliance with the ADA, there would be no demand for this property with
just two exam rooms for a physician's space. With regard to the parking concerns, I just want to
direct your attention quickly to the following photographs. One is Exhibit O that appears on
page 134. This photograph was taken shortly after receipt of our refusal and it shows the parking
area which is accessed from a common driveway on Ripley Street and this shows three vehicles
parked in that parking pad that belongs to the property and then if we look at exhibit o i'm
sorry exhibit n which is on the preceding page you will see that the property has now been striped
the parking lot has been striped and there's actually sufficient room for four vehicles
the traffic and parking required by a medical office would include the physicians the office
staff, the patients coming and going, the delivery of supplies, the outdoor receptacle boxes or
testing services, and the storage and removal of medical waste. By contrast, the parking related
to a third apartment would be one automobile. With regard to the RCO, this is the Fox Chase
Homeowners Association. Their meeting was held on February 12th. The meeting was duly noticed and
that appears in the exhibit packet at Exhibit I. Their report appears as Exhibit J on page 113
and as you can see they voted to oppose the applicant's request for variance. This should
not be a surprise. It was not a surprise to us as the applicant or the owner, because under the
terms of the bylaws of Fox Chase Homeowners Association, they oppose anything that is not
a single-family residence. Their bylaws appear at Exhibit K, and I'm going to point you directly
to the section in question, which is section, I'm sorry, Article 14, with the standing decision
rule contained in the bylaws. Given the present use of the property as constructed, it's not
possible for us to create a single-family dwelling to satisfy the RCO in this case.
Other than a teardown in reconstruction, it's not possible to bring this property into compliance
with the single-family requirements of an RSA 3. Excuse me, this is Sharon Salette. I had one
question. You are also approved as a two-family dwelling. That approval
doesn't go away because the doctor's office is eliminated, so I don't believe
So I don't believe you would be required to go back to a single family.
you would be required to go back to a single family.
Agreed.
I'm about to address that.
The present use of the doctor's office on the first floor has rendered the property one-third useless.
That is, we have three units and can only occupy two.
Excuse me, can you expand one of the units into the prior doctor's office?
I think you can by right.
that is not something we had taken into consideration.
Would you like to go back and speak to the owner and re-meet with the RCO?
Well, the owner is present, and he certainly can answer that question when he's called upon.