graffiti on the walls and actually it was like trash everywhere since i took over i go and i
maintain so so nice so neighbors are really really pleased to have me going and do like
keep the property up to date so and the remodeling i'm going to do and having somebody there
will make easy for neighbors to have like a quiet uh streets so nobody will stay hang out on the
steps of the building, etc.
Mr. Domi, do you have any petitions in support?
Because the Port of Richmond, according to the letters we have,
unless we're mistaken here, are not supporting this application.
Yeah, actually, I didn't, Mr. Chairman, this was my first time actually doing this,
and I didn't really know all this stuff.
but I'm telling
like all the
neighbors I've been talking
to them and even one day I was
paying the railing outside from the step
these guys come like
the neighbors. They're so happy to
see something change and make it
place nice, beautiful.
Questions for Mr. Domi?
What else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time chair. Thank you planning commission.
Property is indicated for run Bednar city planning. Property is indicated for commercial
mixed use on the comprehensive plan. The application matches the pattern of existing
development on the corner of the block in the area. We recommend the quest for variance
and special exceptions. Chair? Yes? We have a Mr. Caruso with his hand up now.
Caruso, please identify yourself with the record and I'll square you in.
Mr. Caruso, please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
Yes, it's Michael Caruso, 2947 16th Street.
Hold on a second.
What's your address?
2947 16th.
South 16th Street?
You're here on this case, on Clearfield?
No, I'm here for 300, 301 16th Street case.
We didn't get to that yet.
We have no problem.
Just hang in there.
We'll get to you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
I'm confused.
I see letters of opposition.
I don't understand.
I'd like to say the record's closed on this.
The board will make a decision
at next Wednesday's executive session.
Mr. Domi, the board will have a conversation
about this case and will make a decision
for you by next Wednesday.
next Wednesday okay okay thank you very much Mr. Thomas thank you calendar number
MI 2021 000634 3017 West Harper Street the attorney is Vern Anastasio
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now thank you
good evening madam chairwoman
Good evening, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Board, Verna Anastasio, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, OutSuite 1006.
Thank you. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Two minutes.
Do you agree to wait through reading the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of that.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
I'm going to share my screen.
Sharing my screen right now.
this is a 3017 West Harper Street. It's pretty straightforward. The application was for a rear
addition and addition above the second floor. So there's a new third floor on an existing structure.
We have two refusals. One is because our proposal does not have the eight foot setback on the third
floor. The second refusal is the open air requirement. We've got just under 18 percent
where required is 25%. And I want to show you the plants here
and existing conditions. It's a two-story building, but there are several properties on the block
that already have gotten zoning relief for three-story structures without the third-story
setback so we will be uh there's several of them actually and i have photos of that as well
uh here's one right here there's another right there there's two more on this on the same side
of the block we have interior photos as well we um the third floor setback wasn't an issue
for the neighbors when we met with the community organization. There were several folks on the
block that actually secured third floor additions without setbacks and everyone seemed to be
pretty okay with that. The open air requirement is the only other refusal. We still propose a 10
foot backyard, which, you know, meets the backyard requirement. There wasn't, RCO leadership had an
issue with closing up this section here. You can see my, where I'm putting my cursor. The RCO
leadership thinks, seems to think that this section, the side yard area is a breezeway.
It is not. It's not accessible by anyone else but my client who occupies the property. She would just like to have a larger home with additional bedrooms so she can stay there. And that seems to be the only concern for the RCO leadership.
And when I say the RCO leadership, I mean that explicitly because we met with the community group, as is required, and near neighbors supported our appeal, eight in favor, five against, and one neutral.
So the near neighbors were completely in support of our, you know, the request for the variants.
the third floor would not be something unusual for the block. There's other third floors that
have not been set back. And most of the new construction don't even have side yards. So
that wasn't much of an issue either, nor would it impact lighter air for any of the immediate
neighbors. However, that being said, despite the fact that the near neighbors voted to support our
variance, our appeal. The RCO sent a letter of opposition. Not quite sure why.
I've said this before in these cases. I believe that when an RCO leadership issues a letter that's
counter to the immediate neighbor's vote, it basically throws out all good reason for why we
rewrote the zoning code in 2012, and we spent a whole lot of time doing that.
We, you know, we mailed to everybody, folks came out, and again, the majority of the folks
were in favor of supporting the variants. It's a minimal, dimensional variants for a side yard.
minimal dimensional variance for a side yard that doesn't really impact anyone's lighter air
or anybody else's quality of life. And as such, because the third floor addition as presented
is consistent with other third floor additions on the block, because we proposed an addition that
meets rear yard requirements, and because the build out on the side has no negative impact
on immediate neighbors based on the majority of the of the votes at the community meeting that
we attended we ask that this board approve and then grant this variance thank you and with that
I'm going to ask my my client Bernice Thompson to raise her hand so she can be recognized and
we can get our score in. Bernice are you there? Hi I'm present. Thank you Bernice. Thank you.
Ma'am would you please identify yourself spell your first and last name and I'll score you in.
of course sir i'm bernice helena thomas and um my first name is b-e-r-n-i-c-e and my last name is
t-h-o-m-a-s you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes mr anastasio thank you mr chairman miss thomas do you uh did you understand and hear
my presentation to the board this evening yes i did sir okay and was it true and accurate to
best of your knowledge absolutely and would you adopt it as your own testimony i would okay and
were you present at the rco meeting where they voted in favor of approving the variance yes i
was quite remiss to see the letter today thank you stating that yep thank you questions from the
board no no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand i'll be quick 25th
ward the democrat uh building where the ward headquarters used to be you guys are opposed to
that conversion do you know about that all right i held it until next week just it didn't seem
but frank do you want to be online for this he's offline what what's
he may want to go mute on this right he was mute on that call
Yeah, I'm sorry.
I was just thinking about you, sir.
I just want to make sure that you're mute if you need to be.
I took care of him.
What was it?
I'm sorry I left off.
Anyone else?
There's someone with their hand up by the name of Heath.
Heath, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Hi, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
My name is Heath Myers, and I am a neighbor in Fairmount here and also a member of the Fairmount Civic Association.
Do I need to say anything to get affirmed or something like that?
Madam Vice Chair, could you have him to put his name on record and swear him in, please?
Yes, sir. Please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, and then I will swear you in.
My name is Heath Myers, M-E-Y-E-R-S. I'm at 848 North 21st Street.
And can you spell your last name?
M-E-Y-E-R-S.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Okay. You may proceed.
Yeah. I decided to attend today because while I didn't oppose the project at the RCO meeting,
After a careful review of the plans, I no longer think it might benefit the neighborhood, so I'm bringing three concerns to the ZBA.
The development, as proposed, requires entering neighbors' land for construction and maintenance.
Two, the applicant proposes building combustible walls with only a one-hour fire rating on or abutting the property line versus existing non-combustible brick.
Third, the applicant proposes a wall abutting a side lot over 25 feet in height without any required facade articulation.
for these reasons and because the project fails to meet the zoning code i oppose the development
thank you for your consideration
as it relates to the fire code issue i think that's something that would have to meet code
whether it's brick or uh what's the sheetrock i can't think of the title well it has to meet the
board of building standards for us to get a co up could i ask the uh the protestant sir can i have
your name again, please? Keith Myers. Mr. Myers, is your address 848 North?
Keith Myers. Mr. Myers, is your address 848 North 21st Street? Correct. Okay. And is that
not one mile from the property in question? Well, you had brought up the fact that eight people
voted in favor. Sir, that's a yes or no answer. Please answer the question. Do you live one mile
from the subject property? Right. Thank you, sir. I have nothing else. Do you own a property
adjacent to this no it's just i was one that you know i was just one of the people in favor in that
vote and and you know since then you know i don't feel that way anymore and that's why i decided
you're you're you're entitled to change your mind i just didn't know if you had a a no mr chairman
as you know we're going to be subject to the building code uh you know nothing's going to
happen until we uh zoning is not the end all and be all we have to get to the uh you know the
building code and the board of standards and all of that. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
Here we have someone by the name of Teresa Hauberg or Holberg. Miss Holberg, you can
unmute yourself and speak now. Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and
last name. I'll swear to you all. My name is Teresa Holberg. T-E-R-E-S-A-H-O-B-E-R-G.
where for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed i am
uh the zoning co-chair i wrote the uh letter of uh to the rco a couple of points that i disagree
with mr anastasio um first of all there were no near neighbors on that vote these votes were not
from any near neighbors um so that is simply a misconception i object there's nothing that's
been presented that says that there's no addresses presented. So I object to that testimony.
I'm sorry, say that again?
I object to that testimony. It's very clear that there were eight voted in favor,
and that's the majority of the vote.
There were no near neighbors, right? They were general neighbors.
Ma'am, ma'am.
Please continue with your testimony. Please do not argue with the attorney. Continue with your
testimony all right that's just a clarification and we stated that in the letter um and so what
happened was that in fact while eight were in favor we realized later that someone had voted twice
and that member recognized that so where there are five against seven in favor one neutral and
then at the board meeting um one neutral reversed his position and one in favor reversed his position
so in point of fact we had seven against five in favor um and and that's how that worked out
now in terms of the requirement for the um the breezeway that's not really the issue the issue
was always the lack of uh the open space requirement and miss thomas's assertion that
she had to build overbuild the site because that was the only way to get a functional floor plate
We indicated to her in her initial meeting in March, and she also attended the meeting in April when 3023 Harper Street, which presented earlier in this meeting, presented their plans, she indicated that she was amenable to retaining the breezeway.
we thought that's what was going to happen which would not only do away with that concern
that it would impact the light and air on the adjoining neighbors which it does but it also
would eliminate the need for variance for open space whether they put a breezeway in or not
we still oppose the variance for open space because we don't see that the applicant has
demonstrated a need for hardship because there are numerous projects on that block that have
been able to create a functional floor plate without exceeding the open space. And that's
our position, and we are fully entitled to that. Thank you. Mr. Anastasio, could you move that
last sentence that says the FCA board has, I can't read all of it, has voted to? To take a position
of opposition and that's typically no it says specifically with respect to and i can't to the
open space oh the open space okay and by the way we're offering a 10 foot rear yard uh as i showed
you this the side yard was necessary in order to to build buildable space so this family could stay
in this home and again the vote was the vote it was eight in favor and that's and that's the
majority now if an rco and we've done very rarely but we've we've seen this before if rco leadership
who lives a mile away decides to go against what the vote is at the community meeting that's
decides to go against what the vote is at the community meeting that flies in the face of
everything we did in 2012 in rewriting this code and you know that of course the board knows that
and my client would like to speak to this because she never said that she would be willing to