point the the vote was three three post three support in the summary level which we have not
had a chance to view however the five votes that came from point three cdc we are challenging
because we feel there's a conflict here between the developer and well the lawyer and the planning
commission i mean um our show which we've dealt with that on another level that's not your concern
at this point i mean that's not really something you have anything with so we don't feel and neither
none of the five people that voted from the rco are nearby neighbors they do not live near the
project so it actually comes out the three to three three support three opposed but we just
want to put on the record that we don't feel as though there's a hardship here and we're continuing
to lose our two-story community based on what you know excuse me are you part of the point
breeze community development coalition you know carol you asked me that every time i call up i'm
concerned citizens of point three i know i do ask you because we have a letter of support and i
got a little confused so i wanted to make sure that that was what you were part of
no well we are two separate rcos however i just said there's a conflict here for us
we're concerned we've already reported it and we feel between because every time alan has come here
he's gotten a letter of support from the point we cdc and we have a concern because that's not
would take place in the meetings but that's not really you know i don't want to bog you down with
that like you said that's not really your area however we're just saying that our rcio is
opposing because we don't feel that there's a hardship here or anything like that and that
we're trying to maintain the character of our two-story blocks okay and the eight-foot step
back was the city solution to our our request and and and so you know we feel every time in the last
a couple months every time we've come down and asked for uh uh to maintain a corridor block
we've been voted against and i i don't see where the hardship is here so i just wanted to put that
in the background thank you please keep taking consideration thank you thank you very much thank
you very much mr chair um yeah i don't want to meet i just have a minute just to respond sure
um so first of all i don't remember the name of the gentleman who just testified and supported
the project who's next door my memory serves me right he was also at the meeting so miss green
stating that no one that is a nearby neighbor appeared at the meeting in support of the project
my understanding is that that gentleman who testified today in support of the project who's
next door to this uh property um also attended that meeting so i assume that he voted in support
as well uh in terms of the the standard of undue hardship as we indicated in point illustrated
it through our floor plans, we would lose half of our functional third floor, and that's
the hardship. We need a functional floor plan, especially in these plans. Thank you.
all right thank you thank you council council can answer your question um
Councilor, can I ask your question?
1835 the house is on both sides how many stories well they're both two stories that's why we're here
mr holliman on both sides of 1835 you mean on both sides of our property correct yes 1830 1833
and 1837 are both two stories. Thank you. Any other questions from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Pietra Gamble. Ms. Gamble, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Do me a favor. State your name and spell it for the court reporter.
My name is Petra Gamble. First name P-I-E-T-R-A. Last name G-A-M-B-L-E. I am a member of Point Breeze Coalition Community Development Coalition.
All right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Rasheed.
So I just wanted to put on record that we as an RCO are in support of this project.
project we do not have any conflicts with the um developer we don't vote based on the developer we
vote we vote based on the project we go by what the community wants to do and that's what we do
so i just wanted to put that on record again we are in support of this project
thank you very much for calling in any any other comments
planning commission good afternoon david vecto city planning commission mr chairman members of
board the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use
this is a block with primarily two-story homes with three-story homes at corners the addition
of a third story that is flush with the first and second floors would be in keeping with the
character of the block which does not have any third floor setbacks we recommend that the board
grant the dimensional variance. MI 2021, 003756, 1835 South 19th Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tennery, my vote is yes. Excuse me, this is Sharon, if you could add with provisos.
With provisos. Carol Tennery, my vote is yes, with provisos.
James Bell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with provisos.
thank you very much uh mr knockamson you're our next case too all right thank you um
may i share my my m i 2021 001430 1905 oxford rco request provisos but does not state position
Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet consisting of all of the required documents?
Yes, I have.
You may proceed.
May I share my screen?
All right, thank you.
So we're here to present 1905 Orthodox Street.
In our presentation packet, you'll see our notice of refusal, correspondence from Frankfurt CDC, maps of the area, comparable properties where the ZVA has granted variances for properties close by allowing for additional residential units,
Photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, proof of our meeting notice going out to the community,
our application for appeal, our deed to the property, and our Certificate of Tax Claims.
So our notice of refusal.
This is an RSA-5 property.
We're proposing to have four units in this property.
If you look at the L&I zoning history for this property, you'll see that this property has a mixed-use history.
So I did not see recent single-family use.
So even though this is RSA 5, we're more in conformity by heavy multi-unit use of this property.
So if you look at the correspondence from the Frankfurt NAC, the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, even though I guess they don't state what their position is, they do have provisos.
I think some of them are not affordable.
There's a one-year proviso for the use of whatever the use would be.
I don't know. This is not like a restaurant or any type of retail use where you can just say, hey, you're going to use this property as for.
or any type of retail use where you can just say hey you're going to use this you
this property is four units for one year so i don't know how enforceable or practical that is
units must be reduced to three so based on that rating the community group did have an inclination
to allow for multi-family use we believe that four units is more appropriate under the
circumstances, but if the board does seem inclined to only allow three units, we ask that a proviso
would be, if it's granted this variance, that there would be a proviso maximum three units,
but we do believe that four units is more appropriate under the circumstances. The third
request that they made is provide rear exiting for the upper floors. You'll see from the pictures
There is not sufficient room on the side to allow that because we're taking a pre-existing building structure.
It's not wide enough on the interior to have an exit on the upper floor for both units in the back.
So it would only be the side, and given that the side is a walkway, it's not wide enough to allow for that.
Again, this is no different than having usage on a single-family home on the upper units.
There is no requirement for a separate egress or not four stories where you would require separate egresses.
This is a rather small property in terms of height.
So it would not be required, but that would still be a building code issue.
And then the fourth proviso or request is verify smoke detectors in required areas, and that's a building code requirement, which we would embrace, obviously.
I don't know if it's a proviso that's allowed for the zoning board and the zoning code, but we obviously will have smoke detectors in every area that's required through the Philadelphia building.
So maps of the area, as you can see, we're on Orthodox Street right here.
You can see here from a Google Maps standpoint.
Now, comparable properties.
And we just pulled some properties from recent decisions.
This is a rather large property or property.
Our property is almost 4,000 square feet.
To be exact, it's 3,900 square feet.
So 2,000 orthodox rates is 1,906.
You can't limit a multifamily to one year, period.
That's right.
I'm sorry.
Just dictating something.
I apologize.
But as long as I was saying it, of the provisos, the first one is not enforceable.
You can't limit a multifamily to a one-year term.
the number of units that is something that the board can add if it would like. The final two
provisors are really building code issues as you stated. Thank you, Ms. Lada. So in terms of 2000
Orthodox Street, this board granted a variance request to allow for two units. The amount of
square footage of that lot is 1,906. We're asking for four units for 3,900 square feet, which is
comparable. For 2114 Orthodox Street, the board granted a variance for eight units, and the amount of square footage for that lot is 2865, which is a worse proportion in terms of square footage.
and then 2008 orthodox street this board granted a triplex for 1936 square feet which is a lot less
in square footage than the 3900 square feet we're asking for so what we're asking for is not
unreasonable under the circumstances especially in consideration to what the board has previously
granted on the other close to the blocks close by on orthodox so photographs of the property this is
what the property looked like uh before my client did cosmetic changes to the property
and this is the after obviously there's no you know we want to you know have the use of four
units but you know he wanted to get going start you know the beautification of this property
from the outside. And then you can see the rear of the property. And you can just see from this
this side yard, this is the only place we would be able to put any like rear exit on, excuse me,
exterior exit on the second floor. It's just not enough space back or to the side. So and then if
And then if you look at pictures to the right of the property on the orthodox, pictures to the left of the property on the orthodox, and then just our plans and drawings.
you look at pictures to the right of the property in the orthodox.
And it's just, we keep it really, we're trying to keep it really simple, you know, in terms for the board.
But there's two ways to get on the first floor.
There's the front, and then this is an efficiency.
And then in the rear, you see that walkway, there's a separate entrance, and that's a one-bedroom apartment.
You go through the front to the second floor, and there's two units.
The front is a one-bedroom, one-bath.
You go through the landing.
Here it is.
You go to the left of the landing.
It's a bi-level, which is, you know, the first floor is of the bi-level.
It's the living room, kitchen, bathroom.
Then you go up by the steps, and there's two bedrooms.
So there's two bedrooms, one bath.
A couple things to note.
There's no basement living at all for this project.
There is no bedrooms in the basement, but no living, any living in particular. It's on slab.
A second thing is, because of how big the lot is, we're storing all of our trash outdoors
responsibly, and every single unit occupant will have access to the trash.
RCO meeting notice. We met with the community on November 18th at 6 p.m.
We sent notice of that meeting to 102 addresses. These are the addresses we were given by the City Planning Commission.
And then here's a proof of mailing of those notices.
Our application for appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
along with our notice of refusal, our project information form, our deed to the property, as well as our certificate of tax credits.
So with that being said, I'm going to share my screen.
Daniel Valentino should be in the audience. I would ask him to virtually raise his hand.
Put down my testimony.
Hello, Dan Valentino here.
Can you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
D-A-N-I-E-L-V-A-L-E-N-T-I-N-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I see you, sir.
Yes, Mr. Valentino.
You've heard everything I stated today.
I have, yes.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Chair, members of the board, we have a property that's almost 4,000 square feet.
We're asking to only put four units in there.
We have no basement use at all.
We have garbage stored in the rear.
And under similar circumstances, this board has granted multifamily variances under four circumstances.
The community has requested a maximum of three units.
We ask that the board consider four units, but if the board does not think it's appropriate under circumstances,
in the alternative, we ask for the grant with a proviso maximum of three units.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
yes chair we have slone folks mr folks you can unmute yourself
good afternoon again chairman brinkman da board
state your name and you've already been sworn numerous times yes sir numerous times they thank
Thank you, sir. Sloan Fuchs, S-L-O-A-N-E, F-S-A-F-I-R-O-S.
Also, Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez from 508 City Hall.
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO.
Sloan, could you speak directly into the mic? You fade away for us.
I apologize. I have a phone and a computer going, so I'll try again.
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO,
Frankford Knight, and having received a letter of support with provisos,
the Councilwoman offers her support of the VAERS request with all enforceable provisos. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Planning Commission.
good afternoon dave defecto city planning commission mr
Good afternoon, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning for this parcel.
The property has a documented use as a single-family home with, at various times, a barber shop or a tailor shop.
We are aware of two two-family homes and one four-family home on Orthodox Street between Dittman and Takawhana Streets.