Just to save some time if he's somehow unable to testify.
You're the officer of the court. We understand it.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
chair we have hillary emerson with her hand up miss emerson you can unmute yourself or wait for
the chair good morning mr sorry good morning good afternoon mr chair members of the board
hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker could you could you spell your name for the
court reporter sure hillary is h-i-l-a-r-y last name emerson e-m-e-r-s-o-n right do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and not support the truth i do proceed thank you um the
councilman is not opposed to the granting of the variance in this case um given the history of the
property um as having six units um as showed by mr notcomson um and the community also supported
the continuing use of the property as six units um we would ask uh sorry one quick thing we would
ask that there be a proviso that a certificate of occupancy be obtained within nine months to
ensure the building is in compliance with fire codes.
And I did speak to Mr.
Nockamson about this earlier, and he was in agreement.
Yes, I am.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman and members of the board.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
And I think Mr. Nockamson is right.
I think this is a pretty easy call here.
So the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential single-family zoning at this location, but the building has been a six-unit dwelling since at least the 1950s based on the same documents I'm sure Mr. Notkinson found that we found in the zoning archive.
The City Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the board grant the variance for six units.
Very much. Good. Thank you. MI 2021-003387-432 Fonshaw Street. I vote yes with provisos for
Very much. Good. Thank you.
MI 2021-003387.
Certificate of Occupancy. Carol Tenere, yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso. Ishmael Shaheed, yes with proviso.
Thank you very much. MI 2021 00380467 West Queen Lane, Mr. Nockamson. No RCO letter from the 12th Democratic Executive Committee. Solo Germantown letter in non-opposition.
good afternoon mr chair members of the board alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson
n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n-1-2-3 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109
our vice chair has a few questions do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. It appears that you've submitted all the required documents. Is that
correct? That's correct. You may proceed. Yeah. And as an officer of the court, I would like to
admit that there is a letter from the 12th, I think it's the 12th Democratic Court. They did
submit a letter of opposition and I do have that in my packet, but I would contest that it's really
opposition. And, you know, there was a split between the RCOs, but I just want to make sure
that the board understood that thank you you're welcome all right may i share my screen yes all
right so this is a 3 500 square foot structure you're looking at it right now right and this
screen this is supposedly an rsa 5 structure uh this was previously a c2 property under the former
zoning code this is clearly misclassified um this is subject to a zoning permit to allow for the
the garages are for accessory storage. There's allowed under the zoning permit, which we'll show
you, two residential and one commercial. My client, who is actually a real estate broker,
was unable to rent out the commercial space and converted it into two residential. Obviously,
we're here to legalize that use. But again, he tried his hardest to rent out that commercial use
and instead mimicked the residential use by cutting the commercial space in half to create four residential units.
Each of those residential units have their own front door.
There is no basement living.
And we would agree to reasonable provisos, which are set forth in both letters from the applicable RCOs,
to allow for trash storage inside one of the storage units, the one closest to here.
and we'll go through those letters.
In my presentation packet,
you'll see the notice of refusal.
Again, this is technically an RSA 5 property
on the 3,500 square foot lot,
but as you can see, it doesn't look RSA 5 at all.
And it's a significant lot of 3,500 square feet.
You'll see the permit, 304-025,
which shows that currently the legal use
of the property is two residential,
one vacant commercial,
which they were never able to find someone to rent it out, and accessory storage.
Just a little bit more background, this property is owned by Habana Holding Corp,
and I have Tobias Bill, the owner's representative on here.
When Habana Holding Corp purchased this property, they purchased it by way of drug forfeiture proceedings.
They purchased it directly from the DA's office.
So this was a property in desperate need of some TLC from a fiscal standpoint, but also to get a nuisance property off the streets.
And Mr. Biddle, his company has owned this property for over 15 years and has done an excellent job in rehabilitating this property.
And he's just looking to increase the residential use by two units to replace the one commercial unit, which he was never able to rent out.
and he'll state as a professional, he would be unable to rent out as well.
You'll see the correspondence from the 12th Democratic Executive Committee.
Again, there's some dispute as to how many affected properties were property owners or
individuals were at the meeting. I don't know if the solo German Town Civic Association's
Representative Allison Weiss is in attendance,
but according to her letter,
there was one affected occupant of a property.
occupant of a property. According to the letter for the 12th Democratic Executive Committee,
According to the letter for the
they took a vote of three, but they only said that two people were there in the narrative,
and it was a two-one vote against the project. But you'll see from the Solos Germantown Civic
Association, they're in non-opposition to this project. This has not been a problematic property.
We're just trying to legalize that use.
We're agreeing to some reasonable provisos, which are enforceable in terms of trash storage.
There are other provisos in terms of working with the Fairmont Park Association in terms of putting trees around this corner property,
putting mail slots in the door rather than having exterior mailboxes,
Painting the front of the door to kind of make it pop a little bit more from just an aesthetic point of view.
You'll see maps of the area, photographs of the property, or plans and drawings showing our use.
Again, no basement use.
We're agreeing to a trash room, so trash should not be an issue.
We have proof of our mailer to the surrounding community.
Again, this was not a well-attended event at all, to say the very least.
SOLO thought that one person who was in an affected property was there.
The 12th Democratic Ward, whether it was two or three, but it was clearly not well attended.
Our application for appeal, our deeds of property showing Habana Holding Corp owning the property, and our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
So again, this is our refusal.
This is an RSA 5 property.
Our refusals, and again, what we're trying to do is four dwelling units,
an existing structure with existing accessory storage in the garage spaces. Again, based on
the previously granted use permit, there was one vacant commercial space, which we could never,
ever, ever rent out. And this was as of right, by the way, because this was a C2 property.
And we had two residential units. We have rented out the residential units. Once we were successful
in renting out the residential units, and we knew there was a market for these type of residential
units. My client took it upon himself to convert the commercial to residential. We're here to
legalize that use. Again, this is the 12th Democratic Committee, right? This is their
letter. They said two nearby neighbors opposed it. One was a non-opposition. But if you look
at their, and by the way, they stated in their letter, if this board should grant the variance
request in their way, and I'll just zoom in in because you guys didn't have the benefit of this
letter previously. If they did grant it, if this board did grant the variance request, they would
want a proviso in terms of trash storage in one of those accessory units, the one closest
to the residential use, which we have no objection to. They, you know, they said, you know, one of
their comments and they said they wanted you to put as proviso paragraphs two through five
in terms of three two was the trash storage three was the facade of the building is very
industrial and does not fit with a residential property or the neighborhood well we can't change
the facade right but what we did tell them and we told you know solo organization is that we would
you know do the best in terms of beautifying the property in terms of painting the doors putting
mail slots. Again, this has always been a residential or at least been a residential
property approved for two units since 2007. Number four was sidewalk trees would add to
neighborhood beautification. Again, even though it's not an enforceable proviso, we have agreed
with the community groups that we would do that if this board did grant the variance request.
And then the fifth paragraph, remove outdoor mailboxes and replace with mail slots and doors
would be safer for tenant privacy, in fact, and we agreed to that as well. Again, I don't believe
that's an enforceable proviso. I believe the only enforceable proviso is to have trash stored in the
accessory storage space. So if this board does grant it, I would request granting with proviso
trash stored in the accessory storage space for the tenants. And then this is the letter from
you know, Solo, another RCO in the community, which attended the meeting. Again, they stated
only one in attendance was from the affected addresses. So I don't, there was some controversy
as to who was in the meeting, but that board unanimously supported or non-opposition of this
project. They did provide a letter, a narrative letter as well, to kind of explain the history
of this property. And again, the provisos or conditions would be similar to what
And again, the provisos or conditions would be similar to what the 12th Democratic Ward stated.
The only thing different was that we were going to add exterior lighting and security hammers around the property.
Again, we have no objection to that.
But again, I don't know if that's an enforceable proviso.
And then maps of the area.
Again, we're a corner property.
It's a significantly sized property of almost 3,500 square feet.
We're surrounded by apartment buildings.
We're surrounded by multifamily use, so it's not out of character to have this use, and again, if this board should deny this, the only thing we would be left with is two residential and one commercial, and my client would testify as a professional, as a licensed broker.
he can't rent a commercial and that's his hardship in a nutshell. And having four residential units
on the 3,500 square foot block where each has access to their own front door is the most minimal
request for variance of the zoning code one can ask for. Maps of the area showing where we are.
photographs of the property again here are the uh the stalls for the garages we don't use it for
vehicular uh storage um there was also i had a discussion with miss weiss earlier today there
was i guess a yellow painted line we don't use it for storage we allow like i mean for vehicular
storage we don't park cars on on the sidewalk here um we would be more than happy to paint this
yellow line gray so you know we allow for off-street parking as you can i mean on-street
parking as you can see from this picture and we encourage that as well and then there's pictures
of the property from queen lane uh showing proof of the zoning poster being posted and then just
nearby like rsa 5 forget about the parking assuming apartment buildings but 451 clean lane
is nearby RSA multifamily structure and then you can see Queen Lane to the right of property there's
a number of apartment buildings here uh Queen Lane to the left of the property uh Lawrence
Street because we're at the corner of Lawrence and Queen you can see more apartment buildings
you can see our building right here then Lawrence to the left of the property and then just our
interior photos I'm just gonna make this a little smaller but as you can see we really did try to
keep up these properties nice. They're all one bedroom, one bath. They all are housed by single
women. We try to keep the rents very affordable. I know that's not a zoning consideration, but
we do try to keep them below market rate even. And our tenants have stayed in our property for years.
So we try to be a good landlord as well. And then just our plans. So like I said,
But, you know, there's unit A and B are the one is basically the commercial space that we convert into residential.
Each of them mimic essentially C and D, which is the legal residential space.
Each of them have one bedroom, one bath.
Each of them have their own entrance.
And then here's the five garage stalls for accessory storage.
We would agree there's, you know, one of these stalls is right here.
we would convert that into a garbage room where all the tenants would have access to that.
And then proof of our mailer.
We met with the community on January 4th at 6 p.m.
There were 81 addresses that were notified of this meeting.
These are the addresses.
It was not a well-attended meeting other than the executive board members of each of the RCOs
that attended, but here's our proof of mailer, our application for appeal, our deed to property
showing this is a corrected deed, but this is the last recorded deed showing Habana Holding
Corp. as the owner. They have owned it for the last 15 years, and our Certificate of
Tax Clearance. With that being said, I have Mr. Biddle online. He can hopefully adopt
my testimony.
Alan, what's your client's last name?
Biddle, B-I-D-D-L-E.
And while you're looking for him, the other thing is, if this board should believe that
the use of four units is too great for a 3,500 square foot property instead of the two residential
and one commercial, we would ask for
to simply swap out the
commercial unit for just
commercial unit for just one residential to make it three. So we would ask that if the board thinks
one residential to make it three.
So we would be
that it's an overuse of the property for four residential units, we would ask the board to
grant a maximum three units. Because we're allowed three units, it's just one of the units
is commercial, which we can't rent out, and we want to make that residential.
We have a hand raised.
You can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
hi please state your name and spell for the court reporter
Tobias Biddle t-o-b-i-a-s as in boy i d like in david d like in david l like in leo e like in
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth