It came in late.
Oh, yeah, it did, very late.
The vote was, there were, you know, more than a dozen people supported,
uh but a little bit more than that opposed uh the letter spoke about use they they claimed that this
is a two-family dwelling it is not uh they claim you know they claimed that my our presentation
spoke about a two-family dwelling it did not we we never even discussed that so uh i and again we
could bring on fact witnesses if you'd like but i don't like to but irrelevant arguments you know
this being, you know, a legal proceeding, unless you want to get into that. But the legal issue
here today before us is very simple. That garage is gone. This house needs accessory parking.
The previous owner used that driveway for accessory parking, sold it to my client right
here. And then somebody calls L&I on them. And so we just, you know, that's why we're here,
That's surface parking lot. But as far as the substance of the RCO position, perhaps they're in the audience and maybe they can speak to it.
If they do, then I'll be happy to rebut it with a fact witness who was at the meeting, who did the presentation on my behalf, my law partner, Attorney Harry Cook.
he'll tell you verbatim what was presented in his exhibit binder nothing about the use as it relates
to anything more than a single-family home though not again not that it's relevant just just a
question okay um questions or comments it was a long answer i apologize
guys. I've been waiting. Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have a handle from Alice Udovich. I have promoted them.
They will be coming back in shortly. Good morning, Alice.
Good morning, Alice.
Sorry about that.
Good morning, Chairman, members of the board.
Alice Udovich, on behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill.
And just for the record, Alice, spell your name.
A-L-I-C-E-U-D-O-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Although, as the attorney stated, it is omitted from the refusal, this property has clearly been converted to a two-family dwelling.
Although, as the attorney stated, it is omitted from the...
I believe in one of the photos, you can clearly see a full kitchen.
He doesn't even mention the legalization of the addition.
So although the garage door was converted by a previous owner, an addition was added and a full apartment on that first floor level.
that's we we strongly oppose we strongly oppose the branding of this variance with with respect
mr chair alice has never been in the property she doesn't know what she's talking about
i have somebody who has been in the property ready to testify okay okay we're here for parking
wait a minute wait a minute alice are you through yes thank you you have no questions for alice
no it's or that the testimony is nonsense other other questions or comments from the virtual
audience. Mr. Anastasia, I just had a quick question because there is reference to legalization
of a rear addition. What is that rear addition? Whatever the previous owner put on, it was
inspected and approved. The interior was inspected by an L&I examiner. It was clear that it is not a
two-family dwelling. Everything was inspected and approved. The only thing subject to the zoning
code to get a variance is the lack of accessory parking. I'm going to call Harry Cook, my law
partner, on to testify as to what transpired since Alice obviously wasn't there last night.
but i understand and respect the district council office has a duty to support the rco so with that
if mr cook could come on and testify council he's coming back in as a panelist right now
thank you vern were there plans showing what was legalized for the rear edition
uh no there was no need for that okay that's odd because normally if something
an addition is being legalized they would have required plans but it doesn't need to be legal
it was it's already legal okay it's just mentioned specifically on the refusal that
yep and it was and it was superfluous because the only issue uh that would generate a refusal
was the surface parking lot and if mr cook is available he can he could swear him in we can
get him on the record as well and he'll also speak to that addition which by the way was done
over a decade ago
Mr. Cook
Hi, can everyone hear me?
We can, could you please state your name
and spell for the sound of it
Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y
C-O-O-K, Anastasia Law
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman
Are you willing to testify or are you going to question your partner?
I'm going to ask him a couple questions
just to keep it real quick
brief. Otherwise, we'll just go on and on. Mr. Cook, can you clarify about the addition before
we move into last night's meeting? Sure. So just to clarify the record, as Vern stated before,
our clients purchased this property in 2020. All of the work, including the rear addition and the
removal of the garage and the installation of the wall and the conversion of the garage to
habitable space occurred prior to their tenure in the property. In 2022, the City of Philadelphia
issued notice of violation for the rear addition for permits as it relates to the build, not a
zoning violation as it relates to the build. They issued a single zoning violation as it relates to
the parking in front. The property has been inspected several times as far back as recently
as January of this year by LNI. There's never been a question as to the use. In the basement,
there is a bedroom and there is a kitchenette. You have free flow from the basement to the first
floor. It is not a separate apartment. It is not an EDU. It is family use. There's no question as
to that. And the department has had plenty of opportunity vis-a-vis the enforcement action on
the notice of violation that I represented the client on and negotiated a settlement with the
city that everyone is in agreement that this is not a two-family dwelling. Otherwise, an additional
violation would have been issued in the intervening three years and it has not
there's no intention by our client to convert it and close off that entrance to the basement
to make it an adu or a separate unit that is not before the board is not part of the inspection or
unit. That is not before the board. It is not part of the inspection or violation history with this
property. And apparently the RCO itself is just obsessed with the idea of this being a two-family
unit, whereas they've never been to the property. They disregarded the presentation I made that
spoke directly to, without any sort of obfuscation, that this is a single-family home. Here's how it's
laid out. It does have a kitchenette, a bathroom and a bedroom in the basement that is accessible
by everyone. Yet they refuse to speak, accept the veracity of my client's testimony at the RCO or
mine, or, and just patently disregard the department's inspection history and their
understanding of what the property is and is not, which is a single family home.
So Ellen and I looked at the rear addition, and it was the only issue. There was no zoning problem with that. It was just a building problem that's already been resolved.
No, that's in the process. Well, you can't resolve that. So the work of the prior owner has to be legalized vis-a-vis a permitting process.
That can't happen until the zoning relief is granted for the parking.
Again, that's been in place for over a decade and enjoyed by the predecessor and interest.
So we do have our client holding the bag for work that was done by a predecessor and interest
has already paid a fine related to that and has entered into an agreement with the city
that has provided additional time to bring the property into compliance.
because the city, that side, code enforcement, understands the history of this property and the
context under which our client purchased it and is making good faith efforts to bring it into
compliance. And again, has been there, knows it, it's on their radar. And if they wanted to issue
a violation as to two-family use, they could. But again, that is not before this board today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, the sole reason for RCO opposition, it seems, is some sort of fanciful idea that this is a two-family dwelling, which that property has been fully inspected, and it is not.
And I would just like to add one additional point. There was a near neighbor across the street who was present, and I believe she was in the galley, was going to be in the galley today, who rebutted that it was not multifamily, that it's only my client's brother living in the property, that there aren't hordes of people living there.
as an officer of the court
I will make that representation that that is what
was stated by a near neighbor last night
who is there at least twice a week
and her father who lives there directly across
the street. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Hold on Mr. Chair, please
forgive the interruption but I have a hand up from
Chris Bordelman.
I will allow them to speak.
Mr. Bordelon, please unmute.
Mr. Bordelon.
Hello.
Hi, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Christopher Bordelon.
C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R.
Bordelon. B-O-R-D-E-L-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you please turn your video on and start your testing?
Hello?
They're coming back in as a panelist.
okay uh start video hello hi could you please turn on your video
thank you and start your testimony sir are you a neighbor uh no um i am a uh i'm a member of
i'm a board member of the rco that dealt with this please proceed with your testimony yes so
I wanted to clarify a couple of things about what was stated about the RCO meeting last night.
For one thing, I don't know that it came through in the letter. Now, the letter, as you know,
had to be prepared like very quickly because the meeting took place last night.
I was not the one who prepared it, but I did see that it was not mentioned in the letter that there were four near neighbors who appeared last night.
I was not the one who prepared it, but I did see that it was not mentioned in the
Three of them voted against a variance.
They stated that they, from what they saw, the statements by the applicant at the meeting that only one person lives at the house were incorrect.
They said that at least four people live at the house.
There was one near neighbor who appeared, who voted for a variance.
that that person is actually not the person who was referred to in the testimony by Mr. Cook
that was a person who the person that Mr. Cook is referring to was translating for
she said that she did not live at the property across the street and that the person who did
did not know how many people were there he said he didn't think it was too many
that's all he said so chris why don't we do this where do you stand on this project
i would not uh i would oppose the variance um you would oppose a variance for parking in front
of the house that's correct okay thank you very much for taking the time to call so we appreciate
it mr chair i just need to object to his entire testimony he's talking about how many people live
in a house okay we're here to talk about legalizing a car okay okay vernon let me thank you is there
anyone else in the virtual audience no further hands mr chair our planning commission thank you
chairman and board members good afternoon david fecto with the city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa2 residential single family zoning at this
location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 1978 and a council supported map change
an owner appears to have built accessory parking in an unlicensed addition without the benefit of
permits the proposed legalization of accessory parking in the required front yard will not injure
the use of adjacent property the city planning commission recommends the board grant a reposed
variance so mi 2025 002 159 830 avon road i vote yes with proviso single household living to remain
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ryan, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Feynman
so that's MI 2024 004752 1923 East Allegheny Avenue Mr. Feynman yes thank you very much
Counsel, could you, how are we, we're ready to go?
I think I am.
I'm hoping.
I'm hoping also.
Why don't you start?
Good morning.
As I've indicated, my name is Mark Feynman, and I represent the property owner, Demma Realty.
So, Mr. Feynman, I think we would, why don't you do this?
Why don't you show us your documents?
That's what we need you to do.
We already had that testimony of who you represent.
excuse me sir do you see that green uh share screen button at the bottom of your zoom i do
and i'm clicking on that now and then it will ask you just to share your entire screen click
on that button and then it should pop up and i'm doing that and for some reason it's not
when you click the uh green button do another window pop open for you yes
and do what says like share window it says share desktop which is documents
yeah and you have your documents open correct that is correct yes
Yeah, and you have your documents open, correct?
That is correct, yes.
Okay, can you click on that share desktop?
I click on that and then it says allow Zoom Workplace to share your screen.
Open system settings.
Oh, because this is computer.
Is this a Mac or?
um okay um i think i i hate to tell you this but we're gonna have to continue the case