on it and one does not have the documents on it.
Can you email it to yourself and open it on the other screen?
I'm sorry, this is Tanya. Mr. Yanoff?
Yes, ma'am. Do you have an architect? Would it be Rustin?
Ryan Solomeo is supposed to be on this call. I don't know that he is.
Okay, because I see Rustin's hand up. I thought he was assisting you maybe.
Well, he might be. He might be able to help us on this. He may be from Ryan's office.
Jason, can you unmute Mr. Oler so we can see if he's a part of this project to assist?
Hi there. Yes, I am on and able to share my screen of the presentation.
thank you thank you tanya rustin please spell your full name i'll swear you in
i'm sorry chair give me one minute let us promote him sure thank you
he has been promoted
All right, Rustin Ohler, R-U-S-T-I-N, last name O-H-L-E-R.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Yanov, Mr. Ohler will share his exhibits and you can talk us through it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, this document is an overall view of the area in question, which was prepared.
you see view number five is the actual property itself the remaining pictures are the surrounding
area of the property all of which are similar in use as as to the proposed use of this particular
property russ can you help us with this this is this is a this is a view of the property uh
indicating the rear the rear yard depth where the issue is with respect to this the gray area is
the property in question 1920 altar street which is as as the remaining properties are a single
family dwelling um so these are just the floor plans of the property showing what's happening
uh inside as michael had mentioned our client had purchased it uh half constructed in this condition
and our office was the one that noticed the discrepancy
that the property by the prior owner was built slightly larger.
But as you can see from this, it's in line with the adjacent properties.
The rear yard is basically the issue here?
Correct.
We meet the rear yard depth requirement.
The rear yard depth requirement is nine feet,
but the building is slightly over by, I think, under a foot.
the allowable block coverage it's roughly if i may it's roughly one foot over the allowable
occupied area okay all right that makes it easy for us all right um okay any questions from the
board no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i'll answer this time mr chair thank you planning commission good morning chair
this property peter peter yep just uh when you every time you come on unfortunately just have
every time you come on unfortunately just have to give us your name you don't have to spell it
to give us your name you don't have to spell it just say who you are
just say who you are yeah peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
we feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship and that the request is de minimis
accordingly we support the granting of the variance thank you mi 2021-002
32-377-1920 Alters Street. My vote is yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Professor Plaza,
my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Tanya and or Pauline, where are we with Miss Walls?
Is it okay if we ask her? I sent information but I'm not sure if she was able to access it.
Okay, we'll move on. We'll keep moving on. You'll let us know. Thank you.
Case number 7, MI 2021-001471, 22 North St. Bernard Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney of record.
44th Democratic Ward RCO supports this application.
has been promoted to panelists sir thank you good morning mr jinn please identify yourself
i'll swear you in yes good morning zen jen z-h-e-n-j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite
1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the applicant please swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed mr ms tuneri has questions for
you good morning do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing including
did i say photos and or plans and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes, to all questions.
Thank you, and you may proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this matter.
This is an application for a new construction at this location.
We have submitted previously copies of the refusal, RCO letter in support, photos, plans, tax clearance, and related documentation.
I want to point out that the refusal is for a single item, and that is for the use itself.
My client is proposing a duplex at this location as part of a new construction.
To better understand why he's going to propose this, we have to understand that while the block itself is zone RSA 5,
this particular block has a lot of multifamily already in existence, and this lot has been vacant quite a long time.
And it's actually sandwiched between what seems to be a daycare use and a multifamily.
Because of this situation, because the 50th Street side are mostly duplexes as well, the community really didn't have any objection to the proposed use.
You can even see in the photograph the two mailboxes of one of the properties right next to the lot in question.
So the one thing the community asked for is that because the block has mostly front porches, that we would incorporate a front porch into the design in a brick facade, both of which my client agrees to.
However, neither change would require stem plants, I would think, because they do not trigger any additional refusals.
We are within all dimensional requirements of the property in our design.
So in that, in vain of that, when we redid the facade drawings, we have now incorporated a
drawing of the porch, which my client will definitely incorporate into the final application
designs. But again, there are no dimensional refusals here. The addition of a porch also
does not trigger any refusals. It is still purely the use that is the refusal in question here.
In the property design itself, I'm going to zoom in a little further so it's easier to see.
I'm sorry, that might be too much.
So we are putting the living space and kitchen into the lower area of the property, the basement,
and the bedrooms on the first floor.
And that unit also has access directly to the rear yard.
The upper unit will be the second and third floor, and that is a combination of three total bedrooms, and there's a roof deck access for the second unit, both for outside space.
and there's a roof deck access for the second unit, both for outside space as well as for
outside trash storage prior to pickup. So the design itself is pretty simplistic. It's simply
a duplex use, and it will be a new construction. I do also want to point out these are really large
lots. We are leaving a 30-some foot rear yard in order to be consistent with the neighbors. We
So, leaving a large rear yard, so there's plenty of space, open space, with regard to this particular property.
Again, the community supports it.
Their only request is that, one, we make sure to incorporate the front porch, and that we would use some kind of brick facade that would be consistent with what the neighbors have.
My client is here, and I believe he can verify my testimony.
As well, I can redirect to any exhibit the board would like to see again or answer any questions.
So, Mr. Jen, just for clarification, there is no revised plan because the porch will be part of the original plan, right?
The exhibit.
Right.
So the porch itself, adding the porch, not adding the porch does not change any aspect of the refusal.
So it's not something that requires stamp plans.
Thank you.
And your client?
Mr. Sean Thomas should be here with us.
Sean, can you raise your hand?
Then I'm allowed to talk.
Mr. Thomas, please spell your first and last name.
Sean, S-H-A-W-N, Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Jin.
Thank you.
Sean, were you present during my presentation to the Zoning Board?
Have you seen the exhibits I submitted to the Board and also heard my testimony?
Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you. Questions from the Board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I haven't missed her with her hand raised. I will allow her to speak at this time.
Ms. Trun, may you please unmute if you would.
Jason, she's from Xin Jin's office.
okay thank you anyone else like to testify please raise your hand
no further hands sir thank you planning commission
good morning chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
at this location. The applicant's hardship claim is not supported with evidence or unique
physical circumstances or conditions of the property. Having a large property is not a hardship.
City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-001471, 22 North St. Bernard Street, my vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number eight on our list MI 2021-00241726 North 3rd Street.
Mr. Patterson is the attorney of record. A letter of non-opposition was sent in by
Councilman Mark Squilla, and a letter of support was sent in by the Old City District RCO.
Okay, sir. Mr. Patterson has been promoted to panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Patterson. Please spell your full name and I'll square you in.
uh good morning uh ronald patterson p-a-t-t-e-r-s-o-n
claire harrison law firm 1835 market street philadelphia pa 19103 on behalf of the honor
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
uh yes i do thank you mr neri has questions for you good morning do you read away the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy uh yes i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with the
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
required documents.
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, I have. Yes, I did.
Okay, thanks. You may proceed.
Thank you.
So this application regards 26 North 3rd Street, and you see in my photographs it's slightly north of Market Street.
It's this building here, Worcester Building.
It's currently vacant and it was last used as a restaurant.
And I'm showing you here to the right of the property.
There's a little alley here, Worcester Alley.
That's kind of a secret alley.
You drive through and you wind up seeing this.
Anyway, you can see on this little photo here.
So when you drive back to the Verita building, this is what the case is regarding.
It's a small enclosure that was being installed so there could be access to the restaurant that's
there. Otherwise, access to the restaurant would have to go through other uses there.
And there's a better view. So to get to the building, you go down north on 3rd Street,
turn down this alley and come to the rear. You see there's really nothing there that would affect
anyone. The building is secluded in the rear through this alley and the building is on 4th
Street. So I'm trying to find the site plan here. So 3rd Street, this is the little addition where
it's being proposed. So we're here for a refusal on occupied area. The requirement is 75 percent.
existing is 85.7 percent we're proposing that little brick addition enclosure which is about
49 square feet which is an increase of 2.21 occupied area bringing this to 87.9 from
85.7 and that's why we're here we did meet with the old city district to add no objection
if i could uh promote mr joseph de mesquita who's uh the owner and i'll have him testify
so while he's going on here is how you would access to the rear and keep driving
and then you'll finally see this rear addition which where you would it would create a basement
access into the restaurant so it could service the restaurant with supplies and the like rather
than going through the restaurant with supplies and trash. Joe, are you there?
Please raise your hand, Mr. Demiskita, so you may be sworn in.
Yeah, click on the raise your hand button.
uh mr patterson it seems like we're having technical difficulties you being an officer
to court will stipulate your client would have adopted your testimony
i see what about what i would have asked him is there anyone else yep i'm sorry he is available
Oh, perfect.
Sir, please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Yes, my name is Joseph DeMesquita.
That's J-O-S-E-P-H.
Last name, D-E-M-E-S-Q-U-I-T-A.
Sir, do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Thank you.
Hi, Joe.
You've heard my presentation, my testimony. Do you agree that it's true and accurate and you
would adopt it as your own? I do. And you see the the photograph on the screen here? I do.