Ms. Furlier I just checked
for some reason we didn't get the email
if you wouldn't mind
from the RCO if you wouldn't mind forwarding
that to us that would be great
there's been some emails that have not been going through lately
including today
so this may have been one that for some reason
just didn't come through
absolutely no problem I'll do that right now
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands
Hilary, you're speaking with L&I will not affect planning, right? Let planning take a position today?
Yes, planning can take a position. I mean, unless they want to defer, but I don't think it's up to them.
Planning?
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sorry, I didn't realize you were ready for me.
Okay, actually, I am going to be on the path of the planning commission, Sarah Bond.
I am going to be deferring testimony today. It was my understanding that there might have been an issue with mixed income bonuses here, but Hillary didn't mention it. So maybe that is not the case. Either way, just given the information today, I don't want to make an uneducated testimony. So I am going to withhold.
All right. Thank you.
Just to follow up on that, it was my understanding, it wasn't the bonuses, but there was a question about whether the overlay should have applied. That was the question I just received today.
Oh, that's correct, Hilary. Yeah, that is correct.
So that was not brought to my attention. I would very much like the opportunity to address that because this was previously approved prior to the overlay and four additional units would not trigger a re-review of the units that had already been approved. So we can certainly discuss that offline, but I'm not sure.
Yeah, no, absolutely. Absolutely. That was just brought to my attention this afternoon.
so okay all right all right so so we're going to hold the vote on this um the records closed
except for hillary and murderous responses and then planning commission does that sound okay
yes that is fine all right thank you thank you very much oh mr chairman i'm sorry but you didn't
take any any uh questions from the audience i don't think i did i thought i said questions
or from the virtual audience, no?
I did.
You stated that there were no fans at the time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Number eight.
MI 2023-007-283-2644 Buckeya Street.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Bridesburg Community Action Alliance, and Councilmember Driscoll has taken a position of non-opposition per email to Sean.
And Councilmember Driscoll has taken a position of non-opposition per an email to Sean Ward.
Can we hear from Sean?
There we go.
I'm here, Mr. Chairman.
There you go, Mr. Ward.
Took a little while to log in to join his panelists, but I'm here.
That's okay.
Just state your name for the stenographer, please, and spell it.
Yeah, my name is Sean, S-H-A-W-N, last name Ward, W-A-R-D, attorney for the applicant.
David, D-A-V-I-D, Schepansky.
Let me spell that. S-Z-C-Z-E-P-A-N-S-K-I for 2644 Buckeyes Street.
He is in the virtual audience and will raise his hand to be recognized at the appropriate time.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I most certainly do.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you, Mr. Ward.
Good afternoon, counsel.
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards
accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, I have. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, Mr. Chair, can everybody see my screen?
Yes. Excellent. I've submitted my typical exhibit packet for
David Schapansky at 2644 Buckeyes Street, that calendar number ending 7283.
This is an application.
A1 is the notice of refusal.
It's an application for a permit for a relocation of lot lines to transfer an existing accessory garage from 2638-40 Buckeyes,
which is on the corner, to his parcel at 2644 Buckeyes Street, which is known as Parcel B.
There was one refusal issued for no more than one principal building allowed per lot in RSA 5.
And I submit that that is probably due to the size of the freestanding accessory garage.
Accordingly, we seek a dimensional variance for that today.
A2 is the application of appeal.
A3, the project information form.
A4 is proof of ownership.
There was a settlement agreement between the parties due to some litigation, which I was not involved in.
However, it does include the sale of the property. A5 is Mr. Schepansky's tax clearance proof.
A6 is an archive plot plan. A7, an atlas plot plan.
A8 is the lot line relocation survey plan approved by the survey district.
A-9 are my photographs.
At the time I submitted the exhibit packet, the RCO letter from Bridesburg was not attached, however it is attached at this point.
A-11, a district council letter from Councilman Driscoll.
I do have an email from Tom Forkin, his chief of staff today, indicating that as an officer of the court, I am free to express to the board their non-opposition to the application in light of Bridesburg's support letter.
uh briefly the only relevant zoning here i could find was uh nothing for 2644 it's an existing
single family dwelling and uh there was a permit for 2638-40 with the vacant garage it was a
former grocery store on the corner with a single family dwelling a13 is the zoning map a14 is the
aerial photo. There is no commercial use proposed for the accessory garage. It's for residential
uses only. The applicant did express to the community that he proposes a new roof on the
garage, new garage doors, and he was going to replace the sidewalk and curb cut apron
at the front of the structure. So basically, we have the notice of refusal,
the application of appeal the project information form attached my transmittal letter to the board
a copy of the settlement agreement including uh the purchase from the defendant for
my client for the garage listed as exhibit a on the agreement uh here is a the survey plan as
approved by the survey district i have a better cut of that i will run you through that real quick
however that was signed electronically by the parties
However, that was signed electronically by the parties.
we have proof of tax
We have proof of tax compliance through this year, even though they're not due till March.
And then we have a archive copy of a site plan.
You can see the existing garage at 2438-40.
It was a store in the front with a single family dwelling included.
So with regard to the site, the Atlas maps, you can see the 2830-202638-40 at the rear.
There was a single freestanding garage.
My client's property is located two properties in from the corner of Thompson Street.
However, it does abut the garage in the back rear of the property.
Again, the site plan, proof of posting.
Here are some Google street photos of the subject premises.
The property with the colored brick, brown, is the subject property, Mr. Schapansky's.
Then we have, this is the corner property, 2438-40.
To the right is the garage in question, which would be relocated at lot lines for to consolidate that with Mr. Schapansky's property.
Again, another view of Mr. Schapansky's property looking at Buckeye Street.
Here is a Google angle photo.
You can see the garage is located right here where my cursor is pointing and Mr. Schapansky's property.
is over here, and they attach at the rear.
We have a copy of the letter from Bridesburg Community Action Alliance, dated March 6th.
There was a vote taken at the meeting, and all 14 community members, including the board members,
voted to approve the project.
And then we have the zoning archive documents, as previously mentioned.
um then we have let me see if i can do this
is the board still saying uh the prizeberg letter now okay very good uh excellent then we have uh
the email from uh thomas forkin uh councilman driscoll's chief of staff uh stance uh savinski
was unavailable uh and so he indicated as an officer of the court i can make the representation
that there's no objection from the councilman's office.
We have a copy of the notice to the neighbors.
We have a copy of the address list, which included the subject property 2644 Buckeyes,
as well as the certificate of mailing.
So based upon the foregoing, we submit that there be no adverse impact upon the community.
This is an existing freestanding one-story garage.
However, it does, once consolidated with the new parcel, I guess constitute two principal structures, even though it's an accessory structure for the existing single-family home.
At this point in time, I would ask that Dave Schepansky, if you haven't raised your hand already, that he be recognized to verify and adopt.
dave shepansky has been allowed to speak sir could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer david sapansky d-a-v-i-d-s-z-c-z-e-p-a-n-s-k-i do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel
Dave have you heard my representations to the board today I have and are they true and correct
to the best your knowledge information and belief they are and do you adopt them as your own
testimony I do that is all I have at this point Mr. Chair unless there's any questions from the
board questions from the board no Mr. Chairman questions or comments from our attorney Hillary
or Emerson? Not at this time. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands. Planning Commission.
Thank you Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 residential single-family zoning.
The proposed use and dimensions of accessory parking is consistent with documented prior
use of this property. Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant
the variance. Thank you. MI 2023-007-283-26...
MI 2023-007-283-2644 Buckeye Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Nell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
See you at 3.30.
Okay, thank you.
Number nine, MI 2023-001-265-2203 North Natrona Street.
This is a resumptive hearing.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Alan Nockamson is coming in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name
Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Nackamson, this is a resumptive hearing.
We're going to start with updates from you, updates from the RCO.
We'll take public testimony, and then we'll vote.
All right.
My office submitted an updated presentation packet.
I don't know if you received it, but I'm glad to say we have a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, Strawberry Mansion CDC.
So this is an RM1 property where we're seeking the allowable amount of units. Dimensionally, it's all good with the exception of this. There's an overlay which, you know, for certain size streets only allow for 25 feet in height for building height.
And that's where we run afoul of the Philadelphia zoning code, where we're asking to put a three story structure there.
The entire block is three stories on our side. So we met with with the coordinating RCO, not once, not twice, but three times.
And I think the third time was a charm. And that's how we got their letter of support.
So if this board feels so inclined, and I can share my screen if you want to see what it looks like, the refusals, and even a letter of support, if you need be.
But if this board feels so inclined to grant our zoning appeal, I would ask for two provisos.
Not sure if one of them is necessary.
I would defer to Ms. Emerson, but we have an updated refusal dated October 13th of 2023.
We received authorization from the ZBA to amend our project to include a porch at the request of the community, but we have an amended refusal dated that date.
So that would be proviso one, but I would defer to Ms. Emerson whether that's necessary.
And then the second proviso would be we updated our plans even after that time at the request of the community.
So we would ask for a proviso for revised plans where you have a proviso form with the revised site plan.
Thank you. Are there representatives from the RCO here?
I'll go in the car.
Kerbey Mansion has been allowed to speak.
Okay. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenography?
Hi, my name is Bonita Cummings. I am one of the affected RCOs.
I'm not the coordinating RACO.
Ms. Cummings, could you spell your name for the court stenographer as a matter?
It's B as in boy, O-N-I-T-A, Cummings, C-U-M-M-I-N-G-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The only concern that Strawberry Mansion community concern has with the revisions is that the
um overlay speaks about porches being equal in height to from new development and it appears to
me and and just from what they showed us as a revised plan that the porch really still is not
the height of the neighboring porches so the coordinating rvco did uh decide to uh give a
letter of support but i did have a concern that i raised regarding whether or not um they that
development is actually uh going to be to the to the requirements um spoken to in the zone in the
zoning code so that was a concern okay all right thank you for taking the time to call us let me
All right. Thank you for taking the time to call us. Let me see if the coordinating RCO is present. Coordinating RCO.
shifted as a coordinating