Can you hear me?
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I certainly do. Proceed.
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and fellow board members.
As of this time, Council Member Johnson does join the near neighbors as well as the coordinating RCO in their opposition to the appeal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And again, here's a copy of the by-rate rendering, which, again, doesn't really comport with either hype.
Okay, so David, you know, there's been a lot of issues raised.
i'm going to take this and sit with the in an executive session with the board and go over it
all and then we'll get back to you next wednesday at two o'clock okay okay and again we're willing
to make you know some of the changes to protect the privacy of the property owner to the north
Thank you.
We appreciate it.
All right.
Number seven, MI 2022, 004-562-1164 South 18th Street, Peel Against Hell and I.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
Sir, Mr. DeMarco has been promoted to panelists.
He will be joining us shortly.
good afternoon mr chairman your name state your name and spell for the court report
richard demarco uh d-e-m-a-r-c-o right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
We will do that today, one page, as we discussed via email. Thank you.
Yeah, and thank you, Hillary, for the suggestion. That's probably the best way to accomplish this.
So I'll just briefly explain why we're clearly entitled to the admin review.
The examiner that denied it thought that the property was increasing in size and thought that we were relocating lot nines.
were not. The problem is the original plan that was formed the basis for the zoning format
showed a rectangular property. You see it right here. And that is incorrect. The deed is not
incorrect. This plan was. It was an architectural error on the original plan. This is the correct.
You see, there's one. It's trapezoidal and not a complete rectangle. And our property,
the correct property is actually smaller. And the examiner denied the administrative review
because he thought the property was growing when in fact it's actually shrinking. And as is the
building. This board granted this multifamily structure a couple of years ago. And all that
we are doing is correcting the lot lines to show the correct line. There's no change in the actual
property itself. The property is legal and correct. The deed is correct. But these plans
that were accompanied the original permit are incorrect. As you can see, the back is a full
rectangle when, in fact, it should be this way. It should be a slight diagonal on the exterior
lot line. Otherwise, everything is completely identical. We just have to make sure the zoning
permanent plans are correct. And we probably should have been granted this, but we had to
take the appeal to you. And again, Len looked at it and understood the issue. There's otherwise
no change at all. It's just to have the correct lot line on the exterior. So let me just have
Casey Lafferty raise his hand so he can adopt my testimony.
Mr. Lafferty has been allowed to speak, sir.
Hi, Casey.
Casey, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Casey Lafferty, C-A-S-E-Y-L-A-F-F-E-R-T-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Casey, did you hear my factual summary and testimony?
And is it true and accurate?
And can you adopt it as your own testimony?
And is it in fact correct that it's the same exact building, but you have to have the correct lot lines and the original architect made the mistake on the original plan?
Correct.
And that was not your architect.
You bought it from a prior owner, correct?
Correct.
All right.
and your architect has done the correct drawing right that is correct that's harman deutch that's
the on your screen all right questions questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
hillary do we have do we do we need planning in the uh virtual audience um uh no uh no to planning
Sure, it's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
I'm at 2016 Spruce, Philadelphia.
I represent Gershon Seymour, who is the principal of 44 West Allegheny, LLC.
Our board secretary has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Counsel.
Do you agree to waive the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Did you email the exhibits and all the documents as required, such as the proof of ownership, tax clearance, copy of refusal or referral, pictures and drawings of the property, 5Bs, and advance to this hearing?
Did you meet with the RCO? Do you have a letter?
All of that, but the letter. They just haven't forwarded it over yet, for whatever reason. We have asked.
All right. You can proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
okay mr chair members of the board one two three four west allegheny uh this is a legalization of
a pre-existing five family dwelling oh my when my client purchased this a couple years ago it was
in fact a five uh family dwelling we did some digging and it turned out that it was zoned
and know you all do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir proceed counsel thank you mr chair mr seymour did you hear my presentation to the board
today i did and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes yes and do you adopt
it as your own testimony i do thank you i have nothing further mr chair questions from the board
no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no further hands mr chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing rm1 multi-family residential zoning at this location
the property only allows two units by right and has already received permits for four units twice
the allowed density that said the applicant has demonstrated the fifth unit is an existing
condition that they are legalizing accordingly the planning commission recommends the board
grant the variance. Thank you. Hiller, I understand we want to hold this vote until if we can see if
we can get something from the RCO. Am I correct? Correct. Vern, maybe we should do since Ben a
little bit, just give them two weeks and then we'll vote if we haven't gotten the letter by then.
Is that okay? Two weeks from today, I can come back? Yes. You don't have to come back. We would
just vote. We closed the record except for the RCO letter. And if we don't get it, we'll just
vote without it and you'll vote you'll just put it on the vote list yes yes thank you thank you
very much mr chair thanks thank you burn yep okay all right number nine mi 2022
zero zero three one six five fifty three sixty four jackson street number three
letter of non-opposition from wissa hit wissa no means civic association
no meeting was held but notices with rco information was sent out the rco has received
no feedback and is backing this program project good afternoon mr chair members of the board
jared klein j-a-r-e-d last name is k-l-e-i-n from blank rome 130 north 18th street in philadelphia
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, I represent New Cortland, which is the owner and operator of the subject property.
And our board secretary has a few questions.
Certainly.
Keish?
if if he is unable i can say that i do stipulate to the accuracy of the reading and i supplied all
the materials five days in advance with a letter from the rco uh share your screen thank you very
much mr chair so 5364 jackson street uh is an existing premises that's used for senior
housing. And this application seeks an addition to the existing building to add an additional 48
senior living residential units to the existing facility. So there are 42 units there now,
48 being added, total of 90. We receive refusals for parking minimums at the height of the facility
and the multifamily use. And just to contextualize this for the board, we're really matching
existing conditions at the site. So the height refusal and the parking are in context to the
operation as it currently sits now. Just to orient the board as to where we are, this is the subject
site here. The addition is going to be to the north of the existing facility. It is zoned RSA 3,
just as just about everything around it is so the existing multifamily use is there but is
not entirely consistent with the RSA3 zoning. Photos of posting of the zoning notices at
at the property and then you can see this is the existing site as it sits today
on Jackson Street here as it comes across and this is the surrounding area just to give the
board a sense of the types of structures that are around the existing building.
The plan, as I said, is to make connections to the existing building at floors three through
six, which will result in the 48 one-bedroom senior housing units.
which will result in the 48 one-bedroom senior housing units.
There's going to be a total of 31 new parking spaces that are going to be installed.
Right now, there's an existing 24 spaces there.
So as part of the improvements, we'll be redesigning the current surface parking
for a net increase of seven spaces above what's there now for a total of 31.
on. And these are the elevations of the proposed structure to give the board a sense. Each of these
units on each of the floors are going to have 16 single-bedroom units on each floor. Each floor
will also have a common lounge area and a trash room. And the ground floor of the new addition
is going to have 19 parking spaces, a trash room that will be shared throughout the building,
and an egress stair tower. There is also a management office that is proposed for the
third floor to handle the administration of the building itself. As the chair mentioned as I was
coming into the hearing, we did have a conversation with Wissanowing Civic. They gave us their letter
of non-opposition. They declined to meet with us, as their letter says, not for lack of us asking,
but the RCO told us to send out letters, and they would collect responses, and they did so,
and they did not receive any notes of opposition.
And I won't take the board through it now, but my packet also includes the tax clearance,
the deed and a copy of the letter that was mailed out to the community members uh i understand the
board has a long agenda today so i'll be brief if i could just ask john unger to raise his virtual
hand so that you might adopt my testimony and then i can address any questions the board may have
i could you state your name and spell it for the court report john unger j-o-h-n-u-n-g-a-r
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do proceed
counsel john did you have an opportunity to hear my presentation this afternoon yes i did and was
it true and correct and do you adopt it as your own as if you'd be given the chance to testify
yourself yes i do thank you very much i don't have anything further at this time mr chair we're happy
to answer questions sure questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the
virtual audience i see no further hands good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa three single family
detached housing at this location however the proposal advances the comprehensive plan's goals
providing diverse housing options at diverse price points accordingly the planning commission
recommends the board grant for variances thank you peter mi 2022 003 165 5364 jackson street
number three i vote yes thomas hollum my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes
thank you very much have a good afternoon number 10 mi2022 004-767-601 gall street
daniel reisman reisman is the attorney this is a reconcession reconsideration hearing
um fishtown fishtown neighbors support this
Mr. Reisman has been promoted to Panama, sir.
He'll be joined shortly.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Daniel Reisman, R-E-I-S-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
My clients are Jonathan and Nicolette Dubrow.
They are the owners of the property.
Our board secretary has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading and refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email the exhibits and all of the documents as required, such as the proof of ownership, tax clearance, copy of refusal, or referral?
Yes. Pictures and drawings within five days of disappearing of the property. And did you
Pictures and drawings within five days of...
have a meeting with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes to everything. Okay, great. You can
proceed and share your screen. Okay, thank you. Can you see my screen? Yes. Yes. So again, my name
is Dan Reisman. I'm here with my clients, the owners of the property, Jonathan and Nicolette
Dubrow. Our architects are also here, John Weckerly and Sal Guerrero of Boxwood Architects.
I'm showing on the screen our exhibit package, Exhibits A1 through 11. I'm not going to go
through each one, but just to summarize, they include photos. They include plans. Exhibit A2
includes, as mentioned, the letters in support from the Fishtown Neighbors Association. It also
includes a letter in support from the immediately adjoining property owner um in exhibit a4 are the
plans those include a revised plan that are the basis for the motion for reconsideration
i previously provided this to hillary emerson emerson council for the board she told me that
in her opinion because the plans reduce the scope of the requested relief it's appropriate for them
to be heard directly by the zoning board. As you alluded to, Mr. Chair, this is a motion
for reconsideration. The prior hearing was on May 18th of 2022. My clients live in the neighborhood
half a block away. They've lived there for the past 13 years. They've purchased the property
and under their proposal, they will construct a single family, a new single family home at the
property. The home itself is permitted as of right under the code. It complies with all setback
requirements, all dimensional requirements, and the use is permitted as of right. As discussed at
the May 18th hearing, the original proposal, the only refusal related to two issues. One is I'm
showing you a photo and the property is right here where my cursor is. One is the original proposal
was for the widening of the curb cut and number two for the accommodation of two parked cars
on the property in the front of the property the board at the hearing expressed concerns