immediate area. Initially, they refused. They did not want to think about, you know, changing the
density. We talked yesterday, and then they came back and said, fine, well, we want to reduce it
from six to four. But really, what we asked for initially was we were really interested in
possibly supporting the variance for three units. No rooftop deck and no curve cut with parking
in the front of the unit. So I just wanted to put that on the record. I had also asked that we
push back a meeting for a few weeks so I'd have an opportunity to present my community members
with new plans. This one too? This one you want to push back? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you
for your your testimony um thank you is there anyone else in the virtual news
chair we have mr daniel tucker mr tucker please unmute yourself or wait for the chair
all right mr tucker could you state your name and spell please for the court reporter
yes this is daniel tucker d-a-n-i-e-l-t-u-c-k-e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and are you a neighbor i'm a i'm a direct neighbor
to this uh vacant vacant property i live at 433 north 41st street okay and um and i have to say
over the course of the nine years that i've lived uh next to this vacant lot it has never been
maintained consistently um in fact uh i have a photo i'm happy to screen share with you right
now that i took last night even even to this day the sign uh that mr knockamson um displayed being
um you know uh displayed with the with this the notice for this meeting is completely covered in
four foot tall weeds. So it's a consistent pattern of negligence. And often when neighbors have
made attempts to call popular development, we've never received any phone call back. And I should
state, in addition to this variance being rejected in 2017 by your committee, this property also has
over 40 L&I violations due to its negligent property management. So it's consistently
four to six feet tall weeds and no responsiveness from the owners. Okay. It's hard. So I'll just
conclude by saying it's hard for us to imagine. We understand that they can build a single family
property on the lot and they're entitled to do it, but it's hard for us to imagine them
maintaining um any anything you know that they place on that property because of their persistent
10 years of of uh negligence of the of the empty lot mr tucker thank you for your time and effort
calling in is there anyone else in the virtual audience i see no other hands chair okay so i'm
going to do a resumptive hearing for this one too mr knockamson yes um and what we'll do is we'll
shoot for the same date is that possible uh i leave that yeah i'm talking to it
lakisha we can do the same date yes chair and we'll do the same thing the planning
commission will wait before they make your comments all right thank you thank you we're
going to move on to number nine mi 2022 007 157 1011 mellon street mr knockamson is the attorney
attorney, letter of support from the 14th Democratic Executive Committee, RCO, with
provisos. Mr. Nockmson, could, just for the record, state your name, please?
Yes, Alan Nockmson. And could you identify your client in relationship to this project? Yes,
it's Sancher LLC, and in a virtual audience, it's Michael Ollidad. Okay. Our vice chair has just a
few questions. Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to
weigh in the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibit needed to proceed with this case five
days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please
please proceed sorry um all right so let me share my screen
proceed. Sorry.
i believe this hopefully it's a little more straightforward uh 10 11 mellon streets uh
in in our presentation we will review the notice of refusal the correspondence from the 14th uh
Ward Democratic Executive Committee where we have their support. Nearby properties with the
multifamily history, our maps of the area, photographs of the property, sample photographs,
our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal, our DTIP property
showing that Sandra LLC is the owner of the property, and our certificate tax clearance.
In the virtual audience is Michael Ali Dodd, one of its members.
Notice a refusal here.
We're looking to put four dwelling units here, and because it's an RSA-5 property, we have a use refusal.
We also have some refusals regarding dimensions as well.
Again, we met with the community at a well-attended meeting.
And we agreed to a proviso where we'll have a trash room for storage inside the building.
So trash will be stored inside.
And we will also agree to commercial trash pickup.
So those would be the two provisos.
We also signed a separate community benefits agreement with the group.
That has nothing to do with it.
But, you know, it's really important not just to have these stipulations with the zoning permit,
but also to have it as an enforceable written agreement uh nearby properties with multi-family
history again not a character to have a multi-family in this part of the neighborhood
and i believe that's why the neighborhood supported this project uh maps of the area
this is an rsa five three by property uh you know maps up from a google map perspective
photographs of the property this is a vacant lot has been a vacant lot for a long period of time
since as far back as a week ago as 2007 before uh proof of you know the posting of this property
for today's hearing melon street to the right of the property melon street to the left of the
property sample photographs again i always like to show photographs of what you know the structure
inside is going to look like um and then our site plan um for this property breakfast side
they you know the community appreciated that uh four units again something that the community
appreciated uh i will uh you know point out the fact that we have a trash room on the first floor
where each of the unit occupants will be able to use.
And there is, you know, commercial trash day as well.
So, again, that's a proviso that we would agree to.
And then just our RCO meeting notice,
we met on April 13th at 6 p.m.,
73 addresses were notified of that.
Those addresses are here.
proof of mailing to those addresses
or application for appeal that we filed
on behalf of Sanituary LLC
or deeds of the property,
showing the Sanituary LLC as the owner of this property
and our certificate of tax claimants.
With that being said, I would ask that
Mr. Ali Dodd virtually raise his hand.
Chair, could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court reporter?
Mr. Ali Dodd, can you raise your virtual hand, please?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Mr. Nockamson, you're an officer of the court.
We will take your testimony.
All right, thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Diane Monroe.
Ms. Monroe, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Ms. Monroe.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Diane Monroe, D-I-A-N-E, Monroe, M-O-N-R-O-E.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And you're from the RCL, the 14th Democratic Award?
Yes, I am the chair. And we did hold a open community meeting. It was one of our first ones since the pandemic. We have been doing them by Zoom.
Yes, I am the chair.
And we did.
Even though we had the provisos there, the applicant agreed to put those provisos in a CBA along with another requirement that we wanted in a CBA.
Now, the only issue is I have not received the final agreed copy with both signatures of the CBN.
And I did email them this morning relating to that, and they have not responded.
so i don't know miss monroe miss monroe we we don't get in and for we don't do the cbas
at the zoning board we're looking at the property i hear and we and we and we know your provisos
and your provisos will go into if we should approve it yeah okay i i i hear i i hear what
you're saying and i don't like to be in this type of position and this is the first time
of the many years we have been dealing um with this type of projects to be placed in this type
of position i i maybe it's a lesson learned don't do anything until you get the signed documents
I hear what you're saying. It's something that we trusted. I put trust now, but I still like to, you know, I have learned a lesson.
Now, there's something else that I want the board to realize.
We had everything rezoned years ago.
And that block, which is an empty block, and has been, I always call it barren land for years, years.
And our approval of this project is a one-time basis, and I hope that the ZBA will have a clear understanding.
It's not something that we're getting clear, like you can do, put multifamilies on that block.
Well, Ms. Monroe, we look at each case separately.
No, it's a one-time basic, pardon me, pardon me?
I said, I hear what you're saying.
Ms. Monroe?
Ms. Monroe?
Ms. Monroe, please unmute yourself.
I just did, thank you.
All right.
Right. So, as long as you have the understanding, it's only a one-time basis.
As I said before, we look at each case separately when it comes through. Okay?
Can Mr. Chair, to respond to the CBA, we electronically sent the CBA to be signed by
Mr. Monroe and my clients. We had a lot of hearings today, so obviously I didn't have the
time to look at it. I will make sure that that CBA is signed. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Hi, Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia
City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing RSA 5 single-family zoning on this block. This is a vacant, cleared lot with no evidence of
unusual physical constraints. We're typically looking for evidence that a variance is necessary
to enable the viable economic use of the property because of some kind of constraint. We don't
believe the applicant has met the burden of demonstrating this hardship, and therefore we
recommend that the board deny the variances. Thank you. MI 2022-007-157-1011 Mellon Street.
I vote yes. Interior trash storage, commercial trash pickup, maximum three units.
three units. Thomas Hallman, my vote is yes with provisos. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you. Thank you. I'll see you shortly,
number 10 mi2023 000137 500 poplar street parcel a
letter of support from northern liberties neighbors association meredith ferlinger is the attorney
miss ferlinger is coming back in as a panelist now chair
Okay. Counsel, you've already been sworn. Just state your name for the record.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R. Could you identify your clients and their relationship
to the property? Certainly. My clients are Jenna Nagler and Steve Nemroff, and they are the new
owners of the property. Okay. And our vice chair has a few questions. Good afternoon, Counsel.
Good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do agree to waive the reading and I do agree to stipulate to the accuracy
with the caveat that our presentation today will be based on a difference of interpretation that
we had with L and I. Understood. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? We did, yes. Thank you.
please proceed and share your screen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. As I mentioned,
my clients are Jenna Nagler and Steve Nemeroff, who should be on the virtual Zoom today.
Jen and Steve purchased this property just over a year ago to build their new single-family home.
As shown on the refusal, let me zoom out a little bit, you'll note that the address is both listed
as 500 Poplar Street, Parcel A, as well as 880 North 5th Street with the OPA number. We also have
our architect, Alex Duller, with FUSA Designs, in case there's any specific questions related to
the proposed home. As I mentioned, this proposal is for Jenna and Steve's new single-family home.
The case today stems from several differences in interpretation that we had with L&I, and those disputed interpretations ultimately led to two refusals from which we are seeking relief from today.
We did receive a letter of support from Northern Liberties, which is also in your packet at Exhibit 17.
Now, to orient you to this property first, you'll note that this property sits on Poplar Street right at the corner of North 5th Street. You can see it's circled and highlighted here.
The property itself is zoned RSA 5, which is noted on the exhibit map at Exhibit 11.
And just for some additional context, you'll see some photos here at Exhibit 17. This is currently a vacant corner lot that adjoins a row of single family homes on Poplar Street.
You'll also take note in this photo that many of these homes on Poplar Street benefit from a front parking spot driveway condition.
As we move towards the rear again this is just looking further up Poplar. This is across the street. And as we move towards the rear here.
You'll see that this, the rear of this property sits along a cul-de-sac of sorts that provides additional parking for you know some of the immediate neighbors here.
Now, prior to their purchase, this property was one combined lot of over 3,000 square feet.
The prior owner of the property subdivided this corner piece back in 2021, which you'll see on the subdivision plan at Exhibit 5, as well as on the subdivision deed that I included in the packet.
Now, for a reason that currently evades us, the Office of Property Assessment has yet to reflect the subdivision in their system, which is why the refusal was issued under that provisional 500 Poplar Parcel A with reference to the new OPA account number.
Now, following the subdivision, the design team submitted and secured a zoning permit for a new single-family home, which you'll see here at Exhibit 7.
Now, when Jenna and Steve purchased the property following issuance of this permit, they applied for a new zoning permit to reflect one minor change, which is the addition of a rear two-car garage to be accessed from that rear cul-de-sac area.
Now, when Jenna and Steve purchased the property following issuance of this permit,
Now, other than the addition of the parking, there were no other substantive changes to the project that had been previously approved.
There are floor plans in the packet at Exhibit 10, and I will show you just the expected rendering here at Exhibit 9.
Now, regarding the refusals, as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, both of these refusals stem from a difference in code interpretation.
These interpretation challenges stem from several extremely unique property conditions that led to the hardships being presented to the board today.
Now, starting first with the refusal for this insufficient front setback, you'll see that this refusal notes a front setback requirement of 20 feet, which is based on the adjacent lot.
This particular refusal is based on code section table 14701-1, note 5.
Now, that section of the code would essentially require that the distance between the front facade and the front lot line be consistent with the adjoining structure.
For most properties, this is a very straightforward provision to apply.
Simply put, the facade should line up with the property next to it with the goal of uniformity.
However, I will refer you back to our zoning plan, where you will see that the property line along this property and up Poplar Street is slanted.
So technically speaking, the front facade of the adjoining structure, which you'll see noted here, is 20 feet from its front lot line.
however to strictly comply with the code that would mean that jenna and steve's home would
also have to set back 20 feet despite this uneven lot line condition now of course the intent of
this code section is to have a uniform facade so setting their home back 20 feet would probably