start at somewhere around here and would have quite an absurd result under the code and would
violate the very intent of this provision now instead to achieve the code intent of providing
a uniform front facade the proposed home is set back eight feet now interestingly this refusal
was not issued when the home was first approved in 2021 the second refusal stems from the proposed
rear parking now the zoning code prohibits accessory parking for single family use unless
it can be accessed by a shared driveway, alley, or rear street. It's a very common code provision
that you likely hear quite often. Now, as you will recall, this property backs up to a unique
cul-de-sac condition off of North 5th Street, which you can see a little bit better here in
this city map. Now, we submit that this cul-de-sac, while not officially on the city plan, is
considered by the city as a dedicated street and therefore does not meet the strict code definition
of an alley or a rear street. The code would define an alley as a common right-of-way
shared by three or more abutting landowners that provide secondary access to lots.
This is certainly shared by three or more landowners. A street, conversely, is defined as
one being confirmed on the city plan, which this is not. As you can see here at Exhibit 12 up on
your screen, this is a printout of the city street map from the city's open map system,
and you'll see that the cul-de-sac area presents somewhat of a quandary as it relates to the street
identification. Now, we did argue to L&I that this parking should be a by-right condition under the
code, and that the ambiguity in defining this rear cul-de-sac area should be weighed in favor
of the landowner. Ellen and I issued the refusal nonetheless. That is why we're seeking relief
today. Now, Jenna and Steve's home is perfectly consistent with the single-family nature of this
area, both in light of the proposed aligned facade and in addition to the rear access parking.
As you saw in many of the photos, the adjoining single-family homes in this area all have parking access from Poplar Street, which was not viable here due to the proximity to the corner, and would also have resulted in a refusal.
and would also have resulted in a refusal. These conditions stem from the unique property shape
These conditions stem from the unique property.
and orientation. We further submit these conditions are not true deviations from the
requirements of the code, but instead stem from challenging considerations that are not subject
to strict interpretation under the code. We submit the proposal will not increase congestion,
harm neighboring properties, or impair light and air. A full analysis is provided in the memo of
law submitted at Exhibit 14. And as you noted early on, we did receive a letter of support
from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association, which is in the packet at Exhibit 17. So Jen
or Steve, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand.
We see your hand.
Hello.
You state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter.
Stephen Nemroff, S-T-E-P-H-E-N-N-E-M-R-O-F-F.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Stephen, have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that I offered to the board today?
I have.
and would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were
your own yes absolutely thank you mr chairman we're happy to answer any questions questions
from the board no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands chair planning commission
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family zoning at this location.
The proposed variances, we agree, result from a unique configuration of this lot relative to development on adjacent parcels.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances.
Thank you.
MI 2023-000-127-500 Poplar Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Halliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much.
Number 11, MI 2022-007-131-1910 South Mall Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from East Point Breeze neighbors is attached.
The applicant has provided support supplied by 10 neighbors, all the 1900 block of South
Moll Street, plus one letter of support from a neighbor on South 16th Street.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just wanted to note that this afternoon, we also received a letter of opposition from
Councilman Johnson.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Alan Ockmson.
Mr. Ockmson, can you identify your client in the relationship to this property?
Yes, Stephanie Fahm and Timothy Young for the owners of the property.
Okay, our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits?
It's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed to share your screen.
Thank you.
1910 South Mold Street.
We, I think, did a lot of concessions here in terms of this project.
If this was just a conceptually proposed project, this would be pretty straightforward.
Unfortunately, there's a long history with my client's mother, who was the former owner of this property, and some of the neighbors on this block, including the immediate neighbor at 1912 South Mold Street.
So we'll go over that and also go over the technical aspects of this various project.
But again, my client, all my client is looking to do is she bought the property for her mom.
She's looking to move in, renovate the property, move into the property, and to start a family.
And we're doing the least modification possible that you would expect on the Philadelphia zoning code.
So we'll review the notice of refusal. We have revised plans. Originally, we were going to have a roof deck and we're going to have a third story, which was going to be set back legally under the code.
So we'll review the notice of refusal.
We have revised plans.
It's originally we were.
But because of just the dynamics of this situation, my client just wants to do the least modification possible under the Philadelphia Zerney Code.
And so if this board feels so inclined to grant this variance, I would ask that they grant it by way of proviso via revised plans.
correspondence from the east point uh breeze neighbors uh petition you know showing there is
support on this block uh for my clients proposed use uh maps of the area photographs of the
property our original plans and drawings which included again this third story structure which
was legal the issue was where the pilot house was situated on that third story which generated a
technical height refusal but the height was not an issue but for where the roof deck access
structure was but we're eliminating that with revised plans uh we have our rco meeting notice
or application for appeal our deeds of property our tax planner certificate uh and in the virtual
audience is stephanie farm uh one of the owners of this property uh who's going to uh be introduced
to the board she'll state her name be sworn in and then i'll ask her to adopt my testimony as
her own. And then we also have Chris Johnson, the architect for this project. So this is an RSA5
property. We're not looking to increase density here. Bonnie wants to use it as her principal
residence. Originally, as part of this plan, what she wanted to do on this two-story block was add
a third story setback eight feet and then add a roof deck access structure. Also, there was a rear
addition, and this is the only thing that remains as part of this variance request. There's like a
breezeway on our property of 72 feet in totality. We just want to fill in that breezeway to square
off the back of our property such that we have now a functional floor plan now on this still
two-story structure. So all we're asking for is 144 square feet in totality in the first and second
force. We have a refusal for maximum occupied area where 75% is allowed and 85.71% is proposed.
I'll say this, this property is currently a non-conforming property. If I try to present
the property as is to this board, I would need a variance. So we're just slightly extending that
non-conforming use in terms of maximum occupied area you can ignore the height refusal due to
roof deck where the roof deck access structure is situated because we removed that uh by way
of revised plans by eliminating not only the third story which was legal but also the roof
deck access structure because that was what was asked of us by nearby neighbors um as a concern
who were in opposition um they're still in opposition but i think it has more to do with
personality between the previous owner my client's mother and um and those neighbors but has nothing
you know they can talk about if they're in a virtual audience about that um and then the
third refusal has to do with the minimum rear yard depth where nine feet's required and seven's
proposed again look this is a non-conforming lot right now our rear yard uh depth is currently
seven feet other than in that breezeway area because we're filling in that breezeway area
we're getting a refusal because we're extending that non-conformity.
We're just asking for slight modification of the Philadelphia zoning code
to create a functional floor plan in the rear.
And it's not out of character, as you'll see, from other properties nearby.
Again, if this board does grant this variance,
we would ask by way of proviso with these revised plans
where they removed the third story addition
and then they removed the roof deck.
And then this is ultimately this variance in a nutshell.
Not increasing density.
We have a three and a half feet by 14 feet,
three inch section that is a breezeway.
We're merely looking to fill it in.
You can see from the rear yard depth,
the existing is seven feet.
We're just filling this in,
which is creating that refusory.
and given the lot coverage issues we currently have with this this building structure we're
only asking for a slight modification this is not a big lot this lot the size of this lot is
size a lot is only 686 square feet so we don't have a lot of room for error here we just want
to make a functional plan and we're hoping the board understands the dynamics of this situation
And we're hoping the board understands the dynamics of this situation.
Now, we did meet with the East Point Breeze neighbors.
You know, it was a close vote, you know, four in support, five opposed and one abstained.
I would say this, they acknowledge that my clients did vote in support of their project.
They did, you know, it's acknowledged in there, but it was a close vote of four to five.
uh and i'm trying to see what else is here um they did acknowledge that we made changes
you know in terms of uh of the third story edition and removing that and removing the roof deck
um and then the petition like you know we do have neighbors in support of this project we're not
trying to change the character of this block we're not trying to increase density and you know we
We were trying to put a third story addition as of right, but just adding that roof deck created a refusal.
But because the roof deck created a refusal and we were asked to remove the third story,
we're just asking for that one modification to the Philadelphia zoning code by filling in that breezeway.
And then here's our petition, letter of support.
Again, this is a zoning map where we're not changing the use of the property.
And then Google map of the area.
And then this is just this part of this block. I want to point out that you can see that 1913, 15, 17, 19, Mold Street have like full width on at least the first floor. I'm not 100% sure if they're full width on the second floors.
in 1912 uh you know the person who you know rightfully has issues with you know my client's
mother um and we have no affiliation other than being related um and you know but you know she
has full lot width on the first floor so what we're asking for is something that she already
has we're asking for full lot width on it on uh width on the second floor as well and then
photographs of the property you can see it's a it's a cute two-story structure uh brick facade
uh this is the rear of the property uh of particular notes this is 1908 south mole they
were concerned about the effect it would have on 1908 south mole there's no windows in this
breezeway area so when if we fill this in yes there's a window here but there's no windows here
so we're not taking any person's we're not taking the person's light and air away from their
their side of their building structure and then this is south moll street to the right of the
property south moll street till after the property proof of our posting up for today's hearing
and then these are our plans and drawings as you can see this was the originally the intent
was you know to clean up the front facade have a little bit more modern look to it um and then to
have a third story addition by code eight feet back and to have a roof deck access structure
and you know you see the same building footprint we've run afoul of the rear yard setback as well
as the log coverage issues and then you know these are the four plans again simply that hasn't you
know that you know that hasn't changed on the first and second floors and we'll go over that
And then all we're doing is changing it such that instead of having that third story addition, just cleaning up the front facade and, you know, and again, putting new rear paneling on the rear facade, again, squaring off this property for us.
and then again the only thing that we're trying to do is fill in this three and a half feet by
14 feet three inch section of our breezeway again increasing a non-conformity here
and then the floor plans are pretty basic you know living room dining room kitchen but you see
this is where our kitchen is our kitchen is in the rear and if we didn't have that part of
the breezeway filled in it would it would just make it a not not a functional floor plan uh on
the first floor in the rear and the same thing with the second floor we have a bedroom in the
front a bedroom in the back bathroom washer and dryer if we didn't fill in this breezeway we
wouldn't have a really a very large bedroom to say the least uh and then the basement is just
for storage for my clients again they're not a developer they're just looking to live there
themselves. This is our meeting notice. April 19, 2023, we met with the community, 180 addresses,
notified addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our applications were appeal that I
filed on behalf of my clients, the original notice of refusal along with the project information form,
our deeds of property showing that my clients own the property, and our certificate.
our deeds to the property showing that my client's paying the property
and our certificate of tax claims they actually overpay taxes um so with that being said i would
ask that miss palm virtually raise her hands to be sworn in hi could you state your name
please and spell for the court reporter hi my name is stephanie fam last name p-h-a-m right
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do
Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Stephanie, you heard everything I had to state about your eximony matter, right?