to the RCO and the Councilwoman's position and the Commerce Department's position. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Have we, Sharon, have we resolved the Duval issue?
I think it's the first, second, and tenth case. Yeah.
Calendar. Do you want me to call it, Frank? Yeah, we're ready to go on those cases, Sharon.
sharon remember we had number two is continued but we want to double check
right so i'll call one in ten calendar call three carol then call three okay calendar number 2588
100 West Duval Street, calendar number 2589, 102 West Duval Street, and calendar number 2572.
102 West Duvall Street and calendar number 257231 West Duvall Street.
Sir, Alan, is that you?
It is.
Are you here for all three cases?
Yes, I am, Madam Vice Chair.
Okay, put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Alan Nockamson, N as in Nancy, O-C-H-U-M as in Mary, S-O-N as in Nancy, of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do have some dispute with the refusal for 100 west of Wall Street.
It references parking regulations for RSA 5, RM 1, and CMX 2.
This is an RSA 3 property, so I dispute the relevance of that portion of the refusal.
But otherwise, I accept it.
okay have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter yes okay yes you may proceed excuse me before you begin alan
You just said that you dispute the number one, 100 West Duval on the RS3.
Are the other two not the same?
They're slightly different.
All right.
All three are RS3s.
Just the refusal for whatever reason, when we noticed the notice of refusal had an error just in 100 West Duval Street.
Thank you.
All right. And just to clarify in terms of the hearing time, I did go on the calendar and verify that 31, 100, and 102 West of Olive Street, at least according to the ZBA's calendar, are all scheduled for 2 p.m. today.
So I don't know how there may have been confusion, but I just wanted to reiterate that our records and the ZBA's records have them all for 2 p.m. today.
May I share my screen?
yes all right so what you'll see before you is a rendering uh for and let me just make it a little
smaller for uh 100 for 100 102 west of olive street um as this board may remember i was here
in september of 2019 for 100 100 west of olive street we proposed two uh duplexes two two unit
condominiums with off-street parking. We thought it was appropriate under the circumstances
both the community as well as the coordinating RCO at the time, which is the same coordinating
RCO today, felt otherwise. They thought it was more appropriate to put two single families there
with off-street parking. We could not come to an agreement at that point. We had the ZBA hear that
presentation, and that variance request was denied. That's the basis for 100 and 102. The
only difference with respect to the refusals is that we eliminated the use refusal. So this is
something the community wanted us to do in September of 2019, and that's why we're back
here today. As far as a 31 Duval Street, it's more in line with exactly, I mean, it's in line
exactly what they want in terms of single-family use. So we're not asking for use variances,
we're just asking for some dimensional variances. And I'll go over each refusal to show
what the refusals are. Here's our table of contents. Let me just make that a little bit
smaller. So it's my typical exhibit packet of eight exhibits. The first exhibit is the deeds
of the property showing that Oak Spark Ventures is the owner of the property. So they're in the
packet. I don't think I need to worry about that. After that, it's a Certificates of Tax Clearance
showing that Oak Spark Ventures is in good standing with the city with respect to the real
estate taxes do on these properties. After that, it's a notice of refusal. So the first
The first one I'm going to show you is 31 West of All Street.
one I'm going to show you is 31 west of Olive Street. You'll see this is an RSA 3 property.
You'll see this is an RSA 3 property, and you'll see that we're asking for a single-family household living.
A couple things to point out.
This block of West of All is two-story in nature.
We're actually keeping in line with that.
So we're not asking for any height variances.
And we're actually going with the roof lines for the properties on the, I guess, the zero block of West Duval Street.
Another thing to pay attention to, and this kind of goes with our first refusal, because this is an RSA3 property, technically we need parking.
But you'll see that, or you'll see in terms of pictures that we have actually in another packet, that it's not typical to actually have parking on the zero block of west of Wall Street.
And then the second refusal has to do with the side yard, eight feet required, five feet is proposed.
And again, you'll see from pictures that we've presented in this packet, most of the properties on that block either have no side yard or minimal side yard, which would not comply with the code.
So that's 31 Duval Street.
100 West Duval Street has this first refusal, which I believe is an error because this is an RSA 3 property.
And it references additional parking regulations for RSA 5, RM 1, and CMX 2. So I don't believe that that's relevant.
The second refusal has to do with non-accessory parking. It's expressly prohibited in the RSA 3 district.
So you'll see from the pictures that we're going to show that we're using one curb cut off of Cherokee that will go so that our rear yard will have parking back there on 100.
and then there would be an easement
for 102, which is to the right of us.
Can you go to the drawings?
Okay, sure.
So this is
again the rendering for 100
and 102.
And let me just make this a little smaller
just so I can kind of
venture through so this is this is 31 west of olive street as you can see this is a two-story
structure with a front porch a front porch which matches how you would see the other properties
on that block and we can show pictures brick facade and it's a two-story structure
you'll see from the site plan again we have a front yard and we have the side yard of five feet
This is our refusal. Again, there are pictures, and we can show you the pictures, where there's usually either a minimal or no side yard for most of the properties within the vicinity of this property.
Is that the length of the property?
The what? The side yard? Yes, it does. It does.
And another thing to point out is this is RSA 3, so we're required to have 50% open area.
So if technically we wanted to put a parking spot out front and do a curb cut, which the community has been against in the past, with respect to the middle of the block, that would affect our ability to meet the open area requirement for this property.
So that's that one.
And then you'll see this is 100 and 102, and you'll see here, this is, again, this is a three-story structure with a mansard roof and dormers, and this also has a front porch, as you can see, which kind of matches the feel of the remaining properties with both a mix between a stone facade and wood siding.
and let me just but what you'll see is one of the refusals trying to get up to this thing
is is here so we're we have a curb cut on Cherokee and this is 100 Duval Street and this is 102
Duval Street so what we anticipate is there will be two cars one parked on 100 Duval Street and
the other one parked on 102 Duvall Street. So technically, well, they'll be both parked
on 102. I'm sorry, 100. One is for 100 and one's for 102. And the reason why we're getting
refusal is because the parking spot that's for 102 is technically on 100. So it will
be by way of an easement. Let me see what the other refusals have to do for 100. The
The other refusal is the minimum rear depth because the parking spots are considered occupied area.
The other refusal is the minimum rear
Technically, we're only showing nine feet of rear yard depth.
Well, 15 feet is required, but as you can see that these parking spots are both eight and a half feet wide.
We would technically meet the open area from an actual visual standpoint, but this is not considered part of the calculation.
And we have the same issue with the side yard, that we're proposing less than required, eight feet required.
We're proposing three and a half feet, but we're also having some nice landscaping on the side.
Again, these are all issues that the zoning board heard before.
The only issue last time was the fact of the use.
nothing else was in dispute with the community. In terms of 102 west of Wall Street, the two
refusals, the minimum side yard, we're proposing three feet while eight feet is required. And
we're technically, which again, we'll show from pictures that that's not uncommon. And then
technically, because we're not showing parking here, we're getting a refusal saying that we're
not provide providing parking for 102 west of all but we are by way of this parking spot which is
going to be an easement for the benefit of 102 i would like to show you side yard runs the full
length like the other property full length of the property uh yes it does mr chair um and these are
photos of the property so i just want to kind of go back and just get that little
all right so this is 31 west duval again you can see their porches uh you can see these are
two-story structures and you can see our property and you know 31 west duval street we're proposing
a two-story structure with a porch that fits in line with the other properties as you can see
there's no parking on for each of either of these uh to the property to the left or to the right of
us you'll see 100 102 west duval street from west duval street we're in the corner of
of Duval in Cherokee. And you'll see 100 and 102 West Duval from Cherokee. And then you'll see 31
West Duval Street, first block of West Duval to the left of the property, to the right of the
property. And as you can see, there's really no parking off street on West Duval on the first
block of West Duval. And then 100 block of West Duval, 100 and 102 from the left of the property
and to the right of the property.
And then from the 6,300 block of Cherokee,
another perspective for 100 and 102.
And then most importantly,
our refusals really go to the heart of the matter.
You know, it's my philosophy.
If, you know, if you see a building proposed,
actually built,
and it fits within the character of a neighborhood,
from a variance standpoint,
most times that is something that makes sense.
So our variance, really the focus of our variance
is the side yard and as you can see on the on the block of Duval Street or that corner there is no
minimum there's no there's no side no side yards or minimal side yards same thing over there
as well as the 100 block of West Duval as well there are nearby no minimal side yards and just
more examples then the the first block of west of all same thing and then we went through the
architectural plans now we did meet with the west mount airy neighbors association oops
and they provided two separate letters one for 31 west of all
one for 31 west of all and one for 100 and 102 west of all and as you can see from the letter
they indicated for 31 west of all that you know what we're requesting is not out of character
from the neighborhood they mentioned the parking situation that they did not want oops they did not
want to um for us to put a curb cut in front of 31 west of all uh because that would take away
on street parking as far as 100 and 102 west of all same thing the organization stated that
and they referenced that we actually met with the group um at the end of last or 2019 and that we
did propose to have two duplexes um and that their only objection essentially was the duplexes and
that the current configuration of the property, which is the same as we're presenting today,
they have no objection to now the community did object to you know our proposal for 31 100 and 102
they have no objection to. Now the community did object to
west of olive street the the actual community members it was not a well-attended meeting
as you can see from the letters there was an equal amount of people from the community as
there were from the actual executive board of the west mount harry's neighbors and i don't know if
Ralph Pincus or anyone from the coordinating RCO is on here. But ultimately, what we got was
they didn't want anything. They're like, they like open area. They don't want anything built
at 31 west of all. They don't want anything built at 100 west of all. And they don't want anything
built at 102 west of all. There was no zoning related discussions. It was ultimately, we like
open area, don't build anything. So we're not trying to get a use variance. We're merely trying
to get some dimensional variances, and we're trying to get off-street parking on the one spot
where we're taking one curb cut to create two parking spots, which, by the way, last time we
were here, this community was for it. And as far as 31, they asked us not to create a curb cut.
So that's basically what we're trying to do as well. That concludes my presentation.
so um mr uh yeah yeah mr alan can you uh virtually raise your hand
mr alan you can unmute yourself and speak
you need to raise your volume raise my volume yeah you go we hear you now please identify
yourself with the record my name is Tomer Alon could you please spell your first and last name
T-O-M-E-R
A-L-O-N
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm, yeah.
Thank you. Mr. Nakitson?
Yeah, Mr. Alon, you heard everything I stated
today.
Yes. And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions
from the board? No.
would anyone else like would anyone else like to testify in this case if so
somebody has their microphone hello they got a lot of noise we hear dogs and kids hello
somebody please mute yourself unless you're speaking thank you
chair we want charles richardson with his hand up
mr richardson you can speak now hold on mr richardson somebody would
someone has their microphone on and we can hear all the background noise
try it again mr mr richardson try it try it now good afternoon mr chair members of the board
charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
19107 we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Please proceed. Okay. With regard to all three properties, the Councilwoman is opposing the granting of the variance based on the fact that the community in all three instances voted against granting these variances.
It was a very raucous type of RCO meeting, but the takeaways from that, you know, that were that they were very much against the roof decks, the side yard issues with regard to, you know, building too close to the adjacent properties, like at 29, between 31 and 29 and 104 and 102.
They were against the parking behind 100 that would accommodate 100 and 102 with the curb cut out onto Cherokee Street because Cherokee is a very busy, busy street.
um so you know they they came out against that that and uh the councilwoman takes in