Thank you.
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes that we have thank you
please proceed to share your screen thank you very much
all right so well first of all thank you so much for accommodating my vacation schedule i really
appreciate you allowing me to proceed first. I'm here to present 2035 and 2037 South 56th Street
in our presentation materials. And these are separate zoning matters, but I figured we would
present them together. We will have the notices of refusal, the correspondence from the Southwest
Philadelphia District Services, maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and
drawings, or RCO meeting notices, or applications for appeal, or deeds of property showing that my
client owns it, and the certificates of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing
with the city with respect to real estate taxes. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask
that Mr. Dewey virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and then I'll ask him a few questions and adopt
my testimony as his own. The notice of refusal. So these are pretty straightforward projects.
we're looking to place two duplexes on these properties which have not had much activity in
some time and we're not the only variances we're seeking are these used variances there's no
dimensional variances at all we try to conform with the surrounding area by in terms of
occupied area rear yard setback we do have a three-story structure we're not taking advantage
of the full 38 feet we're doing 33 feet uh five uh 33 and a half feet uh here's our correspondence
from the coordinating rco uh so i would you know concede that the that the community members were
not uh in support of this project although it does show that the city council member is in non-opposition
to this project. And I think one of the reasons why this is the case is that, you know, these
properties have not had any activity in some time. Our records show that online, these properties
have either been vacant or dilapidated as far back as Google Earth would go, and that's as far
back in 2007. The reasons for the community non-supports had nothing to do in terms of
zoning-related matters, or some of them didn't, like in terms of height. They were concerned that
the buildings were too high. We are on a two-story block, but we're not having a two-story
on the residential side of the block. We're not seeking a full 38 feet. We're seeking 33 feet,
six inches for these properties. And then affordability was an issue too. Again,
that's not a zoning related matter, although a duplex is probably more affordable than a single
family home. But if you look at the- So could you go back a minute? What did you say about the
council person? Yeah. So if you look at it, it says non-opposition from member of city council.
Yeah. I mean, we have a pretty strong letter. Oh, from the city council member? Yeah. Yeah. And
And it basically says they don't see any hardship, nor do we see any substantive revisions of their plans.
The community opposed this dating back as far as their first RCO meeting in 2020.
We submitted a letter of opposition back then, and we do again today.
Well, again, I don't remember seeing that letter.
I'm just going based on what our office has received.
but if you look at the maps of the area too we you know so first of all we're basically a block
off away from a commercial quarter which is woodland abbey um and that's up here and that's
all cmx2 and behind us we're surrounded by i2 and rm1 so there's this small pocket of
of residentially zoned single family properties um but there has not been some development
sometime in this area. So, and again, from a Google Maps perspective, it shows where we are
on 56th Street. And as you can see, there's a shipping company. There's a lot of like non-traditional
commercial use behind us. And then Woodland Avenue down the strip has commercial use along
with a trolley as well for public transportation. And then the photographs of the property. Again,
these are two vacant lots and have been vacant for some time this is proof of guard uh hearing
notice posting and then south 56th street to right and as you can see this is across the street
And then South 56th Street to right. And as you can see, this is across the street from, again, industrial zone lands configured as such as well. So we're not in the heart of a residential neighborhood. We're at maybe the beginning of one, which blends between, you know, which blends with I2 and R1 behind it. And behind that is commercial on Woodland Avenue.
and then our plans and drawings like we really did try to conform like our our building structure
not the use but the building structure to this not only to the philadelphia zoning codes but to
the surrounding properties so you can see our properties don't go any deeper than the properties
the left and right of us we have substantial rear yards we conform to the rear yard setbacks
we conform well within the height requirements so uh and then these are just the uh elevations
as well and then the floor plans are pretty basic you have two you have two units one is a first
floor and lower level the second unit is the second floor and third floor both have outdoor space
unit number one has in the rear uh on the first floor unit number two has the roof deck we would
agree to a proviso for commercial trash pickup.
And again, yes, we have met with the community previously to this project
at the beginning of the pandemic.
Things have only gotten worse in terms of interest rates rising
in terms of construction materials.
There's really hasn't been much development
that I've seen from a single family nature in the surrounding area.
And probably for good reason.
It's just not feasible to build and, you know,
a single family structure given this environment.
And, you know, we're hoping to add much needed modern housing to this area of Philadelphia, which will be more affordable for a two unit rather than one unit.
So 106 addresses were notified in this meeting. Here are the list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, and then for both matters.
and then our applications for appeal showing that b2 properties entity six is the owner
of these properties and then there are finally our deed as well showing that they own these
properties and then our certificates of tax clearance so with that being said i would ask
that mr dewey virtually raise his hand
is mr dewey's hand up yes mr dewey is being promoted to uh excuse me he's been allowed to
speaks here hi morning hi good morning could you state your name please and spell for the court
reporter it is robert dewey and that's spelled r-o-b-e-r-t and dewey d-e-w-e-y you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel oh
yeah mr dewey you heard everything i had to state about these zoning matters yes i did it is
what i stated true and correct yes it is and do you adopt as your own testimony i do thank you
questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission good morning board this is ron bednar city planning first
named Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R. Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, Ron. So this is for both 2035 and
2037 South 56th Street. These properties are indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan, recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
at this location. The applicant's hardships are not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent them from being used conformity
with the code. Therefore, we recommend that the variance for both not be granted. Thank you.
Number one, MI 2020, 000-869-2037 South 56th Street, and number four, MI 2020, 000-777-2035 South 56th Street. I vote no to both.
i vote no to both thomas holliman my vote is no to both ishmael shaheed my vote is no to both
Thomas Holloman.
thank you counsel um your number two your other two cases so number five mi 2020 000 871
53 36 pascal avenue and number 8 mi 2020 000 872 55 34 pascal avenue uh just state your name for
the record please alan opposite and for the record just identify your client again yes also v2
properties uh for both of these we also have uh letters of opposition from the rco and a letter
of opposition from the council. Our vice chair has just a few questions. Morning, counsel. Do you
agree to wave your reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing yes we have thank you please proceed thank you
okay so um similar to 56th street uh you know we're looking to do two duplexes yeah in a on
rsa 5 zone properties so we'll review the notices of refusal the correspondence we got from the
southwest philadelphia district services maps in the area photographs of the property
our plans and drawings or rco meeting notices or applications for appeal and decent property as
well as our certificates of tax plans and again mr dewey is still in a virtual audience and
he'll also adopt my testimony as his own for these numbers similar to 56th street again
there is actually caddy corner uh uh to uh 56th street pascal um you know again there's not much
development here there we're sandwiched between cmx2 and i2 and rm1 and yes we have a sliver
of rsa5 but these properties have been vacant for some time and it would be a shame if they
remain vacant for some time but i understand you know we have a a standard to reach and i hope that
we reach it for this one but again we purposefully chose not to go anywhere near dimensional
variances the only variances we're seeking are for multi-family use of two units each
and then the correspondence like again we have met with this community many of the
uh objections they have to this project are non-zoning related had to deal with height which
is not an issue because we're 33 feet five uh six inches tall uh had to do with affordability which
again it's not a zoning related matter but two units are more affordable than one uh and you know
So unfortunately, this community has not been accepting of creating this type of density.
And for that reason, there's many projects which have never come to fruition here.
So maps in the area, again, just like, you know, what we saw for South 56th Street, we're surrounded by I-2.
There's commercially zoned properties on Pascal across the street from us.
and what's up here is woodland avenue which is a commercial corridor which is a block away which
again density from a city planning perspective is always good because it helps support the
commercial corridor that does exist and then these are just maps of the area again as you can see
um we are you know a block away from woodland avenue um you know we're tucked behind where
there's industrial use as well and we're just this little small sliver of rsa5 properties
and again just like the properties on 56th street these have been vacant non-usable
residential properties for some time photographs of the property as you can see these have just
been vacant lots proof of posting of for this uh for this hearing pascal to the right of the
property as you can see there's many vacant lots even nearby to us pascal avenue to left and as
As you can see, here's the industrial use that we pointed out on 56th Street.
And, you know, just our plans and drawings.
Again, we're trying not to overuse these properties from a dimensional standpoint.
We're trying to mimic the rear yards, the rear yard setback, the open space.
the rear yards, the rear yard setback, the open space. And, you know, yes, we are in a two-story
block, but we tried not to go anywhere near the 38 feet that were allowed under RSA 5. We're
trying to be respectful of that. And then these are just the floor plans. Again, the basic floor
plan for a duplex that you've seen many times that I present. First floor and lower level is one unit,
second floor and third floor is another unit their unit number one has access to rear yards
unit number two has sole access to a roof deck we would agree to commercial trash pickup
we you know met with the community um you know on same time as 56th street on may 24th 134
addresses were notified i would say that there weren't that many people there um you know there
was mostly the board members of the coordinating RCO. I think there were maybe two, maybe three
members of the community. They didn't stay where they lived, so I don't know if they
were nearby, but we notified a lot of people this meeting. And proof of mailing for these
meetings, as well as the other RCO notice, our applications for appeal, and our deeds
to property, showing that B2 property
is just the owner of the property,
along with the certificate of tax
allowance. With that being said, I would
ask that Mr. Dewey virtually raise his hand
yet again.
Mr. Dewey, just for the record,
state your name.
Robert Dewey.
You've already been sworn. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Dewey, you heard everything I had to state
about these matters on Pascal Avenue.
Yes, I did.
and what i stated true and correct yes and do you adopt this your own testimony i do
thank you questions from the board no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands planning commissioner ron bednar city planning these properties both
5534 and 36 Pascal Avenue. These properties are indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan recommends no change the existing residential single-family zoning
at these locations. The applicant's hardships are not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent them from being used in conformity
with the code. Therefore, we recommend that the request for both of these variants does not be
granted. Number five, MI 2020-000-871-5536 Paschal Avenue. And number eight, MI 2020-000-872-5534
for Paschal Avenue, I vote no to both.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is no to both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to both.
Thank you, counsel, and we do appreciate you
interrupting your vacation to move these two cases. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Have a great day. Okay, thank you.
My case in chief was over. However, we've been working with Mr. Rosen and his clients, and we've come up with a revised design that I've literally, I mean, as of last night and today, with the final plans.
And with that revised design where we've pulled the back of the building in towards the front, reduced the depth so it doesn't pass his client's properties, I believe we now have, and I can show them to you, letters of non-opposition from his clients based upon the zoning board approving those plans.
And Joel can speak to that.
Yeah, that is correct. Since the scheduling of the last hearing, there have been multiple conversations between myself on behalf of the Protestants and Mr. Orphanides.
um the plans have been revised my clients have reviewed them and my clients have signed based
upon those plans and the promise that the construction will be in complete accordance
with those plans have signed letters of non-opposition okay thank you hillary where do
we stand with this um mr chair um i have not seen the letters of non-opposition nor the revised
plans yet so i would suggest um that those be submitted and we can vote this when we resume
in two weeks because i would like to just review the revised plans and make sure there isn't
anything um that would require an amended refusal is everybody okay with that yeah that's that's a
completely understandable makes sense and um we're fine with that i don't know if there was
anybody else on the last hearing that had um had a position to make other than mr rosen we only got
as far as as that so i mean i guess that we did not yes as i say we did not hear from planning
or the public according to my notes so we should we should take planning's position and see if
there's any members of the public who wish to comment correct thank you anyone in the virtual
audience who has comment relative to this case i see no hands planning commission
we will also wait for the revised plans to be submitted okay fine thank you all right so this
will be continued for two weeks hillary we said yes so so then if planning wants to wait to see
the revised plans we'll do a very very brief resumption in two weeks um well it'll be the
28th i believe okay um at 9 30 we'll do a very brief resumption for planning to give their
opinion and then the board can vote okay thank you very much and and thank you to both the
attorneys involved thank you and i just want to note that the the record is um is otherwise closed
except for plannings, testimony, the revised plans, and the letters of non-opposition.
David, are you submitting the letters and the plans?
Yeah, I'll submit those. I'll copy you on the submission, Joel.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, everybody.
Okay, so number three, MI 2022-001-328-914 West Dorada Avenue.
Demetrius Ware is the appellant.
Mr. Ware has been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Ware, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Demetrius Ware, E-E-M-E-T-R-I-U-S, Ware, W-A-R-E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. All right. So before we start, our attorney has raised a few issues.
Hillary, you want to comment? Yes, Mr. Chair. So since we spoke earlier,
I did receive a signed copy of the lease.
I received an authorization letter as well,
but it was not the LLC listed in the lease.
So we would need that to proceed
or we would need the LLC represented
by an attorney at the hearing.
Mr. Ware, did you hear that?
Yes, I'll have it.
Take your time.
By the end of the meeting, I will have you.
By the end of the meeting, I will have you.
Mr. Ware, what we can do is we can move your case back so we have that before we hear it.
We have other cases that we do need to hear today.
So if you want to take care of that and send that in, we'll make sure we have that and then we can proceed.
I'll do that and thank you.
All right, no problem.
sir could you state your name and spell please for the court sonographer yes sir brian mass b-r-i-a-n
m-a-s-t right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed counsel mr mass did you hear my presentation to the board this morning
yes i did and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
Yes, it is.
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
What's the interior square footage roughly?
I said it was roughly over 3,500 square feet, but you could be more precise?
About 3,600, not including the basement.
So probably almost 4,000.
Thank you very much.
I have nothing else, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
questions or comments from the virtual audience yes i see uh we have one hand charles richardson
okay and they've been allowed to speak good morning mr richardson could you state your name
please and spell for the court stenographer good morning mr chair charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n
office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed. The Councilwoman has no opposition to granting
the variant. Thank you very much for taking the time to call us. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. This is Ron Bednar,
City Planning. Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the
physical circumstances of the site, and adjacent legal multifamily building uses,
we recommend the request of variance to be granted. Thank you. Counselor, did you see the
Proviso's interior trash storage and interior mailbox and mail storage? Yep, and we agreed to
them and more, actually. All right, thank you. MI 2022-005-111-219 Mannheim Street. I vote yes
with proviso. Interior trash storage, interior mailbox, and mail storage.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, and happy birthday, Mr. Chair.
Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.
So, number nine, MI 2021-005-028-224-30 West Topohockin Street.
Steve Masters is the attorney.
Mr. Masters has been promoted to panelists.
Give me one minute here.
Nine, right.
Okay, and I also have Michael Phillips is the attorney for the property owner, and Leonard Ruiter is the attorney for the city and L&I.
Morning, Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
My name is Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S.
I represent the objectors who filed an appeal against Illinois in this case.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Phillips, could you say your name, please, and spell it?
Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransberg, on behalf of the property owner, zoning applicant, Topohokin Mansion, LLC.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And Leonard, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Sure. Good morning. May please the board. Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
so i believe where we are with this if there are conversations where
the finish the direct examination nancy temple uh templeton by mr masters is that right mr
masters yes we were um in the midst of her testimony right and then we'll have cross
examined right and then we're going to wind up continue it to a representative the city
would be available. Is that right? Yeah. So we would also ask to have some redirect
testimony after. Oh, yeah, sure. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Nancy Templeton, please.
She just texted me and said that she was having some audible issues with her.
She just texted me and said that she was having some audible issue.
She's logging back in right now.
She lost sound.
And she asked me, could I hear you?
I said, yes, I could.
So she's logging back in.
Good, great.
Luckily, we have many means of technology that we can communicate with people in this world today.
Ms. Templeton has been promoted to panelists.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for this court stenographer?
Hello, I'm back. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, state your name, please, and spell it.
Nancy Templeton, N-A-N-C-Y-T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Masters.
Okay. Let's turn the screen.
All right. Good morning, Ms. Templeton.
as you recall, we were going through your supplemental report that you compiled in
2022, I believe. Yes. Can you read the green paragraph on the bottom of page three of your
supplemental report?
Can you see that on the 2021 street view? Yes. Okay. So the 2021 street view image clearly
shows where the new curb cut was added to extend the existing drive to Pistorius Street,
as well as where the previously existing curb cut is being used as a front yard driveway,
also in violation of the proviso. The existing driveway labeled on the amended plan was never
a true driveway with ingress egress to Pastoria Street and therefore should be considered an
additional curb cut that is in direct violation of the proviso. So Ms. Templeton does the zoning
code require any curb cut at all on Pastoria Street? No. And why would that be the case?
wouldn't wouldn't you normally have a property needing a curb cut to have access to a street
well the property already has two access points one from topo hawken and one from green street
are you aware of any safety reasons that would require having a curb cut on pastoria street
you? No, I'm not. And you've reviewed the complete streets plan and many other streets
department regulations and plan. Is that correct? Correct. So let's assume that Mr. Phillips is
correct. And we're going to be hearing from Mr. Montanez at some future time. Let's assume that
the streets department told the applicant that it would be dangerous to continue to use the existing
curb cut uh that you had identified that was on pastoria street um i'm talking about the one that
dog legs from pastoria's um to the driveway that we're looking at now so i guess we're talking
about the one uh in this photo right here on the 2018 atlas this curb cut right let's just let's
assume the streets department told uh mr bilby that um it wouldn't be safe to continue to use
that curb cut would and we're just assuming this now we're not we're not saying that that's true
but assuming that was true would the unsafe condition of this curb cut here require the
property owner to move that curb cut to a new location that is shown here in the 20 in this
2021 photo would would with the fact that the streets department told him this curb cut is
not dangerous, is too dangerous to use, would that require him to create that curb cut there?
Objection. She can answer, but I'm objecting for the record that she's not qualified to testify as
to what the streets department would or would not require in this situation.
Your objection is deleted, but I'll let her continue testifying.
uh so well it goes back to is that curb cut necessary for access it and it isn't
so it would not need to be moved to provide a safe condition it just wouldn't
condition it just wouldn't you so your testimony is it's not necessary to have a curb cut at the
so your testimony is
end of this of this area here so there would be no requirement that you see in in your opinion as a
as a as a planner to require a curb cut to be there correct um did you review any transcripts
for the preparation of your supplemental report? I did. And is one of those transcripts the oral
argument before Judge Paula Patrick in 2022? Uh, yes. Sorry, I think it's 2021. Let me look here.
uh i'm sorry it is uh july 2018 time flies um is this one of the transcripts that you that you
did review yes okay i'm going to show you um i'm going to display some portions of that transcript
um and um ask you to read them into the record objection i don't see what the relevance of
Ms. Templeton reading into the record a transcript of a 2018 hearing that she was not at had to this to this case whatsoever.
Ms. Templeton is not an attorney. She is not qualified to provide opinions as to what attorneys were arguing in court.
We're going to try this one, Mr. Chair, see if I come out a little bit ahead this time.
Did you review any portions of the ZBA transcript to aid you in interpreting the phrase,
quote, parking curb cut on Topohocken only?
I have read the transcript with the proviso, yes.
And is it true that that proviso was first suggested by the Planning Commission by Mr. Bednar?
Yes, that's what I recall.
All right.
Mr. Chair, would you find it helpful
to look at those transcript excerpts
from the ZBA's hearing in 2017?
I think we could do that later, Dave.
I'm fine with that.
I'm sorry.
We'll have copies, and I'll get with Hillary,
and we'll do that.
Okay. So, Ms. Templeton, I know that a landscape buffer is typically not, is it true that a landscape buffer is typically not an issue that is,
that becomes an issue in the approval of a zoning permit?
Would that be true?
I'm sorry, can you rephrase that?
Repeat that?
Could you explain whether landscape buffers in general
are design attributes that could, that are typically decided at the zoning plan stage of a development?
Are they decided? Well, they are part of, landscape islands are part of the zoning ordinance, yes.
so in this case yes okay i'm sorry so in this case is it your testimony that the plans examiner
for lni um should not have approved this plan with the with the existing landscape buffer
as it is as it is situated on the plan
Well, I believe, since it's blocking access from Tulpahawken, it should not have been approved.
And your analysis is that there is no, with this landscape buffer in the location on the plan,
And there is no way for tenants to move their vehicles from Tupperhawken into the remainder of the area where their parking is.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
in your opinion um miss templeton
does the zoning board's proviso that says parking curb cut on top of hawkins street only
what does it mean in your opinion objection the commonwealth court has already determined this
you want to respond to that the commonwealth court did not make any rulings on interpretation
it simply said what the what the actual language was that the that you as the zoning board gave in
the provisos but there was never any any argument any briefs anything at the commonwealth court
about the interpretation of part no parking a parking curb cut on top of hawk and only and i
would um i would would basically call on uh if mr phillips wants to make an objection like that
he's going to have to show you something that doesn't exist which is um some fantasy arguments
or or um or language in the commonwealth court decision that doesn't exist so we would um so
So, Mr. Phillips, I understand your complaint, but I'm going to let her answer that question.
So, the question was, what is the interpretation of the proviso parking curb cut on Tulpa-Hawkins
Street only?
My opinion is that that means that the development should only be accessed from Tulpa-Hawken Street.
The parking area for the new development should only be accessed from Tulpa-Hawken Street.
and you are also familiar with the stipulation and with um at the last resumption hearing mr
mr reuter's um comments to the zoning board at the last at the last hearing which which um
comments to the zoning board at the last at the last hearing which which um agrees with what the
stipulation was that he entered that to the extent that there is any curb cut on pastoria's it's only
for emergency vehicles objection objection i'm going to let her answer that question to her opinion
i'm sorry mr chair can the court reporter have the question restated i didn't we will
Mr. Masters, please, one more time.
All right, I'm going to try for one more time.
So going back to the stipulation that was entered by the city and the objectors at the Commonwealth Court and from the comments that you heard Mr.
Reuter say at the last resumption hearing, is it your opinion that if there is to be any curb cut
on Pastoria Street, it is only to be restricted, it is only restricted for emergency vehicles and
service vehicles? That is what I recall. At this point, Mr. Chair, we would rest
and then ask to call Ms. Templeton for redirect.
Mr. Phillips, why don't you go first?
Steve, if you don't mind, can I just share my screen now?
Oh, sure.
You don't like my colors and everything?
I like your colors.
I would keep it up if you want to jump around.
Thank you, Ms. Templeton, just give me one moment to get where I'm going.
Ms. Templeton, as you said earlier, you are not an attorney, correct?
I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
You are not an attorney, correct?
Correct.
And you have no specialized knowledge of commonwealth court procedures and legal procedures, correct?
Correct.
And you don't have any special knowledge of the procedural history of this case as an attorney, correct?
I'm objecting to the, she's stated she's not an attorney. She's gone through all of these documents. She's an expert planner. What's the point of asking her questions that she's not actually testifying to?
Mr. Phillips, respond.
Establishing foundation.
There's no foundation you're establishing. She's answering.
So she's not an attorney. Well, we'll we'll leave it at that. Now, you said you spoke about emergency vehicles a moment ago, correct?
Correct. OK. And are you referencing the fact that there was a proviso at one time that the zoning board issued that said emergency vehicles only?
I'm going to object. That is suggesting testimony that she didn't make.
I'm asking her the question, if that's what she's recalling.
We'll allow the question, Mr. Masters.
I believe the question is what Mr. Reuter spoke about.
Okay, well, what I'm trying to get is where did you form this basis of this emergency vehicles only?
It is in one of the transcripts and reports that I read.
Okay. Are you aware that that proviso regarding emergency vehicles only was reversed by the trial court?
I'm going to object. Number one, you've just asked her if she understands Commonwealth Court procedures and legal and legal issues.
And she said no. And now you're asking her if she's aware of you, of the interpretation.
Well, listen, he's asking her, was she aware of what the decision was?
Right. But the other. What I want to say is she can answer that.
Right. But the other. Not aware or whatever, that's fine.
Well, it assumes facts on and evidence the Commonwealth Court did not reverse that second, the second decision that the zoning board made on the emergency vehicles on the on a substantial on on the on a question of substance, it reversed it saying that you as the zoning board did not do the right process, you did not give a hearing before you made that determination.
did not do the right process you did not give a hearing before you made that determination but at
no time did the commonwealth court say that it would be improper in fact the commonwealth court
adopted this the stipulation that says that it must be only of emergency vehicles and service
vehicles from pastorius so mr phillips is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the clear
the clear holdings of the Commonwealth Court. Mr. Phillips
ask your question one more time. I hear what you're saying
Mr. Masters but we're going to have the witness answer the question
if she can.
Mr. Phillips what's your question again? Do it one more time.
Are you aware that the proviso
stating emergency vehicles only was
reversed by the trial court? I'm aware that there were several reversals and
I can't exactly recall what the exact language. Okay. And would you agree that the, as there
were two issues here with the proviso that was before, that's before the board right
now one is no parking on pastoria street can we agree with that that parking on pastoria street
is prohibited yes okay and the other point was um no uh additional curb cuts on pastoria right
correct okay so those are the two issues objection that's not what she said
you asked her two issues she's testified to many more issues that that are in the provisos
well that's what i'm trying to get at miss templeton i'm i'm going by what the proviso state
you're saying there's more to the proviso than what is there i'd like to you know if you think
there's more than two things what else is in the proviso then so you're ready to tell that's
It's no parking on Topohockin. Parking, curb cut on Topohockin only.
Okay. And you understand that the curb cut was no additional curb cut, correct?
Correct. Okay. And here we have the Commonwealth Court opinion
that states i'm going to object if if mr phillips objected to referencing the fundamental
opinions to this witness that then the same ruling should happen mr chair that that you
the question is is she aware or not period she can answer that question she's aware
it doesn't have to be by fact but i think she can answer that question is she aware of it that's all
Ms. Templeton, my question is, are you aware that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
has stated in an opinion, accordingly, there is no doubt that the ZBA's proviso was intended
to prohibit additional, and that's in bold, curb cuts on Pastoria Street?
I am aware.
I just have to stop my share for a moment.
Actually, so I can pull up.
All right, I think I can. So in your report, you had pictures that you took off Atlas 2018 and 2021, correct?
Correct. I just wanted to go a quick aside. You would reference this car being parked there illegally. Is that right?
I'm not sure I said the word illegal. I can't recall.
you said in violation i know that i know that i'm referencing the the the statement that
parking was not allowed on pastoria street okay uh but you don't know whose vehicle this is or
when this was or if that was permitted to be there right i don't know whose vehicle it is
okay and have you been to the the property recently not recently
Are you aware that there are bollards
preventing any parking
in that area right now?
I'm objecting. We're here on
whether this zoning permit was issued
correctly and the bollards is not
an issue.
She also said she
has been in the property
recently.
I'm now sharing
overviews of Atlas.
Just give me one moment.
Okay, so you're familiar with Atlas, right, Ms. Templeton?
yes okay and would you agree this is a aerial view of the property as of 2020
Okay, and would you agree this is a .
um i'm trying to read the date is that okay yes that's correct
okay and at the time there was one curb cut correct on pastoria street
Yes. Well, were there other curb cuts?
I will say for the record, there's a question of whether or not there was a curb cut over
here. We are not.
Okay. I remember that being questionable. Yes.
But there is a curb cut, right?
There is a curb cut there, yes.
Okay. And you'd agree that the purpose of a curb cut is to provide a means of access from the city right-of-way to the interior of a property?
Primarily, yes.
Okay. And so then as of 2020, there was a curb cut that provided access from West Pastoria Street to the interior of Topahokan, admittedly having to dogleg around a bit though, correct?
Correct.
Okay. And are you aware there was a telephone pole? That was right.
right here uh where my cursor is i i mean it's been a while but
i recall there being a telephone pole yeah i've seen pictures of it
with the telephone pole there yes all right and now
you agree this is what the
this is what the uh street of past choice and the curb looks like now correct correct
okay and these are the bollards i was speaking of uh and i believe you mentioned this landscaped
area right here correct yes i can see it okay so assuming that we're
all of these bollards all right those are not allowed for parking they're not allowed for
ingress, egress at this present time. For this same
driveway, how many curb cuts provide access to it?
One. Okay. And how many curb cuts off past stories provided access to it at the time of the zoning
force decision one is one an additional curb cut to one objection you're asking for a legal opinion
that she's not going to give but but if you're asking her to re to reassert her testimony she
already clearly stated to you that it is an additional curb cut okay because it's a different
location so miss teppleton would you agree she can answer that question if she wants to use
a former testimony that's fine um i guess i'm i'm just looking at my interpretation of the word
additional okay which to me does not mean
one more curb cut but a new curb cut which that is a new curb cut okay it's a new curb
that was not there before. You would agree the word additional means more, correct?
It can mean more and it can mean new.
Okay. Something that wasn't there before. Okay. So that's your interpretation of the word
additional. Yes. Would you agree that changes to curb cuts or means of access for the purpose of
safety? Sorry, could you repeat that? Would you agree that the Philadelphia streets department
can require modifications or changes to existing curb cuts and means of access for the purpose of
safety. I'm going to object because you just objected before Mr. Phillips that the witness
cannot discuss and evaluate what the streets department's safety provisions are dealing
with curb cuts. Now you're asking her to affirm something that you said before she couldn't testify
Now you're asking her to affirm something that you said before she couldn't testify to.
to. I'm not asking.
I'm not asking her to testify as to whether a condition is more safe or not.
What I'm asking her is whether or not in her experience as a land plan of the streets department has the authority to require such modifications.
I'm still going to object to it because it assumes it assumes a fact.
We're going to let her answer that question to the best of her ability.
Yes, the streets department can make
require modifications for safety.
So is it your testimony as you sit here today that if the curb cut still looked like this
and still provided this means of access that that would not violate the proviso?
Correct.
So the violation of the proviso is moving the curb cut that was where my cursor is now
over here to, and that's your testimony, correct?
My testimony is the use of the existing curb cut was allowed.
If that existing curb cut wasn't safe, then it should not have been used.
And then.
And you would agree that the curb cut as it exists in 2020, and in 2022, provides access
to the same driveway.
Is that correct?
I don't have any further questions
for Ms. Templeton
Leonard
Unmute, Leonard
Unmute, please
Thank you
No, sorry, I was having mouse issues
that's okay that's okay uh actually i i don't have any other additional questions i think
mr phillips covered everything pretty well thank you mr masters do you want to um i do um
miss templeton i'm going to go back to um the testimony that you gave uh at the at the first
hearing a few weeks ago. Do you recall, or maybe we should, I'll share the screen and look at the plan again.
This is the 2017 plan, is that correct?
do you recall your testimony at the last hearing on miss templeton about um the number of curb cuts
was what we were talking about today um it says new curb cut yes yes correct okay let's look at
the 2021 plan we're going to look at really big so when i'm when i'm putting my cursor on these
on these diagonals whoa okay on these um these diagonal lines what what do these diagonal lines
refer to uh that refers to the location of the curb cut okay so this one uh this shows and this
is the the plan that we're here challenging um it it shows that there's an existing curb cut
at this location is that correct that's correct and then the original dog leg uh curb cut
it shows that it still exists under this plan
that's well that's what it says it doesn't say it's being removed yes right and then
it appears to be to a curb cut these designations for curb cut at the end of the driveway is that
correct yes so the total number of curb cuts that the plans examiner was presented with
in this plan is how many on pastorius
three so does this plan in any shape or form tell the examiner that one that this curb cut is being
moved to here and it's being and it's being removed from this location? No. So the plan
as presented to the plans examiner said three curb cuts. Yes, this one says on the plan. Okay.
I have no further testimony. I have one recross, Mr. Chair, if you would indulge.
It's a follow-up to what Mr. Masters has asked.
Ms. Templeton, without sharing my screen, I just want to pull up.
You're familiar with the Philadelphia Code, correct?
and U-degree Section 11 of the Philadelphia Code
concerns streets and right-of-way.
Are you familiar with the definition of a curb cut?
I don't know what it says exactly, but I'm familiar with it.
Right.
If I read, I'm going to read for you
or represent you that Section 11.104.1b
of the Philadelphia Code provides
that a curb cut is defined as an alteration to the curb that facilitates vehicular access
across the sidewalk to connect the roadway to any public or private property. Does that sound
accurate? Yes. So if a curb cut is, if there is an alteration to the curb that does not
for the purpose of facilitating vehicular access, would you call that a curb cut?
I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
I'll rephrase that.
So you'd agree that if it does not facilitate vehicular access, it's not a curb cut?
I'm going to object.
If you're asking for a legal opinion of what a code section of the Philadelphia Code means,
then um that would be an interpretation for a court or this board or um or an attorney but
um that's not her testimony that that um that curb cuts are are require vehicle access
so i'm going to allow the question if if she knows i mean she seemed not to be sure about that if she
knows. It's hard to say because the existing curb cuts, yeah, they should, they're there to allow
for vehicular access. Okay. And you'd agree that the plan that Mr. Masters just showed that was
approved, only one of those, what you call three curb cuts, provides vehicular access to the
the property into parking areas?
Well, at the time of the plan,
I mean, I'm looking at the plan.
The plan shows three curb cuts.
The plan shows three curb cuts.
But two of those references lead to paper patios where there's no parking and there's no vehicular traffic allowed, correct?
But two of those references.
I guess although I had seen that the plan, I can't tell that there are bollards on the plan or any restriction to vehicles on the plan.
okay um i don't have any further questions uh one more question on on cross certainly
mr masters go ahead um miss templeton
is it your opinion that uh the zoning board when they first issued their provisos prior to uh prior
to the vote um that they had um an intention to to stop ingress and egress off of pastoria street
objection beyond the scope of my cross and we're back to talking about no it isn't it's talking
about vehicular access your cross is all about vehicular access and my questions are about
vehicular access for the curb cuts you're asking what the what the zoning board intended to do
you're asking Ms. Templeton to testify as to what her understanding of the board's intention was.
As expressed in their decisions, both in October of 2017 and in November of 2017.
I'm going to allow her to answer that question to what she understands.
My interpretation was that they intended that there was no access on Pistorius Street,
that there would only be access on Tulpa-Hawkins Street.
I understand that there was a question after that proviso,
what about the existing curb cut?
To which that answer I interpreted as
you can use the existing curb cut,
but you can't create a new one.
And was there any discussion among the board members
or even among the witnesses at the hearing in October 2017
concerning a continued ingress and egress
from Pastoria Street.
Objection, the board has the transcript from the hearing
and can see what it is.
That's not a basis of an objection.
There's no objection there.
You're just saying that you think that this is redundant
because the board can read something in writing
and then a witness can read it to it.
So you're asking her to testify to what she recalls the board saying when the board, there's a transcript that the board can easily review and access.
Mr. Masters, we will work with Hillary. We'll be able to see that.
Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, members of the board, there was literally no discussion whatsoever as to what it means when Mr. DiCicco, the chair at the time, said no additional curb cuts, existing curb cut only.
And the entire proceeding, including Mr. Bilby's testimony at that hearing, was around whether there should be ingress and egress off of Pastorius or off of Topohokan.
And the Planning Commission, who is here today, Mr. Bednar, testified twice that no ingress and egress from Pastorius, only ingress and egress from Topohokan.
And Mr. Billby's attorney said that clearly to the court is in her attempt to get the proviso overruled because she said this was too restrictive to only allow the access from Topohokan.
So everyone, it seems to be clear on this, except for Mr. Phillips, who came many, many years later to this situation and has a different understanding than his client and the first attorney.
But I had wanted Ms. Templeton to just confirm that for you. I will ask, Ms. Templeton, you've heard my oral arguments and comments today and also in the last hearing. Do you agree with them or would you adopt them as your own?
i'll object to a to an expert witness adopting an attorney's uh testimony as her own generally
that is for property owners to you know move things along and to avoid redundant testimony
miss templeton is here as an expert she's a representative of my clients and under the
She's a representative of my clients, and under the zoning code, she is allowed to adopt testimony.
under the zoning code she is allowed to
I can ask someone else.
I didn't understand both for you, or the question's been answered.
We'll let it stand.
Are we through?
I think we're through.
So, Hillary, we're going to now continue this for another resumptive hearing from Mr. Montanez.
Am I right?
That is correct.
And Mr. Reuter and Mr. Phillips also will give their presentations.
And Mr. Masters, did you have any additional witnesses other than Mr. Montanus?
I do not believe so.
So just so we're clear, Mr. Montanus will be called first at the next listing.
Because he's been here three or four times already and hadn't been called any of those times.
Yeah, he will absolutely be first.
Thank you.
Thanks, everyone.
All right.
Thank you, members of the board.
thank you thank you okay so now we're headed to thanks miss templeton
mr chair we can um go back to the gerard avenue case we received the additional document that
we needed to proceed mi 2022 001 328 914 west gerard avenue demetrius ware
it's been promoted to panelists thank you
hello hi mr ware we now have all your information just for the record again i believe i already
swore you in once. Could you just state your name for the record? Demetrius Ware. That's D-E-M-E-T-R-I-U-S-W-A-R-E.
Okay. And our vice chair has just a few questions. Ishmael, are you on?
I am. I am chair. Proceed.
Good morning, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Mr. Chair, would you like me to read the refusal into the record?
Okay. This application is for use as assembling, entertainment, nightclubs, and private clubs with live entertainment in an existing structure. No signs this permit. There is one referral. The proposed use, assembling, entertainment, nightclubs, and private clubs requires special exception approval under CMX2 Commercial Zoning District.
And I would note that the 14th Ward Democratic Executive Committee, RCO, has sent a letter of support.
Mr. Ware, proceed.
Okay, so, again, let's work with me here.
This is the letter of refusal that's on the screen.
So I'm going to go to the next picture, which is the application that I first done.
All right.
So next is the project information.
This is another exhibit that I had to present.
Troll down.
It's both papers.
Right there.
Hold on.
My fingers are sweating here.
I'm moving.
This is the lease.
This is the lease that I signed.
It's about 20-something pages.
okay we know we have that so far why don't you show us pictures of the property okay all right
well right here is the letter i had to put in front of the uh front of the door
yeah post it right the notice of refusal um let me move this up a little bit
i'm displaying the uh front of the door the plethora of parking space that available
i have a few shots of that um this is the inside of the property
that's one angle stay outside parking right in front of the door
this is another shot inside the property
this is the prep kitchen area
this is the this is the front to the right of the building which is more parking i wanted to
This is the front to the right of the building, which is more parking.
I wanted to display the special variations, a plethora of parking areas.
So I took a lot of pictures of a lot of places they could park.
This is the side street.
Exit door right there towards the end of the screen to the right.
But I'll give you another shot of that inside.
This is the special letter that the community, the 14th Ward, presented to me.
It's the floor plan, which is very basic.
It's another letter.
Mr. Ware, this is Hillary.
The 14th Ward RCO indicated that you entered into a community benefits agreement with them.
Is that correct?
Absolutely.
And that included all the provisos in there?
All right.
Thank you.
Did you finish everything you had?
Yes, I did.
And you did go to the RCO and you made your presentation?
right and they're in favor of where of you doing this with providers absolutely okay okay
uh questions from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience okay i see no hands leaning commission this is uh
Ron Bednar city planning the property is zoned for neighborhood commercial mixed use on a city
plan the proposed use have no more of an impact than would be expected to have for its specific
location therefore we recommend that the board grant a special exception thank you MI 2022 001
328 914 West Gerrard Avenue I vote yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
Thank you, you have your vote, sir
Congratulations
Appreciate you guys
Okay, so now we're going to go to
Number 7
MI2022
001058332 Delancey Street
David Orfanides is the attorney
And I also have
Let's see here
I also have Paul Boney as the attorney for Society Hill Civic Association, and also Henry Clinton, who represents some near neighbors.
They've all been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Orphanides, you've already been sworn today, so just state your name for the record.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
And could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Certainly. My client is Phyllis Ellen Jacob, the owner of the Suffolk property.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth again?
I do again.
Okay. Mr. Bonney, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
My name is Paul Bonney, P-A-U-L-B-O-N-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. And I represent.
Could you identify your client, please?
Thank you. I represent the Society Hill Civic Association, the RCO, in this matter.
Hi. Is Mr. Clinton online?
Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
You are Henry Clinton, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, and I represent George Moore and Luis Cruz, who are adjacent near neighbors.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, Mr. Orphanides.
Good morning, Counselor.
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 that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Basically, we're using the same exhibit book we were going to use back in February.
the only difference in exhibits was the posting photographs, which I did forward five days in
advance. We did not have a tax clearance. Then we were just today able to secure a document that
looks like the clearance passed, but we can't print the certificate. So I have that to produce
today as well. That was not provided five days in advance. Okay. Can you please send a copy of that
over to our council? Yes. So we can vote on this if we are today. Yep. All right. Thank you. Please
proceed okay so we also have a letter of opposition from the society hill civic association
And, Council, we also have a letter of opposition from the Society Hill Civic Association and a letter of opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Mr. Chair, excuse me, this is Hillary.
I just want to note in the prior exhibit package, there was proof submitted that taxes had been paid through 2023, so we are fine in terms of tax compliance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hillary.
I appreciate that.
All right.
May I share my screen?
Yes, please.
Thank you.
Is this?
Again, my name is David Orfanides.
I'm an attorney with Orfanides & Toner here in Philadelphia.
My client is Phyllis Ellen Jacob.
She was by Ellen Jacob.
Ellen, I believe, is on this morning.
She's actually out of the country,
but she had notified me that she had zoomed in.
I also have with me Ryan Lucino, who's the architect for the project,
and Sean Graff, who's the contractor.
What I have up on the screen right now is a photograph that I took
of the front of the subject property.
It's located on the 300 block of Delancey Street,
right near the corner of the southeast corner of South 4th Street and Delancey.
And here you can see a picture of the property that's next to us
on the corner again. The second building in here that I'm circling to the right
from the corner, the first one is the abutting property to us that fronts on both
Galancy and South 4th Street. The next one to the right or to the south is a property that my client
also owns. She bought it at the same time she bought the subject premises and her daughter
resides in this property. There's actually a kind of a common area or shared courtyard or an open
courtyard between the two buildings. The next photograph that, and these are at tab 11 of my
exhibit book, and this is the top of page, I don't have page numbers, but I think it's the third one
of these exhibits, are two other properties that are the last two properties that abut my client's
property as it extends southward from Delancey Street, from the south side of Delancey.
The building that's located comes across the back of,
or portion of the back of the first building
to the south of my client's building on South 4th Street
where a daughter lives.
And then the other property to the right
that I'm now indicating with the kind of the maroon
or red bay is towards the rear of the property
give you a shot of the back. I think this is important. This application is for an addition
to the rear of that fourth floor. And unfortunately, that isn't in my aerials.
But I'm going to show you, this is what presently exists at the back of the fourth floor. So you can
see here in this picture, this is at tab five of my exhibit book. This is the fourth floor,
a fourth story, about 356 square feet. Mechanicals are on the roof. I've been moved up to the roof,
the condensers. There's a deck to the front, conforming deck of the fourth floor at Delancey
Street. And then the addition to what was originally up there, so on steel girders,
there's a door that right now you would go out, go down some steps to get to a door that would
access the mechanicals, the other mechanicals that there are in the building. There's a low
parapet around the rear here of this third floor roof. It's not designed as a deck. So this is
what exists there right now. So the plan, the original design, original proposal was to fill
in. This application was put in during the pandemic. So when everybody was home,
needing more space because they were cooped up, and because of the kind of odd configuration
of this fourth floor and the issues with maintenance, people having to go out to go in,
or Ellen to have to go out to go in to go get to the mechanicals, this application was put in.
And Ellen would testify and said to me, this is her forever home.
This is the home she's going to live the rest of her life in.
And so the idea was to kind of, it looks like this fourth floor was never really fully finished to the rear when it was done.
It kind of looks half baked and it was to clean it up and to enclose it.
So you can see here, these were the original zoning drawings that called, let me enlarge them.
It showed the existing fourth floor, the front deck, and then filling in that area to the rear, filling it in completely all the way up to the back of the parapet.
We were able to get, here are the windows of the first house to the south of the corner, and then as you go, proceed further south.
You can see there's an open courtyard and windows right here.
We were able to get into the neighbor's window. He allowed us to come in. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I was joking with counsel for the neighbors a couple minutes ago, per square foot, when you see what's left of this proposal, this may be the most expensive case per square foot that I've ever done.
we've had two community group meetings there's been countless uh reiterations drawings redrafting
redesigning discussions with attorneys mr bonnie um so you'll see what we have left but this is the
existing what you see out of the window of the of the neighbor's property the existing uh the back
of the existing fourth floor here and here you can see the deck that's on top of the bay this is the
third floor deck at the back of my client's property. So to fill it in, originally, what you
had was, this is what we were talking about it looking like, and here, let me just go to here,
this is what it was going to look like originally, taking it all the way to the back, squaring it off,
cleaning up the back, getting some light in there, and that was the original proposal.
Being in the neighbors, one of Mr. Clinton's clients' window, we kind of put up, I think, Mr. Graff, the contractor, put up some kind of mocked up what that would look like back there.
And, you know, it came out looking like you would see it out the window.
Through the course of discussions and negotiations with
Saturday Hill Civic Association, what we have ultimately came to was, let me just do it,
and again, I understand their position presently as one of opposition, but this is while we were
working towards trying to come to an arrangement and negotiation settlement, is to simply, and this
what we're presenting today so we started out with an addition here that was 185 square feet
on top of the 356 that's there what we're what we're coming to the board today and what are in
the revised drawings that we provided is just to fill in that notch that that in this unsightly
is just to fill in that notch, this unsightly notch that you see here.
notch that you see
And that is an area of only 36 square feet. So what we are asking for a variance today,
there would be no other change to the parapet back here. The doors that you see in the back
of the existing fourth floor right now would no longer exist. There would just be windows,
so there no longer be ease of access to the back.
The mechanicals would all be that are presently accessed
by going down the stairs and then back up.
Again, as you can see here, going down the stairs
and then out to one door and in the other door,
that would all be accessed from the interior.
So that area, and you can see in the revised drawings
that we have at tab three, right here,
filling in that notch is 10 feet by 10 feet and a half inch by three feet, seven and a quarter
inches. It's roughly 36 square feet. And that's what we're looking for a variance today to,
I don't know why it was originally designed that way. My client did not put in that original
variance, that variance for the addition to the, what was up there before and did not leave it in
this condition. It's a hardship for her and for her workers to have to go this way to access.
Obviously, she bought the property, but not living in a house, it's hard to know how it's
actually going to impact you once you're in there. Again, you can see the property to the east of us
here. And here we are at tab five again with what's going on, everything that's going on on
the rooftop over there. We did do shadow studies. Well, actually, let me go back one second.
Here, I want to show you. So again, photographs, I showed you what it looks like presently existing
and what the original proposal looked like from the neighbor's window. And what you end up seeing
getting is a little more in this area right here. You can see a little more as that stretches across
stretches across and fills in that gap. Nothing meaningful. I actually had to look pretty hard
to notice that. I was like, well, is it different? If you really toggle back and forth between the
two, you can see that's the little bit more that would be visible from the immediate neighbor's
window. In terms of we did a shadow study of what's existing and what with this 36 square
foot fill-in, what it would be like at tab seven. And as you can imagine, this corner that we're
filling in is located, first of all, we're on to the north, relatively to the north of everybody.
We're also then to the northeast of the properties on South 4th Street, and we're filling in a notch
that's on the opposite side of their properties. And you can see, if you look at this closely,
that there's no difference in terms of shadowing
on any of the neighboring properties
with what we're proposing to do here.
So I have floor plans at tab eight that show,
and I'm sorry about this,
it keeps flipping out of those different zooms.
Here you have the existing fourth floor.
Here's the mechanical area that gets accessed.
um here's the access out to the front deck here's the stairway to the left of what says existing
loft uh it's not it's not particularly it's not very tall even though uh it exceeds the height
limit for the uh for the zoning district it is not um it does not exceed the height that's allowed
for for roof decks or pilothouse access structures. It's not a very tall, it's
only eight feet three inches above the floor at that fourth floor level, and you
can see that here in the revised zoning drawings.
Again, this is this section that shows what we're filling in, the area to the
rear being left the way it is with no roof deck, and then the deck to the front.
So, and here's the dimension of eight foot three. So, it's not like this enlarged pilot house is even higher than what would otherwise be permitted, but it does exceed the 125 square feet originally, I mean, as it is today for a pilot house.
So, as such, it counts in the height, overall height of the structure.
But back to the floor plans, again, you can see, and I do have interior photos at tab 12, the whole house, including the front floor.
But you can see that door where you have to go out and then go in.
You know, in addition to the unsightly aspect of it back there and the hardship and having the.
In addition to the unsightly aspect of it back there and the hardship and having to go out and come back in to get to the mechanicals, it does leak as well.
And that's been unable to be cured by the contractor.
So kind of tearing this all up and fixing it is also something that they're hoping to stop that leaking right now.
And then here was the original proposal. Again, to fill in all that area, create more useful space and close some mechanicals, make it all interior access. And then here's what we're looking at today. Again, 36 square feet. It's a very de minimis variance request now at this point.
I don't know, again, why this wasn't done when this was originally approved. It makes no sense why it was left this way. I've seen no record as to the reasoning behind it. And again, it does cause a hardship and doesn't impact the air and light to the neighboring properties.
is an RSA you can see here at the zoning maps at tab 9 it's an RSA 5 property we're all familiar
with what the dimensional requirements are for those properties the deed for my client is at
tab 17 showing that she owns this property and property next door copy of the hearing notice
for today's hearing is at tab 18 the additional the photos for the posting of that notice that
I forwarded last week were tab 19. And again, Hillary mentioned the prior tax clearance from
the hearing in February, and then the additional documentation that we have showing zero real
estate tax balance, and then the confirmation of the passing of the tax clearance, but we couldn't
print a certificate. And for now, I would rest. I can have my client and the architect and the
contract or adopt my statements, and I just reserve the right to rebut anything that's raised
by Mr. Bonney and Mr. Clinton, and they'll call any of my client's witnesses to address any of
the points that they raised. And counsel, what's there now almost has like an unfinished look at
the bottom there? Did I see that? This is what it looks like right now. Again, it makes no sense
to any of us. It's a head scratcher. I mean, when I went up there, the contractor, I mean,
it looks, this is the way it was when she bought it, you know, as far as the notch and the doors
and everything else. And again, this is, you know, this is what it's going to look like when it's
done. Why don't we adopt your testimony? Sure. Ellen, could you raise your hand, please?
She's still on? She has been allowed to speak. Please wait for the chair. Good morning. Could
you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer? Yes. My name is Phyllis Ellen
Jacob, P-H-Y-L-L-I-S-E-L-L-E-N-J-A-C-O-B. And I go by Ellen. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Ellen, you're out of the country right now? Yes. Okay. And did you hear the
statements that I made to the board? Yes, I did. Are they true and correct to the best of your
knowledge? Yes. And would you adopt them as your own? Yes. And let me ask you a couple quick
questions. I mean, just one thing. What's shown right now I have up on the screen shows a rendering
of what we're left with at this point, filling in the notch with only the 36 square feet.
as I indicated, there's no, it's just windows in that back wall, no door. You have no intention
to utilize that area to the rear of the fourth floor as a deck, correct?
That's correct.
And that'd be as long as you reside there, correct?
Yes. And as you said this, I'm 65. I intend to stay here for the rest,
there for the rest of my life.
Your long life. Okay.
I hope.
All right. Thank you, Alan. Was there anything else you wanted to
add to anything that i stated no okay fine all right and then um brian lucino thank you alan
you can stay on brian yes proceed okay go ahead paul okay thank you
good morning ms jacob how are you fine thank you uh how long have you lived in this property
I purchased the houses. They were there on one deed on October 31st, 2017.
Okay. And have you enjoyed living in this house?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Okay. Is there any problem using this house as a single-family residence?
Okay. Is there any problem using this house?
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Ellen, I'm going to just follow up.
Ellen, I know where Mr. Bonney is going with this, but you had heard my statement or the statement I made regarding the issues with the current layout and the current way that the fourth floor functions.
It is a hardship, I mean, even using it as a single family to have to, for either you
or for your workers, to have to go out this back door that I'm showing here.
Let me move that, make this a hand.
Yes, and I, as a homeowner, it concerns me that when they access the mechanical room
up there, that they're potentially, if someone fell, that they're-
because there's no railing it's just a low parapet correct correct and that was that worries me
i understand yeah that's that's that's that's something that's concerning and that low parapet
though has the benefit of not creating shadow and not impacting air to the surrounding properties
is that correct yes okay that's my understanding and and you heard me state is there are there
problems in right now with that haven't been able to be resolved regarding because of the the exterior
door that doorway the way it's designed um to access the mechanical room regarding leaking
yes so that the door not so much the door that's to the west but the door that faces south that um
where you actually enter the mechanical room, it leaks into just below that, the mechanical room
is the third floor bathroom, the shower, and my ceiling in the shower on the third floor leaks
because of that, you know, the door that we can see facing directly south. And Ellen, just for
for the benefit of the board so i there to the left of in the picture there's next to your
building there's a building with a black roof with three condensers on top is that is that the
building that your daughter lives in i believe that that may be 333 okay south forest street
my daughter i believe is just north at 331 i rent 331 right uh to my daughter that would be mr
Clinton's client's property, correct? I believe so. Okay. I have no further questions.
Hey, Clinton, you have any questions? Yeah, I have a question or two. Ms. Jacobs,
my name is Henry Clinton. I represent George Moore, who lives at the property with the black
roof, as well as Louise Cruz, who lives to the left of that property with the white roof.
you know you have a deck on the front of your house correct yes okay and I gather you entertain
out there and have guests and friends over um I could but I have not been using that and when you
do uh entertain or have folks over uh you would would obviously engage in conversation chatting
discussions and that noise travels correct it could i would object i would object to the question
about voices traveling sound traveling i mean she she knows what it sounds like when she's sitting
there she doesn't know what it's like in anybody else's property yeah i understand your objection
but mr clint proceed that's we're going to let that question be answered yeah and also and also
So, Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about modifying the deck in the front.
We're talking about enclosing an area in the rear.
So I don't think it's relevant either.
I think it's okay to answer the question.
Okay, thank you.
I rarely use the fourth floor front deck.
If I were to use it, I'm a very quiet person.
So, you know, I live alone at 332 Delancey Street.
I don't have parties.
I'm 65 years old, so I'm not someone who makes noise.
I seriously doubt that any talking would, that that noise would travel, certainly not to the back of my house.
And Ms. Jacobs, are you aware that this fourth floor penthouse was built in response to a variance that was given to a private property owner in 1998?
I was not aware when I purchased the house that a variance had been granted to build the fourth floor.
a variance had been granted to build the fourth floor. I found out about the variance through
I found out about the variance.
this process of applying for a variance to expand to the rear of my house, so I was not aware
that a variance had been granted until very recently. Okay, and you're aware that you have
the tallest house on Delancey Street as well as on South 4th Street? In fact, it's over 44 feet high.
you aware of that i'm gonna get a check could you limit the area lancy's a long street and so
is south four street well this this hundred block of the lancy okay and this hundred block is south
i was i was not aware of that are you aware that your house is 44 feet four inches to the top of
the roof not including the parapet wall i i'm not aware of any dimensions like that i mean i
if that is so i accept that but i i was not aware of that okay no further questions at this point
mr chairman all right i have all right i just just to address if i could just address something
that hank raised while we're on it i mean i would ask the board to take notice of the of the aerial
image i have up at 6b um well i think it's fair to say that you know we're taller than the
buildings abutting us on South 4th and on Delancey Street, you can see from the pictures that they're
buildings as tall as us, if not taller, across the street on Delancey or up and down North 4th
Street just from this photographs alone. Well, I don't know that that's your interpretation of
this photograph. Well, I mean, you take a look at it. I just said it. I asked them to take note
of the picture of the photograph and it looks to me but that's we we see that we see the photograph
thank you that's all that's all i'm doing mr boney do you have another question yeah miss jacob
i see in on the tippy top of your house there's three condensers with a parapet in front of it
do you know when that was that a recent parapet that was installed you know when that was installed
i i don't think any change was made so you're asking me if if i were to go on the front
deck of the fourth floor and turn around and look south if it has changed in any way since
i purchased a property i don't think so so i i assume that i purchased the house looking like
that. But as I say, I so rarely go outdoors. Um, I don't, you know, I, I don't know if Sean
Graff, my contractor is, is on the call. Um, he would know, but I, I don't think any, I've changed
anything having to do with the, um, I don't think I've changed anything other than, um, I know that
we did a little work on the front deck and we then had a five foot setback. So I lost
square footage to comply with the current regulations. So it was non-conforming when
I purchased the property to today's regulation. So there was some shrinkage contraction of the
ill-conceived notch in the rear of the existing fourth floor, correct?
Yes, it does.
And at that fourth floor level, even with the notch filled in,
in terms of open area requirements for the zoning code,
NRSA 5, what's the open area requirement?
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure.
I believe it's 25%.
and all right and i would tell i would think everybody here all the professionals that's
correct so that's 75 occupied area correct right all right and then do you know what
with the addition what the well what without the addition what the occupied area is at the fourth
floor level uh yeah i have it
Uh, at the fourth floor level, it's with the additions 392 square feet.
Do you know what the percentage of occupied areas?
Pardon?
Do you know what the percentage of occupied area is?
With the new proposed addition, it's 28.82%.
And what is it presently?
Uh, 26.18%.
And that's based upon a lot area of what?
uh 1360 square feet okay that's a square footage of the existing lot yes okay I have no further
questions oh wait let me let me actually one other question um you're the the the floor to
ceiling height at that fourth floor level you're you saw me read off the plans that you prepare
you prepared the plans for this project correct yes I did and that the floor to ceiling height
from the fourth floor to the top of the top of the fourth floor is eight only eight feet three
inches is that correct yes so it's not a it's not you're not getting a ton of headroom up in that
fourth floor it's not like you have cathedral ceilings or you're not getting 10 foot ceilings
they actually left a large cavity between the third and fourth floor for some reason
right i think it had to do with some vaults below um so there's a it's actually quite tight up there
Okay. I mean, without that condition, that, you know, the existing condition of having that open space, do you know what the amount of the dimension of that open space is approximately how many feet?
Approximately two feet.
Okay. All right. So if that weren't there, then the whole fourth floor could be two feet lower, correct?
Potentially, yeah.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.
Proceed.
Good morning. I represent Mr. Moore and Ms. Cruz.
In this plan that's a rendering that's on the screen right now, what is the height of the parapet wall?
The rear parapet wall is...
Hank, to be clear, that's to the rear of the fourth floor, not on top of it?
Correct. To the rear of where the proposed notch out is.
I just want to be clear because Paul was referencing, I think, a parapet above the fourth floor.
So I want to make sure we're talking about that.
So the rear parapet at the third floor currently is about 33 feet, three inches above finish grade, average grade.
What is the height from the top of the roof of the third floor to the top of the parapet in that rear area?
Is it three feet, four feet?
uh no it's less than it's probably about 20 inches
are you aware of the total height of the building uh based on our dimensions the total height of
the building is 44 feet 4 inches and that was provided via the variance in 1998 as i understand
it yes okay so this request is asking for a an extension of a non-conforming use would you agree
with that i would i would object that's a legal conclusion number one and number two it's not
not correct once a variance is granted it's no longer a non-conformance under the zoning code
I agree with Mr. Orphanides and Aunt Henry.
The photographs that were shown earlier in this presentation, I gather you saw those photographs from Mr. Moore's rear property, rear of his property?
Do you know who took those photographs?
I believe Sean Graff did.
Okay. And did Mr. Moore allow Sean access to his property?
And did Mr. Moore allow Sean access to his property?
Yes, Sean or one of his employees.
Pardon me, I can't hear you, sir.
Sean or one of his employees were allowed access.
Did he take other photographs besides the one that you showed?
I took general survey photographs when I was originally on the property.
Were you inside Mr. Moore's property also?
No, I was not there on that day.
No, but I'm asking, did Sean take additional photographs besides the one that was shown today at the hearing?
If you know.
I'm not sure.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
One follow-up question.
Ryan, Mr. Clinton and I know Mr. Bonney have focused on the height of the existing fourth floor.
um is was the original edition the 185 uh i guess 185 square foot edition or the current
36 square foot edition built any taller than the existing uh fourth floor no the whole idea was to
keep it the same height and only be expanding out and what i mean we talked about a floor-to-ceiling
height of eight feet three inches um is it possible to make that notch well let me strike
strike that let me ask that question what happens if we were to make that fill in lower
uh we could make it a couple inches lower but not material okay does it create any other any
other issues if you were to have the change in height of that section versus the existing the
height of the existing fourth floor? It mainly creates flashing issues because we would have
to figure out how to drain just that one little area. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Are you done, Mr. Orfinites? I'm done. Mr. Boni, do you want to make a presentation?
Yeah, I just have a couple of questions of Mr. Lucino. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lucino,
Good morning. My name is Paul Bondi. I represent the Neighborhood Association.
Have you reviewed the prior zoning approvals on this property?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Do you believe that the existing structure complies with the prior zoning approvals?
Yes, I do.
Okay. David, could you put up the existing conditions?
Oh, yes, sure.
Okay, so I just want to make sure that, you know, when I look at the 1998 variants, I
don't see a fourth floor that goes property line to property line.
I see a much smaller fourth floor, one that's only on really half of the roof.
Right. You can go there, David. Yeah. Click there.
What do you want? You want to go to the zoning archives?
Sure. Sure. And then click a few pages down to the I'm going to go.
I'm going to go to the drawings that. Yeah, I may be incorrect.
I just want to ask the expert. Yeah, I think it looks that way, but it's not the case.
OK, well, I'm just pulling up the drawings. That's it. That's it. You got it.
All right. You want you can maybe turn that. Sure.
uh that way how's that yeah so i'll be your band of white i'm happy to do that for you
there you go oh sorry i went too well just shrink it just shrink it so we can see the label
okay okay right so it says proposed addition to fourth story structure
right but here's the let me just pull this help you out but here's the existing existing fourth
then and then this is okay and so it actually creates a pretty similar configurate the
notch is actually shown very clearly okay this is helpful this is helpful so yeah so this i was
wondering about that myself but yes okay so this creation of this notch is
the result of of this 1998 approval is that correct correct okay um if the parties at that
time in the zoning board wanted to go straight across that would be a different situation but
but what was approved was this notch, is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay, thank you. And just to shift gears, that parapet on the tippy top in front of the condensers, that's ancient history, or is that new construction?
Okay, thank you.
And just to shift gears, that parapet on the tippy top,
It was there when I surveyed in 2020.
Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have anybody else for adopting statements.
I reserve the right to call them back if I need to address something that's been raised by Mr. Bonney or Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Bonney, do you want to make a presentation?
Yes, I'd like to share my screen if you'd like to share my screen.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we have a letter of opposition as our first exhibit.
Our second is our RCO summary sheet. And our third is a Google Earth that shows that in this area,
there's only one property that stands head and shoulders above the rest, and that's the subject property.
which has four stories.
Every other property in this vicinity has three stories.
This fourth story exists because of two prior variances.
The first variance was, I believe, in the 1980s,
and that allowed a stair tower.
and then that was expanded in the late 1990s to the current condition. There was, as you see in
our materials, there was intense neighborhood involvement and engagement in the late 90s.
Neighbors had lawyers and there was a lot of, actually, the full documentation is in the
applicants exhibits but you'll you'd be able to see that you know there was a lot of neighborhood
interest and i would i would suggest to the board that um the current configuration was very
intentional and the current configuration respects the near neighbors and so therefore
um what was the second variance that was granted in this chronology in the late 1990s
is what should be respected. We were here before. We were all, or we are, we were our predecessors.
We're all here before. And we all work this out to the satisfaction of everybody. And that is what
happened in 1998 when this design was built and it gave some breathing room. There was a suggestion
that we can't figure out why it was built that way. It's obvious why it was built that way. It's
obviously why it wasn't built all the way out to the back of the building or even close to the
back of the building. And that's because there's houses and people that live back there that would
be impacted. And that that was what the result of what happened in the late 1990s was what we see
today. I certainly don't think there's any hardship with having, there's mechanicals on almost
everybody's roof in this neighborhood, if not the city. And to be able to have to go outdoors
to service a mechanical or to put on a new roof or to do anything like that is certainly not
the type of hardship that warrants a variance. We all know what a hardship means, and I don't
think that's a hardship in this case. We've had neighborhood meetings. We've had input from
neighbors have expressed to us and indicated to us that there is impact and we agree with that
and we think that a property that has had two variances already to expand to create and expand
the fourth floor we have you you know that a third one is just not warranted um and especially when
you're already the tallest building on the block. So, you know, we, we are opposed to this project
and, you know, look, if, is there a way to clean up the back of that fourth floor? Sure. There's
a way to clean up the back of that fourth floor, not by expanding it, not by expanding it. Thank
Not by expanding it, not by expanding it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Clinton?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have something to share.
If I could share my screen.
Yeah, my mistake.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman?
It is.
Yeah, so I don't want to be totally redundant with regard to Paul, because I think it was quite eloquent in summarizing what's going on here. But I really describe this as kind of a creeping encroachments. You've already had two variances. You're looking for a third variance on what is already the tallest structure in that neighboring vicinity.
uh and you know while i'm not arguing this is a domino effect but you know what what's to stop
you know someone this owner the next owner for now requesting that a deck be put on the back
of the property uh which then will further impact all the adjacent neighbors uh this is the 1998
zoning records that paul already went through and i just wanted to show my aerial photographs
from the top down. So this is my client right here, Mr. Moore and Ms. Cruz. They're directly
impacted with whatever goes on in this property at 332 Delanche Street. We understand that the
back may be a little bit unsightly, according to the photographs that we've seen. But again,
that doesn't entail or doesn't require an addition on the back end of this property.
And moreover, Ms. Jacobs has testified she's lived there since 2017, and apparently, you know, someone was able to get to the mechanicals and someone was able to service them and allow the house to be continuing functioning.
this is a letter that my clients submitted early on in this in this matter indicating that the
structure that was the expanded structure at the very beginning would be very close to their
buildings and would block light and air so basically mr chairman i just have two arguments
One is a legal argument is there's really no hardship shown for this addition.
There's a creeping variance procedure going on here that who knows where it will stop.
The request is an impact on the adjacent neighbors, and it impairs the use of the adjacent properties.
From a factual point of view, from 1998 and prior, there's already been variances granted,
And we don't see the benefit of permitting another expansion of a building, which already is the largest on the block.
Mr. Clinton, could you go back a couple of pages to the aerial view?
I want to point something out to the board.
So right there.
So at 335 South 4th in the back, in the courtyard, there is a whole set there.
I believe there's four windows on their top floor that face the subject property.
Is that correct?
You are correct.
So while the photograph that was shown in the applicant's presentation was taken from 333,
no photographs were shown from any of those four windows in 335.
And I just want to point out, Mr. Chair, because Mr. Clinton reminded me,
332 Delancey Street is a gorgeous, beautiful building with a huge front deck. You can see
the Brown Square overlooking the 300 block of Delancey. It's a gorgeous house. The only reason
I point that out is to say that we're not depriving the owner of this property, who is our constituent
also, as much as the neighbors are our constituents. We're not depriving this property owner of
anything. This property has already benefited from two variances in the past to create a fourth
floor that no one else has. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, if I can just take a couple minutes
to address a couple. I just want to have a follow-up for Mr. Clinton. Oh, sure. And I understand
your client's letter was written when it was going to be the much larger. Mr. Clinton, the 32 feet,
Am I right?
That's 32 square feet?
36 square feet.
Does that impact?
Because it's going right where we are now, right?
Does that does that change people's views or anything like that in the back?
Does that change people's views or anything like that in the back?
It does, Mr. Chairman, because and I understand your point about encroachment of variance after variance.
But tell me tell me about the 36 square feet.
Yeah, the 36 square feet, which, you know, David is referring to as a notch while it's on this side of the building.
The parapet wall is being increased in height and you're going to have an area in the rear of the property that, you know,
But both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bonney raised the point, seemed to emphasize that you've had two variances for the roof deck already, I mean, for the fourth floor already, and this is the third, and then there's the potential for creep.
So, first of all, and when they both told me this when we were in intense discussions over the last couple days, I was like, wow, I only remember there being one for that.
And so the variance that's referenced in 1985, it says the application for direction of a three-story addition, a second floor bay extension, and a roof access stair enclosure as part of a three-family dwelling.
So the refusals were open area, presumably for the three-story addition.
and then because the property is was zoned r10a at the time and actually it's funny it's nancy
glass was the applicant if anybody remembers from what was there was a tv show here in philly long
ago in 70s or 80s um sorry i digress but because r10a was a single family zoning district it's
what we now call RSA-5. And because it was a three-family dwelling, so one was for open area,
the other one was for the extent, the three-family dwelling had been granted by variants in 79.
You can see at the bottom, at calendar number 79145E, back on 12-20-79. And then because you
were increasing, expanding the area of the variants, not of the non-conforming, because
non-conforming uses under the current zoning code can be expanded up to 10% of the floor area.
But if it's granted by variance, it's different. If you increase the area at all, then for that use,
then that has to go back to the zoning board. And those were the two variances. So it wasn't a
variance, at least as it was issued by L&I at the time, it was not a variance. And this was Neil
Schreiber, who I think some of us would remember, at least specifically for the roof access stair
enclosure. So there was one variant specifically regarding the fourth floor, and that was with the
application that Cecil Baker did the drawings for, his firm did the drawings for in 98. So there's
been one. In terms of creep, I understand that. We've talked about that. We don't want that. We
were willing to say like there's not going to be any more addition out the back. But I think that
this is a pretty specific set of circumstances that can distinguish it from other situations,
which I think is always important when you are granting a variance and you're concerned about
creep. Here you have this kind of oddball condition, which despite what Mr. Clinton and
what Mr. Bonnie say is a hardship, and it is unique to this property, one that was built,
and we don't know why, and it doesn't make any sense in the present day, and it does cause a
hardship and a potential risk. And what we're proposing, despite what they're saying, impacting
the neighbors, you saw from the photograph that we took that you have to look really hard to see
what the fill-in is going to look like. And you saw the shadow studies that show that there is
no difference. If anybody's going to be impacted, it's the property to the east of us, the one with
all that going on on the rooftop, the massive property with a whole lot of stuff on their
rooftop. So because the addition is opposite Mr. Clinton's clients, it's on the opposite side of
the property. So we've clearly demonstrated, I think that this is the minimus, that it's not
going to impact air and light, clearly it's not going to impact, there's no shadow. I mean, not
Not only is it so small and it's not only on the other side of the property, but we're also to the north and east of their properties.
And we know how the sun works, particularly in most of the time of the year when it's in the southern hemisphere.
So in a southern sky, I mean. So for those reasons, this very specific set of circumstances,
this very limited variance without any impact upon the air and light of budding properties we would or neighboring properties,
And by the way, the impact upon air and light by the zoning code needs to be upon conforming properties.
And I would argue that if you look at the photos that I have in my package from the rear yard of my client's property, and you see the backs of their property, how close they are to their rear property line, that they probably are not conforming properties.
In fact, I would almost certainly state that they're not. It's clear that they don't have very much open area or rear yard depth and that are required under the zoning code.
And as such, they can't claim that my air and light is being impacted when they're not a conforming property.
And that is specifically in the zoning code. A lot of people don't realize that or forget about it, but you can't have the pot calling the kettle black.
I can't say. I'm not conforming, and that's what it is.
I'm not conforming and that's what it is.
We can litigate this later, but I disagree with that statement.
We can litigate.
I understand. Mr. Orphanides, are you done?
Yes, I am. Thank you. Mr. Boni, would you want to summarize?
No. Yes, I do want to summarize. Thank you.
The point is, we were here before in the late 90s, and we solved the problem at that time.
To the extent someone is, thinks that that was, is, is now in need of some change. It's the, it's certainly self-inflicted, any hardship. I mean, I think, I think the state, the articulation of the hardship, I think is not adequate, to say the least.
and if it is it's a it's a self-imposed hardship but um you know we we were here before there was
a claim of hardship in the late 90s there was an assertion that this is the variance needed to cure
the hardship and that variance was granted and the property has been lived in for 25 years
since since uh since 1998 so you know to say there's a hardship i think is is really a stretch
and there is impact to the neighbor yes there's one photograph one selective photograph that's
brought forth by the applicant um but there is impact to this neighbor and to their to these
neighbors and to their and to the future people that lives in live in those homes which is what
the Civic Association is concerned about also. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Clinton?
Yeah, just real quick, Mr. Chairman, I incorporate Mr. Abani's comments. Just one thing I like to
point out is, you know, my client has good relations with Ms. Jacobs. He wants to continue
those relations. He let individuals come into his own home who then took photographs and
apparently are using those photographs now against him. So it's kind of ironic where my
client, in effect, is assisting with a variance that we now chose. I don't really think there's
a hardship here. I understand that someone has to go outside to address the mechanicals, but
that has been the use, as Paul says, over the last 20 years. So I just think the board has to look at
the totality of the circumstances, look at the impact on the adjacent neighbors, and indicate
that this is not something that we're going to continue to grant when there's been two
prior variances as I understand it. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Questions from the Board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commissioner?
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. The proposal has already received a variance for height, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship for additional height beyond the initial variance that is not self-created. Accordingly, the City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the dimensional variance.
thank you um we're going to vote on this next wednesday at 9 30 i'd like to really have some
time to sit and talk to the other board members about it exactly where we are with this uh i want
to thank everybody for your uh your discussions and uh we'll do this next wednesday is that okay
hillary next wednesday yeah i was just going to say mr chair we don't have hearings next week so
it'll be the 28th at 9 okay 28th wednesday the 28th yes okay thank you mr thanks thanks
Thanks, everyone. We appreciate it. And thank you very much.
Thank you. Have a great day.
Right. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called this morning?
I see no hands.
Okay. Thanks, everyone.
Thanks, Jerry. Have a good day.