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.