I was confused about what was going on.
He took a little vacation.
All right.
So board member Johns didn't like that. There was only one exit through the rear of the back bedroom and wish to see one through the kitchen.
He noted that this layout would allow for that.
And so an exit through the first floor kitchen was installed on the the plans.
And then the updated provides a submission.
Second, the board raised a concern about the front porch condition.
This is one that's a little trickier to address.
they either suggested closing up the windows from the front unit looking out onto the porch
or making that porch only accessible by the front unit so the front porch is going to be
only accessible through the first floor unit and then finally the board requested revisions
And then finally, the board requested revisions to the second and third floor bathroom layouts to include both showers and bathtubs.
to the second and third floor bathroom layouts.
And that's also been included.
So to recap, 2023, this was remapped from RM1 to RSA5.
There's at least two active three-unit buildings on this side of the block.
And we're hopeful that our proposal will be pleasing to the board.
we have full support 10 to nothing from the rco and we believe that we're presenting a good project
you want to have your testimony adopted uh mr ola are you available virtually
they're being promoted to panelists
Do we see him?
Yeah, good morning.
This is Mohammed Ullah.
could you please spell state your name and then spell it for the stenographer
mohammed m-o-h-a-m-m-a-d-u-l-l-a-h right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth it's true please proceed counsel uh mr ola did you hear my testimony just
now regarding your project and the updates that your architect made to the plans yes do you adopt
those as your own yes you okay you agree with what i said thank you questions questions from the board
can i see the layout for the second and the third
tell me when to scroll or not scroll that's this is on the which is my right
that's the bathroom yes there yeah there's the bathroom um on each of those okay so
okay they were able to fit a tub on the second floor and a shower on the third floor
yeah yeah a little small sorry let me get the reading
oh and there's also trash closets were installed on each of the three floors
i don't believe that that was too big of a deal but we put them in there
and then it says on the third you didn't put in a tub
i don't believe they were able to fit one on the third floor mohammed are you
aware of the reason for that the third floor yeah they gotta have it at the top too
on the top floor you're gonna have them at it yeah they already added though
i can see it on the second floor but not on the third floor drawings exactly mohammed
because i guess i guess the question really is you know could you do one of those you know with
the bathtub with the shower i actually think seems like if it comes to that i'm just i don't
i'm not sure what was done so can we probably just says the bathtub here i'm sorry here's what
what it looks like now, Mohammed.
Okay. Thank you.
I can ask the architect to try to make the updates and expand that room a little bit.
Other questions from the board?
Questions from our attorney?
None at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff.
This property was remapped to its present RSA 5 residential single-family zoning as part of a community remapping in 2023.
The RSA 5 zoning is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that were prevented from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the requested variance for multifamily living.
So, MI2025-006-648-739-North 44th Street, I vote yes.
So MI 2025 006 64
Sheryl Gaskin, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Board.
Thank you, Councilor.
Have a good day.
number six mi 2026 000 484 1254 north 19th street alan knockamson is the attorney
morning council morning mr chair could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client
the relationship to the property uh yes my client is invest 365 llc the owner of the property so
this is a resumptive hearing
and my understanding is you will um um start out and give us some updates about
the project right am i correct yes yes um and then um it'll be questions from the board and we'll
public comments and also planning so why don't you start and tell us give us an overview where
you were and where you are now great uh first of all welcome uh board member uh bb uh to the board
i look forward to presenting more projects in front of you including this one um so welcome
uh so this project is in the brewery town section of philadelphia uh my client is looking uh to put
two-family household living here and just as a matter of background this board or a version of
this board approved this project in 2020 my client was not involved with that but you know as part of
that project not only was the zoning variance granted for the same exact use and dimensions of
this prop of this project but my client also got my client's predecessor also got a building permit
for the project unfortunately the person who who started this project uh didn't have enough time
or money to finish it my client then purchased it unknowingly was unable to get the building
permits reactivated because of the length of time from his predecessor my client then tried to
reactivate it but was unsuccessful so he's going through this process merely to essentially
reactivate this zoning permit that was previously approved by way of variance and then hopefully
a building permit when i made a presentation of board we showed full community support for this
project and showing that this was an exact replica of what was previously approved by this another
version of this board there was concerns about the basement use again you know i understand the
concerns about you know basement use you know with this board I would not typically present a
project of this type like as a new but you know because of the doctrine of vested rights and the
circumstances that came about how this project came about and the fact that it's basically the
shelves completely built and many different components including the foundation were built
I stated that you know we asked you know to allow this project to proceed by way of variance
You know, the board was still concerned about like the access to the basement and asked us to consider having exterior steps leading from the rear of the property because we're a corner property, so we have that ability to do that to from the rear of the property to the exterior first floor, and we were able to do that.
we submitted revised plans which is two pages showing that exterior access where the opening
on the ground floor would be coming through basically a laundry room going up a flight of
steps to the first floor and then have a walkway in the rear yard and that is all in my presentation
i am not i have not been promoted as a panelist so i don't have any ability to share my screen
WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT FOR YOU.
OKAY. BUT THAT'S THE GIST OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
AND JUST AS A MATTER OF JUST RECORD-KEEPING PURPOSES, THERE ARE TWO REFUSALS HERE.
ONE FOR THE USE. OUR LAW IS 765 SQUARE FEET. UNDER BASE RM1 ZONING, WE WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A
RIGHT TO HAVE TWO UNITS, BUT WE'RE IN AN OVERLAY WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL LOST SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 850
SQUARE FEET AGAIN THIS YOU KNOW THIS PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE BOARD HEARD THAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT
THAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT NOT JUST DURING MY LAST PRESENTATION BUT YOU KNOW FIVE YEARS AGO OR SIX
NOT JUST DURING MY LAST PRESENTATION BUT YOU KNOW BY
YEARS AGO AND APPROVED BASED ON THOSE SAME MARKET AND SAME CONDITIONS THE SECOND REFUSAL HAS TO DEAL
WITH NO ROOF DECK ACCESS STRUCTURE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE'RE IN AN OVERLAY BUT IT'S NOT OUT OF CHARACTER
BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER ROOF DECK ACCESS STRUCTURES NEARBY STILL HAVEN'T BEEN PROMOTED AS A PANELIST BUT
are we taking care of that
thank you
So I'm just going straight to my exhibit for, I don't know why it's going that big of a screen, but it is.
So let's see if I can, oh, not that small.
Let's see, sorry about that.
I don't know why it's doing that.
anyway these are revised plans which show uh the uh you know the basement um the exterior steps
leading from the basement to the rear of the property and there's a way to get out as well
so and i can also show my floor plans which have been revised as well let me do that
okay here we go and as you can see here this is the basement level uh this is the laundry room
and this is the door that comes out of the laundry room in the lower level go up a flight to steps
and then come out uh you know the rear uh where there's you know access secondary access for that
lower level unit i'll leave that page on there if there's any questions you want to bring your
client on yes uh mr good can you virtually raise your hand
they're being promoted to panelists share thank you
how you doing hi good morning could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
now g good n-a-j-e-e-g-o-o-d-e right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes counsel uh yes mr good first of all you're an authorized uh
representative of invest 365 llc the owner of the property yes uh you heard everything i had
to state today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes and do you adopt
this your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board
um i'm gonna ask again um what is the depth actually for this uh i can i can take a look at
it um let me see i think we're almost exclusively below gray uh you know below
it is that's what it is uh seven feet yeah so again we understand that this is something that
the board typically would not approve as a new but this is a building structure that's already up
with the foundation and and everything in between we were probably like and correct me for more
nausea you're probably like this is this project is essentially halfway done would you ask yes
Yes. Order frame is complete and a few of the MEPs. It was just left there, though.
So besides this, the only light in the air we're talking about is from this exit here.
That is correct.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
question question about changes so when i know right now you said it's seven feet below grade
but previously it was nine feet three inches below grade so did we no we did no adjustments
no we did no adjustments below grade it is nine feet three according to my notes i have handwritten
notes here that says nine three three inches so we have not made any changes to the fiscal
characteristics of the depth of the property we can't we have the foundation what was asked of us
from this board was to see about maybe having a secondary form of egress for for the occupant
for the you know first uh for unit number one which is on the first floor and lower level
yeah i mean we had talked about that and we had talked about trying to increase the window wells
yeah i mean we had talked about that and we had talked about trying to increase the window wells
um i can't speak to that i know that we will you know we made whatever modifications we could and
that's what we did by way of the uh exterior staircase okay are there any others window
wells in the building at all um mr good it's two okay so there's one in the front bedroom
right here in the front is one on the side in like that living room area and then it'll be
the egress the new egress door step so it's three down there in the basement and your point and
right here that'll be w7 and then if you scroll down a little bit more because i can't see
it's the other w7 those are two egress windows okay other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney no questions at this time questions or comments
from the virtual audience no hands at this time chair planning commission madison matera planning
commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change from the previous cmx2 commercial mixed
use zoning at this location however in 2017 this property was remapped to rm1 residential
multi-family as part of a wider council supported remapping action additionally in 2020 the board
granted a variance for the erection of an accessory roof deck with roof access structure the lot size
is variance being requested as de minimis.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission
recommends the board grant the requested variances
for minimum law area for two-family dwelling and roof
Number six, MI 2026, 000484, 1254 North 19th Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA on January 7, 2026.
Sheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Taneta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
I'm McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
Iowyn, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Number four, MI-2025-003-573-1828-McClellan Street.
Commander Rizzio is the attorney.
They're being promoted to panelists, Chair.
Morning.
good morning good morning council could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes raymond orizio last name is spelled d-o-r-i-z-i-o uh my address is 2 pence center suite 520
philadelphia pa 19102 attorney id is 93400 i represent the applicant for 1828 uh mcclellan
Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Just for the record, could you identify your client?
Yes, my client's name is James DeSimone.
All right. So this is a resumptive hearing, and we want you to give us an update of where we stand on the case now.
And if you would, when you start out, talk about what the case was real shortly and then talk about what it is now, okay?
Sure. So my client is looking to, it's an RM1 property. He's looking to have two units. The refusal was for the non-setback in the third floor or the roof deck. So the third floor setback and the lot, minimum lot requirements.
so he was only um let's see he was so those were the two um we met with the rco three times the
first meeting they asked us you know that they have a setback we did a mansard roof it seemed
like that was fine uh we haven't had any pushback on that minimum lot requirement um a variance
were asking for i think it's four feet that my client is asking for um at the second rco meeting
they asked my client to submit a certification that he was going to be live in one of the units
he did that he is going to live there he's a a resident of the area lifelong he wants to stay in