now i so it's right here i hit the share button on this is that let me see so you have to hit
the share button on the zoom okay right right now it says okay and then click on your document
can you could we move on and someone maybe could call and give them a little start share is that
is that let me see yes okay
are you in the office
yeah would there be someone there who could assist
I'm here by myself today.
So, Chair, the only thing I could suggest is if we're unable to proceed, a continuance.
Let me just see if I can work on this.
If you have somebody else, you can just take us out of order.
Tonya, let's...
I have it on my screen.
I just can't figure out how to share it with you.
Why don't we do this?
Can we move forward?
and then we'll go back at the end I think we have about two cases left and then we'll go back and
see where he stands great as you wish chair okay all right Mr. Ramondi see what you can do we'll
get back to you in a little bit thank you I appreciate it I'm sorry chair if I could ask
please turn your video and mute yourself sir and we will call you when we're prepared for you to
proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Number 10, MI 2022-001-055-5100 Ray Street.
Jose Rosario, letter of opposition from 44th Ward, RCO. Also, Councilwoman,
got the a's office no exhibits first listing
mr rosario i see no hands chair so this case will be continued mark must be tried i'm sorry
chair someone just put their hand up okay that's fine that's fine i'll allow them to speak to make
sure it is okay yeah sir hello hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes how are you doing sir uh my name is ronaldo deluna r-o-n-a-l-d-o
last name is deluna yeah space l-u-n-a right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth is nothing but the truth truth yes sir all right so we we have no uh documents from you as
of yet we don't have a package um so we're going to continue this case and next time must be tried
okay um i'm sorry chair this is tanya please may i interject a thought and ask what is your
relationship to the case sir the architect i'm not a designer right so where's the owner sir
He's here with me, but the language is a barrier.
So if I could request, you reach out to the zoning board office to put in a request for an interpreter.
We will continue the case.
And when the case next is scheduled, we must have an interpreter.
The architect cannot testify in behalf of an owner.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
When would the next take be?
We can talk offline. Please reach out to our office, sir.
Thank you very kindly, Chair. You may continue.
MI 2022
00756 5623 Appletree Street.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
Letter of support from HMC Square.
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist.
Hi, Chair, this is Tanya again.
I hate to be interrupting, but did we officially continue the previous case?
Yes, it must be tried.
Mr. Ward.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Sean Ward, on behalf of the applicant and owner, Qadir Counsel, Q-A-A-D-I-R, Counsel, C-O-U-N-C-I-L.
My name is spelled S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I most certainly do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Carol.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and please share your screen.
Okay, Mr. Chair, I've submitted my typical exhibit packet in this matter.
A1 is the notice of refusal. The application was a permit for the erection of a two-family dwelling
on an existing vacant lot. It resulted in four refusals. Two-family requires a variance in the
RSA 5 district. We're seeking a variance for the third floor facade setback, the occupied area,
and the rear yard depth. Accordingly, we're here seeking variances today. A2 is the ZBA application
of appeal. A3, the project information form. A4, proof of ownership. A5, proof of tax compliance.
A6 is the application site and elevation plan. Pursuant to our meetings with the RCO,
We revised the site and elevation plan.
There are facade changes only, no changes in size or location, and no changes to the refusals.
We did submit the revised plan proviso form at Hillary's request yesterday.
So she should have that.
A8 are floor plans.
A9 are photographs.
A10 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing.
Again, the initial meeting was held March 31st.
A follow-up meeting held May 5th.
A-11 is the RCO letter of support from HMC squared. A-12, if the district council person
submitted a letter, I would ask that be marked as A-12 for the record. And A-13 is the relevant
property history. From 1953 until recent history, it was used as a two-family dwelling.
However, in 2021, there was an imminently dangerous case for this property,
resulting in a complete demolition. So we're looking to simply rebuild a new two-family
dwelling on the site of the previous two-family dwelling. A14 is the zoning map and A15 is the
aerial photo. Briefly, the applicant and the owner is Kadir Council. He purchased the property
August of 2021. It's located on Apple Street between 56th and 57th. It is in the RSA 5 district.
As far as existing conditions, again, it's an existing vacant residential lot.
It was a vacant structure from about 2009 up through to 2021.
There were two unsafe structure violations in 2015, an imminently dangerous violation in 2021, and again, resulting in the total demolition of the property.
Again, with the zoning history, it was a two-family dwelling since 1953.
As far as the site and elevation plans, we propose a three-story structure, 33.4 feet high with a brick façade.
The application called for brick façade at the first floor with siding above.
However, pursuant to the request from the RCO, Mr. Counsel has agreed and provided revised plans showing a full brick façade with a matching cornice line to blend in with the existing properties on either side.
and it will have a roof deck and pilot house, which has the required setback.
Unit A would be a two-bedroom, two-bath. Unit B would be a three-bedroom, two-bath.
And the roof deck was for residential use only. Other properties on the block, it's basically a
well-maintained block. It's mostly occupied. However, there are four vacant lots, including
the subject, and five vacant structures. And some of those are imminently dangerous cases as well.
With regard to the RCO letter of support, there were 22 attendees, 19 either supported or not opposed the application and three were opposed. So very quickly, we have our notice of refusal.
so very quickly we have our notice of refusal we have our application of appeal
our project information form a copy of his deed
proof of tax compliance uh here is the original plan as you can see it had a bay with siding and
shingle roof on top of the pent at the front. Pursuant to the discussion with the RCO, we have
decided to do a full brick facade on the front with a matching cornice line to blend in with
the properties on either side. So they were very happy with that. Again, we have the floor plans,
two units. Unit A is a two-bedroom unit and unit B is a three-bedroom unit. Here's an aerial photo.
As you can see, it's a vacant lot. There's other vacant lots on the block.
Again, here is a picture of the subject.
This is another vacant lot on the block.
Two vacant lots.
With regard to one of the variance requests, we are seeking to build similar to what appears on
several houses on the block. They have enclosed their front porches. However,
our design would have that incorporated into the new construction. As you can see,
there's other vacant properties on the block. Another one. This house is
currently undergoing some renovations. Again, here's another example of the
enclosed front porch area that we are looking to do as well. And here is our
Our meeting notice, it included a copy of the refusal.
It went out to 139 homes in the area.
We have the addresses.
We have our certificate of mailing, 139 pieces of mail went out on April 20th for the meeting.
Here is the letter of support from HMC Squared.
As you can see, 11 in support, 6 in support with provisos, and this says one non-opposition
However, in their summary, I'm sorry, I'm too fast, they say two non-opposition.
So I believe two is correct.
So in any event, 19 of the attendees were either in support or non-opposition to the application, with three opposed.
As far as the zoning history, as you can see here, it was a two-family dwelling, 1953.
And then this is a copy of the imminently dangerous case violation from 2001.
on. We have this zoning map and the aerial photograph. I would also point out with regard
to the rear yard setback, here is the deed map from Atlas. And you can see many of the
properties on the block have varying rear yard depths on both our side of the block
and on the other side of the block. So the rear yard depth as proposed is not out of character
for this block. I do have Kadir counsel on the call. He can either be allowed to speak to verify
and adopt, or as an officer of the court, I can represent that he would, in fact, verify my
representations as true and correct, and he would adopt them as his own testimony. We can take
your uh your uh uh counsel it's fine very good question this this was too this was too family
before it was demolished yes 1953 up until uh became vacant in 2009 and at which time it fell
into uh right you know a drastic disrepair all right questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
Here, we have Jacqueline Carlton.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Jacqueline Carlton, J-A-C-Q-U-E-L-Y-N-C-A-R-L-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Good morning, zoning board.
My name is Jacqueline Carlton.
HMC Square stands for four communities.
Hattenton, Morris Park, Carroll Park, and Cathedral Park.
We represent the 19th District of the 4th City Council District, and a proportion of the 3rd City Council District.
Our layout of these four communities is surrounded by the SEPTA Transit.
I'm representing HMC Square. We've been existing for approximately 12 years, maybe longer.
I oppose because the 5600 block of Appletree Street is
The 5600 block of Appletree Street is a narrow one-way street.
And we do have on the 100 block North 56th Street, three-story homes without a roof deck.
Also in Haddington and Carroll Park, which I am focusing at this moment, there were vacant lots.
The first one was 5745 Market Street, two-way parking with roof deck.
1450, and that would be Haddington.
Now I'm focusing on Carroll Park, which is part of HMC Square.
1454 North 57th Street was a bacon lot.
Two-way parking on that street, three-story apartment with roof deck.
And also in Carroll Park, 1432 North 57th Street, a bacon lot.
two-way parking street, three-story apartment with roof deck. I oppose because there was an
opportunity for Mr. Counsel to buy a property on the 100 block North 56th Street, and he could
have had his vision for the three-story dwelling. But since he didn't, this is why I'm on
um the zoom today the problem is because the fourth councilman district borderlines the third
city council district mr council is imitating what they're building in the third council district
which are three-story of apartments with the roof deck which we do not need at this time
in the fourth city council district i really believe um since i live in haddington that
he really persuaded the neighbors on 5600 block apple street to just move forward and focus on
his vision um we did ask mr council if he was not approved would it be a hardship uh on uh march
31st and then again on may 5th and he said yes so i want to thank you for the opportunity and
i'm finished okay just one thing though but but hmc did send a letter of of support right
yes that's correct all right i know that's fine i appreciate your time and effort in calling
are there any other comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission
this is ron bednar city planning property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan recommends no changes to the existing residential single family zoning
at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical
physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used
conformity with the code therefore we recommend the quest for variance not be granted thank you
ron mi 2022 000 756 5623 apple tree street i vote yes revised plans one page stamp june 22nd
20-22.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ms. Miller-Saheem, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, so back to number nine.
Thank you, thank you, actually.
Number nine, MI 2021-001-677-4363-Frankford Avenue, Mr. Ramondi.