This increase in height in the proviso plan does not change the number of refusals and is still in line with the same refusal, even though it is slightly higher.
But for the reasons that will be indicated and the consensus that was reached, that is one of the modifications made to the plans.
as as indicated this is the addition of the original refusal with the original proposal
we are just now two feet higher for geographic purposes the property is located along west
chestnut hill avenue and is better viewed on this slide as a very large flag lot in the area
viewed on this slide as a very large flag lot in the area. And it is situated next to
two properties, 115 and 117 West Chestnut Hill Avenue, which was at one time one property with
the rear structure, a carriage house, very close within two to six feet at varying lengths of the
property line and had been subdivided to leave two properties there. The location of the attached
or the, I'm sorry, the accessory garage has been proposed in this area. And originally,
as plans will show, it was a little bit closer to this property line within the appropriate
setback limits, but still with a refusal for height. From a satellite imagery standpoint,
you can see the proximity of the houses together and an overall layout of where things stand.
And so the original, let me just show you some pictures as well.
The structure, this is the Spillane's property from the garage.
This side is the far side from the street of their property.
This represents that this is the home of the 117 parcel owner.
And this is the home of the 115 West Chestnut Hill parcel owner.
The garage was set to go closer to this fence line and in this area,
but has been moved 10 feet closer or seven feet closer from its original proposed to a 10-foot setback off this rear property line closer to the driveway area, which will also get some improvement.
This is a view of the property from the street, and the structure will sit generally in this position as viewed from the street.
A little bit closer of the view there.
And the original plan, for reference purposes, had the proposed garage at a three-foot setback, again, which was not a refusal, but still was addressed in neighborhood discussions.
The original plan provided for a structure that was essentially 19 feet in height at the rear point.
And my understanding is that the height of this structure without the dormer would have been a by right structure, but the addition of the dormer created the need for a different average height on the property, creating the refusal.
So, just again for reference, since this plan has been revised slightly, the original plan provided for this garage, and as you'll see in later photos, the increase in height that was agreed to allows for additional height on the first and second floors to allow for a little bit more reasonable comfort in the location.
The plan proviso, as indicated, was just an increase from side yard setback, but not something necessarily with respect to any refusals and still falls within the by right setbacks.
In fact, the 10 foot setback is actually more akin to what would happen and what would be required if the Spillanes ended up providing any sort of connection, which they would have been able to do as well.
Then this setback would have been allowable by right with a larger structure in the garage.
Um, so this is the proviso plan, uh, after meeting with, uh, the RCOs and other organizations in the area, as well as subcommittees of the RCO, um, and several negotiations and discussions, um, for, you know, with, with near neighbors, the, uh, owner of 117 and the owner of 115.
we believe we have a consensus and an agreement to allow for this structure to be built with a 10
foot setback the increase in height to a 22 feet two inch two and three quarter inch height
in this in this location as proposed the revised renderings do show the increase in height
and also as you can see this additional stone area above the garage doors and a little bit
more height and the ceiling on the second floor allow for just a better better use of the garage
better use of duct work and other systems that are going to go into the space and a little bit
more viable use on the second floor the i can skip ahead here we we located where the property would
be or where roughly this location would sit in relation to the two structures so this is with a
10-foot setback and an aerial view of it. We did receive a lot of support, near-neighbor support and
so forth, to the original plan, and we do believe it carried over to the revised plan because we
actually moved the setback further. Some of the greater concerns were that proximity to the near
neighbor. We also have evidence of hacks.
We also have evidence of tax clearance. It did not come through as clearly, but it came through.
We did not get the opportunity to review a certificate, but the real estate taxes, if any, that are due are for 2023 and are not yet due.
We have photos of the posting and copies of the letters that were sent to all the neighbors.
We did, in fact, receive letters from the Chestnut Hill Community Association recently that indicates that they do support the project at this time.
This is a copy of the letter dated January 8th with the following provisos.
They approve of this with the side yard setback and the additional two feet in height.
the existing historic garage that is located on the property, which I can go back to, but it is
in generally, it is not to be impacted by this. This is one of the provisos of the conservancy as
well. So no change to that historic garage that is situated further back on the property.
There will be no rental or commercial use of this area other than maybe as a home office,
a spare gym, and so forth for the homeowners. They will continue to use the materials that
were specified in the meetings to keep in character with the neighborhood. The applicants
have agreed to include a stormwater management or drainage runoff measures, including a dispersion
to the latter and rear part of their property, and that they will install some form of landscaping
within that 10-foot setback to just help with the impact of the structure where it's at.
The Chestnut Hill Conservancy, a separate RCO but also involved in the area, did send a letter of
opposition but for the fact that they have agreed as long as we provide that 10-foot setback
and we do not impact the historic garage in any way. Just to give you a little bit of a clearer
picture of where that garage is. It is located much to the rear of the property. There will be
a better drive aisle put back to there, but nothing will happen to this existing remaining
structure. So members of the board, we believe that a literal enforcement of the height issue
here, where the structure is now situated close enough to the house that if it were connected by
even a breezeway or so, it would be subject only to height restrictions of the existing family
dwelling, higher than this, and that also the idea of giving it that additional height and
breadth and design adds to the character of the building and the feel of the neighborhood.
Again, we went through some very meaningful discussions with these near neighbors to work
out something that was feasible to everybody, understanding that by right left us with
different options.
But we're here today asking for the support to move forward with this variance.
I have Dan Spillane available to adopt my testimony, if that is okay, or if there's any questions from the board at this time.
Why don't we adopt your testimony?
All right, Mr. Spillane, if you could raise your hand.
I'm about to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon. This is Daniel Spillane. The last name is spelled S-P-I-L-L-A-N-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed to counsel.
Yes, thank you. Mr. Spillane, did you have an opportunity to hear my testimony to the board today?
Yes, I did.
And was that testimony true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Yes, it was.
And would you adopt that testimony as if it was your own?
yes I would thank you any questions for the owners
um Hillary question for you in in that letter what's enforceable
um so I literally just got the letter forwarded to me um give me one second Mr. Chair
all right I'll go to the board first then questions from the board no Mr. Chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
sir i have miss celeste hardister with her hand raised i will know to speak at this time
okay hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter i'm celeste hardister
c-e-l-e-s-t-e hardister h-a-r-d-e-s-t-e-r and i represent the chestnut hill community association
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do indeed.
Proceed.
Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that our RCO did submit the letter to the ZBA, absent copying Hillary Emerson, whom I have now just sent it to as well.
Thank you.
I just wanted to confirm that our RCO did submit the letter.
Okay, thank you.
Yep, and thank you.
All right, I appreciate it. Thank you very much for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, sir. Mr. Charles Richardson, I've allowed him to speak at this time.
Hi, Mr. Richardson. You've already been sworn, sir. Just state your name.
Charles Richardson, the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 508 City Hall.
I had one question. Could you ask, Justin, do the owners agree with the provisos that were submitted to the board?
Yes, the owners have agreed to all of the provisos submitted.
okay as such the councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance thank you very much for
calling it mr chair so this is hillary i look so i looked at the provisos the the first two are
addressed in the revised plans um the third one the historic garage um it's not part of the the
project okay um number four where it discusses um rental or commercial uses that would require
separate use permits and most likely separate variances the only um the only thing that may
change would the only use um that would kind of fall outside of that would be a limited lodging
use so there could be a proviso to prohibit limited lodging if that was a concern from the
community um and the other things i believe are um beyond the scope of um provisors for the board
all right thank you planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning property is indicated
for residential in the city plan given the typical surrounding design context we recommend
thank you mi2022-005-865-113 west chestnut hill i vote yes proviso revised plans two pages
Just stand by ZBA, January 11th, 2022.
No limited lodging.
Thomas Holloman.
Okay, Justin.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you.
um number 11
mi 2022 004 952 1250 north 18th street
alan knockamson is the attorney
support from the united neighbors alliance civic association
it's been promoted to panelists and we'll rejoin shortly sir
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockmson of Nockmson PC.
You've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yes, it's SJC, Real Estate LLC.
And then the virtual audience is Shati Cooks, its principal member.
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I agree.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
So 1250 North 18th Street, this board actually heard this presentation for all intents and purposes earlier last year, in which the board granted the variance for the use.
The reason why we're here is that my client wanted to extend the third floor of the building structure, and because we're technically increasing the variance by way of that extension of the building structure on the third floor, we have to go through this whole process again.
So you'll see the notice of refusal, the letter of support from the United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association, the zoning permit that was previously granted for the variance that was approved by the zoning board, our previous floor plans, and you'll see the difference between what we previously presented.
our previous floor plans and you'll see the difference between what we previously presented
in front of the board which was approved and what's going on today and to show it's not uncommon
what the board granted last year and what they would have to grant this year for the ability
addition on the third floor there's nearby recently granted multi-family variances
regarding properties nearby we'll go over maps of the area photographs of the property our plans
and drawings our rco meeting notice which we had a community meeting that was well attended
and the individuals that in that meeting voted overwhelmingly in support of our project
our application for appeal that was filed by sjc real estate llc our deed to the property showing
that sjc real estate llc is the owner of the property our certificate of tax clearance and
then in the virtual audience again we have shati cook so at the conclusion of my presentation
I would ask that Mr. Cook virtually raise his hand, you know, be sworn in and adopt my testimony as his own.
Again, this is a RSA 5 property, and all we're looking to do is an addition on the third floor.
And you'll see that this is basically the same presentation we had last time.
It's just that the addition on the third floor last time was three quarters of the third floor.
This time, when we eliminated a roof deck access structure, which was asked of us by the zoning board as a way of a proviso, what we should have done is then indicate to the board that we would like to extend the building structure all the way from the third floor, just like it is on the first and second floors.
floors. And if we did that in April of last year, we wouldn't need the second zoning appeal. But we
do because my client, when they tried to do this at the building permit stage, was told that we
needed to go through this process. And then so just like last time, we met in front of the community
and the community here overwhelmingly supports this project, just like last time. And, you know,
Again, this is just a zoning permit. As you can see, we had a proviso, no roof decks. So it was really like a roof deck on the roof of the second floor. There was a spiral staircase to go to a roof deck on the third floor. We agreed last time to eliminate that roof deck.
The community did not want a roof deck, but instead of just extending the building structure all the way back, we kept the building structure where it was proposed on the third floor addition and the board approved it.
But now we want to extend that all the way to the rear of the building structure.
So this is our floor plans last time.
As you can see, this is an existing three story structure goes all the way back on the first floor, all the way back on the second floor.
It only went halfway across on the third floor of the building structure, but we extended it out probably, if you say this is a third, we extended it to the third.
The other third was, under the original plans, was a roof deck on the roof of the third, of the second story, which would be a roof deck for the benefit of the third story, and then it was a spiral staircase to go up to a roof deck on, you know, the roof.
But, you know, we agreed by way of proviso to eliminate this spiral staircase.
So all we're trying to do is fill in this additional portion of where the roof deck was for additional interior living space.
So it's not uncommon. Just again, this technically is a use refusal because this is an RSA 5 property and we're looking to do as a duplex.
this board has agreed that this should be a duplex. But again, you can see there's a whole
multitude of properties nearby under similar circumstances. The board has agreed that these
RSA5 properties should be multifamily in nature. And then just showing where we are in the
neighborhood. We're in the Kabat section of Philadelphia, which is not too far off of
Gerard Avenue on 18th Street. And then this is a Google Map perspective as well.
And then photographs of the property, again, is an existing three-story structure in the front.
We're just trying to cap it off in the back on that third story. And then you can just see,
again, there are orange-nosed posters, so we properly posted the property. And just so you
understand, one of the properties which did receive a variance over the past few years is
the property next door to us at 1248 North 18th Street. And then this is North 18th Street to the
right of the property, North 18th Street to the left of the property. And then here are our plans
and drawings. Again, all we're doing is from here, this perspective is capping it off so that the
third story is in line with the first and second stories. And then you can see the new addition.
And then you can see the new addition. I mean, the proposed addition, the first time we did this was basically half of this addition, where if you consider in thirds, again, existing structure, proposed addition first time, and then another third of this is the proposed addition the second time.
I mean, the proposed addition, the first time we did this,
And then again, we're just cleaning up the building facade. I believe it was a stucco facade. We're going to take down the stucco and hopefully reinvigorate it with the brick that's behind there.
And then these are just the floor plans, two bi-level units, first floor and lower level for one unit, and then the second floor and third floor for another unit.
and then the rco meeting notice we had our meeting november 9th 151 addresses were notified
these are the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses application for appeal showing sjc real
estate llc is the owner of the property our notice refusal or project information form