Thank you.
Chairman, we have about 35 people.
You can begin now as you wish.
We are ready.
Good morning.
my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning zba hearings with me is carol tenere
our vice chair present mr chairman ishmael shaheed our board secretary
he's here yeah he was just here thomas holliman art board member present mr chairman
also here is our executive director tanya sunkett and our board attorney hillary emerson
our virtual format be advised proceedings are being recorded by participating your knowledge
agreement to record it a video will be available by contacting tanya sunkett at phila.gov for the
benefit of our court sonographer we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before
testify. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute. To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question. And last, please note the question answer box
is not for testimony or comments. Any comments have to be directed to our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkiff. Now, before we start today and look at continuances,
I want to read a few statements to you.
effective july 18 2022 if the case is continued attorney or applicant moving parties the attorney
or applicant has 90 days from that date the case is continued to either request a hearing date
ask for an extension of moving moving party status or withdraw the case if the zba staff
is not contacted by the end of the 90-day period, the case will automatically be listed for a new
hearing. Please note that extensions for moving party status must be sent to Executive Director
Tanya Sunkit with Board Attorney Hillary Emerson copied. Second statement, ZBA staff is currently
sending out letters to list the applicants on appeals filed prior to 2019. If the case has
been pending in a hold status. If the applicant or their attorney does not contact the ZBA staff
to discuss the next steps for their case, within the time period stated in the letter, the case
will be considered abandoned and administratively closed. Any questions about this, either of the
policies should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett, and our Board Attorney,
Hillary Emerson. So let's look at continuances for the day. Number three, MI 2022, 003-585-1500-30
East Dairy Avenue. That case is continued. And number 14, MI 2022-000-479-8917
Revere Street. That case is continued. Both those cases are continued.
Does anyone have any questions about those two cases?
i see no hands chair are there any other requests for continuance
i see no hands chair thank you we also have
five cases that are being rescheduled the cases are being rescheduled to tuesday
october 18th at 9 30 a.m number seven mi 2020
at 9.30 a.m. Number seven, MI 2022, 001-644-448-52-Rawne Street, Parcel D. Number eight, MI 2022,
001-642-448-52, Braun Street. Number 9, MI 2022, 001-638-451, Braun Street. MI 2022, 001-641-451,
Rawn Street, and number 11, MI 2022-001-637. Those cases will be heard on October 18th at 9 30 a.m.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to note on the last case, number 11, the address is
518 Hartel Avenue. Thank you very much.
number eight, MI 2022
000477228
North 63rd Street, the Pritzker Law Firm.
Is either of the attorneys there, here?
Chair, we have Brandon
Savron. Okay. Good morning,
Good morning, Brandon. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
So, Brandon, this case is going to be continued. The exhibits didn't come in too late last night, and we just, we can't go through them when we get them that late.
So the case will be continued, and Mark must be tried.
Okay, I apologize, Mr. Chair.
No, no, that's okay.
That was caused by the RCO meeting summary coming in yesterday as well and having deficiencies, but I understand.
So, Hillary, do you want to add to that?
Yeah, no, I just wanted to make a note for the record.
Well, I appreciate council waiting until they have a complete packet to submit.
I really encourage counsel, if you want to move forward on a case, to submit what you have within the five-day deadline and then just supplement as you receive additional information.
Because if I don't have anything, hold on one second, please.
If I don't have anything to start with, I can't be reviewing everything at the last minute.
The board, I just don't have time to review and then go over it with the board.
So I just want to make note of that for the record.
I appreciate your comment. And I think the confusion here, and it's not to say it will fix the situation, but because this is a continuance, you already had the plans from the April hearing, the only real change of substance was a reduction in units, there's no like physical change to the plans.
that's why i didn't resubmit them without the rco letter because the rco letter is essentially what
we were waiting on but you need to be able to do your job and if that wasn't possible given
the circumstances i understand um so and i i wasn't i wasn't aware of any exhibits being
previously submitted so yes this because this was a continued hearing they were submitted with the
original hearing which was on april 20th okay all right we're gonna we're gonna continue this
Brandon. And, you know, they must be tried. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any question for withdrawals?
Chair, we have Stacey McCoy. Okay.
Hi, good morning. I just have a question about the... Wait a minute. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter? Sure. Stacey McCoy, I, S-T-A-C-E-Y, M-C-C-O-Y,
and as in Nancy, D as in David, I-A-Y-E. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. What case do you want to talk about?
The one we're talking about now. Yes. Number five, 220, 228, North 63rd.
yes all right so that case is we know there was people in the audience for that case
but we have to continue it because we didn't get all the packages for it till late last night
and we just couldn't process it we're going to continue it and its mark must be heard so the
next time it has to go on and we're sorry you came down and waited for the case no no worries
i just had a question i'm not sure if it's appropriate but how do we get a copy of the
rco letter the resident um this is i think what you should do is contact yeah hillary go ahead
hillary yeah i mean you can um if you were in attendance at the rco meeting you can
Yeah, I mean, you can, if you were in attendance at the RCO meeting, you can contact the RCO for a copy of the letter.
Counsel for the applicant could also provide it for you.
And once it is received by the zoning board, it is a matter of public record and you can request to see the file.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
All right, we're going to go to our add-on case, MI 2020-001-129-6134, Carpenter Street.
The board dismissed this case at the start of the 930-aim list on Wednesday, August 10th.
The applicant was present for the hearing, but not able to communicate her presence to the board.
This matter will be continued and will be marked, must be heard next time.
going to go to our first case of the day because of scheduling issues we're going to start
with number six mi 2022 000 474 298 delmar street al knockamson is the attorney
mr knockamson is coming back in as a panelist
good morning mr chair good morning mr knockamson um could you state your name and spell please for
the court reporter yes alan a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n 1-2-3 south broad
Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19109. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Could you identify your client and
relationship to the property, please? Yes. My client is NHA Development LLC, and in the virtual
audience, I have its member, Tony Chabon. Thank you. Our Vice Chair, Carol Scenari, has a few
questions. Good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under 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, in all respects.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Alan, a real quick question. Do you have an updated letter or just the original letter from the RCO?
Just the original letter. I wasn't worried if there was an updated letter. I do know that there was another RCO, I believe a Democratic ward that may have sent something while I've been away from my office, but I have the original letter or I think the only letter from the coordinating RCO.
Right. And since then, you have three amended, you've amended three different issues, right?
We have. We have.
All right. Okay. Proceed.
All right. Well, first of all, I would like to thank the board for accommodating my schedule.
I am on vacation, so I appreciate that. I do apologize for the relaxed attire. I realized
when I got here that I did not have a collared shirt, so I do apologize for the relaxed attire.
I would like to say this is the first time I'm presenting a zoning matter in Europe, off the North American government, so hopefully it doesn't affect my presentation.
Well, we are jealous, just so you know. Very jealous.
Well, I'm in Scotland, and it's raining, so.
I know. Well, good. You'll have a good time. Don't worry.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. So let's get this over with. 298 Del Mar Street. So you'll see from this presentation that we did try to accommodate many of the technical refusals we have. We're proposing three single family size, three single family dwellings on this considerably sized lot in the, I would say, Roxborough-ish area of Philadelphia.
The rendering is a little bit different than what our now new layout is.
Instead of having the building set back, we are now having them flush with the building facades to the left and right of us.
As indicated, we have an original notice of refusal, and then we did amend it.
So if this board is inclined to grant our pending zoning appeal, I would ask that there would be a proviso specifically referencing the new zoning permit application number.
We have correspondence from Ridge Park Civic Association, and we'll go over that and we'll respond directly to their concerns.
They reference another project, 311-13 Delmar Street, as
They reference another project, 311-13 Delmar Street, as a guide to what we should do, and I'll explain why that does not make sense under our circumstances.
And then I'll also show what they're asking us to do and how it may not make sense in terms of an actual feasibility standpoint, from a feasibility standpoint, with 283 Delmar Street, which was foreclosed upon on March 17, 2022.
Go over maps of the area, including the width of our property, proposed structures as compared to nearby properties, and show why we're asking for three single-family dwelling units with front-loading garages.
Photographs of the property in the surrounding area.
Again, the photographs you'll see is similar to what, you know, the properties on our side of the street are similar to what we're asking for in terms of front-loading garages, curb cuts, things like that.
So what we're asking for is not out of character.
We go through our plans and drawings, our original submission versus our updated submission.
Our meeting notice, we did meet with the community some time ago.
We took what they said to heart.
We did our best to eliminate as many refusals as possible, but to keep the front-loading
garage and the off-street parking, which is contextual in nature to the surrounding area.
Our application for appeal, our deed to the property, showing that NHA Development LLC
is the owner of the property, and our Certificate of Tax Clearance showing that it's in good
standing with the City of Philadelphia with respect to this property.
Again, in the virtual audience is Tony Chabon, the member of NHA Development, LLC, along with the architect with this project, Logan Drey of KCA Design Associates.
so as you can um mr knockamson just one second i just wanted to interject that we um we did
receive a letter from um lou agar the chair of the 21st democratic ward in opposition um his
his stance was that there should be two homes built by right with a shared driveway and parking
in the rear um it does appear from the letter that he was he was looking at an older version of of
the proposal as well, because he references the homes being set back further than you just
indicated they now would be. So I just want to note that for the record, we did receive that.
Yes. And I just would like to say that after the vote with the community, we did, and we even
offered to move the homes forward. So again, they have known that after receiving that vote,
that we would move the homes forward to try to, you know, meet the zoning requirements the best
we can, choosing the least modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code, which is the
legal standard here. And then the context, you know, the contextual nature of this also goes
to, you know, whether, you know, we have proven our case of undue hardship, as well as the
feasibility of building homes the way that would be required under the code. And that's why, you
we'll show during our presentation why it would be an undue burden for us to strictly conform to the
code. But this is the original notice of refusal. It's dated January 13, 2022. And all we're trying
to do is subdivide a rather large lot into three single-family homes. And we had several refusals.
first regarding the curb cuts. We had curb cuts of a bigger size than it's allowed by the
Roxborough Overlay District. We were proposing 23 feet as to one and 13 feet six inches as to
another. As you'll see from our newer refusal, we only have 12 foot curb cuts, which would be
in compliance with the Overlay District. The next Overlay District item is the habitable space is
required at the front of the first floor, whereas the front of the first floor in our three parcels
taken up by a private residence parking garage, that there's no change you'll see from that
refusal. The third refusal deals with impervious surface coverage. Again, we wanted to have the
setback, have some green space, but then some impervious space as well. The neighborhood was
disinclined uh to that design aspect of it so instead we moved the building structures in line
with the building facades so left and right of us so you'll see that we we eliminated that refusal
as well uh the fourth refusal was accessory parking for any single family use in an attached
building structure shall be prohibited unless it could be accessed by a shared driveway alley or
rear yards, whereas the proposed accessory parking is assessed from Delmar Street, a legally open
street at the front of the lot. We did keep, you know, with our revised plans, that refusal. But again,
we did keep you know as with our revised plans that refusal but again contextually it's not
uncommon on our block next door essentially uh to have such a use uh again we'll look at that
the fifth refusal the required front step back for the proposed structure shall be between
four and a half well basically there was supposed to be it can't be you know set back
and we were sending it back by you know having now the building structure flush
with the buildings to the left and right of us, we get rid of those refusals.
So based on listening to the community, to some degree, not completely, admittedly, but to some
degree, we try to get rid of all the refusals that we believe we can deal with getting rid of.
But ultimately, this comes down to this. We're allowed to have three single-family homes,
one on each of these lots. Dimensionally, we have no issues here. What we're asking for
is simply off-street parking by way of a front-loading garage, and that's not out of character to what
is required in a neighborhood, and you'll see from the letter that was sent to us by the Ridge
Park Civic Association, which I assume that the ZBA and its council reviewed, we were called greedy.
They were stating that we can have two single-family homes 23 feet wide and have a curb
cut to the right. Instead of three single family homes, single family homes, approximately 17 feet
wide each with front loading garages. And you'll see from, you know, our response by way of this
presentation, that we're not being greedy, we're being practical here. Because we, there is
conceptually about building something, but there's also the practicality of it of whether we can sell
it or not um and in their letter they reference specifically 309 311 and 313 delmar street as a
guide to what you know we should be doing that is three single family homes with a curb cut a common
driveway that lot was significantly wider than ours which is 69 feet wide right our lot is only
of 49 and let's see like almost 50 feet wide right so we're a much narrower lot than them
and they were able to build three we're only under those circumstances able to build two
where in this lot they were building uh building structures which were on lots that were 23 feet
wide which would be out of character to the neighborhood and we'll show you that that like
we actually took off of Atlas, you know, what typically is on Anasari a lot from a wit