Philadelphia for treatment. The intent of the terrace would be that she'd have access to natural
light and fresh air as she's battling her condition. And the idea is that the deck as constructed above
the carport would be on the same level as the main living space in 2126 that Mrs. Bollinger can just
simply walk outside and get some light and fresh air versus having to battle stairs or even walk
down and have to walk around the city. I like to show the board, these are just perspectives
and renderings. You can see I mentioned there's an enhancement to the carport that was approved
already. The intent is that we would really green up the
The intent is that we would really green up the proposed deck, if granted, which we respectfully assert would be aesthetically pleasing to the community, an enhancement that would otherwise be unused space in this property.
um you can see that the it's these are beautiful renderings by our architects peter zim and
architects and i have mr sean narkom on behalf of pz architects that will um that will speak to you
in a moment but um we would respectfully assert that these are in character with the community
um and you can see here this is just an image from the board's perspective if the deck was not
approved um this is looking across directly across the street um from the neighboring property
and again without and you can see here this is just really unusable space here
this is image looking west on cypress street
without and again this is more of an image looking west but also just an aerial view you
can see here the space here with the greenery which again as i said we believe is an enhancement
to this area of the city the community and this block in particular and then without here
um so our relief that we're requesting is twofold here um the code does not permit
roof decks above accessory structures which requires a variance request from the property
owner um roof decks are also required to be set back five feet from the building line here as you
can see the the carport is right up to the building line here we do have seven inches on
setback but we are requesting a variance from that five foot separation for the deck here
again this is not obviously a commercial roof deck or anything of the like this is a residential deck
that is above essentially a rear alley of this page of this section of the city
just to show the board that what we're requesting is not out of character with the surrounding area
this is in fact the same street just just further east you can see here that we have roof decks
that are existing above accessory structures,
these garages or carports, whatever they may be.
You can see three properties in particular
are called out here, 2103 Delancey,
2101 Delancey, and 316 South 21st Street.
And again, this is just a different perspective
from there just to show the board
that granting the variances if the board is so inclined
would not be out of character with the surrounding area.
Exhibit A-12, we did meet with Center City Residents Association on June 28th.
We have a letter of non-opposition from CCRA.
Exhibit A-13 is a letter of support, as the chairman indicated in his opening remarks,
from our neighbor at 2119 Delancey Place, Sean and Tracy Dowling.
And that is the property on the other side of 2121 Delancey.
Again, 2126 is owned by Mr. Bollinger's son, so effectively we have non-opposition support from both sides of us.
In addition to the required community notice for the RCO meeting that we sent out that's in my packet,
we did have an additional outreach effort to the immediate neighbors on behalf of Mr. Bollinger by Peter Zimmerman Architects.
And this is just an invitation to learn more about what we were proposing so that the community can understand our proposed application.
Just go back up here for one moment.
And then just just to summarize, I know I'm conscious of the board's time, so I won't go through the all the other exhibits.
But again, I requested they be part of the record.
And I'd like just to close by arguing respectfully to the board that these are minimum variances that are in order to achieve, again, the hardship that's created by Mrs. Bollinger's condition in the physical layout of the property.
um this variance if granted would not be out of continuity with the spirit and the purpose of the
zoning code um there would be no adverse impact or any impact whatsoever to public streets or
otherwise in danger the health safety and welfare of the community uh this variance would not
substantially or permanently ignore the use of adjacent properties um again our we respectfully
assert that this is an enhancement to the community and they're very aesthetically pleasing
um and as i noted we also have letters of support from properties on the other side of us
um this the variances if they're granted would not have any impact on transportation or impact
any sort of public facilities of the of the city nor would they create any environmental damage
or increase the danger of flooding or pollution and as i mentioned you know we would respectfully
assert that the hardship here is in the physical layout of the property and it would require Mrs.
Bollinger to have to climb stairs in order to access fresh light or fresh air and adequate
light as she's battling her very serious and very substantial condition. And we hope that the board
very serious and very substantial condition, and we hope that the board would take that into
would take that.
consideration as it contemplates our requested variances here. I have Mr. Sean Narcom from PZ
Architects. If I could just ask him to raise his hand and come off mute just to adopt my testimony,
Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. Go ahead. Thank you. Mr. Narcom, you're free to speak.
Good morning, everyone. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hi, this is Sean Narcom with Peter Zimmerman Architects, S-E-A-N-N-A-R-C-U-M.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Careless.
Mr. Narcom, did you hear my presentation and testimony to the board just now?
I did, yes.
And if given the opportunity, would you have adopted that testimony as if it were your own?
I would, yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just have one other witness.
Mr. Bollinger is in the audience.
Could I just ask Mr. Bollinger to use the raise hand function and come off mute?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is William Bollinger.
It's B-O-L-L-I-N-G-E-R.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bollinger, good morning.
Did you hear my testimony and presentation of the board just now?
Yes, I did.
And Mr. Bollinger, would you adopt and affirm that testimony as if it were your own today?
Yes, I would.
I thought it was an excellent presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Bollinger.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning of this location.
The applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship exists that would require a roof deck to enable the applicant to continue to use the property.
However, a roof deck at this location also will not impair the use of adjacent properties.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the Board approve the use variance for a roof deck and the variance from the code required by setback from the front of the property line.
um hold on one minute here hold on i lost my screen one minute i'll be right with you
here we go
sorry guys
do you want me to read it for you and then i'm good i just i just lost one minute here first
where the heck i lost my screen a minute here be right with you i'm sorry
mi 2022 002 823 2121 delancey place i vote yes arlton airing my vote is yes thomas halliman my
vote is yes ishbil shahi my vote is yes thank you council thank you members of the board mr
chairman have a nice rest of your morning here number 12 mi 2022 001 686 6410 east roosevelt
boulevard sean ward is the attorney
mr ward is coming back from rcos are involved
good morning Mr Ward
morning Mr Chairman Sean Ward that's S-H-A-W-N last name Ward W-A-R-D
counsel for the applicant, Crystal Nguyen, N-G-U-Y-E-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, just one clarification.
It's the second amended refusal dated July 22nd or July 12th, July 12th, correct.
Yeah, I wave and stipulate.
Okay. 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 ORCO, and do you have a letter?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliant?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and start sharing your screen, please.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I submitted my typical exhibit packet for the premises known in 6410 through 18 East Roosevelt Boulevard, owned by Thomas Wong, H-O-A-N-G, and Crystal Nguyen, and it's Crystal with a K, K-R-Y-S-T-A-L, Nguyen, N-G-U-Y-E-N, owners and applicants of the property.
A1 is the notice of refusal.
The application is for the complete demolition and lot consolidation, two lots into one, for the erection of a new detached structure for uses as follows.
At the basement and second floor level, Crystal proposes business and professional and group medical offices, and the first floor would be retail sales and personal services.
We resulted in several refusals.
The uses are not permitted in the district.
to this property is zoned RSA 2. And then there's parking lot, parking refusals, including parking
lot landscaping, parking in the side yards, parking spaces, 15 required, 13 proposed.
The aisle width, 24 feet is required versus 15 feet proposed. And the front setback of the
building, 10 feet is required, whereas 6.7 feet is proposed. Accordingly, we seek use
and dimensional variances. That should say dimensional as well. A2 is the ZBA application
of appeal. A3 is the project information form. A4 is proof of ownership. A5 is tax clearance,
which was supplemented. I had submitted an older tax clearance, and then we updated that
pursuant to Hillary's request. A6 are the site and floor plans. A7 are elevation plans and
renderings. A8 are photographs. A9 is petitions of support circulated by Dr. Nguyen. A10 is the
RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing. A11 is a RCO letter of support from a participating
RCO community on the rise. We did not get one from Take Back Your Neighborhood, who was the
coordinating RCO, and I'll address that in a moment. A-12, if submitted at District Council
at Member Driscoll's letter, I don't think he submitted one, but if he did, I would ask that
that be marked as A-12. I couldn't find any relevant zoning history. This property was
historically used as a single-family home. However, it's been vacant for quite a long time
now. It's dilapidated, but for a squatter, it has not been occupied in many, many years.
A14 is the zoning map and A15 is the aerial photograph.
For context, I'm going to go out of order of my exhibits a little bit here.
The property, as you can see, is zoned RSA2. The two red dots signify 6410 and 6418.
uh there's two lots here this is 16 4620 and 4624 4624 is occupied as a single family residence
uh the adjoining property owned by the same persons uh is currently unoccupied
at the property to our left despite being zoned rsa2 is a medical and dental office building
there's a sunoco station on a corner and then fronting on busselton avenue out here is a
a dental practice. And then on the corner is a mosque or some other religious use as far as
aerial photograph goes. You'll see the property is bounded in a triangular-shaped block bounded
by Roosevelt Boulevard, Hellerman Street, and Busselton Avenue. Again, to the left of us is a
three-story medical office building, the Sunoco station on a corner, the dental practice on
Busselton Avenue, and then the occupied single-family home, the unoccupied single-family
home, and then the Mahida mosque or some other non-residential use on the corner of Hellermann
and Busselton. So when we look at the actual property, we have photographs of the posting.
As you can see, this is a front view of the property. It's a boarded up,
vacant single-family dwelling from the rear. You can see it was the subject of
From the rear, you can see it was the subject of short dumping because it was vacant.
The property has just been secured.
The squatter has been removed.
And we are looking to demolish this building for the erection of a new structure.
Here's just an angle shot from Google Earth.
As you can see, again, here is the medical office building to the left of us.
A closer in shot.
behind us is the parking lot for the medical office building. And running from Hellerman
Street to Busselton Avenue is a common shared driveway with easements benefiting the adjoining
and abutting properties. Again, another shot of the parking lot and the existing office,
medical office building. So with regard to the plans themselves,
As you can see, the uses as proposed are not permitted because it is zoned RSA 2.
However, the dimensional variances and the parking variances are as follows.
The number of spaces, we can provide 13 all-street parking spaces at the rear of the building.
However, two of those spaces partially abut into the side yard on the left and the right of the plan as depicted.
However, the side yard setback for the building is compliant.
It's just the partial parking spaces in those setbacks.
Again, the other refusal deals with the interior parking landscaping requirement.
To provide any kind of interior parking landscaping would further reduce the number of available parking spaces in the plan.
So we seek a variance from that.
We can provide some sort of buffering or landscape vegetation along the border of the parking lot where it abuts the driveway.
As you can see in the plan here is the 20-foot driveway, again, going from Hellerman Street to the right, out to Busselton Avenue on the left, and that serves all those abutting properties.
So the front yard setback, although it's six feet, 6.7 feet, it does line up directly in place with the adjoining medical building to our left.
And therefore, from a streetscape perspective, it will line up along the sidewalk.
So, I'm sorry, with regard to the floor plan, the building, the building will be, wait,
let me go to the perspectives first.
The rendering show the perspective of the building from the Roosevelt Boulevard side.
Let me get this out of the way.