what you already have we understand that
Council Mr. Chairman
Mr. Hoffman
Holloman excuse me
I would say that you should provide
the pictures
so that we can get a full picture
of what's taking place
I will I'll provide them today
all right so Sharon and or
Tanya how do we handle this
we wouldn't be doing a resumption would we
we would just
the executive board
the record would be closed um miss three how quickly can you get me the photos i can just say
by the end of the day today i can get you the photos i can't do it like in the next 30 minutes
i'm not at that my location anymore i had to step out today i'm having internet problems
so i don't have those materials with me and they're not i can't scan them right now i have to
go back to my office to scan them to upload it and i can't do that i will do it by the end of
the day today but i can't do it i can't say within an hour we got it we understand that sharon
they still have to be presented at a hearing you could set another hearing date strictly
for the purpose of um viewing the photos so we'll do a resumption hearing correct
yes and tanya do we have a date august 17th at 9 30 chair
august august 17th at 9 30
i'm sorry we have the hearings on the 17th right yes it's too much noise for me
for some reason my my hearing dates maybe this is an old one i only have the 18th so we do have
a hearing on this yes dear at 9 30 that's fine hold on ma'am hold on tanya we can do a resumption
Hold on, ma'am. Hold on.
Tanya, we can do a resumption hearing on August the 17th.
hearing on
At what time?
I'm sorry.
Could everyone mute themselves, please?
I'm just getting feedback.
Please mute yourself, everyone.
Thank you.
Okay, Tanya.
Yes, if we could, we could do August 17th at 9.30 a.m.
for the purpose of um just submitting those exhibits um and then we can allow her to go
forward first that's okay with the board so noted for the record uh ms sunken just put on the record
this is sharon if you can also note miss three you have to be prepared to present them on your
screen as well okay miss preet miss three
i'll be prepared to present them on the screen thank you okay uh we're going to go back to
my item number three i'm sorry chair i apologize for the interruption but did we get community
feedback on this one yes a couple of times and we did have somebody who never got on
jason do we have anyone else waiting for this case i just keep seeing hands raised chair and
I'm not sure what you could be right. Thank you. Mr. Charles Richardson has his hand raised second
Okay, Mr. Richardson, you're still under oath, but please identify yourself. Good afternoon. Again,
Mr. Chair, Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 312 City Hall.
The Councilwoman is opposed to granting this variance. She looks at this as a home for
individuals with special services. They don't have the proper paperwork in place for that.
There's no guarantee that going forward that should the clientele of the rooming house change
that it would not change the complexity of the neighborhood. There's no guarantee that it will
continue to be individuals that are older with special needs. So also the
The RCO has come out against the granting of the variance, and the Councilwoman does support the community in this.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
I think Charles Karn is still on, is on with his hand raised as well.
All right, Mr. Karn, are you there?
I apologize.
I'm not seeing some of these names on the screen.
I apologize.
Colin User, whose hand is raised, I'll allow this person to speak.
Had I known that, I would not have continued this case for the photographs, to be honest with you.
So let's hear from Mr. Korn.
Colin User, if you're Mr. Korn, please identify yourself and wait to be sworn in.
no this is adrian fernandez from swamford rco to testify on this case
uh please all right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
uh yes do you want and i got i got excuse me one second i got ahead of myself please
spell your name for the record okay i just wanted to ask do you want mr connie go first um you can
go you can go since you're on good okay it was hard to get in i've been pressing star nine like
eight times um my name is spelled my first name is adrian a-d-r-i-e-n-n-e my last name fernandez
f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z swampoodle neighborhood you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing you swear to firm tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yeah please proceed okay um we are we have sent in written testimony and we are opposed to this
variant um pretty much um primarily the reasons that the council office gave uh we also noticed
that after the testimony that this is a special occupant household and that the paperwork to
apply for that should have been completed. Also, it's pretty disturbing how long this house has
been illegal. There's illegal work done. To my knowledge, you cannot install bathrooms.
The question from the board member, Mr. Holloman, gave the result of three bathrooms,
gave the result of three bathrooms and you have to have plumbing permits for that so that means
and you have to have plumbing permits for that. So that means that there's illegal
that there's illegal work done in the home with no permits also coinciding with illegal use
as boarding house and or multi-family at various times over many decades also the rental license
if that is not applied for that means that lots of income for decades has been being collected
from these residents without paying Philadelphia business taxes and any other taxes that would
apply.
So we're opposed for those reasons, along with the reasons that we sent in.
One concern for safety is we don't understand how the house can be fire certified without
having legal zoning and legal occupancy allowed.
We don't really understand that, once again, for decades.
Thank you.
Going to what we sent in in written testimony, we are opposed to the variant because this type of use in our vicinity will represent overuse of the variant.
We're congested with illegal rooming houses, and a few that have been approved.
And we're having a horrific problem with dumping of household waste, mattresses, like every week, how many mattresses can a person buy and throw out?
and from rooming houses as reported by our neighbors and um the um the transfer and the
dumping burden is overwhelming many times we have no idea these are rooming houses we have
no way to find the owners we just don't know how to find them they could be houses that are in a
state or something and it's just a huge problem um you can summarize it okay mattress waste
household waste construction waste also this sort of use is not compliant with our philly 23
philly 2035 plan that we did participate in um for i guess a couple months also
this house can be converted as testified to by the council office um to transient occupancies
we understand now there's like special occupants but that could be converted to transient occupancy
that that point that that point was made by the councilwoman's office uh so if you could summarize
we agree with that and um and that's not um acceptable in the rsa3 district and um if if
the board does approve the use we're asking that we can come back to give um provide those and
otherwise that finishes our opposition but if we can be um when we raise our hand can we be
recognize to offer provisos if the board votes to grant this variance thank you Mr. Karn thank you Mr. Karn
Mr. Karn please raise your hand
anyone else there's mr corn now i think i think we got him mr corn please unmute yourself spell
your full name and i'll swear you in charles con c-a-r-n 3853 north 19th street 13 ford rco
chairperson you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir
sir please proceed good afternoon sir um as the um council did state we did have a meeting
i think the information um forward was incorrect concerning the voting the voting was not in
favor and that's why we were opposed to it in addition when the owner um stated that she had
the home for so long and no license. It was mentioned already. I just want to just reiterate
on that. But also the owner stated she was, this is fact, administering medicine. And that was a
disturbing statement.
The gentlemen
who were there, no one objected to
the statement, and I was just surprised that she stated that.
In addition, when I did have the conversation with the
council, she stated that they were going to
change it into a three-family unit.
That did not happen. Just recently, I received a call stating she was going to ask,
she was going to ask, council was going to ask that you list this hearing. So it was really
counsel was going to ask that you list this hearing.
a surprise to me that we were going to go forth with this. And that was probably, I got the call
probably from council probably two, three weeks ago. And it was too short of a time to schedule
an additional RCO meeting. However, I talked to the council person, the state rep in October,
and you should have letters from all three.
I'm stating that we oppose as a 13th Ward RCO
oppose legalizing this rooming home.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you, sir.
I think we have heard as much as we need to hear
a planning commission.
Good afternoon, board.
Peter Renard for the planning commission.
Spell your full name, please.
My name is spelled P as in Paul, E as in elephant, T as in tiger, E as in elephant, R as in rabbit, B as in boy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Thank you. Please proceed.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan.
we feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship in history of existing use however we
feel the proposal for nine units represents an overuse accordingly we have no objection to the
granting of the variance but request the number of single room occupancy units be reduced
thank you uh earlier i stated that we were going to have a resumption hearing specifically to get
some uh information from the applicant through her attorney uh since then we've taken other
testimony, which I was not aware of, was coming. Having said that, MI 2020-0002473625 North 22nd
Street. My vote is no. Professor Plaza, my vote is no. Mr. Holloman? Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
All right, we're going to go back up to number three, MI 2020-002-758-3018 Midville Avenue.
Mr. Bertil?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Fossett, we'll read.
Jeff, this is a continuation, right?
A resumption hearing.
That's right.
Please proceed.
Good afternoon.
We did say we're going to hear this case,
and you'll be attending a meeting with the RCO on August the 18th, correct?
That's correct.
The updated renderings of the project, my understanding is that they haven't seen.
And so we certainly don't want to have a vote or anything taken before that happens.
And so if I can begin, I'll share my screen.
Please proceed.
Okay, thank you very much.
As was stated, my name is Steve Bertil.
I'm representing the owner and applicant for 3018 Midvale Avenue just to I know we slightly
refresh the board sort of on the procedural history of this matter when we're discussing
the continuance but I just want to touch base on the substantive aspect of it just to bring
everyone up to speed as you may recall this matter is like as I stated for 3018 Midvale
avenue that's situated on Midvale between Stokely and Fox Street. The property itself is
not uncommon to some of these larger parcels. It is actually sort of two distinct
lots, although they're under one tax ID number. So you'll see that this is deeded as a separate
area but it's one under one uh address and under one text id number um so the the the appeal for
this project as the board may recall was um for the legalization of a partially um constructed
rear structure um for uh parking um two parking spaces on the ground level and a our intention
at least, was for an accessory dwelling unit on the second level.
If the board remembers, there was, in fact, let me just show it.
if the board remembers there was in fact let me just show it so uh the board remembers the refusal
initially um the language on the refusal was uh a bit confusing um where it mentioned single
family use but it also mentions um storage um and therefore um there was at the the community
meetings that we had before our first zoning hearing on January of this year, there was some
confusion about that. Now, I should say for the record that the owner himself has maintained
completely throughout this entire process that his intention was to utilize this as a dwelling
unit on the second level, but the refusal didn't reflect that properly and thus the refusals that
were issued initially created some issues. And so the original refusal
here was for accessory parking and then also, excuse me, for the height of this structure,
which had a limit of 15 feet, and for the location of the residence, which was within three feet of
the adjacent property line. At the community meetings, in addition to the refusals, there
were one, problems with the fact that the owner and applicant started constructing the
accessory garage without the proper zoning permit, which obviously was well within the
community's right to have a problem with that. And thus, when the applicant went to
go get building permits and they said they needed zoning and they realized that they had they need
to go get a variance and that's when they started this process. I will maintain that throughout this