process as I stated this started in November actually prior to November, October of last year
although the applicants started this process improperly they have since done everything they
can, including going back to LNI twice to confirm and correct their freezals and to start this
process properly, which I'll show in a second. Just to remind everyone of what we're talking about
here, the project itself is currently in this stage. As you can see, it is basically framed
out, roof sealed for the most part. And this is the stage where it has stopped and where it has
been thus far. In terms of the area context, the rear two-story structures is not something
that's not, that's something that's very common in this area. As I stated at the last hearing,
there are 26 homes in this block cluster, at least 15 have detached structures. And then
basically every two-story detached structure is over 15 feet. And as you'll see,
many of them have exterior stairs, which was an issue initially. Now, in addition to that,
just to be frank, the community hated the design, right? They didn't believe it matched the context
of what was in the community, because we're, as you can see, there's no gables, it's kind of square
in the rectangle. And admittedly, the owner was intentionally trying to do something different.
That didn't go over well, it became, you know, problematic. And we received after our two
community meetings, a letter from the community group that highlighted their issues. One being,
Again, the height being over the 15 feet, that was originally a refusal, which is no longer one, which I'll get to in a second.
And then, but mainly, as you can see by their own highlights, the ones that they highlighted as like their main issues was the box form being out of context and the roof design and the finishing of the property.
In addition to that, there was some one neighbor had an issue with the distance from the property line, which again, that's no longer a refusal either, because frankly, it was an incorrect refusal for reasons we highlighted in the first meeting, but was corrected upon subsequent review in our renderings or our new submissions.
And so, in response to those comments, we went back to the drawing board and redesigned
redesigned the project, resubmitted it to L&I, and obtained the refusal that we obtained in June.
the project, resubmitted it to L&I, and obtained.
This time, we no longer have any dimensional refusals, but because the use was properly
captured as an accessory dwelling unit and not some sort of storage on the second floor,
we do have a refusal for the two multiple, two uses on one lot. As you can see here by the new
refusal, the multiple uses and the multiple buildings generated these two refusals was
essentially pursuant to the same code designation, but because it's parsed out into two refusals.
As I stated, technically speaking, this is not one lot, but there is no real way to capture the existence of this parcel because it's under one tax parcel.
And therefore, I understand why these refusals are issued.
And so I just wanted to take the board on a journey to kind of where we've gone since then.
Apologies, the screen share is blocking my ability to click this tab.
Okay, so this was the desired end result of the initial project.
We lost your exhibits, Mr. Bertol.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Let me do that again.
Are you seeing that?
Got it now.
Thank you.
This was our initial desired result of the initial design and project as it's partially
built. And we had some, initially we were sort of, we pushed back on some of the design
and dimensional changes that the community wanted because it essentially amounted to a tear down
and starting over because of, you know, removing the roof, changing the cornice lines, et cetera,
et cetera, shrinking the windows. For the most part, we had to tear it down. Because we received
so much opposition, well, because we received such specific opposition in light of the support
that we did have, because if you recall, we did have a petition of neighbors that did sign in
support under this design. We understand that the board and the community was not inclined
to accept this. And therefore, we've made the following changes. And so I just want to stay
for the record, to be clear, because I'm sure there are some people from the community on the
call, the community has not seen these redesigns. I've been told by the zoning chair that they have
not seen these redesigns. And in fact, there's been some updates that I think the community
would like that even I don't believe the zoning chair have seen because it's as recent as a couple
days ago. Hence why we wanted to go to the meeting on the 18th. So this was the first
redesign. We completely changed the roof line. We completely changed the, excuse me, the
massing, included the gable roof on the side, changed the box square design, and tried to
switch it to materials that we thought was a little bit more complementary to the existing
sort of two-story structures that are along that driveway, as you can see in the photos
here. And so we really thought this design was something that the community would be
responsive to. When we sent it over to the zoning chair, he did have some apprehension of this would
be enough. We were pretty confident in it, but the more that we talked with the owner and the
applicant, we decided like, you know what, let's see if we can do even more. And so I just want to
take you on the journey of where we started, where we thought we would end up, and we gave to the
zoning chair of EFCC, didn't really get the response we were hoping. And this is, so we
decided to do even a more complete overhaul. And hopefully this new design is something that we
believe the community and the board will be more appreciative of. So here is our latest design
that again the the community has not seen this is what we're going to present on the 18th
and recon completely redesigned the materials completely redesigned
the we're using almost completely brick scallop siding
the we're using almost completely brick scallop siding roof shingles where
let me go to a different view we decreased the windows on the rear of the property that
looks over our yard because that was a comment that we heard that basically we had floor to
ceiling windows all the way across if you would remember so we shrunk it to these sort of french
doors. But in all, again, we're maintaining the exterior staircase because that's necessary for
what we're trying to do. But again, we're using the brick, the dark siding, the slate shingles,
again, to match what's exactly there. Here again, this is a side view here of the, again, brick all
way up, have this little steeple that we thought was designed positive. And here is a rendering
of what we believe is something that is complementary to what's existing there. And it's
something that's frankly a much better design for what we're trying to do here for the parking and
the accessory dwelling unit on the second level. And so again, just to
look at like where we came from,
so where we are, our hope is that the community will see that we've made substantial efforts
to go from this, which includes these sort of, these windows in the rear that covers the
tire to go from that to this. Now, just for the record, this is a complete overhaul. This is
going to be essentially starting from scratch. And so I know there may be some people that just
on principle alone, because Mr. Hardiman started this project without joining me, say he shouldn't
get to, you know, complete it or do anything remotely to what he was trying to do. In essence,
this is starting over. We did this, as you can see, even the roof lines are different on the
interior. And therefore, what we have now, you know, we can't just, we can't just sort of put
this on top of it. And so in light of this redesign, and in light of the refusals that we
have the dimensional refusals that are gone. And it's really just the use refusal of the
accessory dwelling unit, or actually, excuse me, of the second use on a property that's technically
actually two lots is not one. Because of that technicality, our hope is that the community
and the board will see the considerable effort to meet the design requirements of the
the opposition letter that we received which again is changing the box form um changing the
roof line um changing the window style um and changing the exterior finishes as well
um we are still over the 15 feet that we were originally over but again that's not a refusal
because um that's not um applicable to what we're the use and what we're doing here um and then
we're still, the footprint is still where it is. But again, that refusal is also gone because it's
again not really applicable to what we're doing here. And it frankly never was. And so I appreciate
the board's consideration to allow us to at least show you what we've done because I thought that
was the point of this resumption hearing. Understanding that we need to show this to the
community as well, so they can have their, you know, make their comments and express their viewpoints accordingly.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Just that it's a major improvement to me. Thank you.
That's Mr. Holloman for the record. Anyone else? Any, confessor, any questions?
I'm okay.
Thank you. Mr. Langer, if you're still there, please raise your hand.
Please put them out to speak, sir.
Yep. Thank you.
Mr. Langer, as we said earlier, I just would like to limit any comments from you. No disrespect to anyone else who may be calling in on this case because we're going to afford everyone the opportunity to meet on August the 18th, I believe.
and you guys will make a decision as to whether to support non-support or
That's correct. And you guys will make a decision as to whether to support, non-support, or make other revisions, which then will be presented to the board on August the 25th. So unless you have any comments now, we would proceed in that manner.
Yes, I would like to make a few comments and, if possible, have some neighbors follow up.
I would just like to point out that the neighbor's preference always was that a completely conforming structure would be located in this rear lot that conformed to zoning.
uh the the the suggested changes to the structure was put out there as an alternative
uh to a first choice uh but really just to kind of try and sum this up um you know there's a
hardship created by the owner through um you know the illegal construction
and the neighbors are very concerned about the erection of a full-size
single-family dwelling in what used to be basically a backyard setting. I would just
like to clarify that there are two structures back there which three structures that are
attached to the alleyway, not 15. Only three structures, one of which is an artist studio,
one of which is a grandfathered apartment that is barely occupied, and that is it.
There are no single family dwellings fully occupied back there, and it would appear from
previous renderings that a fire pit, an exterior screen TV is going to bring in a single family
use that would be very disruptive to the piece of all those backyards there. Basically, I appreciate
the uh the changes to to the project uh surely uh but at 23 feet you're really looking at a
full height full size single family structure uh within 18 inches of someone's um
rear yard there's a rear yard on either side of this um and and these the this is what's
distressing the neighbors and changing the nature of that alleyway back there. So we do want to
have a chance to review this new proposal on the 18th. And, you know, we'll do what we can to
encapsulate neighbors' comments on this. But just let me tell you that the hardship is now transferred
to the neighbors uh they're going to be having to live with a single family dwelling
we don't know who's going to be living in there um they need that chance to uh review this
with with the owner and his attorney that's what and that's what the purpose of your meeting on
the 18th will be and then any feedback uh as a result of that meeting will be presented to the
board on august the 25th because mr chair if i could just stay it's possible there may be some
additional changes that the owner may the applicant may be willing to uh to accept absolutely and
mr chair if i could just stay for the record because i i realized as mr langer was speaking
i neglected to say that this hearing um but i believe it should be part of the record for last
hearing the owner um's intention with this property is for this to be an in-law suite
And as such has proposed at both the community meetings, I don't, I think it might've fell on deaf ears, but proposed that they would agree, they would not oppose any proviso that states that this could own, this cannot be rented, you know, for public rent or anything like that, that this is exclusively for his family's use.
for his not to interrupt you but that is a discussion that you guys will have on the 18th
right all right all right so we'll reiterate it then right no disrespect to anyone else who
wanted to testify in this case your testimony would be taken however it may change the scope
and size of the changes that are being presented may may change even more so so having said that
MI 2020-002-758-3018 Midvale Avenue. This hearing will be resumed on August the 25th at 9.30
This hearing will be resumed on August the 25th at 9.30 a.m., at which time the board will consider any feedback related to the RCO's position at that time.
Thank you.
MI number five on our list, MI 2020-001-513-3642 North 21st Street.
Mr. Nockamson has been provided to the panel, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Nockamson.
Just identify yourself.
You're still under oath, and Mr. Plaza will ask you some questions.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't hear you.
Did you ask me to introduce myself?
myself.
Sorry, I was like,
I think when you were talking, I was still in virtual
like portal to get into the meeting.
No worries. You're still under oath.
Just identify yourself and Mr. Plaza
will have some questions for you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,
members of the board, Alan Ockamson,
A-L-A-N, Ockamson,
N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N,
South Broad Street, Suite 1600,
Philadelphia PA,
1-9-1-0-9.
So, Knucklesom, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral,
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have.
And yes.
May I share my screen?
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
So I'm here to present 3642 North 21st Street.
In our packet of materials, you'll see a deed to the property showing that our client owns the property at 3642 North 21st Street.
certificate of tax clearance showing that my client is in good standing with regards to the
real estate taxes owed on the property. Third exhibit is a notice of refusal. You'll see
why we're here. It's a use refusal, no dimensional refusals. Fourth exhibit is an hour application
for appeal. Fifth exhibit is our maps of the area. Sixth exhibit is a map, excuse me, photographs of
of the property in the surrounding area.
Seventh exhibit are floor plans,
and eighth exhibit is correspondence
from the 13th Democratic Board,
as well as an affidavit from my client indicating
that he will comply with all provisos
that have been requested
by the coordinating RCO 13th Democratic Board.
So first you'll see that this property