The video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady at phila.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All comments and testimony should be directed to our Deputy Director Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Here's our continuances.
Number one, I understand, may be a continuance.
MI 2022-006-992-711-South-23rd Street.
The listed applicant is Michelle Yu, or the owners are Edwin and Esther Yu.
I understand this is a pro se, it may be a continuance.
Ms. Yu
Ms. Yu, if you're in the virtual audience
please raise your hand
Good afternoon, Chair
this is Yvette Benton
I'm your co-host for this afternoon
I don't see any hands at this time
So, my understanding
this is going to be a contrarian
So, MI-2022
Yes, Mr. Chair
I just wanted to note for the record
it's our understanding from communicating
with the applicant that the RCO, excuse me, that the RCO meeting has not yet occurred.
This is the fourth listing for this matter.
So MI 2022-006-992-711-South-23rd Street.
Cases continued.
Mark, must be heard.
Number four.
MI 2023-006-896-138 West Sharnack Street, that case is continued.
Number six, MI 2024, 002, 000, 800 South 56th Street, cases continued, attorney moving party.
And number nine, MI 2024-002-278-415 South Van Pelt Street.
That case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Go to number two. MI 2023-003-159, 3942 Wall Street. Jessica Donnelly is the listed owner.
Jessica Donnelly is coming back in as a panelist now chair.
miss donnelly hi yes good evening hi could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer jessica donnelly j-e-s-s-i-c-a-d-o-n-n-e-l-l-e-y
where a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
So before we start the case, one of the questions we have, the meeting was on August 8th, am I correct?
It was correct.
But we see the mailings were done the 6th. Are we sure that the mailings actually got there in time?
I am not positive. Obviously, I did call the ZBA and I asked prior to sending them if that was okay.
and they told me that it would be okay i i got the zoom meeting that friday and i mailed them
the i think the following monday so i didn't have the information from the rco
until the friday following the monday that i mailed them hillary
um miss donnelly when you attended the meeting were there any neighbors present
yes anyone who indicated they had gotten your notices
no one indicated they had or had not it didn't come up
But there were neighbors at the meetings?
but there were neighbors at the meeting there were
There were.
And did the RCO take a position or have a vote on your application?
They did.
They voted in favor.
It was five people.
It was four to one in favor.
Did they send you a copy of the letter?
Because we don't have anything for indicating their position.
They did not send me a copy.
They said they would.
I assume that they had sent it to you.
Mr. Chair, it's up to the board if you'd like to proceed.
It sounds like the RCO was satisfied and held the meeting.
Why don't we do this?
We'll hear it.
We'll hold until we get a letter from them or give another couple weeks for a letter from the RCO.
Sounds good.
So, Ms. Donnelly, our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Yeah, I'm here.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
okay so this is the property in question 3942 wallace street i purchased this property in 2019
prior to me owning the property the first floor was used as a church
the second floor was a two-bedroom apartment and prior to the first floor being a church
it was a market. After purchasing the property, I lived on the second floor until 2021. And during
that time, I updated the utilities on the first floor. It was vacant. It needed electric and
heating. It needed a lot of utility work. But I performed no structural changes to the first
floor. Upon purchasing, it had a kitchen and a full bathroom. So I was able to get a residential
mortgage on this property. The use at that time was commercial, I was told by my real estate agent,
but the zoning was residential, RS5. So this is the property in question. As you can see,
it's just a regular row home but it does have roll gates in the front. This is my application
for appeal. I just have all the paperwork I sent in here so I'll just go through that briefly.
That's my tax clearance form. This is the correspondence I had with the zoning,
my RCO we scheduled the meeting for the 8th my notice of refusal this is the
mailing I sent out to 162 neighbors I believe and then to the public
organized the community organizations this is my deed
this shows I was purchased that 2019 I believe October these are my proof of mailings
quite a few of them and then these are just some photos of the property with the zoning
it is a corner property so I have those on two sides of the house I don't use this front
door at all right now the first floor is vacant the second floor is vacant as well
um in 2023 we moved out because we had a child and we could no longer fit in this home so we
rent a property of people mix north so really we just want to have this property sustain itself
and renting the top floor just doesn't pay the mortgage so we just wanted to do something
with the first floor so we asked the community if they wanted you know commercial or residential
you know we said we'd do whatever they preferred and they voted for the residential so
this is the side of the property the first floor has another entrance and that this is some just
some interior shots of the property see it leans towards a residential property but it could go
either way. This is just showing that it does have a kitchen and a full bathroom.
just showing that it does have a kitchen and a full bathroom.
And then this is just the zoning map. It's surrounded by multi-units every day. A new
multi-unit comes up in this area. Yeah, so that's my presentation. If there's anything else I can
show you or questions I can answer. So questions from the board?
yes so as i understand the hardship is that uh the reason it can't be a single family
property anymore is because you you moved out and you no longer live in the in the unit
well it was never a single family property it's i can't i would love to make it one unit but it
never was you know i can't it just never was i bought a something that was a church on the
bottom they had a kitchen and a bathroom and apartment on the top you know it never was a
single family unit understood other questions from the board questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission
amy void with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change the
residential single-family rsa 5 location the appellant has shown that there are unique physical
circumstances or conditions that would prevent from the property from being used in conformancy
with the zoning code and that the proposal is the least minimum variance as a conversion from
former commercial use in the first floor to an additional residential unit is more in keeping
with the surrounding neighborhoods and the spirit of the code. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant requested variance for two-family residential. Thank you. Ms. Donnelly,
we're going to hold this for two weeks. And in that time, we'll see if we can get a response from
the RCO. Whether we get a response or we don't get a response, we'll vote on this
two Wednesdays, two weeks on a Wednesday at 2 p.m. Okay? Okay, great. Thank you very much.
I actually appreciate your time.
Number five, MI 2023-007-132, 58 West Pomona Street.
Tara Kayo is the attorney for the owner.
There's a letter of opposition from Pomona Cherokee Civic Association, RCO.
There's also an email from a neighbor expressing her opposition.
Counsel.
Sarah Cahill, can you please raise your hand?
Counsel, if I remember correctly, I swore you once today.
Am I correct?
Yes, you did.
Could you just state your name for the record?
Tara Cahill.
Right.
And could you also identify your client and have relationship to the property?
The property owner is a Panoma Realty LLC owned by Jimmy Rossi.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its action?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
um this application is for a change of use from a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling
the applicant purchased property on october 20 2022 and the property is on rsa 3 the property
is 2,155 square feet with three stories and a basement. Applicant purchased property to convert
to two apartments and to live in one of the apartments with his family. The owner proposes
to change the use from single family to two family dwelling and will renovate the property to
two new and modern apartments, each over 1,000 square feet. The owner also intends to live in
of properties within one of the apartments with his family and they love the neighborhood and
his children will matriculate into the school district. The owner wants to update and improve
the property that had not been improved for a very long time and both units will have
three bedrooms will have one of the one unit will have two bedrooms and two bathrooms and
another you will have three bedrooms and two baths and there's no major modifications to the exterior.
three bedrooms and two baths and there's no major modifications to the exterior
the property as i said is on rsa3 and multi-family dwelling is prohibited therefore a variance is
required the change of use conforms with the permitted uses on the same block as many of
the houses in their neighborhood are multi-family dwellings their direct neighbor property um the
direct neighbor's property is a multi-family and the following properties are all multi-family
dwellings there's one on 57 56 west pomona a 13 west 55 west and a 35 and 22 all of which are uh
three uh actually three family units and there's um only if that's only a few of the listed
properties that are multi-family in the neighborhood unfortunately the affected rcos oppose the
opposed use because one um they said mentioned in their letter
when they put their letter up yeah yeah so here's uh the opposition
and they attach a letter explanation at the end
uh one they say that uh there's many one to two bedroom apartments that are
being built nearby and they want to preserve the single family status in the area
Our response is, first, we completely understand their concerns, but the property owner loves the neighborhood, too, and will live in one of the units with his family.
Second, my client's situation is different because they are renovating the units to a three-bedroom that are great for new families.
The RCO is concerned that the area has a lot of one to two-bedroom apartments in the area, but this is actually for a three-bedroom that they're going to rent out.
A quick search online shows very little apartments available that are three bedrooms or more.
I also want to remind everyone that the property owner wants to build a two-family unit, not three or four or five.
The property owner is not building a large multi-unit property.
This is just for a two-family dwelling.
And he merely wants to add a second one because the property is quite large and it fits two units pretty well.
they were also concerned um the rco was also concerned about the design having basement
bedrooms without a door to um to exit so the owner had the floor plans changed so the bedrooms were
no longer in the basement i can show you the uh floor plan um here so uh this is the basement um
on the far left and um now that's changed the living room and the basement will be on the first
the bedrooms will be on the first floor um the hardship is that the physical feature of the