i can't seem to open that
hmm um could you bear with me one second
I'm hoping, well, this is what it does look like now.
So cars are on the left side of the street.
It is narrow, but I believe it would be possible to make that turn.
Not based on the plan you showed, but okay.
Maybe it's not to scale and I could be wrong.
The plan that you presented shows that in order to get into your parking space, you literally would be where these cars are on the left.
You'd need that space to get into your parking space and to get out.
That's what your plan shows.
I'm just telling you.
I understand.
Maybe I misspoke, and it's not to scale.
I didn't draw it.
Judy Robinson of Continuum did.
And I think it's representative.
I don't know how proportionally accurate that width is.
This is all measured.
I don't see dims here.
As a scale on the joint, we have to rely on the scale.
Understood.
I'm just saying, that's a concern.
If people are parked across from you, you'll never be, based on this plan and the required turning radius, you'll never be able to get out of your parking space.
If people aren't parked across the street, you would be able to.
Gotcha.
And is there other driveways on your side of the street?
There are.
If you look down here, there are a number of gates, and there are multiple driveways.
All of these homes, this was a development 25 years ago or something, and each of those homes has a driveway.
There's maybe five or six of them continuing down the street.
So each of them has a driveway, and they all face similar situations.
This one happens to be directly across from another driveway.
But that's an exception going down the street.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Mr. Chair, I would just ask that the letter from the RCO be forwarded to the board, just in case we do not receive it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with the first name.
Okay, they lowered their hands here.
okay they lowered their hands here as of now there are no hands up chair
As of now, there are no hands up, Chair.
Questions or comments from planning?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There are no unique physical circumstances that would prevent the property from being used in performance of the zoning code.
The layout of this block and its curbside parking pattern creates a potential hazard condition.
from ingress and egress in the proposed parking space therefore the city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the requested grants for surface accessory parking
my 2024 002 277 1309 pal therp street i vote no michael johns my vote is not
sir o'gaston my vote is no
vanetta graham my vote is no
thio and my vote is no
james snell my vote is no
ms mel shaheed my vote is no
thank you sir
number 10 mi2024-002-290-1211-west-cumberland
zen jin is the attorney
there's also a letter of support from the 37th ward rco
Xen Jin is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good evening.
Hi, Counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, my name is Xen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N,
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 1838
Philadelphia PA 19103
here on behalf of the applicant
M-E-I-E-T-O-L-L-C
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon,
counsel. Do you agree to read another refusal
or stipulate towards accuracy?
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 yes thank you council
please proceed and share your screen thank you i'm going to share with the board what was previously
submitted as our exhibits can everyone see my exhibit on the on their screen we can sir yes
thank you so we submitted the refusal uh the support letter from 37th ward executive democratic
committee who we met with, photos, plans, tax clearance, and related documentation.
This application is in an RM1 district. It's a new construction to be used as a three-family
dwelling. There are various dimensional standard variances being sought before the board,
and pretty much all except for the last, which is based on lot size, the variances we seek
seek are partially caused by the unique physical features of this property.
I'm going to move to the photos to better show what we're talking about. So this is
Cumberland Street with an industrial site across that is currently unused. We are the lot that is
essentially right near the corner of this street. The unique circumstance of these lots is that,
as you can see from the photos, this is a very elevated site. And as a result, for us to put
the building in, in order to keep the retaining wall, the property essentially has to be pushed
back a little bit, three feet or so, according to the plan, the site plan, which I'll show in a
minute. And that is where that three foot in the back was removed as part of design. This is
actually basically the same depth as the existing buildings that are already there. We kind of,
my client tried to follow what is on the block with regard to the depth, and therefore, when we
presented with the community, there was absolutely no opposition to that particular aspect. The use
itself, we're proposing at the three-family dwelling, again, based on the size of the units
and the rentals in the area, this was the most sensible proposal with the size of the units being
about anywhere from six to 800 square feet, and then a first floor unit that would be larger.
Again, the community RCO met with us and looked at the proposal, and again, majority of the
attendees, including the committee, voted in favor of our proposal. The site itself, as you can see,
there's a where the building let me try to zoom in so it's clear
where the building zone starts
where the building zone starts there's a little bit of a setback again already because of the
the way the walkway is and then the retaining area and the and the elevation of the building
and as a result we have a six foot rear yard there is a open space on the side even though
the coverage is, again, greater than the 75%. There is open space. And also, this one has a
side alleyway that also leads to the front, allowing trash to be stored in the back and
brought to the front for all units that would be in the property. So essentially, we're asking the
board's favorable review of, let me, I'm sorry, let me move to the actual layout. So there's three
units that are basically one per floor. First floor has a unit that also have access to the
basement. The second floor is its own individual unit. And then the third floor basically is a
reflective of the second floor in design and size. But the third floor has a little bit of
roof deck space for their outdoor space. We kept it very small to make sure that it does not impact
any neighbors, both in the front. Well, there are no neighbors in the front, but would not be seen
from the street and certainly also would not be seen mostly from the back of the property.
The building next door will be perpendicular to us. They'll be looking at our party wall.
So from that standpoint, there are no windows that they would be looking at,
and therefore there are no real visual issues with that building either. So as a result of the
support from the RCO. And based on the circumstances with the lot, we would ask for
a favorable review of this request with all variances. Again, for the use variance itself,
we believe that it is not going to negatively impact the community with regard to the lot size,
partly because the entire block across the street cannot be developed residentially.
And that lot, this particular area, has been underdeveloped for quite some time. So the community also gave us feedback that they like the idea of a triplex at this location. They do not feel that it would be a greater impact than what would normally be expected.
And again, this is an RM1 district surrounded by RM1 buildings and then bordered across the street by an industrial site that is unused.
I'm happy to try to answer any questions or redirect to any portion of our exhibit for the board's review.
Could you bring on your client?
Have your testimony adopted?
Absolutely.
Mr. Shagai Bader, could you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Chagai Bader, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Bader?
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Chagai Bader, C-H-A-G-A-I, my last name Bader, B-A-D-E-R.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Bader, did you see my presentation on the screen and hear my representation to the zoning board?
Can you verify to the board that what I have spoken is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Counsel, before I give it to the board, I know the other side is Duschel.
Are there multiple units on that side where you are?
It's all RM1.
All RM1.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
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?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
By right at this location, the appellant could construct a two-unit code-compliant residential building,
but has applied for three units in a building oversized for the context of the neighborhood,
almost exclusively of code-compliant single-family residences.
There is no unique physical condition that would prevent this property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variances
for maximum occupied area, rear yard area, rear yard depth, and minimum lot per unit.
minimum lot per unit um mi 2024 002 290 12 11 west cumberland street i vote yes
google johns my vote is yes cheryl guest and my vote is yes
sanetta grant my vote is no tie and win my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you thank you thank you council all right
number three mi 2023 005047 209 west chest on hill avenue adam labor is the attorney for the
The owner, David Feynman, represents the protestants.
Adam Laver is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Mr. Laver, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly. Adam Laver, L-A-B as in Victor, E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Feynman I see him in the virtual audience at this time yes but I do yes
thank you Jason I do I don't see Sean Rex oh oh there we go yeah so he's there
sorry about that anyway mr feyman
i'm sorry um i think we're back on yeah okay as david feyman we represent the protestants in this
matter mr hold on mr feyman just for the record could you spell your name for the sonographer
F-I-N-E-M-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding from the letters that we've received from Ms. Emerson is that you were going to hold this hearing for the sole purpose of hearing from some of the virtual audience.
And the second part was that we did write a letter to you indicating that we thought that there were deficiencies in the posting.
Our people had saw the postings go up, I believe, August 11th or so.
and but it's clear and Mr. Laver then responded by saying that he had gotten stamped emails
from August 6th indicating that notices had gone up but it's clear from those but what Mr. Laver
sent us and from pictures that we've taken that those notices were just white pieces of paper
They were not in the designated orange that you've indicated has to be up.