M-A-R-I-A.
Larson.
L-A-R-S-O-N.
And my address is 247.
rochelle avenue so i'm right next door you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed uh i first of all i i am definitely an opposed to
this um for many reasons especially for the safety and concern of uh the neighborhood and the
children um who are in this neighborhood walking and you know playing with the dog you know being
walking the dogs and playing in the neighborhood with the children um absolutely um opposed to this
i i wanted to say one thing um as a witness that um knowing we that there is no one that has moved
out of 249. I don't think that's an issue, no disrespect. The issue is about whether or not
the board will approve a parking pad. Okay. It doesn't matter who lives in the house at this
point. Okay, that's fine. I just, again, wanted to say that it is, it's definitely a detriment to
me and my family, along with a lot of the other near neighbors, and that we do not
have um approved this and that um especially for the safety um of it and there is no other
people other neighbors that are parking um in their paved yard as well um
and i can be a witness to that okay thank you anyone else something new and different
yes bernardo you can unmute yourself hi my name is bernardino allegretti it's a b-e-r-n-a-r-d-i-n-o
allegretti is a-l-l-e-g-r-e-t-t-i i live at one i live at 110 rochelle avenue
you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I just to start off this, let's say this was sort of touched on earlier, but there was a mischaracterization of how this property fits into the character of the neighborhood.
Anybody familiar with Wissahickon understands that it's a neighborhood characterized by houses with lots of green space.
It's amid the Wissahickon Park.
There are 68 properties on this block, and six of them have, other than the subject property,
have paved over front yards. And as has been previously explained, only one of them has
had a permit. The rest of them have had attempts to legalize their parking and have been denied.
Since the advent of zoning, parking has been prohibited from this neighborhood,
prohibited from the zoning category. The history of attempts for variances, as far as I can tell,
have gone back to 1980. So this isn't a new battle that's been happening in this neighborhood.
Unfortunately, it's a death by a thousand cuts. I've lived here since 1987.
We have to pay attention to when somebody decides to park in their front lawn, and then we've got
to go and seek L&I enforcement of the zoning code. And Ms. Pritzker previously suggested
that there were no violations, there was no complaint from neighbors, but we weren't the
beneficiary of 311 until relatively recently. So it was a much more convoluted process in
the past to try to get enforcement on illegal parking here.
That's speculative.
As I said, 91% of the other properties in the block have green space in their front lawns.
You guys have heard the same old story about creating off-street parking, helps the parking situation in the neighborhood.
But you know that's not the case.
But you know that's not the case. This privatizes a public asset. This is a public parking spot
This privatizes a public asset.
This is a public parking space.
available to the neighbor. Ms. Pritzker claimed that the neighbor blocked in this spot. Let's
remind everybody that that is a legal parking spot on the street. Currently this use off the street
is illegal. So taking that away from the neighborhood is a taking away a shot that
a spot that everybody has a fair shot to use and puts it in the hands of one property owner.
She also pointed out that 269 Rochelle has two cars parked or has had two cars parked in front of it and was only legalized for one parking spot.
That's another demerit towards doing this kind of legalization is that once it's legalized for one car, there's really nothing to stop two cars parking there.
Just object to that. There's no room.
It's unenforceable. It leads it up to the neighbors again to go make code violation complaints.
And then the code inspector has to come out and catch them parking two cars there.
And all they have to do is move one car out of there until the violation is cleared.
And then they can start parking two cars there again.
So legalizing this parking spot is going to be a burden for the rest of the existence of this property
on the neighbors to enforce it being one parking spot
as if that was in the character of the neighborhood.
So just to comment on that, I did look up the 269.
They were granted a variance for two cars.
Our property is 15 feet wide, so the curb cut is,
so you wouldn't be able to get two cars in there.
You need at least an 18-foot curb cut to do two cars.
Just to mention that.
I can't hear you, Mr. Chairman.
There's a pause for one minute while he comes back in.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, Chairman.
yeah you said um 269 was granted for two-car parking it's also a wider i saw that when was
that when was it granted i can share these my screen uh you probably told me already but just
1993 1993 yep all right uh we're going to be moving along here is there anyone else to testify
has something new and different the only other thing i wanted to mention mr chairman is um
Mr. Allegretti lives a quarter mile away from this property.
So to say that it's detrimental to him, I think is a stretch, but I understand the point he made.
The other thing I wanted to mention, because it keeps being brought up, is as the board well knows, every property is different.
You want to look what's in character, but every property is different.
And there's plenty of situations where one property on a block or two or three get variances and another doesn't for very separate unrelated.
We don't know what happened at those board hearings.
I wasn't there. I don't know if anyone at the board was there, but I would appreciate that
distinction recognized. Understood. So noted. Thank you. There, we have a Nicole.
She's also from the same RCO. Healy? Yes, hello? Hi. Please identify yourself. First and last
name. Spell your last name and provide us with your address. Nicole Healy, H-E-A-L-Y. Address
637 Barnes Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19128. I am president of the RCO.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And if you can provide us with something new and different, that would be helpful?
I just want to comment on the meeting summary that Ms. Pritzker included in her packet.
That is actually not our meeting summary. That email came from me directly, so I feel
as though I can speak on it, I sent that out the day after the meeting to attendees of
the meeting to share the voting results.
And as a courtesy, I copied Ms. Pritzker on the email because we had exchanged many emails
between myself and her team in the months leading up to the meeting.
That was not meant to take the place of the meeting summary that our zoning chair, Daniel
Flesher sent prior to this meeting last week and which I was copied on all the materials that he
sent. And in closing, I just want to say that the RCO is firmly opposed to this application. There's
no question about it. We are opposed. Nicole, are you aware that I wasn't on any of those emails
for any additional documents besides the email I provided?
It does appear you were not copied on that. I was not aware that you needed to be copied.
uh i was not aware that you needed to be copied we were not copied on any of your materials to
We were not copied on any of your material.
respond to um what you're putting out there uh so it does appear that you were not copied
to answer your question yeah the rco instructions do not
right the instructions do not tell us to copy you excuse me everyone thank you tanya uh mr
Flesher, please let Ms. Haley finish and then we'll get to you.
The instructions that I tried to follow to a T do not tell me to copy opposing counsel.
So we did not.
Now I know that's a mistake.
Nicole, the only point I was making was that it's the only thing that I had.
And so when the board asks us to submit documents in a letter from the RCO and that's all that was sent to me, that's what I copied.
It was not in an attempt to not include other documents.
I wasn't privy to any other documents okay well you've not had a problem getting a hold of me
before Rachel so if there are missing documents I wish you would have reached out to me all right
ladies okay um let's see who else was that
anyone else new and different please
questions from the board we have a mr peter i'm sorry chair the owner's on his own not allowed
to speak yet all right mr evans
jesse are you there hello can everybody hear me yeah mr evans please identify yourself again
My name is Jesse Evans. It's E-V-A-N-S. I am the property owner at 249 Rochelle.
Are you swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Go ahead, Jesse.
So my point of view is this. I bought the property, and for about three and a half years,
I was parking on the current spot, and I haven't had any problems.
When I purchased the property in the very beginning, it was in the listing that there was parking included.
As I went through the process, I talked to Don, the older owner of the house.
He assumed, as Joe Beller mentioned, that this parking spot was a valid spot.
since the three years um the next door neighbor i don't know if they had an argument with the
tenant or whatever happened there i'm not sure they started to do the 311 and contact lni and
to my knowledge i didn't know that it wasn't legal so then we started getting these violations
what i assume is the next door neighbor was parking in the curb cut location
for his personal use because it's the next door. It's right there because no one was parking in
that spot. On top of that, if the cops do come out to the site, which they've been called many
times, they will not ticket that car in the spot. They actually told our tenants to put a note on
the window telling the towing company that we are in the house and this is a spot. They will not do
it so really what this comes down to is lni and this being a zoning requirement i just look at it
as i bought it with a parking and the parking's been there for over how many years so um i don't
know what else to say i just want to do the right thing and get this passed so it's there just like
269. You live at this property? No, I own that property. It's a rental property? Yes.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Holloman. Not a question, but a comment. In my opinion,
it seems as though the buildings were originally designed for front lawns and not parking.
that's just my opinion that's it appears that way yeah i agree all right again any questions from the
board no planning commission good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends this property for single family use
This appears to be an existing curb cut and parking pad built without the benefit of permits.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
Okay, thank you. MI 2021-000184, 249 Rochelle Avenue. My vote is no.
249 Rochelle Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Number 6.
Yeah, calendar number
3636 Haberford Avenue.
The attorney is
Henry Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, 1313 South 33rd Street, Queen Memorial Building, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to everything except plans and the letter were sent two days ago rather than five.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Henry Clinton for the applicant who
is on the call with me.
His name is Turlock Hart, and may I share my screen?
Yes, sure.
Is that visible enough?
So this is 3636 Haverford Avenue. This is my presentation binder containing Exhibits AA through A11.
This is the Purim Statement, the refusal. This project, and I'll show you photographs of it as we work through this, this project was built as of right with a zoning permit from, I believe, 2018.
and it's an existing commercial on the first floor which is unoccupied and dark
and three apartments above so that was issued as of right several years ago because the commercial
is unable to be rented and we'll have testimony on that we're coming back to the board and asking
to make that large commercial space which is about 2400 square feet make that two apartments
So this existing commercial and three-unit building will then become five apartments with no commercial if we're successful today.
This is the RCO letter.
You'll see that it was a tie vote, 7-7.
And as a result of that, the RCO did not reach any agreement on this project.
And I just wanted to point out to the board some of the issues that were raised.
and one of the issues we've addressed since the vote was taken.
There was some concern about the basement and the first floor unit layout and size of the windows.
We originally had bedrooms in the basement and the revised plans that we sent it,
and it only concerns internal of the building.
The revised plans have now moved the bedrooms to the first floor.
so this is an aerial photograph of the property and prior to 2018 it was a vacant lot and we're
looking south here so this is penn presbyterian hospital and the university of pennsylvania
buildings there the commercial corridor for this neighborhood is lancaster avenue which is about
two or two and a half blocks south of this property and then all the properties along here
are our commercial zone commercial but there's many residential this these two properties here
happen to be a church there's a large apartment complex over here and there's going to be a