Number five, MI 2022, 002-169-2118 Pine Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Center City Residence Association.
28 neighbors from the 2100 block of pine and 400 block of sound south van pelt have also uh given
their support mr chairman members of the board henry clinton and mr clinton could you spell your
name for the court reporter please sure henry h-e-n-r-y clinton c-l-i-n-c-o-n do you swear
a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your
client in relationship to the property? Sure, I have two clients, Lynnae Schwartz, L-Y-N-N-A-E,
Schwartz, S-E-H-W-A-R-T-Z, and Leslie, L-E-S-L-I-E, Surchuk, S-E-R-C-H-U-C-K, and Ms. Schwartz is on the
call, as is Ms. Surchuk. Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal 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 all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed, and please share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is that visible, Ms. Denary?
It is for someone 25.
Can you increase it?
I'm being just mad.
Well put.
Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm Henry Clinton for Ms. Schwartz and Ms. Surchuck.
This concerns 2118 Pine Street.
This is my presentation package, which contains exhibits AA through A10.
I'll walk through the pertinent ones.
this is our appearance statement this is the key document it's a rather straightforward
request today the refusal concerns a required setback for a rooftop deck as you will see from
the photographs this deck has been in existence for a while my clients purchased the property
in 2007 and the deck was in existence then they needed some repairs and rightfully they applied
for a permit when they apply for a permit to do these repairs they found out that it was not
properly zoned so we began the process and we're here today before the board so we met with the
center city residents association and presented basically the same package and i'm presenting to
the board today to them and they issued a letter of non-opposition to this request what's also
of non-opposition to this request. What's also interesting is my clients were very very
interesting is.
proactive in contacting neighbors on their street which is Pine Street and this is at the intersection
of Pine and Van Pelt and they also contacted and reached out to their neighbors on Van Pelt Street
and they got an overwhelming response of support from all the near neighbors and even neighbors
that are far away because they realize this deck has been in existence from 2007, and
you can just about see it from the ground level anyway.
We also have emails of support, which I can read, but they are introduced as evidence
into the presentation today, and I don't want to take up the board's time, but you
can take my testimony as well as my client's testimony that these are strong letters of
support for various reasons from adjacent and near neighbors.
Mr. Chairman, I won't read these emails.
I gather you did not want me to, and I'll just leave you to present it.
You're an officer of the court.
We understand what your testimony is.
Understood, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
So this is the photograph.
This is my client's property.
This is Van Pelt Street.
This is Pine Street.
And you can see it's a three-story structure with a mansert roof.
roof, and then you can just about see the deck at the very top.
This is a wrought iron open fence, which is going to remain.
As I said, my clients are basically replacing what is there.
This is an aerial view to give you an idea of the property.
This is looking south, Pine Street, Van Pelt Street.
Again, another perspective, you can see the rooftop deck from this angle, and it is set
back somewhat if you took a linear line from where this overhang is and bring it straight up you can
see that it is set back several feet and that's why the refusal doesn't indicate it has to be set
back five feet because it's it's set back about half that distance right now this is another
perspective photographs that we took just to show you the manser roof and the rooftop deck there's
also ample space between the rear of my client's property and the first house south over in Pelt
Street. Additional photographs for perspective of the board. This is a view from the rooftop deck.
You can see that the boards are old, weathered a bit, need to replace. We also need to replace
some joists beneath the decking. And this is a view looking towards center city. Again,
you can see some of the decking is certainly a need of repair.
So the plans are pretty straightforward. This is the existing deck.
And this is a replacement deck. So we're going to remove some structures that are not being used.
There's an opening there for a hot tub, which is not being used, and some existing planners that
are built into the deck. And we're just going to have a full open deck. And my clients will
be replacing some of the planners, but they'll probably be in containers, but not built into the
deck. Again, the perimeter of the deck remains the same. The access to the deck remains the same.
The height of the railing remains the same. In fact, the railing is going to be an exact,
it's going to be repainted and recoded, but it'll remain in place. The remainder of the
presentation, Mr. Chairman, are the typical documents you would see of tax certification,
application for appeal um our zoning map again indicating uh where the property is located
uh and the deed so i don't want to belabor the point but basically uh the deck is as it was in
2007 except it needs upgrading and reinforcing my clients are continuing with the same footprint
Yes, I have.
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, I would.
Thank you, Ms. Schwartz. We appreciate it.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location. This appears to be the
legalization of an existing deck. The aerial photos that we have available to us appear to show a roof
deck on this property dating back to at least 2005, which predates the current owner. Therefore,
the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the dimensional variance.
Thank you. MI-2022-002-169-2118 Pine Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Mr. Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Clayton.
Have a great day.
Okay. Next case will be two cases together, seven and eight.
Number seven, MI 2022-000658-3440 Messina Way, and MI 2022-000659-3442 Messina Way.
Michael Mattione is the attorney, has the support of the Packer Park Civic Association,
although the court the uh the chairperson of that group did not see them uh didn't seek it
was necessary to have a meeting mr chair i have mr matthew laley with his hand raised sure
and i'm to speak at this time please
good afternoon mr check can you hear me i i can could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter. Sure. Matthew Liley, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-L-E-I-L-I. I'm appearing
for Mr. Mattione on behalf of the property owner. Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship
to the properties? My client is Penrose Park Associates LP. They own the both properties.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Hi, have you agreed to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to the accuracy of it?
Have you emailed the exhibit packets with proof of ownership tax compliance,
refusal 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?
I have the RCO sent a letter of no opposition in lieu of meeting with us due to the minor nature of the variance.
Okay. This is Santa Place, right?
Correct. I was here a couple weeks ago on a neighboring parcel, and these are just two other identical floor plans, identical variance to that same application.
Okay. You may proceed and share your screen.
thank you i don't see the option to share my screen i have to promote them to panelists please excuse me
sorry about that madam chairman mr langley will be returning as a panelist shortly
sure that's that's fine jason thank you oh all right here you go
Okay, so as was said, I represent the property owners for 3440 and 3442 Messina Way.
Both properties are within the Siena Place subdivision in South Philly.
um i'll go through the hearing exhibits quickly uh there's the real estate tax clearance was
submitted um the refusal as i stated before is for a minor variance uh it's just for a balcony
in the rear yard um because of the way the zoning code defines the rear yard it requires nine feet
of rear space. The balcony intrudes four feet into that rear space so we're short by four feet
I believe for the rear yard. And as I said before it's the same variance for both properties 3440
and 3442 Messina Way. We have the letter of no opposition from the Packer Park Civic Association.
We have the letter of no opposition from the Packer Park Civic Association. After trying to meet with the group, we were informed that their schedule was very busy.
They referred the matter to the Siena Place Homeowners Association. We spoke with the board president who had no opposition to the variances and supported any building that would be done in conformity with the surrounding houses.
We sent out notice letters to the community, which I believe were also submitted, informing them of the zoning board hearing and in lieu of the RCO meeting, informing them that they could meet with or rather that they could submit any questions or concerns they had to my office.
We haven't received any communication from neighbors regarding the development.
here we have floor plans for the properties you can see on this map in this corner here
is where the two properties are located their neighbors they have the exact same floor plan
the community is designed with three model houses and these houses 3440 and 3442 both are the same
floor plan. They both contain, you can see here, this balcony on the second floor of the rear of
the property. That's the balcony that generates the variance or the refusal. Every other property
of this floor plan in the development has this same balcony. There's, I believe, 313 homes
in the entire subdivision, and each one of those has some sort of balcony or roof deck.
I submitted also floor plans. You can see
on this one, again, the balcony on the rear second floor. This protrudes again into the
backyard by four feet. For these properties requiring variances, the typical depth of the
balcony, I believe, is five feet. We reduced those to four feet to create, to minimize the variance
needed, just to maximize the open space in the rear yard. These are additional floor plans and
elevations again we can see the balcony on the rear of the structure here
now we have some photographs this is the site photograph it's vacant land at the moment
construction hasn't started on this phase these are the neighboring houses that have already been
built in the community it's very high construction standards good materials used throughout
um this is one of the floor plans that has a rear deck this is not the floor plan here but
this is the floor plan you see here that has
the same deck as 3440 and 3442 Messinaway
um as I said every property in the development has some sort of rear balcony or roof deck
This variance would enable the owner to build the properties in conformity with the existing uses.
And we have our zoning posters, application for appeal, and our affidavit of service that mailing was sent to all of the required properties,
is informing them of the ZBA hearing and that they can provide comments to my office.
Counsel, do you have someone to adopt your testimony?
I do. The principal of the owner, Dave Bartinski,
if you could raise your hand and we can have you adopt the testimony.
I don't know if he's in the audience.
Counsel, you're an officer of the court.
We will accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Yeah, I just have one question.
How many homes in Siena Place have roof decks?
You know, I think I misspoke.
I don't think they're roof decks.
I think they're rear third floor decks.
They're not on the roof level.
I believe they're on the third floor level.
That's what I recall. I thought maybe the next phase was doing roof decks, but you answered it. Thank you.
That's what I recall.
I thought maybe the next phase was doing roof decks, but you and me,
Any other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any answers, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this
location the applicant has failed to show that the absence of a balcony in the required rear yard
would render the property unusable however the presence of a rear deck will not injure the use
of adjacent properties and the proposed condition is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the
zoning code therefore the city planning commission recommends the board grant the variance for both
properties. Thank you. MI2022006583440 machine away and MI20220006593442 machine away. I vote yes
for both. Carol Tenere, I vote yes for both. Thomas Holliman, I vote yes for both.
James Snell, yes to both. Ishmael Shahid, yes to both.