Yes, Chair. We have a number ending in 3552. They have been allowed to speak.
what's that
Adrian
hi Adrian
could you state your name
as Bella for the stenographer
Adrian
my last name is
Fernandez
spelled
F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z
do you swear
to tell the truth
the whole truth
nothing but the truth
please proceed
I can see there's
several issues here
first of all
3-1-1 information being disclosed to the public open records of pennsylvania's office can answer
that question because that information may be available through open records if requested by
other neighbors we have had complaints of neighbors information being given out and i
personally experienced 9-1-1 giving my information out recently to a person pretending to be a police
officer that I had to rectify myself. And they threatened me by text, my phone number given to
them by 911, even though it may be illegal. Next, I want to talk about the, there's four
affected RCOs for this address. Of the four, one of them served as RCO coordinator for this
address, and that was Allegheny West Civic Association.
We've been having problems with Allegheny West Civic Association falsifying votes.
Allegheny West Civic Association falsifying votes. We received no meeting summary forms required by
We received no meeting summary.
the Philadelphia Code for this address and for many others. We didn't know what was going to
happen with that, whether we would get it or not. It's supposed to be sent out to all parties that
receive RCO notification. At the meeting, the affected neighbors voted no, that they were
opposed to apartments at this address. They wanted to remain single family and to preserve
their architecture. However, somehow Allegheny West has decided that the community approved of
this variance. That was not true. I was also there. The majority votes were opposed to this
variance. The letter that Swampwood RCO sent in is a letter of opposition. We are asking that
the zoning board vote no and if they do not we were asking for a limit of two units because as
expressed for many reasons parking is required for rca3 properties that want to have apartments
as one per unit but there's none proposed here and neighbors have expressed the financial burden
and other burdens that they've experienced because of that in a city where there's lots of shootings
these sort of confrontations to long-term residents by transient residents is a problem
that variances can enhance or increase. We're also asking for interior storage of trash.
There was nothing on the drawing to show how that would be done, and I think the drawings
have to be amended and presented to the RCOs for approval before there's any, if there's
a granular variance, although we are asking that this variance be denied.
And, of course, the no basement living, which
both, I think there was a third RCO there, but we all asked for that.
And we are also asking for no rooftop decks.
This property is next to our
Central Regional Rail Allegheny Station, and it is on the 33 bus route.
However, long-term residents who have been maintaining the block, all their lots are clean
because they keep them clean.
We've known these residents for like 10 years.
They've participated in community meetings for zoning,
and we have long-term information that they are the ones who are keeping this block clean.
We do get more assistance from the city in my part of Toronto there in Tiago
because we are right next to the business district.
They're on 22nd Street, but technically the residential area is right above it.
So we're asking that the zoning board can oppose this variance
because the nuisance problems, they're just great
because there are a lot of absentee landlords in this area.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
Is there anyone else in a virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman and Board Members.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning of this location
from RSA 5, Residential Single Family, to RM1, Residential Multifamily.
the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2006 in a council requested map change at that time this
property was zoned rm1 the proposed rm1 would allow four dwelling units the appellant requests
three there appears to be on balance more single family homes than multi-family on this block face
although multi-family dwellings do exist the city planning commission recommends the board grant
the proposed use variance for a multi-family dwelling but with a limit of two dwelling units
Thank you. We're going to vote. We're going to get together next Wednesday morning and talk about this case. We appreciate everybody that came in. And we're going to vote at 930 a.m. next Wednesday, which is the fourth.
Commissioners, if I could, I would like to make a closing statement.
I've heard, I did attend the meeting, and I did have an opportunity to talk to the neighbors and talk to some of the problems in the neighborhood.
As one of the neighbors testified, I am the one that told them to call 311 in regard to certain complaints.
Originally, we requested four units, and now we reduced it to three units based on conversations with the individuals that attended the community association.
I don't think that it's really fair to charge my client with the activities of other individuals that live in the neighborhood, i.e., barbecuing them on the front porch and the trash.
We will vet the individuals coming to stay in our properties.
We do have a relationship with the community and the community organizations, and we are accessible for complaints and to resolve any issues.
and we are accessible for complaints and to resolve any issues commissioners they're going
to be good development and there's going to be a bad development uh our development is
consistent with what's happening in that neighborhood and i like to point out to you
there are some illegal multi-families on this block we did not try to go the illegal route
we did try to come to the community and did try to come to a meeting of the minds in regard to
development. We did seek and we did obtain a letter of support. I didn't get any information
from Swamp Poodle, nor did I get any letters from Swamp Poodle or any complaints per se
in Swamp Poodle. We did do as the board and as the provisions provide, we noticed all the RCOs
and we did come to the meeting and we were available to discuss anything that was going on.
And with that, I would ask that you grant our requests for the three-unit development.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate your sentiments.
So we're going to vote on this next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m.
You're welcome to come down, but you can actually do it by phone.
You can listen to where we stand by phone, okay?
Thank you very much.
Thank you for waiting all the time that you did.
We appreciate it.
All right.
um number 12 mi 2025 000 390 83 herman street sherman topman
uh i'm going to continue this at two o'clock thank you
good afternoon hi sherman yes can you hear me yeah you're very low oh i see it yes so sherman
i hate to do this to you but we're going to continue this to two o'clock
okay okay so you'll be first what two o'clock all right thank you all right and mr toppin i just i
just wanted to know because i won't be here initially on the two o'clock list the board
can hear this case but it will need to hold it for a um a corrected refusal um there was a few
problems with the refusal as i reviewed it one it didn't mention the accessory parking that's being
proposed um it didn't list the use that's being proposed and it also um instead of giving a
refusal for height it just mentioned that the pilot house was oversized so i'm gonna i will
i will send it back to ellen i and ask them to correct that but you can still have your hearing
today we'll just vote on it next week with a corrected refusal that's fine that's fine we'll
be around thank you for understanding okay thank you
good afternoon everyone um before we start this afternoon's list we have one case from this
morning that we have to finish so we're going to hear that case then we'll go right into the
two o'clock list mi 2025 000 390 83 herman street sherman top and as the attorney
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I will be a co-hosting for the session. Mr. Chairman Toppin will be coming back in as a panel shortly.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Hi. Mr. Toppin, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes. My name is Sherman Toppin. I'm sorry. My the video button had just opened up here. Sherman Toppin, I'm here representing the owners of 83 Herman Street, LLC.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Toppin, I understand from our attorney, this is going to be you'll present the case and that we're going to hold the vote. Is that correct?
I believe so. Yes. OK.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Your Honor.
Okay. Do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
The refusal, the reading, yes. Well, the accuracy of the refusal is what is, what are the issues there?
There's two omissions of the refusal, I think.
Okay, I got it. Okay, well, so why don't you start your presentation?
Okay, great. So I will begin to share my screen at this point in time. Let me just get that in front of you.
All right.
And is the board viewing my cover sheet for 83 Herman Street?
I do, sir.
So we're pleased to be bringing this before you.
This project, as you can see, this is the, on my cover sheet here, you can see that this
is the end product that is envisioned for 83 Herman Street.
the end product that is envisioned for 83 herman street um it'll be two single family properties
of semi-detached on a existing lot on my next page here you can see the over the conditions
from an from the from above um the it's a vacant undeveloped lot at this point and right almost
the the neighbor property is also a two single family semi-detached structure this structure
will be in infill very much the same except a little more modern. It will be in keeping with
the same color context and we'll talk about what it will be there but the neighbors of this
particular area are pleased to have finally the property that was there was demolished and now
they're going to have a new two single family infill on Herman Street as they desire. So in
In our typical package, we've got the refusal, the deed, application to the ZBA here, the
product information sheet, zoning map showing that, photographs of the property, which we
have already seen, plans, we'll talk about what happened at the RCO meeting, and of course
our addresses for the RCO meeting itself, certificates of mailing, notices of the ZBA
and proof of posting of the ZBA poster, tax certificate, and culminating with a letter
of support from the community and I will begin the presentation here so my the first item
of course is the refusal in looking at the refusal and of course we've waived the reading
of it but what is what is proposed here and what what the board will be noticing is that
for the erection of these two single family semi-detached structures single structure
It's mainly dimensional changes and the roof deck structure that is present on this refusal.
The height of the structure is absent from the refusal, which we will be seeking a change of
because the pilot house that is above the structure causes it to exceed the height restrictions.
Also, this particular property will have, it is projected to have two curb cuts.
one for each of the two single family homes for entry into the garage. And we'll see that lower
down. So with the exception of those two items, the existing five items on the refusal do show
that we're looking for what we view as a de minimis extension, like the roof deck access
structure should not exceed 125 square feet. We're looking for approximately 50 square feet
larger roof deck, and you'll see why when we get to the plans. For the structure of lot one and two,
the minimum area that's proposed for development, minimum lot area is 22,250 square feet. We're
asking for what is proposed as 2,232, slightly smaller for each of the two property, which we
view as de minimis in dimensions. And third is the minimum lot width for the RSA-3 in which this
particular existing structure is located. It should be 25 feet, but we're seeking a 22.6 feet
lot width, which is again just about two feet four inches shy of what is permitted by right.
And finally, the last one is for the side yard. On each side, eight foot is a proposed side yard is a minimum depth. We're seeking five foot six. So again, two feet, four inches there, shy of what is by right.
So what we're looking, so looking on the face of our refusal, it's mainly dimensional. And these dimensional refusals add significant, though they're minimal in what they appeared to be, it adds significant saleability and appeal to the structure to cause it to be a property that is saleable in this particular area.
There's not a lot of new construction of single-family properties in this area.
There's been a couple on various corners, multifamily.
But to make a single-family construction feasible, these are the variance items that we seek today.
So in our Exhibit 2, we have the D, which shows that 83 Herman Street LLC is the owner.
As we go into our Exhibit 4, that's the application for appeal, which sets forth what I've said already.
Project information sheet is just a standard thing that was required.
And as far as five, we can see this. This is the zoning map of the area. It's it's RSA three pretty much all around. So this area is strong as heavily single family all around. However, there's been at this particular in this spot here in the little circle that I've got at the end of this block. There's been a multifamily property built here. And also on this corner here, catacorned to the property, a multifamily property was built there neighbors.
Here, cat a corner to the property, a multifamily property was built there.
Neighbors and members of the community don't want any more multifamily in this particular
And they were very pleased that our owners who grew up in this neighborhood have opted
to do single family in this area.
So in keeping with the RSA 3 designation, zoning designation.
So currently, as you've seen, the property is an undeveloped lot.
there's no curb cut as you can see based on the picture here there is a curb cut
just slightly off picture going along the side it's the same is true for all
the properties down the street there's at least there's one curb cut here we're
seeking for that curb cut to be distributed in the center rather than
the side we just repositioning it so that each property will have a driveway
access and we'll look at that more closely in the plans that are here so