ZBA Hearing - July 30, 2025

The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 3 residential single-family zoning at this location.

The proposed elimination of the accessory off-street parking is a common condition on this block face.

On-Street Parking and Rear Alley Parking are both abundant here.

The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variance for eliminating an accessory off-street parking case.

So, Hillary, I'm going to close the case.

Everything's done until we receive photos, hopefully within the next few days.

Yes.

And after we review that next Wednesday, we will vote at 2 p.m. on the case.

That's fine.

And just to clarify, interior photos, interior layout, and then resubmission of the exhibit packet with all of those supplemental exhibits.

Yes. Commissioner, if I may, I'm going to need a little bit more time to get the interior plan layout.

Two weeks.

All right. Thank you very much.

Two weeks on Wednesday at 2 p.m.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Number four, MI 2024-003-143-2838 Cancell Street.

Gabriel Fellis is the attorney.

Recommendation of support from the Tasker Morris Neighborhood Association.

Coming back in as a panelist, Mr. Chair.

Morning, Mr. Chair.

Hi, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

gabriel fellas g-a-b-r-i-e-l last name is fellas f as in frank e-l-l-u-s do you swear or affirm to

tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do did you identify your client in

relationship to this property our client is albert busereth he's the property owner

do you waive the reading of the refusal do you agree with its accuracy

i do why don't you start your presentation

can you guys see the table of contents we can great uh thank you chair so mr busereth is here

today seeking approval to build a one-story addition with a roof deck uh the existing

property at 2830 uh control street uh he received a refusal on april 15th uh 2024 because the

proposed minimum roof deck setback requirement and second story front setback requirement do not

meet the code requirements. The property is zoned RM1 and requires a five-foot roof deck setback

and eight-foot second story setback pursuant to the Philadelphia Code.

This right here. First up, we have our deed to the property showing the applicant obtained title

in April of 2022.

And so here we have our site plans for the projects submitted with our application.

Just for reference, the property is currently vacant in near shell condition.

So with regards to the basement, the first and second story, the extent of the work will

be mainly interior renovations, so I wanted to focus on the proposed third story addition

and roof deck that is the subject of the refusals.

So, as a refusal noted, the proposed third story and roof deck does not provide for a

setback from the front of the property.

Both are 28 feet in length, which make up the entire length of the existing structured

property line.

Again, these plans provide detailed floor plans, building plans for renovating the entire

property uh not just the third uh the third story and roof deck at issue so i won't spend too much

time on all the the plans we have but we'll be happy to answer any questions that you guys might

have about the plans in their entirety so here we have our section plans with the third story

roof jack shown here. Here we have our electric plants. These are the applicable plumbing

plans, and waste plans.

So here we have some interior photos of the property in its current condition.

As I mentioned, the property is basically in shell condition right now.

This is the first floor, this is the rear wall of the property.

This is the third floor, the front facade, and then the unfinished basement.

this is the third four

So here we have some photos showing the street view from Cantrell Street, as well as our

zoning maps. Again, the property is zoned RM1 on a block comprised almost entirely of RM1

properties. The variance sought would not be out of character with the rest of the residential block

as Mr. Bucereth plans to use the property and the proposed third story addition with the roof deck

as his family's primary residence. Just for context, Mr. Bucereth's decision to draft these

plans without the required setbacks is really just to maximize the space for his young family.

He plans to use the additional story for an extra bedroom for his children, which would then allow him to remain in the property for longer as his children grow up, as opposed to having to move when the family inevitably outgrows the current two-story structure.

So here's our application for appeal that was filed by Ms. Abusereth in 2024.

And our project information form as well.

gabriel is anyone else on the block for the third floor on i'm not on the immediate block no

uh but this is the community notice letter that mr buchanan sent out to his nearby neighbors

in advance of the february 11th rco meeting with the grills ferry uh community council

So, unfortunately, he didn't, as a per se applicant, he didn't realize that he had to provide formal certificates of mailing for the letters.

He did provide a receipt from the post office when he's mailing those letters.

For reference, I did reach out to Mrs. Emerson, Ms. Dandy, in June about the issue.

A copy of the RCO chair, Mr. Charles Reeves, on that email.

He was able to confirm that Mr. Buceret did mail out those letters to nearby neighbors.

and he did present to the members of the community at the February 11th meeting

where he received this letter of support from them. If you have any questions about the

certificates of mailing, I'll be happy to answer those. So just to finish up,

I'm sorry? I'm sorry. Just to finish up here, here is our statement of real estate tax compliance

and our ZBA posters notifying the community of today's hearing.

So with that, I would just like to bring my client, Mr. Albert Bucerith,

on to adopt my testimony and answer any questions.

It should be back, and as a panel, it's shortly canceled.

albert yes uh yes sir albert could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer

My name is Albert Bussereff, A-L-B-E-R-T-B-U-I-S-S-E-R-E-T-H.

You swear we're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Please proceed, counsel.

Albert, have you heard of my testimony today?

Yes, sir.

And was it true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

Yes.

And would you adopt it as if it were your own?

Yes.

Great.

Any questions?

I would be happy to answer them.

Questions from the board.

Can you blow this up a little bit more so that I can actually see the…

Okay.

Does that work better for you?

Yes.

Great.

And then…

Okay.

All right.

Other questions?

How high is the parapet

above the third floor?

Get to our section plans really quick.

So what's your total height?

We're going to

right here.

Eight plus four

which is going to be 12 feet.

Right.

And

What was the justification for not having any setback?

what was the

justification between uh for not having any setback

I think it was mostly just to maximize the space.

I know Mr. Bouchereth said he didn't really like the design style of having a setback.

He had seen some other properties, not on the immediate block, but in the integrated area that had the same design style, and he wanted to go with that one.

and he can speak to that as well i'm sorry to to speak for you mr b shrift and then how close is

the closest building that he took his design reference from i am not entirely sure mr b

shrift uh yeah i could i could tell you um i was walking in i was walking the area so i would say

about uh two blocks um i don't know if that would be north or but two blocks away um i submitted a

picture to my attorney a few moments ago of the actual home um that i saw it's within walking

distance of my um of my home i don't know gabe if you want to um show present that um image to

them yes i do this picture but i'm not entirely sure um what the address i just see 28 18 elbert

so i'm not really sure exactly yeah yeah i'm sorry yeah i wish i would have i would it's um

I promise you, it's in walking distance of my home because I was just walking the neighborhood when I had first moved in the area.

And then I took a picture of it because I was like, this is what I wanted to do to my property.

And I took a picture of it.

And how recently did you move into the area?

Oh, well, I've had this house since 20, I think I bought it 2022.

I lived in a home for a moment and then I decided that I wanted to, you know, it just wasn't something that suited my family at the time.

So I decided to, I applied for a permit, easy permit to like remove like some non-low bearing walls.

And then I came up with the idea of, as I was looking around the area, that I wanted to expand and do this type of project to the home.

And that's when I went and sought an architect and started that process.

Okay.

At the RCO meeting, were there members from the block, residents from the block, in particular, the residents that are near neighbors or have any adjacency to your property that would agree with this?

So, to be honest with you, most of the people on my block are renters.

um the my um to the right of me um is my neighbor um i know him well um and um he i shared with him

my thoughts and i showed him the plans and he told me that he didn't have a problem with it

um and then and then pretty much um most like i said most of the people that do live in the

in the area and on my block uh they're all they're all renting there's actually no the actual home

owners don't live in the homes.

Other questions on the board?

I think they probably need to have

your drawings looked at. Again, there's

no way you can have a six inch floor

in each one of your floors. I'm looking at your section. Each one of your floors shows

six inches for the floor depth. So that

absolutely wouldn't stand up so that can't be right so i think your overall height then

is incorrect um so these plans are are flawed i think it's gonna have to go up at least

another foot and a half exactly because your your floor to floor your your floor

depth of your floor is going to be at least 12 inches you know which would also put this above

the 28 feet that it would be

if it was by right. I don't know. This is a really

tall. 30? 38.

38? 38. Okay. It's got to go to

38. Yeah.

Okay.

So I think the height that you're saying

is just wrong. So I mean

it still may be below the 38 I believe.

Right. Even add that.

What's your

basement height

that you're showing on the plan?

So your 8 foot basement

it okay and it's and it's it's kind of like just family room space kind of thing okay all right

questions for attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from

the virtual audience do not see any hands mr chair planning commission madison matera planning

commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from rm1

residential multifamily to rsa5 residential single family there is no unique physical

There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in strict conformity with the zoning code.

condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used

The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny their opposed variance for front setback.

Counsel, what I'm going to do with this, I'm going to talk to the other board members next Wednesday morning, and I'm going to vote on this at 2 o'clock.

Counsel?

That sounds good to me. Thank you so much.

Gabriel, did you hear what I said?

I did, yes.

Okay, thank you very much, and thank you for your presentation.

Yeah, I question, hold on for a second, I question, these plans are sealed by licensed, it's got a licensed architect sealed, that's concerning.

Or is that an inch, I mean, whoever it is, it's a licensed seal, they're showing six-inch floors, that's just bad.

Okay.

All right. So would you maybe be open to, if that is going to be the issue, about maybe continuing for a couple of weeks to allow Mr. Ducerath to maybe prepare new site plans and to submit those to you guys to review prior to our next hearing, prior to the vote?

Hillary?

i i personally i don't care i'm just you know saying that this is bad that a licensed person

drew plans with a six inch floor

it is up to the board we can keep the record open for updated plans addressing the concerns of the

board then close it otherwise well I don't think that's what I don't think I'll defer to the chair

however you want to handle it so Hillary why don't we do this it's closed and he could send

us additional plans and then we'll vote on in two weeks sounds good all right so you hear what I

said Gabriel you have to have whatever you have send back in two weeks we're not going to have

a resumptive hearing, the board will look at it

and use that as part of our

decision on where we stand with the case.

And we'll do that Wednesday, two