So, sorry, if we missed all this, I'll just go back.
With the exhibits, there's refusal, the RCO notice, attaching refusal, and the certificate of mailing.
the RCO notice attaching refusal and certificate of mailing. November 2020 was when I
mailed the notices for our first RCO meeting. These are the addresses provided by the
Planning Commission and here's our plan. End of row unit. These are steps at the
front um with a raised a hill in the front here um and the driveway is around the back
you'll see photos and understand what i mean but here's our plot plan where this property is 31
feet wide the building itself is about 15 or 16 feet wide and there's a driveway next door since
we're in end of row the driveway does continue alongside the property around the back serving
the neighboring properties in this row. Existing as is right now, there's a rear entrance at grade
level back here, entering what I'll call the first floor or the first level or all the neighbors
have garage doors here. This property does not have a garage door here, but we enter here into
kitchen and dining. There's a galley kitchen here, utilities here, a bedroom and a bathroom.
entering over that hill up those stairs on the what I'll call the second level
you are in a vestibule with stairs up to the third floor or a door into the second floor
into the kitchen dining galley kitchen here bathroom and two rooms this is we're calling
this a living room and a bedroom here up the stairs to the third level uh enter into a bedroom
here, bedroom in the back, kitchen, and a bathroom in the middle. This, I had forwarded this tax
compliance because I was having trouble getting the certification, but I'll show you the certification
in a moment. And here's a page from the archives where the date is 63, 1963, and this property
has been a multi-family property since 1963. At that time, it was registered as a two-family
dwelling. And if I can change my view, I want to show you the photos. I'm sorry, I should show you
the deed first. Here's our deed. My clients are Dimitri and Igor Uparov, and they bought this
property in October of 2017. And like I said on that plan, here's that 31-foot width of the property,
and and uh here is this 120 foot depth of this property so we do have a 31 foot by 120 foot
property square footage of that is 3 720 square feet that does include the driveway that's uh
accessible so for use from the neighbors but this is uh 31 by 120 so when we talk about square
footage in multi-families, we would normally be talking about 3,720 square foot using that
provision in the RM zoning of 480 foot per unit. That gives us a seven unit count.
This is a variance request for three units. Here's the photos. I want to make sure everyone
can see these. So here's the property. As you see, we have an elevated front yard in the front.
here's that front door up to what i call the second second level the driveway around the side
and the rest of the row here this is on its side i tried to rotate it but i don't know how but you
can i'll have a better picture of this but you see a rear door entering that first level unit
that's a window here not a garage door this has been this format for you my clients have owned
since 2017. If there ever was a garage door here, they never saw it. They didn't remove it. There's
three meters. This is what I'm calling the second floor unit, entering that up the stairs front door
on the front of the property, that galley kitchen, that bathroom, that what was termed living room
on the plans and the bedroom in the back. Nicely updated, good quality of living here for the
tenants here's the bathroom here's that living room area the bedroom area those are the mailers
I sent out uh here's the posting for our first I'm sorry for our first zoning hearing we were
here before uh and a um continuous was requested by the RCO when I did send out the RCO notices
the RCO notices. We did have an RCO meeting. We did appear on Zoom. Everything went well. No one
we did
appeared. The RCO director, Chris, I'm forgetting his last name, called me the next day, day or two
after and said he was hearing that people weren't getting the notices. We did come before you,
requested continuance. He did notice a second RCO meeting. We did have that second meeting. Here we
are before you for our second appearance. At the second RCO meeting, neighbors did appear.
There was some concern. One of the concerns voiced by the next door neighbor, Mr. Leon,
was that this basement had been dug out and he had concerns about the structure of his next door
property. This basement was not dug out, at least by my clients. But in response to his concerns,
we did have a structural, I'm sorry, a PE, a professional engineer go out and I have a report
to show you here. But this is a photo of the rear. This is our rear door. This is next door's garage
door. We can see that just by eye these look to be, if you had to guess which one was lower,
orange is not lower on the outside. And here's a little further back where these, this door is
actually higher than this door by about two or three courses. I measured this step up which is
I wish I got the camera a little lower here but I was holding the tape measure at the same time.
This is between three and four inches I'd say. On this and inside this is actually a little bump up
this side of the step is actually higher than this side of the step but even so inside is a
difference of less than eight between seven and eight inches with that little increase. So if it's
four inches outside three between three and four inches and between eight nine seven eight inches
inside I'm going to say the grade is between four and five inches here. So this is a tiny bit below
but looking at this my guess before the engineer had gotten there was that the garage and the floor
are probably about even. But you'll hear from Mr. Igor, this was not dug out. When they obtained
the property in 2017, there were three levels of three bathrooms. Living space was already
existing down here on the first level. Bathrooms were existing. There was a kitchen area down here.
There was steps between the lower level, the first level, and the second level. Those were deleted.
There's no violations here. The current application, the reason I was contacted was these folks, in attempts to be compliant, did go out to seek their rental license and were made aware that this was actually listed as a duplex.
It had been a multifamily for years, but that third unit to their surprise was not legalized.
Here's an additional picture from further back of the end unit, that garage door, if it ever was existent, had been removed years and years ago, and the neighboring properties.
So the concerns at the ORCO were structural because the basement had been dug out.
There was a testimony, and I don't know if Mr. Leon is on the call.
I would assume he's planned on appearing, but his statements were that 25 dump trucks emptied out this basement, which the owners do not agree with.
During work at the property, a tenant upstairs did have a complaint of backed up plumbing.
and uh what happened was the owners did call a company to dig out the soil pipe that was
under was buried in this first level the soil pipe was dug up in the process the slab was broken up
it was deteriorated to begin with uh but then was um replaced and and a new slab was poured
no digging beyond any you know normal leveling was done this was not a digging digging out of
a basement for more headroom. There was no need for any underpinning. This wasn't any issue. But
out of an abundance of caution, and here's a notice for our today's meeting posted in the
front yard, but out of an abundance of caution, not wanting there to be any issues, the applicants
did reach out to a professional engineer. Can you see the report of Andrew Menno, professional
engineer wash house limited
is everyone still with me
no problem okay so mr
no problem okay so mr menu did come out uh i believe mr menu is is on the call today to uh
supplement if necessary uh the report states that the exterior is in above average condition
he did see some minor settlement cracking in brick uh nothing out of the ordinary the perimeter
of the property had proper grading preventing water infiltration rear drain uh had was operating
properly, and it was raining when he was there. Interior, the basement's habitable, one-bedroom
dwelling. The combination sewer sanitary line had been recently replaced. He noted that.
And the basement slab had been replaced, but there's no indication that the replacement slab
elevation was any lower than previous location. No exterior deficiencies, no repairs needed.
Structure is structurally stable. The adjacent property, 71-12, Erdrick, was also surveyed.
no structural concerns visible.
And he was able to discuss
with the current homeowner next door
and did not express any structural concerns
with his property.
And Mr. Meniere sent his report
and provided some photos also from the side and the rear.
He took those measurements also.
we can move on did we have a letter from the RCO that I got the letter from the first RCO
was I believe the second I will based on the attendance at the second RCO meeting the RCO
did not support the application based on the neighbor's concerns I thought I did have it here
but I have to. Was that position taken prior to the PE report? It was. That was prior to the PE's
report. All right. Why don't we do this? Do you have your client? I do. Bring your client on and
then we'll ask if there's questions. Here's that tax cert I wanted to show you for 7110 Erdrich.
showing clearance. Is Igor with us? I have Andrew Menyo with the hand up and a Fortune
3 device. Andrew is our engineer. Okay, here we go. And Igor is our client. Igor, you've
been unmuted please wait for the chair good morning sir please identify yourself for the
record spell your first and last name uh good morning my name is Igor Uporo U-P-O-R-E-U
excuse me there's a noise coming from the background uh could you speak slowly
one second there are people talking in the background if you can ask them to be quiet
Yeah, okay. I'm sorry, I'm in the office. My name is Ivor Uporo, U-P-O-R-A-U.
You're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I don't.
Before you proceed, to the court reporter, were you able to get that information?
Yeah, yeah. If we could spell his last name one more time.
U-P-O-R-A-U, Uporo.
Okay, I have it, yes. Thank you.
Mr. Wise? Yes. Igor, did you hear my testimony today? Yes. And did you find it to be accurate
and would you adopt it as your own? Yes. Okay. And you own 7110 Erdrich with your brother Dimitri?
Yes. And there was living space in the basement when you took ownership? Yes. Okay. And
and mr chair do you have any other anything else you'd like to ask just one your fit okay
long as you're finished with your client any questions from the board no no no anyone else
like to testify in this case please raise your hand hey fortune three you've been unmuted please
Please wait for the chair.
Identify yourself with the records by your first and last name.
Device Fortune 3, you've been unmuted.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else where I think it's having problems?
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Yeah, Chris.
Chris, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello.
Chris, please identify yourself.
First and last name.
Spell your name, please.
there we go i'm sorry yes i have forwarded some items there are some issues with me sir
sir please identify yourself for the record first time it's c-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r
last name is labovitz l-a-b-o-v-i-t-z i represent the uh coordinating rco
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Corrin pretty much hit it on the head with the first meeting.
The neighbors had some complaints, so we had rescheduled a meeting.
We asked for continuance.
We rescheduled the meeting.
I offered, because I know it's not cheap, to put out a notification.
I offered to do it as a favor to him because I figured it was only fair.
And I hand-billed.
And when we had our second meeting, we did get some more interaction from the neighbors.
um mostly concerned about adding a third unit to that two property uh two two dwelling you know
two unit dwelling uh making a triplex the neighbors were very concerned because
i sent some paperwork the other day it should have been an updated community response and i
sent some pictures and some emails from the neighbor you should have gotten all that
um corn i you know what i think i skipped i did not send it to you i like it forward to you
but the main one main problem is the having an additional tenant uh they already do not take
care of the exterior i sent you some pictures of after the snowstorm um they don't do their
sidewalks they don't mow their lawn the neighbors been mowing the lawn for a year uh they've owned
it since 2017 i don't think they've uh you know from what the neighbor tells me they've never
mowed the lawn. He mows the lawn for them and he's tired of it. By adding a third tenant,
we're just concerned that it's just going to be more, you know, aggravation. We always find that
these conditions are, you know, this person had drawings made, hired an architect, didn't get a
permit for anything. These engineering studies should have been done probably before a shovel
hit the ground. And this is another situation where we always feel as a civic that the hardship
is created by the owner of the property um that's just and you know that's an opinion it just seems
to be common um and that's the neighbors basically i did send some pictures in uh the zoning notice
a couple dump trucks full of dirt um if they were digging the floor out i would think they would
have to put dirt back if they were replacing a pipe they would just convert the dirt back to
the same hole and that's why we oppose it the neighbors opposed it um and that you know the
The two units, it's already a problem for the adjoining properties.
If it's made into a triplex, you're asking people to give a variance for three rental units next to a single-family dwelling.
And that's a hardship for the owners of the properties, not for the owner of that property.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
You're welcome.
Anyone else?
I see no more hands, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission. Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the Comprehensive Plan recommends single-family residential use for this property. There is documented history of the property as a two-family dwelling from 1963. However, we do not believe that there are any unique circumstances that would require a third unit in this property. We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-001712-7110 Erdrich Street, my vote is maximum yes with a proviso, maximum two units.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
oh okay uh carol i know we got the last case we've jumped over uh it is 20 of 20 of of 12
you want to take a 10 minute break this uh court reporter we'll take a 10 minute break
oh yes that'll be great yeah i don't want to keep everybody too long on the other one but
we don't know how long it's going to be so let's take a 10 minute break we'll be back at
1150 okay thank you yes calendar number three
11 50. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Calendar number 3174 4701-15 King Sessing Avenue. The attorney
is Brett Feldman. Mr. Feldman has been promoted to panelist. Thank you. Mr. Feldman.
Brett, okay. Name and address on the record, please, and spell your name.
Sure. Still good morning. Members of the Board, Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. I represent the two entities that own the five properties