property back in 2019 the property has not been used since that time this is
not a legalization the applicant has not stuck any units in there it is currently
in the process of being rehabilitated there is a tax clearance zero balance
for real estate taxes and pictures of postings in the windows the prior plans
just to show you again they they did include separate units in terms of front back and
as well as basically three in the front three in the back we did cut that down to five at one point
and then came down to four this was notified to the rco
and to all the addresses required several addresses listed i'd like to bring on ray brogdon the
architect just to explain a little bit more about the the push for the fourth unit versus the three
again understanding that it's a recommendation by the rco and we we do respect that recommendation
uh so if mr brogdon could explain a little bit more about this design and the difficulty with
with uh three and the the the similarity or not much difference in density by doing so
if mr yes hi uh my name is ray brogdon spell your name please sure uh r-a-y-m-o-n-d
if mr yes hi uh my name is ray
for raymond brogdon b-r-o-g-d-e-n for brogdon do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told
truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel yes mr brogdon um i assume you've heard
my statements today to the board yes all right can you explain to the board in your design process
given the existing structure uh a shell of a structure and layout of this um where you fall
with respect to the number of units uh and the feasibility of three versus four yes um
um what i what we were trying to do was um to keep the center stair um in place without uh
disrupting the the structure or the core of the structure because basically the existing stairs
is the spine of the building um dealing with that the house that was built in the 1800s
the front half is actually higher than the the rear portion of of the building at the second and
third floor. So while trying to, you know, meet the program of the owner, the center stairs is
really the challenge of meeting the front higher portion and meeting the lower portion. So
with keeping the stairs intact and not disrupting the structure of the building by removing that
stair this um this design was the result of of not um you know um affecting the the main core of the
building thank you um that is all i'd like to bring my client on to adopt the testimony if
Mr. Zhao, Mike, if you are available, can you raise your hand?
Mike Zhao has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Thank you.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for this phonographer?
M-E-I-N-U-G-H-A-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Hsiao, have you had an opportunity to hear my statements to the board today?
Yes. As well as Mr. Brogdon's?
Yes. Do you understand the statements and the testimony that I made to the board today?
And would you agree that it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
yes would you adopt do you adopt my testimony as if it was your own here today
yes thank you uh members of the board so again just reiterating we we respect that um that uh
the property is single family zoned uh that the rco is opposed to the multi-unit in the form of
the original six and the current proposed application for four that they have uh expressed
a willingness to agree to three and we leave that to the board's discretion and hope that the reasons
stated by the architect indicate the the impracticality or the the ability to kind of work
the three versus the four and that is uh we'd like to put it before the questions questions
from the board no mr chairman no chair questions comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have diane monroe they have been unmuted and allowed to speak
good morning miss monroe could you state your name please and spell for the course
stenographer good morning diane d i a n e monroe m o n r o e right do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed okay thank you um the
The opposition is because we do feel as though with the three, the three apartments would be more in line with what is currently on that block.
there's a three-story apartment on that block currently has been there for I think it was built
for I think it was built maybe back well redone those houses been there for over 100 years
maybe back well
has been redone by the Philadelphia Housing Authority back there in the 70s and there's
three apartments there currently doors away from this current house that we're talking about
and it can be done and it has been done and um are they looking at to me is cost because that's
what they were saying at our meeting about the cost effectiveness for the applicant
the community when we had the meeting felt as though that should not be a community concern
about a cost to the applicant it can be done to with the stairs it can be done and it has been done
with that house two doors from there the philadelphia housing authority who owns it and
still have tenants occupied in it.
So we do wish
that the community is not resisting
but they want to be in a compromising position.
Three, we do not have
four, five, or six units
in any existing
house on that block or surrounding
that block. So please take in our
consideration. We were looking for provisos
but the applicant
didn't appear to want to hear that
as far as establishing storage
closet. So those tenants, if they do
three the tenants will be able to store their trash can as well as the recycle can in it has
been done our community developers but it's a resistance there somewhere and um it has been
We don't have four apartments in a single-family house in our community.
We want to keep the continuity within our community.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Here we have Mary Jones.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning, Ms. Jones.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, good morning. My name is Mary Jones, M-A-R-Y-J-O-N-E-S, from Council President Daryl Clark's office.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yes, the Council President supports the community's position of a limitation of three units based on the existing neighborhood context.
and also um wants to amplify their concerns about trash storage thank you thank you very
much for calling in we appreciate it is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission this uh ron bednar city planning
the property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan our adopted
The district plan recommends no change to the existing residential zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship for expansion of non-conforming use is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property.
That would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
It clearly represents overuse.
Therefore, we recommend the request of a stop and plan.
and by 2022 006740 538 north 10th street i vote yes revised plans one page
stamp by zba november 8th 2023 maximum three dwelling units
thomas holliman my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell, my vote is yes
with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
thank you counsel
thank you very much
Number 17, MI-2022-003-171-3421-35 Richmond Street.
number 17
MI 2022
David Orphanides is the attorney.
No RCO letter, but meeting was held on 1023 by ProPAC, Port Richmond, on patrol and civic.
David Orphanides, please raise your virtual hand.
he's coming back in as a panelist now chair
morning mr chairman good morning counsel you've already been sworn could you just state your name
for the record certainly my name is david orphanetes o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s and could you
identify your client a relationship to this property yes my client is viera property management
p-a-n-y-3-l-l-c and viera spelled v-i-e-r-a and our vice chair has a few questions
good morning counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Good morning, sir. Yes, I do. To both. Have you emailed all your documents and exhibits
in five days advance of this hearing? Yes, I did. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you, sir.
All right. Can you see? Again, my name is David Orfanides from the law firm of Orfanides and
Turner here in Philadelphia. Up on your screen, you have a picture of the subject property,
3421 to 35 Richmond Street. This is a picture that's taken from the corner of Richmond,
which extends to the right, and Shiller Street, which extends to the left on the north side of
the property. Richmond's on the west side. The property also fronts on the east side with Melville
Street, which you'll see in a couple minutes. This property is an adaptive reuse of an existing,
pre-existing industrial property. The property used to be zoned I-2. It was remapped to ICMX.
It's a fairly large parcel. It's 19,546 square feet in size.
um i will show you some aerial images here you can see the property that i've clouded in red
you can see that we're very close to i-95 um you know a block or half a block away you can see
richmond street to the right uh shiller street down below here to the north and then melvale
street to the east that's left of the property uh when you look at photos you'll see that this block
of Richmond Street, kind of across the street and to the south of us is residential. We have
residential properties abutting and running to the south of us on the same east side of Richmond
Street. But then you have commercial properties and light industrial properties opposite to us
on Shiller Street, Melville opposite to us on the east side of Melville. You have light industrial
commercial properties, and then abutting us down at the end of the block in Ontario,
you have residential, Melville and Ontario at the northeast corner, and then the northwest
corner of Ontario, Melville, and then coming back up to the south side of our property
on the west side of Melville, you also have residential.
So it's a real mix, both the blocks that we're on, as well as the blocks that we are across from.
And that'll have some importance as we talk about the variance that we're applying for here.
Here you can see a little closer view.
We have a parking lot on our property that serves the uses, the present uses at the property.
There's a vacant lot here on the southwest corner of Melville and Shiller that my client also owns.
That's just vacant right now.
Here you can see the residential properties to the south of us on both Richmond Street and on Melvale Street.
Here is a view from the northeast.
You see the parking.
It's a two-story structure.
There is a walkway or balcony deck at the second floor level to the rear here.
A view from the northwest.
view from the southwest, and a view from the southeast.
And a view from the southeast. You can see that there is the an alley that's between our property and the abutting property to south of us on the west, same side on the same west side of Melville Street.
You can see that there is an alley.
What we're applying, well, back in 2015, variances were granted for this property to utilize the second floor for 15 dwelling units, along with various commercial uses at the ground floor.
The variances was for the residential use, and then there was a parking at that time that hadn't been provided but is now provided.
So our application is there. Well, let me go to the plans for a second.
So there are three units. Well, let me go to here.
There was a plan that was approved back in 2015.
And then since then, as the different tenants have come through the commercial space that show the layout of the of the ground floor here.
To the left, the residential units are on the second floor on here on the right.
But you can see that there are a number of units that front on Richmond Street.
When we look at the photos, you'll see they have storefront glass.
They're visible from the street.
And then there are a number of commercial units that extend to the rear on Melville Street.
Those units have proven to be somewhat difficult to lease because they don't have street front ends.
You'll see in the photos that Melvale is pretty quiet with the residential uses to the south of us and then basically a blank wall for the light commercial or the commercial light industrial building, one story building across the street from us.
And so the proposal is to convert three of the commercial units or non-residential units at the back of the of the ground floor for two residential purposes.
We feel that the same factors that warranted the granting of the variance for the second floor exist for the granting of the variances for these three units at the rear of the first floor, and maybe even more so, because, again, the rear of the building doesn't have any real good street presence or visibility, which limits, again, the ability to rent those spaces.
So those are the plans that were submitted with the application.
I'm just going to go back to, there we go.
There we go.
And again, so here's Richmond Street, Shiller Street, Melville.
These are all plans at tab 8.
And again, you can see there's three units, units 112, 113, and 114 that we're proposing to convert to residential.
So our refusal in this case, again, like in 2015, is using this property, which I think I mentioned is now zoning classified ICMX for residential purposes.
Tab three has a copy of zoning provisions of the zoning code that, again, show that the residential uses are not permitted in ICMX.
Zoning map is a tab five that confirms the ICMX zoning classification of our property.
But you can see, which is blurred out by the uses, the properties to the south of us are RSA3 residential, particularly those properties on the west side of Melville Street, which is essentially a but or are next to the three units that we want to convert to residential use.
Again, the properties that are RSA3 are right here to the left of this plan, and then the residential units are right across the way.
There's an open space or alley, which is our property, between our property and the residential unit to the south of us on Melville Street, 3420.
There was some concern by them early on in this process.
I took this case over from another attorney regarding windows in this existing windows in the south facing wall of our building and their view upon the rear yard of that property owner.
My client took it upon himself to address that.
And as a result, we we met I met again with the community group.
When I say again, there was a meeting with the prior attorney, and having demonstrated to them and them feeling confident and comfortable that we addressed the concerns of the abutting property owner to the south, they actually issued us a letter.
It is dated February 6, 2023, but I just got it this week.
I think I got it on Monday and it was based upon there was a meeting back, I guess, in February before I took on the case, one of support.
But they hadn't released the letter until we met with them again this past fall at the end of the summer and and demonstrated to them that we had appeased the neighbor to the.
at the end of the summer and and demonstrated to them that we had peace the neighbor to the south
so this letter even though it's dated february 6 2023 comes subsequent to the meeting that we
had with them on october 2nd 2023 because they were holding a letter pending the outcome of our
discussions with that neighbor this this 14 303 notice is at tab 16. we have the list of addresses
is at 16B, along with the area map for those addresses that were mailed, the copy of the