the immediate area, not even extending out beyond this immediate neighborhood for additional
support.
So we do believe that there is substantial support for this project, again, mainly surrounding
the fact that this is for Ramton and Parida to bring Parida's parents over from Iran to
live with them.
and be able to age in place and um with that i would call unless you have any questions for me
i'd be happy to call um adam lasota who is the architect for the redesign okay go right ahead
thank you um if you can find adam lasota if you could please raise your hand
Hello, Mr. Chairman. This is Adam Lasota. Mr. Lasota, can you identify yourself for the record,
please? Yes, absolutely. My name is Adam Lasota of Lasota Architects. I am a licensed architect
in the state of Pennsylvania and also in good standing in the state of New Jersey.
Can you please spell your first and last name? Yes, it's Adam, A-D-A-M, and Lasota, L-A-S-O-T-A.
And you swore a farmer to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
And Sean, do you have my drawings up there?
Adam, just a second.
Hold up.
You are the architect for this project, yes?
And you heard all of the testimony that I presented already?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. And would you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes.
Is there anything else that you believe pertinent for the board's consideration here, given that there's no additional, no new construction?
Okay. And the internal layout is such that the existing three floors can, without significant effort or extra digging or any underpinning or anything like that, any kind of negative impacts to the neighbors, be conformed to.
any kind of negative impacts to the neighbors uh be conformed to a triplex correct yes i think it's
actually quite it's of course it will require some effort but nothing substantial like you
had mentioned we're not going to be doing any underpinning we're not going to be doing any kind
of construction that would hinder against any of the neighbors and and we're not changing anything
on the exterior so the construction is going to be only on the interior okay thank you very much
does the board have any questions for Mr. Lasota okay board have any questions
just one question this is new construction no existing construction it's an existing
three-story home that we are converting from a single-family use to three residential units
we're not and all of the work that is being proposed will be done only on the interior
here is your cursor pointing to the new building i'll show you uh so uh board member holloman this
is the building right here um this is an existing row home it is you know it's been built uh my
clients purchased it about six years ago when it was erected by the then developer
it's a single family home everything you see from the outside will remain the same
um every all of the occupants will you know walk up the existing stairs uh will enter through this
doorway and then the my clients will remain living on the first floor and they will um
outfit the basement for their use also and uh miss morgan's parents will be brought over and
they will be living in their own personal space on the second floor and then there will be a third
floor smaller one-bedroom apartment for that. There's really no concerns of traffic here.
So my clients have a single car, and obviously Mr. Saniketam can get into this more. They have
a single car. That's all they will have. Their parents will not have another car, so that space
on the second floor will not have that. And then the third floor is really designed in this
neighborhood in east kensington for you know a younger single professional obviously generally
working from home these days and there's significant amounts of public transit and transit
stops in all directions from here so so it was originally built as a single family yes yes you
are correct thank you it was originally built as a single family it is a single family still
and essentially what they'll do is with no additional working or serious structural changes
inside they can easily put up some some additional walls and use the existing staircase to turn this
into a triplex thank you thank you of course um so if uh the board doesn't have any questions
for Mr. Lasota, I would call Mr. Ramton Saniketam.
Go right ahead.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself for the records by your first and last name, please.
My name is Ramton Saniketam, R-A-M-T-I-N-S-A-N-E-E-K-H-A-T-A-M.
thank you you swore affirm it's all the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do
thank you please go see all right thank you chairman uh mr sunika tom did you hear all the
testimony that i presented already yes and do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of
your knowledge and information yes and would you adopt it as your own yes okay and uh i jumped the
gone a little bit. You and your wife, Padida, are the owners of this property, correct?
Yes, we are.
And you've lived in this property as a single family home for the last six years or so?
My wife has lived there for six years. I have lived there for five.
Okay. And could you please maybe elaborate a little bit as to the purpose
and intention of why you're seeking to make this change?
certainly uh we had always uh had the intention of bringing our in-laws over uh we've had
a situation where we've had looked elsewhere to see how we could have kind of achieved this while
kind of having our in-laws very very close to us yet remain have them remain independent
with talking to our architect the layout of our house lent itself to be able to pull this off
rather easily and within our means this allows our very independent in-laws to have
uh this allows our very independent in-laws to have uh to be literally right next to us in their
latter years but be independent so they won't feel like a burden one of our biggest concerns
from their perspective is they're they're feeling like they're they're within our space or they're
a burden to us this allows them to live a complete independent um lifestyle but be literally steps
away from us okay and do you understand i mean obviously you live on the block do you understand
your block to have uh multiple multi-family uh buildings up and down the block yes it does
okay and do you know are you familiar with the number of units in those
i believe there is a five unit uh structure i believe there is a five pardon me a six unit
structure uh the picture on my screen is one block down so obviously that's a very large
uh multi-family uh complex that's not exactly my block that's the adjacent block
right here's uh 2110 which is just on the block and you see uh two mailboxes correct correct
okay and then uh 2059 right down the block is this what you were talking about where you have
uh the six mailboxes here or yes or bells yes okay and then here at 2063
also on your block is this where you were describing that you had the the five units
in the building yes it is okay um and do you understand not to belabor the point for the
board it's in the photos and as we've presented it but you understand that there are also additional
multi-family projects in your neighborhood correct absolutely okay and
that is all the questions i have for you mr sunika time unless you have anything further to add
no i i just uh you know i asked the board to do consider our case uh we are just trying to have
our in-laws be with us near us take care of them but provide them the independent that they so much
siege. All right. Thank you. With that, I would rest. And again, just pointing out that
by our numbers, while the vote again was six in support with one opposed and one
not opposing, essentially that's a seven, seven vote as I counted up. However, we do know that
for certain, Jackie and Santo Perez reached out to us and asked to make sure that their votes
were counted. They appear not to have been because those six votes were other individuals that
reached out to Mr. Sinekatam to say that they liked the project and good luck. And again,
ECNA let us know on last Thursday afternoon that we were not getting a letter of support,
which we thought we were getting. And so just in the last four days, Mr. Sinekatam and his wife
Parida Magadam were able to get 11 additional signatures. So thank you very much. Thank you.
Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in this matter?
Chair, we have one calling user. Calling user, please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Thank you.
all in user could you please hello yes hi can you please identify yourself for the record
yes my name is ed cummings i live on the same block as the property at 2039 east york
uh less than 100 i'm sorry sir last name please oh my name is ed cummings c-u-m-m-i-n-g-s
okay you saw a firm to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth
yes please proceed thank you my name is ed cummings as i said i live on the same block as 2039 east
york uh less than 100 feet away from the property i attended the rco uh etna uh zoning meeting
And I understand that there was not a majority of approval for this project.
Most of the people who voted, there was not a majority.
Basically, it was not approved by the RCO voting membership.
Personally, I like the neighbors.
I like them very much.
However, I do not think it is appropriate to convert a single-family dwelling into a triplex.
there are not many other there are not many houses on the block there's only
There are not many houses on that block. There's only two long-standing residences that have multiple families in them or multiple apartments in them.
two long-standing
And on the end of the block where this is proposed, there is no multifamily dwellings I'm aware of.
I've lived on that block for more than a decade.
I have heard no hardship described here other than family members want to have a different lifestyle, more independent than getting all together, sharing a kitchen.
Personally, I don't feel that is a hardship.
If family members cannot get along well enough to share a kitchen, that is not a hardship by the definition of the city's hardship requirement.
Again, I like the neighbors very much.
I wish them a nice cohabitation with their parents or in-laws, and that they all can get along and share a kitchen like everybody else has to do.
But this multifamily dwelling is not acceptable under the zoning for this block, and I vote against it.
I do not want it to happen.
I think they should be able to figure out how to get along.
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Whirling, would your client be inclined to a duplex instead of a triplex?
So, Chairman, that was something we asked a lot and went through a lot.
The question, and I'm actually asking him now again,
Again, the question, the issue here, and I neglected to ask Mr. Sneeketam, is, you know, there's also obviously financial hardship cannot solely support the grant of the variance, but it is certainly evidence towards the grant of the variance.
Really, it's the interior cost of doing the construction, which will be offset by that third unit.
um so you know they they purposely looked uh all around to see if they could find a duplex
um obviously you probably know as well or better than i do what's going on in
commercial in residential real estate these days but staying anywhere close to the neighborhood
which they want to stay in um they could not afford to um they could not afford to get a duplex
for them. And here, since they already own the property and have been paying into it for six
years, they have the ability to make the transformation at a lesser cost, but that
cost is still significant. And that third unit of the triplex is what's going to offset
the transition to the duplex. Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. This is Greg Waldman for Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning at this location.
There are no unique physical characteristics particular to this 1,186-square-foot lot on a mostly consistent single-family block that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
While we are sympathetic to facilitating aging in place, granting a variance today would create a triplex that could be used in the future if this family moves to another location.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the variance not be granted.
Thank you.
Board has any questions?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Calendar number MI 2021-003186, 2039 East York Street.
My vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Okay, good look.
Calendar number MI 2021-002205, 2265 North Park Avenue.
Mr. Bertil is coming back in as a panelist Mr. Bertil good afternoon please identify
yourself for the record good afternoon Mr. Chair Steve Bertil B-E-R-T-I-L Claire Harrison
Harvey in Brandsburg 1835 Market Street um 19103 you swear from the tell the truth the
whole truth for nothing but the truth? I do. And do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the
and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of
required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance?
tax compliant copy of the refusal over for folders and plans five days prior to this hearing
yes to all the above thank you and have you uh met with the rco and have a letter
yes and yes thank you please proceed thank you
just share my screen here okay it was stated uh my name is steve bertill
i'm here on behalf of the applicant owner of this property miss samira mcneil
uh the property that we're here for today is 2265 north park avenue uh as you can see from the
the zoning area, the zoning map on your screen, the highlighted, actually, let me zoom in here.
There you go. The highlighted parcel is the property in question. It's on the corner of
Park Avenue and West Dolphin Street. This property is a family home previously owned.
It's been in the family for decades, previously owned by Ms. McMill's grandmother and intention
here. It's a repurposed existing basement space and garage extension into a salon geared towards
providing services to the local area. So we're requesting variance relief to allow the changes
of use on those levels for personal services under the code. As was stated, the property is
currently zoned as RM1, as you can see, but the property is actually being used as a single
family still. And so the single family use above the basement will maintain. That's not being
converted to multifamily. This will be a mixed-use structure with a single family use above it.
As you can see, the existing site is a corner lot and is fairly deep. The lots on this block
are 92 feet in depth. The reason we're here is because we have a refusal for the personal
service use under the residential district. And therefore, because of that, we need a
variance approval. And so what we're looking to obtain is essentially the change of use
and a redesign of the entrance to the basement so it can be utilized as salon. Just so you have