ZBA Hearing - August 18, 2021

Mr. Jin is coming back in as a panel.

Thank you.

good morning good morning mr jen please identify yourself and i'll swear you in

short then jen z h e n j i n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103

here on behalf of the applicant we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the

truth. I do. Thank you. Mr. Jinn, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate

to its accuracy? I do. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,

proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five

days prior to this hearing? I have. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do.

Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information related

to this case. We have submitted to the board the copies of the refusal, RCO letter, plans,

photos, and related documentation for today's hearing five days ahead. The refusal for this

application is based on the zoning district of the area being RSA 5 single-family, whereas we

have an existing two-family dwelling in this existing structure, so the proposal is to legalize

what is in existence here. We met with the RCO, Point Breeze Community Development Corporation,

and they voted in support. I want to point out that while the board of the community only voted

two to one, the position from the community members present was six support, zero post.

That is partly because this building has been in this condition of duplex historically for many

years. In the front, although looking at it, you cannot tell that it is a duplex. Once you open the

front door, it's pretty clear that it is in fact separated into two units. There are other single

family and duplex units on the block, and this is also a corner property. So for the community,

many of the people actually recall the building being used in that way for a long time, and

therefore did not specifically object to the use itself. In addition, because of the corner

Because it's a corner property, trash management is relatively easy in that the rear yard is accessible by both units.

property, trash management is relatively easy in that the rear yard is accessible.

The property itself is currently vacant.

We have the rear, this is the rear of the property.

I wanted to jump to the front entrance, which is what really gives the best view of why this building is historically a duplex.

in that the front door of the property, once you open it, there are two doors already in existence

built in. And one leads to the first floor unit, while the second one leads straight up to the

second floor. We are not proposing to really change the property. This is a legalization.

So my client's primary goal here is to make sure the property gets updated and renovated

accordingly, but the exit entrance settings for the two units are, in fact, already existing. As a

result, the community did not oppose our request, and in fact, most of the neighbors who were aware

of this property actually voted in support. So in consideration of the historical existence of

the duplex and the difficulties in converting this building into a single-family structure,

I would ask the board's favorable ruling in our request for variance.

I'll be happy to share any additional information or answer any questions the boards may have.

Thank you. Is your client available to adopt your testimony?

Yes, my client should be here, Mr. Kelvin, last name H.O.

So, Calvin, can you raise your hand on Zoom so that you can be identified?

Hi, my name is Calvin.

Please spell your full name.

Calvin is C-A-L-V-I-N.

Last name is Ho-H-O.

You swear if I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you. Calvin, you heard my testimony to the board and saw the presentation.

Can you verify that my testimony is true and correct and adopt it as your own?

Yes.

Thank you.

I can verify that.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

No, Mr. Chairman.

No.

Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.

Chair, we have one calling user.

user please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair

in person please identify yourself spell your full name

Tiffany Green uh because I'm supposed to point breeze I just want to say that this particular

project Ms. Green Ms. Green just you swear if I'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing

about the truth oh yes always thank you please proceed excuse me this is the court reporter

could I please have the call and user state her name again I did not hear it clearly oh sorry

Tiffany Green thank you please proceed Ms. Green yes I I didn't receive your information on this

okay and I didn't receive a packet on this and um uh looking at my email and I'm sorry because

this goes back some time back in April or May okay and uh we never received your information on this

I can't confirm that the community really supported this project at this particular time.

I'd just like to ask, because I'm not sure if I was, do you have a support letter from the RCO Point Breeze CDC?

We have the support letter from the Point Breeze Community, not Community Development Corporation.

It is, in fact, a letter from the coordinating RCO, which was submitted with our exhibit.

and I can go ahead and share that again.

Yeah, it is Point Breast CDC, yes.

We do have a letter from them.

Okay, well, I won't oppose the project then,

but I do want to say to the board

that I think it's important

that the Coordinated RCO

send a copy of the summary letter

to the other RCOs

so that we can have an idea

of who voted and who did not vote it.

and this is a concern especially during the whole zoom issue um so i don't know if that can be

implemented but that would be good for us to know uh what happened at that meeting uh regarding that

all i know is that i did not receive your zba packet which you did not you know you're supposed

to send out to all the rcos and let us know about the information nor did i receive you know when

you were having your um i want to point out that uh the meeting itself had a participating rco of

meeting itself had a participating RCO of Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze.

concerned students of Point Breeze.

I recall that your representative from your organization was present at that meeting.

The meeting had more than one matter during the presentations, and I distinctly recall

hearing from Concerned Citizens during that meeting. There were 29 attendees during the

actual meeting itself. Right. There was an issue during that meeting, so I will not put on something.

i'm not going to pose your project because there was another issue regarding the zoom and being

uh maybe being cut off so i can't really recall at this point so i won't suppose it

it's great if i can suggest that you reach out to the point breeze community development

corporation and express uh your you know concern about not having been notified

thank you i appreciate that thank you okay anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand

yes chair we have petra gamble ms gamble please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair

good morning ma'am please spell your full name and i will swear you in

patina is there anyone else

no chair planning commission

thank you chair to chico members of the board ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning

commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single family zoning

at this location however this is a long-standing conformity without a history of documented adverse

impacts and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance

Thank you. MI 2021-001-626. 1412 South 23rd Street, my vote is yes.

Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.

James Snell, my vote is yes.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.

Number two on our list, MI 2021-001-672. 1836 North 22nd Street, Mr. Jin, you're up again.

You've already been sworn in.

So I will ask Mr. Plaza to.

So, Jim, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack your seat?

I do.

And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?

I have.

And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?

We do have a letter and we have met with the RCO.

Thank you.

please proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this

application. If I may be given just one second.

Thank you. So we submitted to the board as part of this presentation, copy of the refusal,

the RCO letter, zoning history of the property, photos, plans, and related documentation required

under the code. This application for 1836 North 22nd Street is an application to erect a new

structure to be used as a multi-family dwelling six units. Now the block is actually zoned RSA 5

for the vacant lots, but there are RM1 buildings and RM1 zoning right around the property.

Historically, these properties are all residential multifamily.

And even though we have met with the RCO twice, the RCO itself did not take a position on this matter, partly because while there's a history of multi-units and we have a sanitation plan that we have discussed with them, there were concerns of low-income housing and whether low-income housing could be placed here.

However, this particular application is for a new structure, and while we are cognizant of the desire for low-income housing, the project itself is not specifically geared towards low-income housing.

I want to point out that this property before it was taken down with a five family dwelling for many years and the actual block itself currently is a mix of old buildings, some of which are multifamily and new construction, which are multifamily.

My client actually is in the process of building right next door a new structure that was approved for four-family use, which is very similar in design to this particular property.

And again, if the board wants to take that into consideration and would require a slightly less number of units, such as what was approved next door, we are certainly...

a slightly less number of units such as what was approved next door. We are certainly happy to

accept that as an alternative. The plans here shows basically a structure that is going to be

almost identical in setup to what was approved next door and is currently being built.

I will zoom in because this plan is pretty dense and it's hard to see details without looking at

everything. What the board needs to take into consideration of the height issue,

I know there's a height refusal on this of 44 feet. The actual building front and back line

is at 33 feet. We're not trying to build a building at 44 feet that way. What caused the

44-foot refusal is because the way the building is designed, there's a central staircase going down

to allow access to units front and back.

And there's basically two roof deck access on the top,

which as a mezzanine access triggers the height refusal.

The actual design, the reason why the staircase was located centrally

is because by putting it in the central location,

we are able to build a access hallway with two means of egress

and also allowing access to the rear yard by all units.

This allows everything to be centralized and shared

by the entire building, front and back,

as far as access is concerned,

that makes trash management a lot easier.

The building is basically divided into front half, rear half,

which is why, given each floor has one front unit,

one back unit is why the six unit proposal was the original proposal that was given to the board.

The units themselves are actually small one bedroom units. So the overall density despite the

the count of the units actually isn't that substantial. The only two bedroom units are

on the first floor and the upper floor units are actually one bedrooms. So even though there are six

units, the bedroom count is not much greater than what a four unit, in fact, it's actually

probably less than what a four unit setup would look like. However, we do understand that unit

count is always a concern with regard to density. I want to point out also that with regard to the

property itself, the property is located on a block that on this side of the block,

There are multiple multifamily units.

Down further here, it is actually zoned multifamily as well.

So partly the reason that a lot of this is a single family zone is because these are

already vacant properties, and I believe they were zoned back to RSA 5 by default.

So again, we have what is essentially the same project being built already next door.

So we would ask the board consideration in granting this building, which is going to be built almost like a sister building to the next door building and will be used in a similar manner.

Again, with the block being mostly multifamily, we do not believe there will be negative impact to the community greater than what the original use was, which was actually a five unit building at this location.

I'll be happy to answer any questions from the board and redirect to any particular exhibits the board would like to see again.

What is the unit count of the adjacent building?

Four units.

Are there two bedrooms?

Yes, there are two-bedroom units.

I'm not sure. I believe there are two-bedroom units because the two top floors will be combined into bi-level units.

Questions from the board?

No, Chairman.

no no anyone else anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand

here we have mary jones

good morning ms jones please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in

good morning mary jones from council president daryl clark's office

we're from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth

i do thank you please proceed uh yes upon review of this project and uh just in communication

with some of the neighbors we just passes this project be limited to four units like the adjacent

building you um anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand

Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.

Here we have one caller and user. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.

Yes, good morning.

Name please.

Yes, my name is Judith Robinson.

Representative.

Please spell your last name.

R-O-B-I-N-S-O-N.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

We had two meetings regarding this project, the history of the project,

the history of the building, I'm sorry, prior building being over four units.

it was a five-unit building, the sanitation plan, the fact that it's on a wide street