Thank you.
Okay, great.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen.
Sure. Thank you. First, if you could promote two witnesses, Mr. Reginald Cummings and Mr. Alex DeChant, D-E-C-H-A-N-T. With that, I'll start.
So, this application, as I mentioned, regards 1616 North 27th Street. On my screen is the
zoning map to show you the location of the property, and it's quite peculiarly configured,
as the map indicates. Here's a tax map showing it. Here's the front of the building. Here are
this brown building. So it's narrow but peculiar as it leads to the rear of the building.
It's surrounded by two-story buildings. A vacant building, it's been owned by Mr. Cummings and his
families for at least 50 years, mid-block on 27th Street. Historically, it was used as multi-family
building, multi-room facility with separate utilities. It's two stories as it's shown here.
The size is approximately 3,800 square feet.
It's zoned in RSA 5, Residential Zoning District, and although that's a residential zoning block for attached structures,
it was never used as single-family, as I mentioned, and it was never in a configuration to be a viable single-family dwelling.
In the recent past, it had seen fire damage.
There's some more local photos.
Here's the building here.
Here's a view across the street.
Fire damage where joists were all repaired.
You see the expansiveness of this building here.
In any event, so this application regards using the building as is with a small, I'll call a side yard addition, which I'll show you here.
this is to orient you this is 27th street front of the building small addition here which will
be used to add access uh ingress egress stairs so we'll call it a side yard addition with no
change in the dimensional um of height um and the proposed use would be for five single family
dwelling units. As I mentioned, the building while configured out of context with the block,
the use is not. It's surrounded by multi-residential uses, albeit in a manner in
single-family dwelling structures, which I showed you. But for example, 1611, 1612, 1614
are all duplexes. And what we're proposing are five units. Let me switch my screen here.
Can we see that new plan?
Okay, thank you.
Five units, three one-bedrooms, sizes of 953 square feet, 944, and 1,197 square feet.
Two two-bedroom units, 1,281 square feet, 1,281 square feet.
The trash would be stored outside. So there was a driveway here. This is going to be enclosed. The trash enclosure area would be placed here offsite. It would be removed by a commercial trash hauler who would either have a key to the enclosure or be brought out by management, which is Mr. Cummings.
um we did meet uh twice with um the rco uh once with the committee once with the full rco
the full meeting being on 623 um and they issued a letter of support you refer back to that
Oops, wrong one, sorry.
So we believe the hardship exists based upon the peculiar configuration of the property, the past uses, the current and past conditions, and the surrounding use, yet the proposed use for the multifamily.
the current and past conditions and the surrounding use yet the proposed use for the
multi-family units will not adversely impact the area in terms of character and context of the
area especially since it's surrounded by other multi-family uses so with that said i'd like to
promote mr cummings i ask him a few questions mr cummings please raise your virtual hand
Mr. Patterson, before we start with Mr. Cummings, can you show us how the units are laid out?
I wasn't taking it in more detail with our architect, but there's basically how they're
laid out on the two floors.
We're still on the first thing you put up.
Oh, you are?
Okay, sorry.
can you schematic design plans we have nothing up now no okay
Nothing, Ron.
Okay, I'm getting there.
Sorry.
How about that?
We see a list of emails.
Sorry.
there we go okay perfect sorry about that
so um here's some elevations the facade would be facades completely redone here's a layout of how
the units would be in this two-story building. Here's where I mentioned where the small addition
would be, where the access staircase would be placed, trash area storage here,
front of the building here. Here are the unit layouts, overall floor plans.
Here's the unicum that I mentioned, so that's what we're saying. So, Mr. Cummings, are you there?
Mr. Cummings, I'm asking you to unmute.
Can you hear me?
Yes, Mr. Cummings, could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. My name is Reginald Cummings. First name is R-E-G-I-N-A-L-D. Last name Cummings, C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Cummings, good afternoon.
You've heard my presentation.
Would you agree that it's true and accurate?
And would you adopt it as if you were your own?
If you would, would you like to add to anything I've mentioned about the history of the property and what the proposed uses are?
Thank you.
Again, the property belonged to my grandfather, Leo Cummings, and it's been in my family since
the 70s. As you can see, it is massive in size, and it covers two parcels of land in the front
and spans over two parcels in the rear. Roughly 1,900 square feet of this property, which is less
than half of the square footage, was utilized as a two-family dwelling, and the remaining close to
3,000 square feet plus the 53-foot-long driveway was utilized commercially for my grandfather's
general contracting business. Just to speak a little bit, my grandfather was a pillar of the
community. He employed numerous local tradesmen and provided housing with two of those units.
The property was very special to him, and I would like to bring it back to life in his honor.
As Ron mentioned, it did experience a fire, and we made significant efforts to repair the damage
to the structure and make it safe.
We repaired all the joists,
new cinder block walls and in the roof.
It is currently vacant, and I just want to do my part to support the community by removing any blight from the block and also providing affordable housing.
It is currently vacant.
And I just want to do, you know,
to do my part to support the community.
As I previously mentioned, there are two apartment units already there.
I understand the importance of responsible development, and there are no plans to do any construction outside of the current envelope of the building, with the exception of the stairwell to access the second floor units.
I would simply be utilizing the existing space for three additional units.
And also keeping that along with the architecture of the surrounding buildings, there are no plans to change the height, width, or length of the property.
And the current view or silhouette of the property from the street would remain the same, with the exception, as Ron mentioned, of updates to the front and rear.
Which I have on the screen now, Reggie.
So if there's anything else, I have no further questions.
I do have Mr. DeChan, our architect, if you'd like to have questions for him, but I don't think there's a need to put any testimony on at this point.
Okay, thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas?
Mr. Holliman has some technical problems. He shall return.
Okay, thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands Mr. Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you sir. Good afternoon Chair Bergman. David Fecto. F-E-E-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes sir I do. Proceed. Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location.
the property has two doors and the 1942 works progress administration land use maps show that
the building had a commercial unit and either one or two dwelling units and we heard testimony from
the applicant that actually it was two dwelling units so there's a clear history of multi-family
use at this location however the city planning commission has not found anything in the zoning
archives indicating the property had five dwelling units so we believe that's not the minimum
necessary to derive value from the land so the city planning commission recommends approval of
multi-family use of this location, but limited to three dwelling units.
MI 2022, 002-551-1616-18 North 27th Street. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Great, thank you.
okay that was four
five okay number seven MI 2022 002 757 2051 Waverly Street
um Brian and Maggie Murphy are the owners pro se um letter of non-opposition from the
center city residents association can you hear me i i can
oh um could you could you i'm always like if you could to go there you go
who's mr murphy we both are i'm dr murphy i'm the one right in the the older gentleman
okay um so the testimony will have to come from who owns the property that's me
okay okay i'm i'm here for it help well that that that's fine that's fine same old story
mr dr murphy uh our vice chair has a few questions for you certainly thank you
hi dr murphy have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of
proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
um we've done all that yes okay great this is an application for the erection of an addition
at third floor and roof deck above third floor access by roof hatch to an existing attached
building for use as single-family household living. There's one zoning refusal. This application lacks the minimum rear yard depth required in the RM1 zoning district, paren, seven feet required, zero feet are proposed. So you may proceed.
Seven feet required, zero feet are proposed.
So you may proceed and begin to share your screen.
All right.
Well, thank you, Chairman and members of the board, for the opportunity to talk to you.
Obviously, this is not something I normally do, but we purchased this home with our son
who works in Philadelphia, loves the neighborhood and the neighborhood residents.
And it's our intent to use this house so that he can start a family.
I had known the previous owner who was one of my residents, and she was there with her husband and one child, and they sort of laid out the limitations of the building and felt this was the best thing to do if we intended to follow suit as her with a family and potential children.
and so our essentially what we would like to do is not change the footprint of the property at all
but expand the third floor not height wise but just because it has an outside deck and use that
deck for to complete more of the third space and then put in a second bathroom which they felt was
a major problem with their child and then have access to the roof through that set that's basically
the facade doesn't really change except it'll be improved so it's all consistent and so dr murphy
why don't you do this why don't you share your screen with us right your it person hit the green
button on the side and you can start going through all the forms and hopefully you have some photos
to show us too yeah i could it would be better than with the architect who's on um if you know
i think you have to make the presentation we just need you to get it up all right thank you well
We're getting it up with our I.T. person. The green button at the bottom.
Hi, Chair. This is Tanya. If it's okay with you, it would be okay for the architect to share the screen only.
We could, but I thought that was his I.T. person with him.
Oh, no, I apologize. No, that is I'm not the architect, but I can share.
i can um is the architect on line he is mr adam rogers and the architects get share share his
screen for us and mr adam rogers to uh panelists sir okay
good afternoon i'm uh adam rogers rogers we we we don't at this point want you to
testify, but could you share your screen so Dr. Murphy could talk off the screen? Is that okay?
Absolutely. I'm bringing it up right now. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Do you see it, Dr. Murphy? I do. I see the whole screen with multiple photos of the house
taken. Why don't you talk off that? Okay. First, up in the left-hand corner is the site location.
right second is the footprint of the house which you can see is the limits of the property second
is the going the left side you can see the white facade and the existing third floor which is set
back right okay and then from the front you're looking at the front where that tree sort of
blocks everything yeah there's a breezeway that's obviously grandfathered in on the right hand side
you can see that sort of open door and then down below is the actual the plan for the third floor
we would extend and take over that balcony to make additional space which i think in
well it's not much but i don't know the exact number and the the next photo shows the
front facade as it exists as it will exist with a second window there not encroaching on that
um diagonal property in the right hand corner right because that is over the breezeway and is
is really property that i guess is owned by the whatever breezeway whoever owns that property
Is that helpful?
Yeah, it is.
It is.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any answer, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The unusually small size of this 280 square foot lot compared to the other lots on the block create a clear hardship for the applicant.
The proposed change will increase an existing legally nonconforming condition and will not impair the use of adjacent properties.
So the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the dimensional
variance for rear yard depth.
Thank you.
MI 2022, 002 757, 2051 Waverly Street.
I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.