The appellant requests a six-foot wide side yard, while a 12-foot would be required if included.
Since side yards are optional in RM1, this dimensional variance is supportable.
The appellant has shown that the proposed reduction in the side yard width will not injure the use of adjacent property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed dimensional variance.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 000902, 1736 North 22nd Street.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, commissioners.
All right, number nine, MI 2024, 000907, 4913 North Lawrence Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter and summary of opposition from the new 42nd Ward.
Three in support, five against.
There also is a signed petition of support that we have received.
Alan Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Great.
my counsel could you state your name for the record i think i swore you in once today
yes uh alan knockamson and could you identify your client in relationship to the property
yes my client is aisa gonzalez she's the owner of the property our vice chair has a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes we have thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen and wait one minute uh hillary
isn't this the case we talked about holding um yes mr chair we will thank you god bless
We will need to hear and hold this case for corrected or amended refusal.
I've discussed this with Mr. Nockmson.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I was going to mention that, too.
I spoke to Hillary a little before the hearing.
She mentioned that there needs to be maybe some fine-tuning of the refusal.
All right.
So we'll first review the refusal that's currently in existence, and then we'll review the correspondence
from the new 42nd Ward RCO.
While it's a letter stated of opposition,
you'll see from the vote that was taken,
it was evenly split with the actual RCO's executive board.
And there were apparently two members of the community
that were in attendance, and I'll go over that as well,
but they were not in support of the project.
We did circulate a petition of nearby neighbors.
of nearby neighbors i will point out that we have a petition of six people on this block who are in
I will point out that we have a petition
of this.
support of this project apparently the new 42nd ward rco also circulated a petition what i will
say is this they have only one individual who lives on that block and we provided a map with
our petition to kind of show like who's close by and who's not um relatively so we believe that
the people who are actually most affected are in support of this project then we'll have an aerial
view and we'll explain why we have that as well as maps of the area of interior photos of the
building structure and photographs of the surrounding area simple floor plans our rco
meeting notice again it wasn't very well attended meeting there were only two people in the community
that attended our application for appeal that we filed on mrs gonzalez's behalf our deed to the
property showing that she's the owner of the property and a certificate of tax clearance
i'll say this she is in the hospital right now um and undergoing testing um i'll ask her to
virtually raise her hand at the conclusion of my presentation um not sure like what her situation
is but um as an officer of the court i would ask that you take my testimony as truthful
So, notice of refusal.
So, this is an RSA 5 property.
I will say it looks, when you'll look at the pictures, this looks like nothing but like an RSA 5 property.
First of all, the size of the property is over 4,000 square feet.
But you'll see from what I'm talking about from pictures of its past and its present, this looks more of like an industrial property.
um and we're a block away from a commercial corridor which again kind of leads to what
we're looking to do but not only that the properties nearby us are also more industrial
or commercial in nature what we're trying to do is is to essentially legalize a personal
vehicle repair and maintenance um use so and that sounds like a lot and what ultimately my
client's trying to do that she's not she's just doing state inspections for vehicles if there's
any issues with the brakes or anything that would affect the ability to get a state sticker those
repairs would be done off-site so again i don't know what proviso the board could agree to but
you know or or to limit that use but that's what my client's trying to do she's just trying to do
you know, state inspections for motor vehicles. And you'll see from the letter that we received
from the coordinating RCO, there was some concern about emissions testing. My client's not doing
emissions testing. It's very limited use, and we'll go over the hours of operation as well.
But we have three refusals. First, this is an RSA-5 property, and personal vehicle repair use
is prohibited in this district. But you'll see from, you know, when I'm talking about the current
conditions of the property in the past conditions kind of speaks to like what we're seeking to do
uh the second refusal has to do with the height of the fence so you'll see there's two rolled up
gates um there's a long history of rolled up gates at least for uh the current building structure
and you'll see what i mean by that and the other gate that we put up uh was more to you know make
sure that the site is fully protected and there's reasoning and rationale for that. And then the
third refusal has to do with surface parking spaces and detached garages and carports are
prohibited in the required front side and rear yards. So you'll see too that what we're offering
in terms of this proposal is not out of character to its significant history
or to surrounding properties as well.
So we did meet with, you know, again, the community on April 4th, according to this
letter, and there were two people who, you know, who were part of the community who apparently
voted against this project.
I'll say this, I personally gave the community meeting presentation, you know, there was
some hesitation by at least one member of the community about the, you know, about our
use of the property and when we asked them you know why that he stated he didn't want to get
into it he had inside information and he wanted to share it and i was i was like just tell us
well you know again my client purchased a property you'll see it it looks like you know
not rsa5 and you know she you know if you have a legitimate reason just tell us and we'll you know
and it is what it is but he wouldn't tell us so i don't know what the reasoning is um but if you
look, the members of the RCO's executive board were evenly divided 3-3. They did give a letter
in explanation as to why the community was against it. Apparently, they're concerned about
You know, the community was against it. Apparently, they're concerned about environmental effects of the fumes from emissions testing. We're not doing emissions testing. We're just doing state inspections. We're not even doing repair work on on the property. Simple state inspections.
environmental effects.
We, you know, we, the hours of operation are stated in the letter that the RCO gave, and those are confirmed.
We're limited use of Monday through Fridays from 9 to 5, so if this board feels so inclined to grant this variance request, we would state, you know, we would agree to a proviso of Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, as the hours of operation.
And again, I think this should be a permanent variance if this is granted, but if this board wishes to see this operator operate for some time and get a sense for that, because I know there's always a concern with the community that the use runs with the land, my client would be willing to do a temporary variance.
We would ask for five years just because this is a very long, expensive process, especially for a small, you know, business owner like Ms. Gonzalez.
But, you know, that's what we would ask for.
We, you know, we mentioned in the community meeting, too, that we would do commercial trash pickup.
We think there's going to be limited trash, if any.
But like, you know, if there is trash, we would use commercial trash pickup services that are private in nature.
And we would ask that that would be the third proviso.
This is the petition that the RCO received, I guess, from maybe one of the neighbors.
And again, we reviewed this petition ourselves.
There's only one neighbor on this block who signed this petition.
And then, but in contrast, we, my client worked really hard.
She was a small business owner.
She wasn't represented by counsel.
She didn't know, like, there's a whole process in terms of being able to use a property in Philadelphia.
This would be financially devastating for her.
She put her hard-earned money into this property and in cleaning it up, too.
And so this is our property right here.
You can see that there are multiple properties on this block that signed our letter of support or our petition of support.
And then there are multiple properties on Ruscom, which is an adjoining property or intersecting property that's in support.
And there's a few people who are supportive of us on 4th Street as well.
And you can see here, there's like just from the map, there are, you know, there's a lot of commercial right over here as well use.
So this is our petition of support.
My client really focused on people who would be most directly impacted within essentially a one block radius.
and she did this herself and then the aerial view so this this is our property it's a double
wide lot you can see but you know from the aerial view like you can see that there's a side yard
which has you know parking in it and you'll see from the building that you know there's been a
building structure here forever but then you can see that it's not uncommon what what we're proposing
look over here these are also rsa5 properties they have like there's some type of parking here
of some type of commercial or industrial nature and here as well and here as well and here as well
and then obviously ford street's a little bit different but still same type of like use so
even though these some of these properties are rsa5 they don't speak anything like rsa5
and then again um you know being on fifth street that's more commercial in nature which you'll see
from the google maps photo there's a lot of commercial here but there's a auto tax place
right here on our block down the street so what my client's proposing is not out of character for
this portion of neighborhoods and then this is just interior photos of the property you can see
this is the rolled up gates that was recently placed on the property my client didn't know
that she needed permits and we explained the process to her and then this is the interior
she has stored some cars in here you know waiting for again once she can operate to do you know
state inspections and this is interior photographs from multiple angles and then these this is the
property and you know just again this is the side yard that you saw from the aerial view
and then this is the this is actually the building structure here and then this is what the property
looked in 2008 and as you can see there was the building structure as well as the side dirt but
there were rolled up gates the properties which are really bad state and there were
The property was a really bad state, and there were curb cuts here as well.
So nothing my client has done is out of character to the extensive documented history of this property as a non-RSA-5 use.
And then these are the orange notice posters.
And then this is North Lawrence Street to the right of the property and to the left of the property.
You can see some of this commercial use over here as well on this side of the street.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, once my client understood what she needed to do, she not only hired me, but she hired an architect to do a site plan of some sort.
And we're going to clean that up a little bit.
But again, another proviso could be all testing with obvious state inspections will be done inside.
She has no intention to use this side yard for other than parking for vehicles to wait for the state inspections.
But there's ample parking here. So we're not causing any overcrowding of the public streets with this use.
Again, limited in nature from nine to five, Monday through Friday.
She'll have three employees on site. So it's not something that's going to be an overuse of the property.
We did meet with the community on April 4th at 6.45 p.m.
This is our proof of email of that notice to the coordinating RCO and other relevant parties.
We obviously mailed that notice, you know, a few weeks ahead of time from the community meeting.
111 addresses were notified of the community meeting.
These are listed to the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses,
or application for appeal on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez.
The deed to the property showing that she owns it.
But again, this would be financially devastating for her if she couldn't use the property the way she intended.
And she didn't do this on purpose.
You know, again, she's a novice to this.
She just looked at the property and thought, oh, this is a great place to put a place for state inspections.
And then finally, a certificate of tax clearance.
I would ask that I share my screen.
I would ask that Ms. Gonzalez, if she's in the virtual audience, to virtually raise her hand.
Axia Gonzalez has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Aixa Flores Gonzalez.
Would you spell your name, please?
A-I-X-A.
Last name Flores, F-L-R-E-S.
Gonzales, G-O-N-C-A-L-E-C.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Ms. Gonzalez, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Yes, Chair.
So, Alan, you said the service will only be Monday through Friday, so there's no Saturday service going to inspection?
That's correct.
Ms. Gonzalez, can you confirm that?
Yes, only Monday through Friday.
No further questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Mr. Nockerson, I just wanted to clarify the, excuse me, the provisos that you had asked for