for the technical difficulty um i said did i already swear you in earlier i i couldn't hear
i'm so sorry my okay all right could you you're going to be able to share your documents there
right yes i will okay please state your name and spell for the course not for yes good afternoon
Mr. Chairman, members of the board's board, Raymond Dorizio, R-A-Y-M-O-N-D, last name D-O-R-I-Z-I-O, and I represent 341 Tampa Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Matthew Marst. He's the owner, applicant, and I believe he is present on the call.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Thank you.
Hello, Julie Weeks here. This is my last attempt for reaching out, though I'm still in search.
Yes, good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, 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?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed and trace me.
Okay, thank you.
I'm just going to share my screen.
Share with me one second.
Okay, so this is 3401 Tampa Street.
It was a refusal.
My client is seeking to do a two-family unit in an existing structure.
My client recently purchased the property.
He believes it was being used as a two-family structure prior to his purchase.
So he's not looking to make any changes to the structure.
This is the deed by which he recently, when he recently purchased the property, 2022.
We did meet with the community.
These are the plans.
There would be two two-bedroom units, one on the first floor, one on the second floor, basement used for utilities.
It's a little zoning map. This is a picture of the property. It is, like I stated, a corner property. That is the Tampa Street view, where they walk up.
These are some photos of the surrounding area on the street and some photos of similarly situated properties just along the street.
This is a photo of the notice of the city.
This is a photo of the notice of today's hearing.
We did send notices to the RCO list.
These are some pictures of the interior, one bathroom, two bedrooms, nice size living space.
Now, we did meet with the community, and this is a photo of what the RCO and the community asked us to do.
Of course, there would be some trash stored under that stairway leading up to the second floor.
they suggested that we close that off which i believe is a good idea some trash doesn't
spread throughout the neighborhood my client did do that he took a photo of the enclosement that he
put up right raymond that's kind of tough to see it's hard to see that that it's a black um
gate basically that he put in i can resend the picture um all right i'm not sure if i haven't
I don't know if I had another one there, but it's just basically a black mesh paint that he put up on.
Sorry for the shadow. And then this is the tax clearance.
So that was basically what my client seeking is basically seeking to legalize a two family unit in an area that does have some.
And he's looking to supply some affordable housing while maintained in the area.
Again, my understanding, I didn't receive the letter from the RCO.
my understanding is that there was no opposition provided that my client put this enclosing on
how long has this been a duplex that we know
well we believe that it was operating for years before that when my client purchased it he thought
he was okay he purchased it with the intent of it being a duplex and uh when did he when did
he when did he purchase it 2022 and he originally filed his uh application from a variant as a pro
se uh litigant bring your client on please adopt your test sir mr marston can you please uh
raise your hand virtually raise your hand
matthew marston is allowed to speak sir could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer. Matthew Marston, M-A-T-T-H-E-W, Marston, M-A-R-S-T-O-N. You swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you.
Mr. Marston, you heard my presentation to the board today, correct? Yes. And was it truthful
and accurate according to your information, knowledge, and belief? Yes. Thank you. I have
Nothing. Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Fechta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the R.
s a 5 residential single family zoning at this location this property has a documented history
as a ground floor luncheonette with a residential unit above the ground floor commercial unit appears
to have been converted into a residential unit without the benefits of permits prior to the
appellant buying the property this conversion brings the property closer into conformance
with the current residential zoning the city planning commission recommends the board grant
their proposed use variants for a second dwelling unit. MI 2023-006-283-3401 Tampa Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Shana Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you so much. Have a good afternoon.
is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called
there are no hands chair thank you everyone see everybody too all right thank you
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman. I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearing. With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shahid.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Shel L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tenetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, Michael Johns.
I'm present, Mr. Chairman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and the Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Kathleen Grady.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady at phila.gov.
For our court stenographers, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property.
Question.
Finally, the question answer box on screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number 9, MI 2024-003-018-510 Midvale Avenue. That case has been continued.
Number 11, MI 2024-003-086-7330 Ridge Avenue. That case has continued.
Number 13, MI 2024-003-326-5145-47 Delancey. That case is continued. And number 15, MI 2024-003-271-1201-203 Adams Avenue. That case is continued.
We're going to start, go to our regular list.
Number one, MI 2023-006-519-20 South Ruby Street.
David Horfanides is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council
and also a letter of support from Generational of Philadelphia at Cobbs Creek RCO.
mr orphanetes good afternoon and david orphanetes has been promoted to panelists
good afternoon mr chairman counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court
sonographer certainly my name is david orphanetes the last name is spelled o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do could you identify your client and relationship to this property
Certainly. My client is a Cal, A-K-A-L, Investments, LLC, the owner of the subject property.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reason of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Sir, I do, so long as you are referencing the amended notice of refusal dated 8-6-2024.
I have a copy of it that I forwarded to the board's attorney and the zoning board staff and planning commission earlier today.
I just received it yesterday from the zoning plan examiner, but that is correct.
It was vetted thoroughly by me and the L&I examiner.
Thank you.
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?
I forwarded everything except for the amended notice of refusal that I just referenced. And then the two letters, we have a letter that the chairman referenced, which I secured, received on the 5th. And I provided that today, along with another letter from another RCO generational of Philadelphia Cops Creek, their letter of support.
I also forwarded earlier today along with the correct and amended notice of refusal.
Everything else was forwarded five days, at least five days in advance.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Certainly.
I'm going to share my screen.
Can you all see?
Okay, great.
So the subject property is 20 South Ruby Street.
20 South Ruby Street, as you can see here on the aerial images, is located just south of Market Street on the west side of Ruby Street between Ludlow and Market.
This property is presently a vacant lot.
It was, as you can see here, street view images.
Let me just get the view corrected.
there we go um dating back to 2012 as far as street view goes back you can see we had a
vacant lot next to us our property was boarded up uh as far back as um
Our property was boarded up as far back as 2012, 2009.
You can see here, 2014, 2018, 2019.
At the present time, it is a vacant lot.
You can see right here.
Here's a photo of a property that's right now where the arrow is pointing.
My client maintains it, keeps the lawn cut, keeps the grass cut and the weeds down.
Again, the property abutting us to the north remains to be vacant.
The properties on this block, we have vacant lots down at the end here.
It's a Market Street address.
There's the vacant lot here, another vacant lot, the one I mentioned that's next to us.
So four of the 10 properties that are on our side of the block are vacant.
On the opposite side, we have three lots that are vacant right here.
So we do have a situation where we have a longstanding blighted property, both as a building and then as a vacant lot, and then other vacant and blighted properties on the block.
When my clients purchased the property in 2021, and I'll show you here at tab nine, you can see here, purchased it November 5th of 2021.
At that time, it was zoning classified RM1 multifamily.
However, in June and August of 22, bill number 220451, which I've included here at tab 7 of my exhibit book, remapped a subject property.
Here it shows existing as RM1 and remapped it as RSA5.
So he bought it.
My clients purchased it to develop it as a multifamily.
It was owned RM1.
after they purchased it, within about a year of them purchasing it, it was remapped to single
family. The application that we have before you today is to convert the property to a,
to a, let me just go up here to the notice of refusal.
You can see right here, the one from yesterday is to construct a three-story structure for use as a
three-family dwelling. The original notice of refusal, as you can see here, we ended up amending
the application because during the process of meeting with the community, they asked for certain
changes. We originally only had, we had a dimensionally compliant building and only had
a use refusal for the three-family dwelling. This is a 1,020 square foot lot. It's just 60 square
feet under what would be allowed to have three units in RM1. But again, it was remapped as RSA5,
so we had the use. What we ended up doing as a modification to the design when we went to the
community group, and I will show you what we started with. What we started with was a building
that looked like this. It was a flat front, went straight up, three stories, roof deck, again,
dimensionally compliant. The only refusal we had was the use. Meeting with the community,
we revised the design, and what we have now is this design. We have a front porch cellar that
extends out to the same degree that the properties, that the existing buildings to the south and to
the north of us have. Porch above that, a bay leading above that. We have put in the by right
third floor. The proposal doesn't call for an increase in the height of what we originally
proposed. We did drop the parapet. We had a permitted parapet height that extended all the
way around the roof originally. We dropped that at the front so that it has a lower profile at the
front. And then we have the roof deck. As a result of the changes that we made, it kind of pushed
most of the building back. And again, where we had no dimensional refusals with the original
application. With the amended application, we had two additional dimensional refusals.
One is that it pushed by having that front porch, it pushed the building back and pushed
the balcony that we have off the rear of the second floor that you can see here where my
pointer is. And then you can see down here where I'm circling. It pushed that into the required
rear yard depth. The main building itself does not encroach into the rear yard. We actually have
10 feet where the requirement is nine but because we shifted the building back three feet by adding
the um the porch in the front to match or actually six feet to match the buildings like i said on our
side of the block with the setback in the porch of the front of the face of the building it pushed
the balcony back and then also because you have what you can see here is that
And then also because you have what you can see here is that a portion of the seller is actually above grade.
By pushing this back, we had a compliant occupied and open area, but counting this as occupied area, which is a question whether we should or shouldn't, but we want it to be safe.
And then pushing the building back, it reduced our open area to the point where we had an occupied and open area refusal.
Again, the additional refusals, the dimensional refusals that came about with the revised amended design that was submitted to the L&I resulted in the amended notice of refusal based upon an authorization letter I submitted for and received from the zoning board's executive director.
Other than we only have the dimensional refusals because of the changes that we made based upon the input from the community.
As mentioned earlier, we do have the letter of support from the coordinating RCO, the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
Again, you can see in their provisos changes that we made based upon the things that we discussed at the meeting, aligning the front facades, including a front porch.
Not only are we putting a front bay on the front, but it's actually an angled bay, a three-sided bay, just like the other bays that we have there.
We reduced the height of the front parapet, as I mentioned, security cameras.
I mean, that's not something that the zoning board can address in any decision, but we've agreed to do that.