The square up in the top right, right.
The application is for the erection of an accessory detached one-story storage shed located in the rear yard of a two-family household living, size and location per the plan.
plan. I'll share with you the plan. Right here is the structure. There's a back door
with a patio. And then there's the proposed shed on the left hand of the screen. Here's
a elevation of the shed that's being proposed. As you can see here, there's plenty of walkway
space between the primary household and the storage
Here's a letter from Longcrest Community Association.
And they say very clearly, in the second paragraph,
a second sentence of the second paragraph,
several immediate neighbors of the project indicated approval.
there were other folks uh in the neighborhood that uh voted against it but all the immediate
neighbors and the ones who actually you know uh would be adversely impacted all support the project
there's the owner owner's policy and the title insurance
there's the deed
and the tax cert
my client is a
self-employed they would like to be able to put a shed on
on the property that would store some of their
you know just tools and the actual
application is for a shed that is a little larger than what is required by
by code, but it's all merely because they would like to be able to store everything that they
have with respect to their materials. The RCO supports the minimum rear yard depth
variance. The RCO also supports the minimum side yard width variance based on their letter.
they would like us to to uh bring our square footage down a bit but again all the immediate
neighbors those immediate neighbors who would be mostly most uh adversely impacted all supported
our uh our request for the uh for the uh appeal and that is reflected in the rco letter
and with that i would ask if miss guerrido is in attendance for her to raise her hand
I'm not sure if she is but if she is if she could please raise her hand. I don't see anyone. Okay, thank you.
You said that the RCO it is for something smaller.
Yeah, the letter, Longcrest letter that's in the file that I just shared with you said that the immediate neighbors supported it, full stop, all of it.
said that the immediate neighbors supported it, full stop, all of it.
But the RCO, the board members who don't necessarily live in the immediate area,
they do support the minimum rear yard depth variance,
and they also support the minimum side yard width variance.
They just would ask for square footage to be smaller than what we're proposing.
we're suggesting that you know the the highest and best use and my client get you know the you know
the best uh uh access to to the shed is if it was in fact uh 294 square feet it'll never be a living
space it's just a storage space and both all of the immediate neighbors as the rco letter indicates
supports that and they're the only ones who would be adversely impacted right right is
there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
we have hillary from the council person's office hillary you can unmute yourself and wait
hillary identify yourself you're still under oath from earlier today
hello can you hear me yes we can yes hi good afternoon mr chair members of the board
um hillary emerson um on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker hillary's h-i-l-a-r-y last name
Emerson, E-M-E-R-S-O-N. Regarding 212 Robin Street, the councilman is opposed to the shed
that is proposed in the backyard of this property. The applicant is asking for variances not only in
the size of the shed, but on rear yard and side yard depth and width, leaving only two feet of
rear yard depth and two feet of side yard depth. And while there is additional side yard next to
the house, that side yard, as you can see, is used for a driveway. So in effect, the majority of the
outdoor space and this property will be taken over by a shed that's more than two feet or two
times the square footage that's permitted by code and we'd be concerned that this really would not
make the building very attractive in the future and is not in character with the rest of the
neighborhood. We're also concerned that the applicant is trying to set up a business at
this location. This was presented at the RCO meeting and today as a residential shed,
but the husband of the applicant is a contractor, and at the RCO meeting, when asked directly by
myself if he stored his materials for business elsewhere, he indicated that he did not.
But when asked what other materials would be stored in the shed, he indicated that there
would be sheetrock and drywall, which is not typical for a residential shed where you might
typically store tools at a lawnmower and that sort of thing.
So we were concerned that there's really going to be a business set up here and not just
a residential storage shed.
um i note that um as anastasio noted the the community was opposed to the size of the shed
but not the setbacks um i don't know if the setback would be variance for the setbacks
would be necessary if the shed was smaller but um that's where they landed on it i also want to
note in the letter that um while the the rco says while several immediate neighbors of the project
indicated approval, those in the rear of the property opposed the proposal. So there were
some adjacent neighbors that did oppose and had some concerns. So in summary, the councilwoman
is opposed to the variances requested for this property. And I don't disagree with much of what
Councillor Emerson suggested. Ultimately, the RCO as a whole supported the variance for the
minimum rear yard depth. The RCO as a whole supported the minimum yard width. And the
and the immediate neighbors, as the letter suggests, which they're the only ones who
immediate neighbors, as the letter suggests, which they're
would have been adversely impacted, are totally fine with a larger shed. That shed is not going
to be commercial use. It's going to be for storage. Now, whether that storage is for residential
purposes or for sheetrock, I don't necessarily think that's germane. The use is just for
storage there will be no business operating out of that shed uh and uh the immediate neighbors
you know support that use so um and i'll agree on i'll agree on the materials i don't think make a
difference um what kind of materials you put in there but you keep you say you've said a couple
times verne that the immediate neighbors what about the neighbors to the rear you know would
you not consider them immediate the the immediate neighbors to the rear the neighbors to the rear
won't even see the shed chairman the only people that see the shed are the folks who live
on either side of this property it's not like we're going high higher than than what would
you have do you have a do you have a photograph showing the rear and how that it would be looking
at the rear of the the properties to the rear of that you know no i i don't have that uh but i
could certainly get that to you if you decided to hold this this vote because because we're not
height is not height is not one of the variances well but it's a structure and i don't know what
the neighborhood looks like it could be a six foot cyclone fence or a four foot that separates
this property from the rear of another property understood in that case they would be looking at
the structure uh and and we can i don't know again i i don't see anything that could that
i have a i have a rendering here which shows that the the uh the height is within completely within
compliance but if you'd like to hear and hold while i get the some sort of a of a view scape
I could happily do that. But this shed is bigger than it should be because of the width and the
depth, not because of the height. So the folks who are living behind this property would not
even know that that shed was there. But for this application-
That's where I'm not, I don't know, I'm not convinced of that. I'm not saying you're not
telling me the truth. I just don't see, if I'm looking out my rear yard and I have a six foot
fence what is the height of this at its highest point 12 6 12 so if i got a six foot fence i'm
going to see a structure six foot six foot six above the high point of that of the fence that
separates the two yards yeah but that's that's that's within the code there's no height there's
there's no height variance on this yeah i'm saying because it because you're more than doubling the
size from 130 to 294 that makes the structure that much larger i understand i guess my question is
no i'm sorry go you go ahead sir uh to hillary is what is the councilwoman's
office against any structure or is it because of the size of this structure
um mr chair it is it's the size of the structure um the the square footage um and i i think it
kind of goes it's just it kind of pairs the square footage and the um the side the uh sorry the the
minimum depth in the side in the rear yard because it essentially takes over the entire backyard so
there's no outdoor space or very little outdoor space at this property we don't have an objection
to a shed and I believe they can put a shed basically by right as long as it was in the
correct size and with the correct setbacks in the backyard and we don't have a problem with that
but it's just it's so big that we're concerned about you know there being adequate outdoor space
at the property and the future you know people you know future value the property this isn't
something that's easily you know removed um from the property what if someone else were to purchase
it and i think it devalues um the property to have most of its outdoor space taken by a large shed
was there any discussion at the meeting for some for a shed that was larger than 130 but less than
294 was that issue raised at all that's a that's a great question mr uh mr chairman uh there wasn't
but and before i fully answer that i want to make sure that we all understood we're on the same page
the community is okay with the rear yard depth the community is okay with the side
The community is okay with the rear yard depth.
The community is okay with the side yard depth.
And the immediate neighbors are okay with the shed as proposed at 294.
Now, the height, and I know that's a concern for you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned that.
Even at 130 square feet, we are still allowed to do 12 feet tall.
So that...
I get that.
The height's not an issue.
It certainly makes the width of it a lot smaller, right?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. It certainly would. So we'd be stacking instead of spreading. Now, no, there has not been a discussion about somewhere between 130 and 294. Would I be willing to have that discussion with my client? Yes, of course. But that hasn't happened. And I'm not saying it couldn't happen if you decided to ask us to go back to the drawing board and come up with a happy medium.
maybe it can maybe it can't you know i try we try to figure out some common coming out common
agreements on these things with compromise rather i would i don't know i don't know what will be
acceptable i would i certainly would prefer a negotiated middle middle ground to uh to as to
a no all right okay verne is there anything buffer in between the shed and the neighbors
in the back is there something separating them so that they can't yeah most certainly
they're they have large yards in the rear they can't even see this structure you know because
of trees because of a wall because of blood all of that they have large backyards this is not
you know downtown this is uh these are large backyards 20 30 35 feet deep with uh walls and
trees and bushes and shrubs so uh and that's why the the immediate neighbors all of them and even
the rco letter uh suggest this they were all fine with it because it doesn't really impact them
well i agree it's fair maybe go back and revisit this yeah and and they just make sure the
councilwoman's office is part of that discussion i'd love to have hillary a part of the discussion
yep hillary you still there yes can you hear me yes we can sorry i get muted muted off and on um
Yeah, no, that, that would be fine. I do remember Mr. Anastasio raising at the RCO meeting that they'd be willing to look at a lower, a smaller shed and there just wasn't, there really was not a discussion about that at that time.
And we're certainly willing to entertain it and I think also discuss a buffer because there are houses, there's a common driveway in the back, like there's a little bit of land and then a common driveway in the back and then more houses.
So there would be a view and it may be appropriate to discuss, you know, a buffer, some not entirely clear what the applicants already have at their property in terms of fencing.
Thank you. All right.
So I'd like to hear from the Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
This is Dave Munson, M-U-N-S-O-N, representing the Planning Commission.
Did you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
we feel this proposal represents an overuse of the property accordingly we
oppose granting of the variance thank you as any other questions from the
board I apologize for not asking no no anyone else who wish that anyone else
wish to testify in this matter please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you Tonda we have a date and time I'll put it in the
in my comments
September 23rd of work
again okay all right this calendar number 39441
212 Robbins Avenue this hearing will be resumed on September the 23rd
at 3 30 p.m. at which time we will consider any feedback related to the
RCO's position and the councilwoman's position
thank you all have a good evening thank you too calendar number mi2020-000-793-620
climber street the attorney is alan knockamson
good afternoon
Hi, Mr. Nockamson. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, my name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Yes, my name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. You may proceed.
All right. I'm going to share my screen.
Go ahead.
all right so i'm here to present 620 climber street uh with me today is the owner of the
property edward massario he will uh verify the testimony that i'm about to give in addition
uh his architects uh agada uh rester and vincent mancini are also on the line i believe and if they
if the board has any questions from an architectural point of view they can answer those questions
Again, I'm here to present 620 Climber Street. This property is located between 6th and 7th
Streets in Catherine and Fitzwater in Philadelphia. I handed you a pack of materials which include
eight exhibits. The first is the deed to the property showing that Edward Massario owns the
property at 620 Climber Street. After that is a certificate of tax clearance showing that he's
in good standing with the city of Philadelphia. After that is a notice of refusal. This is an
RSA 5 property, and there are two refusals contained on this notice of refusal. The first
of which is the fact that we're proposing off-street parking. We're proposing a front-loading
garage. And you'll see from the pictures and the map I'll show subsequent to this, we're not taking
way, any on-tree parking. This is a street that has off-street parking across the street, and it's
common to have off-street parking in this part of the neighborhood in Philadelphia. So it's not out
of character to have a front-loading garage. And in essence, it actually is something that is
expected in this part of the neighborhood as well. The second refusal is the height. It's required,
this is Norris A5 property we're required to have 38 feet we're proposing 39 feet and 11 inches
from an architectural standpoint the way that we lessened the look of the height of the building
we and you'll see from the drawings or the rendering we created a mansard roof as well as
for the railing for the roof deck is all glass and you'll see from the letter from the Bella