we are tax compliant. First things first is our notice of refusal. This is an RSA 5 property,
but I believe in name only. It's a rather large lot of, what's the lot size? 1,960 square feet.
We're looking to put four units in here. And as you'll see in the plans and drawings, each of the
units have its own front door. There is no basement living. That was one of our provisos
you'll review. We got rid of the basement living. We got rid of the egress wells as well.
The basement is only for mechanical storage only. We have three refusals. First is the use of the
property. We're asking for four units. This is an RSA 5 property. We'll see further along in
the presentation that this property has a history for four-family use. And in addition to that,
the properties next door to us are also multifamily in nature now because of approvals
and their density is greater per square foot than our density and we'll go over that as well
our height where 38 feet is allowed we're proposing 40 feet again we are in conformance
to neighboring properties that have been approved previously by way of the city and we'll review that
as well later on in the presentation. And then our occupied area, our request is de minimis in
nature, where we're seeking 32 extra square feet in lot size, but our backyard is almost 18 feet
in depth, which is actually deeper than the property to the left of us as well. So in actuality,
we provide more light in there than even properties that are next to us, and we'll discuss that as
well letter of support we met with the community unanimous support and you know they referenced
that one nearby neighbor the reason why i reached out to that neighbor we reached out to that
neighbor mr khan has done other projects in southwest there was some discussion about some
issue he had with one of those properties with a next door neighbor about completing the sidewalk
we brokered obviously a resolution in that regard to make sure that the sidewalk was completely
redone at Mr. Khan's cost. And then the neighbor showed up and said, yes, Mr. Khan does the right
thing. And I support him because he's a man of his words. And then again, before there was living in
the basement, we didn't think it was appropriate, especially after the community comment. So we are
removing the living in the basement, removing the egress wells, and removing the basement living.
and we would agree to a proviso on top of that in terms of basement living, no living in the
basement. And this is our revised plans. Letter of support. This was from the next door neighbor
of another project that Mr. Khan did. Again, there was some discussion previously of had this
neighbor having an issue. Mr. Khan dealt with him appropriately, responsibly, and now supports
this other project, which is nearby. Property history. So as you can see here, this property
has a long history of multifamily use for units. Nearby RSA five properties, which are also
multifamily in nature, 5220 Chester Avenue. This is a 15 unit building with commercial on the ground
floor. And, you know, which would, you know, we don't think it's appropriate to put commercial
here on the ground floor. This is an RSA five property, which would require an even more of a
variance, but it's also 41 feet in height. So again, we're asking to have 40 feet in height,
so a lesser variance, but also follows the roof line of the nearby properties. And then 5216-18
Chester Avenue, that's a nine unit building, 41 feet in height, also commercial on the ground
for. Per square foot, our property is 490 square feet of lot size for each unit. These other
properties are either 451 square feet per lot size per unit or 397 square feet of lot size per
unit. From a density perspective, we are less dense than those other properties.
Area view of the property. So this is an older view, but I got this off of Google Earth because
the at least this building is almost built like at least the structure is but there's a a 40 unit
apartment a 45 unit apartment building here on chester avenue and then there's these rather
avenue and then there's these rather two large multi-family buildings so it would be out of
two large multi-family buildings so it would be out of character
character to require us to have a single family lot where you have these two other rather large
apartment buildings with height and everything else that we're seeking is in line with what they
have maps of the area again you know we are rsa5 we're rather large lot but there is multi-family
on that block both as a right and by way of variance and then again we're on the bus line
as well so again would you would think that we would be allowed to have multi-family here plus
it's a corner property from a city planning perspective you know having multi-units is is
a reasonable request plus the history of the property as well as four units photographs of
the property so this is the front of the property from chester avenue from south lindenwood street
this property has been vacant as far back as you can go on google street view at 2000 you know 2007
this is the nearby structure well these are hearing notice posters but you can see this
nearby building structure is is at least the shell of it is complete and it's rather large
in nature while our rear yard setback is 18 feet theirs is only nine feet so they're actually
blocking some of our light in there in in that respect but we are getting a refusal because our
property doesn't go as deep as their property and this is chester avenue to the right of the property
to the left of the property, South Lindenwood Street to the right of the property, and to the
left of the property. Our plans and drawings, again, Chris Johnson of 24-7 Design, the architect's
representative, is here, but what they envisioned doing was to have the traditional brick facade,
many windows, so each of the bedrooms, living areas, have windows in them. Again, no living in
the basement, but you're going to see four doors here, one for each unit. Also, to kind of mask
the height of the building, we try to do a change in color of materials as well.
And then again, these are our floor plans, but you can see the four front doors, unit
one front door, unit two front door, unit three front door, unit four front door.
Unit one and two are bi-levels.
I mean, there is access to the basement, but again, no window wells, and we would agree
to a proviso, no living in the basement.
uh but this is a two bedroom two and a half bath of 1198 square feet as you can see here
there's many windows in all the living areas nice little uh open floor plan for units one and units
two oops wrong way and then for the second floor is where you have the two bedrooms and the
bathrooms uh trash uh would be stored outside so that will be another proviso because we take
advantage of the fact that we're a rear property but this these are units one and two to get to
units three and four you have front doors unit three unit four and i don't know i keep going
backwards but like here is the same type of floor plan you have an open floor plan of a kitchen
a dining room and a living room you can see windows throughout same thing for unit number four
and it's a bi-level unit where you have the bedrooms up top and you can see there's ample
windows for all the bedrooms and that that's where the bathrooms are as well rco meeting notice we
met met with the community on march 4th at 6 p.m this is proof of email of that notice that we sent
a few weeks ahead of time to give them notification that not only did we mail the notice but you know
i mean that we sent out the notice but we mailed it and here's the proof of mailing the notice
to 126 addresses these are the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses or application
for appeal that we filed on behalf of con properties one llc along with the notice of
refusal the project information form the deed to the property showing the con properties llc is
the owner of the property and then filing the certificate of tax clearance while there shows
There's a balance of $692.90.
That money is not owed until March 31st of 2025.
I will stop sharing my screen.
I would ask that Sabas virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Chair, I see no one by that name.
Okay. Alan, you're an officer of the court. We'll gladly take your testimony.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Yes. Question. There's no basement living.
No basement. We do not show any basement living, and we would be happy to accept a proviso of no basement living.
Okay. Thank you.
question well the bi-level unit did include that did assume the basement as part of the bi-level
question well the bi-level unit did include that did assume the base
it did originally it did and you know speaking to my client i indicated why would you need
three floors for living i think two are enough and then after speaking to the community i you
know he changed his mind okay questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
just to clarify on the revised plans it still shows unit one and two in the basement are those
are they the only ones that have access to the basement that's right that's why it's showed as
part of their unit okay all right just wanted to clarify that thank you questions or comments
from the audience for the virtual audience chair we have jeremy blatstein they're coming back in
as a panelist now.
His name is Jeremy.
Yes, Jeremy Blatstein.
Mr. Blackstone, please unmute yourself.
Hi, Jeremy.
Can he unmute?
chair he might have an outdated version of zoom because there's no option for him to unmute
okay is there anyone else in the audience chair we have lavar clark and they're coming back in
as a panelist now okay lavar could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
LaVar?
LaVar, please unmute yourself.
Yes, I'm unmuted.
LaVar, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Name is LeVar Clark, L as in Larry, E as in Edward, V as in Victor, A as in Apple, R as in Robert, Clark, C-L-A-R-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
Yes, I am the direct neighbor right next door to this development.
The developments that Mr. Alan Nockleson mentioned of 5216 to 5224 are my developments.
I have been in communication with Alan Nockleson last year when this particular parcel came up for a board hearing.
We talked about some issues.
Mr. Nockleson at that time mentioned that he would let me know about the next community meeting that would actually happen in regards to some of the issues that we presented.
I wasn't informed of that particular community meeting. I found out late yesterday that they actually had it and that the ZBA board hearing was today.
This is why I'm here to address some of the issues and concerns about this particular development.
I've been, yes, I've been in front of, I'm sorry.
Go ahead, please proceed.
Yes, I've been in front of the board last year with the developments that I have next door.
okay um met with the community plenty of times uh community community meetings a lot of the people
know me miss allen knows me personally as i've talked to him and had meetings with him previous
on other issues um we were approved for those developments next door to give you a quick
history there are only six lots on that particular block between lindenwood and uh wilton street we
were approved i own five of them so 5216 to 5224 chester avenue are all owned by me which were all
approved for mixed use. You have 52 direct next doors, 52 20 to 24, which is a 15-unit mixed-use
property, which is going to have commercial on the first floor. And then 52 16 to 18, which is
also a mixed-use property, which also is going to have commercial on the first floor. This particular
block currently right now, as it's projected, already has about 24 residential units coming
on it. Also, what he mentioned, 5200 Chester Avenue has 45 residential units, 4,500 residential
units, and 5200 Chester Avenue doesn't have any commercial. The reason why we actually set out on
this block to do commercials is because we wanted to have amenity space for the community.
When Ms. Allison presented his poor case, I explained to him that it makes sense to do
commercial on the first floor, even though I know he has an RSA 5 zoning, the least restrictive use
of that would be a duplex. And I explained to him, if it's four units going to come, it should be
some commercial space, knowing that there are 70 plus units coming on this particular block
units coming on this particular block in this particular area and also future developments
in this particular area. And also
that are actually coming through this particular area. That mixed use for amenity standpoint for
the growth of that particular community to me would be much more warranted. I explained that
to Mr. Opsen. He said he would sit down with me and try to work out something that would be
beneficial for the community and for everyone that was involved. I didn't get a call even though I
I have his personal number. I did not get a call for that, that the newest community meeting,
even though I knew about the first one that was postponed. I'm just asking that the board looks
at this actual proposal and understand what is actually best for the community, looking at the
precedent that was already set on the block by me in the previous zoning hearings in regards to the
other five parcels that are actually on this block. And, sir, you didn't know about the RCO
meeting no he i was not informed about this this new rco meeting that was that was handed from i
understand it was it was last week the gentleman that he mentions um that gave a a right of a
approval for 5307 chester avenue i know about that particular parcel because at one time i owned that
parcel and sold it to the new owner right he's the one that informed me that there was a community
meeting that was held right and i never got notification and i see it was it was 14 to zero
and Pharaoh. It was 14-0, but I'm the one next door that is directly impacted and is also looking
to change. But I wasn't informed, and even though Al Knoxon knew, because I talked to him before the
first time about the actual community, and he was gracious at that time to say that I talked to him
and tried to address concern before he was blindsided at the zoning board, but also informed
me that he would let me know about the next community meeting that was going to happen in
regard before this time, but I was never informed. All right. Thank Mr. Clark. Thank you for taking
the time. And Alan, why don't, why don't I wait to see if there's anybody else? All right. And
then we'll be soon. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no hands. I see no hands
of this time, Chair. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I did reach out to Mr. Clark the first time. And during our
discussions, he indicated that he was rather upset with my clients because my client developed
at a property at next door to 5307 that he sold to Mr. Let me just make sure I have the name
right. The one who signed the letter of support, Mr. Adolphs, and indicated, you need to make it
right with this guy, because I'm really upset with the situation here. That's what we did.
And during the community, and we got a letter of support. And this, the gentleman actually
showed up at the meeting and voted in favor. And during the meeting, we talked about community
benefits, and he mentioned Mr. Clark by his first name. Oh, yes, my client, Mr. Adolphs, and Mr. Clark
would love to do community benefits. Our understanding was that that was what the ask was
in terms of working through that. Mr. Clark did state that he thought it was more appropriate to
have commercial on the ground floor. That would require an even greater variance that we're
requesting. This is an RSA 5 property. And I understand Mr. Clark's position. He owns other
properties on that block. But I'm looking at the zoning permit for 5220 Chester Avenue. Those were
RSA 5 properties. He sought a commercial use. He can't then push it upon another property owner
to also now seek a greater variance than that property owner wants to do, especially given the
history of the property at four units. Same thing again with 5216-18 Chester Avenue. According to
the zoning permit that's in front of me, that was mixed zoning of CMX2 and RSA5. Doesn't look like
it had a calendar number, but that also had RSA5 zoning. Again, we respect the fact that Mr. Clark
has developed in this neighborhood, but at the same time, we are asking that the board consider
this application as the least modification possible requested under the philadelphia zoning code thank
you very much thank you planning commission
chairman thank you chairman and good afternoon david vecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential