and probably three-story building to the left that just uh and then the four stories across
the street um then what's the with the what's the width of the lot and what's the width of that
alleyway that get folks have to walk through to get to that i'm gonna darren if you don't
mind jumping in um we'll do the same thing that you were present during my uh presentation during
this application i was and you would adopt that testimony as your own as it relates to the plans
you prepared i would if you don't mind answering the board members uh mr johns's questions with
regard to those sure so the property uh lot is or width is 15 foot six and the width of the alley is
three feet yeah any other questions is there a site plan that shows the backyard or the rear yard
yeah so the uh kind of this the the single line behind the uh the building
um so the rear unit has uh a rear yard of or yard space that is 15 foot seven and a half deep
uh oh i'm sorry uh that was the old plan um the the rear unit has a yard that is 10 foot
seven and a half foot deep and the front unit has a yard that is eight feet
there's an eight foot setback between the that's correct line and the okay right and the property
to uh to the north uh 1347 is set back probably nine half or ten feet so it's even behind from
where ours is okay other questions
Questions from our attorney, Hilary Emerson?
questions from our attorney hillary emerson yes
Yeah, so the packet that was submitted with this, the only plans that were submitted indicated that they were the original plans reviewed by L&I.
So if there are revised plans, in addition to holding for the RCO letter, if you could please submit the revised plans in the proviso form outlining the changes so those can be reviewed.
absolutely the um the plans that actually were submitted were the new plans not the revised but
um i will submit the proviso form and include them as well and if you believe it's necessary
we can even submit the original too so okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual
audience there we have frank foley with his hand up he's coming back in as a panelist now
there we are hello hello mr foley you've already been sworn in just state your name for the record
and then start your presentation it's uh frank foley f-r-a-n-k-f-o-l-e-y all right please proceed
sir uh i'm the neighbor directly to the north um my primary concern uh with the variance
is on height. I have solar panels on my roof, flat on the roof. So this would impact
my solar production probably eight months out of the year, something along those lines.
Other concern is we have a survey pending. I think the property lines might be a little bit off.
uh there was some confusion about um there should be a breezeway uh between these two properties
um and my builder in 2006 um before i purchased the property i didn't put in a breezeway at all
um but he also built the house about 14 and a half wide on a 16 foot lot so i believe
a portion of that 15 and a half feet that this project would be the frontage of it
maybe seven or eight or nine or ten inches of that is mine probably
so i've just got to have a i've got a survey pending to uh you know figure out the property
lines and also uh our overarching concern from the the neighbors is uh we have a strong preference
for affordable single-family homes.
Mr. Foley, thank you.
Counselor, you want to respond at all?
Yeah, I was just going to mention to the board
that there was a point in time where there was
like a shared alleyway for the property in the rear,
but there was a portion of the property
that covered that alleyway,
and we went through a quiet title proceeding with the court
and had a court order entered that granted us
the balance of the alleyway to our property,
so there is no breezeway between the two properties anymore.
And that was one of the things that held up the application originally.
So the order was recorded, the deed was amended, and the survey plan accurately reflects the property owned.
Okay, so we're going to hold on a minute.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Sean Caulfield.
They're coming back in as a panelist now.
which which property was that that homeowner was it 1334 or 1347 because i remember it was
uh this particular owner in the rear so he's in the rear it's for 34 so what that gentleman is
to the left of our property left as you face the front of your property yes sir yes okay so 13
Oh, no, that's 1347.
All right.
We have the person online.
Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Yes. Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Sean Caulfield.
First name S-E-A-N.
Last name is Caulfield.
C-A-U-L-F-I-E-L-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
are you a neighbor i am please proceed sir yeah so hi uh my name is sean caulfield so i am the
neighbor um in the photograph that you're seeing on the screen there 1343 um so to the south of
the property that we're talking about here so i have some notes i just want to go through here
um being that i'm a direct neighbor um this does have a direct impact um on my home but also
of all of my neighbors um many of whom were at the community zoning meeting that was in january
And a lot of concerns were raised about the property. I'm not sure if those were published anywhere or provided to the board, but I had not seen them.
And a lot of concerns were raised about the property.
I'm not sure if those were.
So I just wanted to talk about some of mine. And the main issue here for me is splitting a lot vertically into two narrow units.
I just don't think that makes sense for the long term livability or resale value of this property at all.
So the design crams each unit into a very tight four-story layout, and each floor is basically a single room. So it's a lot of stair climbing to get to any part of the house on four floors. That's not practical for families. It's not practical for older residents or anyone that has a disability or just wants a functional living space.
There's no communal space. There's no real flow. It's just a setup that does not encourage long-term home ownership.
Instead, this design really does feel like it's built for investors that are looking to rent the units out rather than for people who actually want to live there long term.
On top of that, if one of the units is supposed to be affordable housing, I just don't see what's stopping that from being immediately rented.
So I understand that there's rules that say the units have to be lived in by the owners.
But given the impractical layout, I just I really find it hard to believe that someone's going to live there long term.
Additionally, I don't think this design also meets Philadelphia zoning requirements.
The rules make it clear that affordable units should be comparable in size, comparable in quality, comparable in layout to the homes that are in the area.
And this project just does not measure up with that at all.
The zoning code also has a minimum lot requirement to prevent overdevelopment and to protect the neighborhood's character.
And this is forcing two units into a space that's not suited for two units.
Additionally, there's nothing else like this in the neighborhood.
So to my knowledge, every other house in the street is three stories.
And this project is four stories and it makes it very out of place.
The picture that was shown there of the street view with the red lines, I think, is a bit disingenuous.
So the red line where it ends at the roof of my house, it would be much higher than that.
My house is three floors and the proposed is four.
So it violates the standard to look at the block.
It disrupts the continuity of the street.
And it just doesn't do anything positive to look and feel of the neighborhood.
Thank you for taking time to calls.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no hands at this time counsel do you want to respond um mr chairman i'm not sure i have much
that i can respond to i mean i think we understand that you know mr caulfield is
there's a lay person with his lay opinions and none of that stuff is right been related by an
expert all right thank you so um planning uh ron bednar city planning comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the rsa 5 zoning at this location there's no unique physical circumstances
or uh condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code
the application represents a inappropriate overuse therefore city planning commission recommends
denying the request thank you mr chair if i'm if i may i totally i just wanted to make sure that
one of the items that was mentioned and maybe in response a little bit to the planning commission's
comments is that this property is deed restricted for affordability.
So there has to be a mechanism to build affordable units on this and on the other property.
So the idea is that with the deed restriction, that's what's going to occur on this site.
So I know the board's aware, but I just wanted to make that work.
All right.
So we're going to hold a vote on this, like we said.
We're waiting to see where the RCO, and I think council talked about any change of plans.
Am I correct?
Yeah, on this particular app, we'll submit the proviso form.
We're going to vote on this next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, members of the board.
Appreciate your time.
Thank you, folks.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I've seen no hands, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Somebody pinch me.
Thanks again.
Thank you, everyone.
Good night, all.
Good night.
that I see in sunlight.