the time my client purchased the property with the rental licenses in place everything to him
looked as if he's acquiring a triplex.
as if he's acquiring a triplex. The way the property is renovated, the way the licenses
The way the property is renovated...
were in place from the seller, as well as the way it was presented to him on the sales agreement.
Particularly, this property, actually, if you look into the city records, also has had prior,
and this is pre to my client's purchase in December of 2018, there was work done with
the Million Investors LLC, which went through the city, actually there were violations and then
finally compliance throughout regarding this multiple unit use issue as well as others,
which resulted in the end of them acquiring a rental license for three units. I would think
the city would not issue the seller or the buyer the rental licenses if everything in the city
records had once shown that this was completely done illegally. I'm going to separately share
information to the board of, for example, the electrical panel license that was acquired by
the prior seller. I'm going to go ahead and change real quick and reshare
that information. As you can see, sometime before they were doing work and they did acquire
permits eventually and throughout the years to have the three, replace three existing panels
only as it was wired, which is the triplex. And this was done back in 2013. So again,
this property has a lot of history here that shows that it was not a single family property
and was in fact a multifamily. All this was actually presented at the community.
their main position was look the zoning changed to RSA 5 we prefer if it was single family so
we're not going to support your request and I understand their position I respect that but
again there is a hardship here because this property is set up before purchase by someone
who made it into a triplex and was able to obtain rental license so for the most part it's my belief
based on my research that this was at one point legally a triplex or these rental licenses would
never been issued and they were issued twice once to the seller and once to my client before this
case was brought before the board today so again i would ask the board consideration for that
in that these the the property is a existing triplex that was renovated by the seller
and they did obtain permits throughout the process although they did some work initially
without it. They had to stop work order, but then in the city records, it was shown these violations
were complied and it was worked out and ultimately ended up in a rental license situation in 2018.
The property initially was vacant when my client purchased it. He did put tenants in there
initially. When the violations came, he immediately removed the extra units so that some of the units
are now vacant. But again, I'm going to show pictures of the units. They were renovated.
They're in good shape, but they are set up as a triplex as it sits right now. This is some of the
interior photos. Again, he has already removed the tenants pending resolution of this case,
but he only put tenants in because he thought he had a legal triplex and that there would be no
issue. The rental license certainly also gave him that impression as well. I'm going to jump to the
plans to give the board kind of the quick layout of the property so it's better able to be seen.
So the basement is for utility only. You have a central entrance which kind of divides. The back
unit is a small unit. The front unit is also a small unit, one bedroom. And then the upper floor
unit actually is a bi-level with three total bedrooms. Now, the community did confirm that
this was like a setup that was there for some time. This is not new. It was renovated, but the
actual entrance set up and the layout was because at one point an owner lived here who had a
handicapped child. And then they built like a father's daughter setting for this property,
which is why this back unit exists and it's a small unit. So that is what we're working with
here. It is existing conditions. It's a pre-existing non-conforming situation, which
does give rise to a hardship to my client who purchased it as a triplex, obtained rental license
at one point, and then had everything kind of revoked and we have to bring forth this
to the board.
Even though the community has opposed it, I didn't get their actual letter of the rationale
has opposed it. I didn't get their actual letter of their rationale even though it says it was
Now, even though it says it was
attached, but I understood from the meeting the rationale is that they don't feel they want
multi-family properties when the zoning has changed to single-family and therefore
they don't see a hardship to my client to have to convert this back to a single-family.
So I would ask the board's consideration in this case, given the particulars of the case with regard to rental license being issued, the pre-existing nonconformant conditions, and ask for a favorable ruling in this case.
I'm happy to entertain any questions from the board or try to present other exhibits that may help clarify the presentation.
Could you go back, Mr. Jeng, could you go back to the floor plans?
i'll zoom in again to make it a little bit easier to see so the second and third floor
this is one unit second and third floor okay and then the the first floor is divided front and back
one bedroom kitchen okay yeah all right that's where the third okay and when do you know when
the zoning change occurred i'm not 100 sure on that i did go into the um the archives at one
point and i know that it was still like a mixed use in the 90s uh but it must have changed since
that point yeah probably more recent than that um the other question was your client did you make a
purchased through a realtor yes and um part of they did it was through a realtor uh it was sold
as i have the agreement sale here was sold as a triplex and as proof they provided my client
a 2018 rental license you see here that was the seller all right so there's three there are three
electric meters correct yes there are three three electric meters and uh what i shared earlier with
the board, and I'll re-share it again, is that goes back a ways. Even the city records show
permit details of replacing panels going back to 2013. Well, generally, you would have a meter for
each unit, and then there would be one, what they refer to as a public meter. That's why I was asking.
Yes, I understand that. All right. And I understand the situation on the west side abroad.
it's to say it's overly congested is certainly an understatement um but your client apparently
your client just got sold the bill of goods um all right any questions from the board no no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
there are no hands up chair thank you planning commission
good morning david facto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for residential single family use in the city's comprehensive plan we believe the
zoning changed in about 2018 we were going to oppose this but given the testimony that we've
heard, we have no opposition to this application. Thank you. MI 2020-0002681528. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you. Can we just stipulate
that my client would adopt my testimony.
Okay, so noted as an officer of court,
we'll stipulate that your client
would adopt your testimony.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Calendar number 1453-2215 Pine Street.
David Orphanides has been promoted to panelists thank you
Mr. Orphanides can you please state your name and address for the record
and spell your last name certainly my name is David Orphanides I'm with Orphanides and Turner
I'm at 2 Penn Center, Suite 800, which is also at 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
And do you swear?
Sorry.
Last name's spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I waive the reading, but I do not stipulate to its accuracy, of course.
I waive the reading, but I do not stipulate to its accuracy, of course.
Same old, same old.
Yeah, same old, same old.
Something's never changed, even in a pandemic.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
which would be proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral,
plans of the property, photos five days in advance of the hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Thank you.
I think there are three questions, but yes to all of your questions.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
May I share my screen?
Thank you.
Let's see.
Are you seeing my screen?
Yes, we do.
Fantastic.
So, again, my name is David Orfanides.
I am the attorney representing the owners of 2215 Pine Street, Michael Curlin and Mitha Prasad.
Husband and wife live there with their children.
And the property is zoned RM1.
As you know, RM1 allows for multifamily residential use.
The property is used by them as a single family.
And this proposal does not change that use.
It will remain a single-family use.
Proposal is for a very small one-story addition in the little niche or cutout that you see in many center city row homes where the front of the building is the full width of the property, touches the building to either side.
And then at the back, it narrows a little bit kind of off to one side.
there's a little opening alley, some people would call it, that allows windows to open up in the
side of the rear portion of the building. So that little side court is the area that you'll see
where we're proposing just a one-story addition to allow for clients to expand their kitchen area.
The refusals that were issued, here's a copy of the Notice of Refusal dated July 22nd.
As you can see, there are three dimensional refusals that were issued by the examiner.
The one that I have an issue with is the minimum period area refusal.
As you can see in the email that I forwarded on October 12th to the examiner, James Cunningham,
and as you'll see in the plans, we are not going any deeper than the existing building extends
presently. And as such, the rear yard, as you can see in my email, gets measured from the area that
is at the rearmost portion of the building and then to the closest portion of the rear property
line. Given that the addition doesn't extend any further than the existing structure, we are not
changing the rear yard area as it presently exists. So it's my position that that refusal
should not have been issued. We do not dispute the fact that we are reducing ever so slightly
the existing open area, and that, again, in terms of the rear yard depth, that's another refusal
that should be eliminated, and that we are not extending any further than the existing structure.
However, I can see that any addition should also comply with the rear yard depth requirements. And
again, given the fact that we're going to the same depth of the existing structure,
that is eight feet one inches from the rear property line as opposed to the required nine
that one could go either way but again um i would argue that that should go away as well but most
definitely the rear yard area refusal so what we're left with is one any way you slice it we're
left with whether they're all there one goes away two go away you're left with three de minimis
dimensional variances. And they're particularly de minimis as we get into what's going on in that
back area of the other properties on the north side of the 2200 block of Pine Street and on the
south side of the 2200 block of Panama Street that this property backs up to.
As has requested originally, we've shifted the order of our exhibit book. We've provided the
notice the refusal first here is the letter uh from the coordinating rco the center city
residents association dated october 28 2020 we did meet with them further on in my exhibit book
you will see um i think that's at exhibit 19 you can see the email from the planning commission
dated december 2nd designating or i'm sorry september 14th designating ccra as a coordinating rco
I'm sorry, my computer's
Sorry, my computer is spinning a little bit.
But further on in here, you can see the copy of our 14303 notice, there will be a certificate
of our mailing, the list of addresses to which the notice was sent, along with the notice
of refusal, instructions for filing the appeal as is required.
here's our certificate of service that complies with the uh the mailing the mailing requirements
of 14 303 12 of the uh the zoning code again back to the letter at exhibit two uh that letter is a
position of non-opposition we had a remote virtual hearing um there were questions that were asked
presentation that was made questions that were asked and um i don't recall hearing any any
concerns whatsoever you will also see as part of ccra's process they ask that you provide position
letters from the adjacent properties those that abut you to either side into the rear and those
which cross the street my clients did an absolutely fantastic job in securing a considerable number
of those letters of not only telling them their position but their position of support for what
is being proposed not just from the properties to either side and to the rear to the north but also
other properties on the block and you can see these as you scroll here you have 2218 panama
2221 panama 2218 pine street we did provide the plans and then notices of refusal
in most cases and had them sign them here's a summary of um of those letters 2218 panama street
2213 pine street 2217 pine street 2218 pine street 2220 pine street which are the adjacent
properties and then additional letters of support um from 2209 pine street 2219 pine street 2221
pine street 22 25 pine street and 22 12 pine street um so we have a letter of non-opposition
from the coordinating rco and a tremendous tremendous display of support for the proposition
from those property owners most affected by the proposal including those on the side of the
edition a copy of the zoning drawings and let me see if i can enlarge this a little bit
here you can see in the left hand side this is what i was talking about as you typically see
often see in center city row homes wider in the front full width of the property
narrowing in the rear this is the existing structure this is the area that's presently
open and you'll see in the photographs where we're proposing not a three-story this is a
three-story building not a two-story just a one-story again de minimis another example
of the de minimis variance, not only in the area and the dimensions of it, but in terms of the
length and the width of it, but also in terms of the height of it. As you can see from this site
plan, as well as you'll see from the photographs, the budding building to the west of us,
2217 Pine Street, actually extends further and deeper than ours. And the property,
a budding property to the east of us, 2213, extends, you'll see in the photographs,
about the same or a little bit deeper than our property in these plans in the
plans that were submitted to the city you can see a rear elevation again here
is the area of the one-story addition this is the rear portion that extends
for this to the rear property lines you can see we have three stories back here