ZBA Hearing - December 8, 2020

turning around and our community can go back to um enjoying things like coffee shops thank you

Do you have your client?

Yes, I would just ask that I think Sharla, I think it's Arterial Sharla and Charmaine Brown would be the folks.

If you could raise your hands at the bottom of the screen.

Hi, this is Sharla.

Hi, Sharla.

Can you put your name, your full name and address on the record?

sure it's charlotte last name brown b-r-o-w-n my home address is 139 north 50th street

philadelphia pa 19139 and did you hear my testimony here today yes do you believe it to

be fair and accurate yes and do you adopt it as your own yes any questions from the board

no i didn't swear in but we'll take your as an officer of court we'll understand that your client

agrees with your testimony any questions from the board no no anyone else like to

testify in this case if so please raise your hand

there's no hands raised here thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning

there's no hands raised here thank you

commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for commercial mixed

use in the city's comprehensive plan we have no objection to granting this special exception

thank you mi 2020-001740-3100 spring garden street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote

is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck to you thank you so much

calendar number 0264 2222 north 17th street

Sean Ward has been promoted to panelists.

I'm having a problem getting my video started. Bear with me.

good morning can you please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name

sean yes good morning mr chair members of the board sean ward on behalf of the applicant

let me go back to the other camera

here we go there you are

let me share my screen will name and address uh spell your name

Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N, W-A-R-D, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA, 19053, attorney for the applicant.

Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I certainly do.

Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?

Yes, I do.

And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,

including proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, and or plans of the

property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have

a letter? Yes, yes, and yes. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you very much.

Let me start sharing my screen. Is my screen up? Yes, it is. Okay, very good. Present with me

today is Devis Juzy. I ask that he raise his hand virtually so Tanya and the administration can find

him when it comes time for him to verify and adopt. In any event, I've submitted my typical

exhibit packet. I represent G&Z Realty Investments, the current owner of the property

in the application. The owner at that time was ESD Investments, LLC, pursuant to the deed that

property was transferred to GNZ Realty Investments in December of 2019. We filed an application to

permit the erection of an attached three-family dwelling. There was one multifamily is not

permitted in the district accordingly we seek a use variance today a2 is the zba application of

appeal a3d project information form a4 is the current deed a5 proof of tax compliance a6 are

the site elevation and floor plans a7 are photographs the posting the subject property

and some aerial views a8 is the rco notice that was sent out we can go through that not in my

packet is the RCO letter, but I do have a copy of that today that was submitted by

Tina Marie Russell, I believe, this morning. I do have it

if the board does not. A10 is the district, would

be the district council letter, but it would be the Councilman Clark's office.

So I defer to Mary Jones on that. A11 is relevant

zoning history. None was found with this particular property, but

A12 is the other multifamily dwellings on the block. A13

is the zoning map, and finally A14 is an aerial photograph.

So what we have here is the refusal.

As you can see, there's only one refusal for the multifamily household living.

as you can see there's only one refusal for the multi-family household living

then we have my appeal transmittal to the board which includes the application of appeal

page two a copy of the notice of refusal copy of the project information form

then we have the deed as you can see it's the stated dated december 19th 2019 transferring

the property from the then applicant esd investments to gnz realty investments llc

and that was simply because lni requires that the name of the applicant be the name of the owner

as reflected in the opa property detail so at the time of application esd was still listed

as the property owner uh and we have proof of tax clearance

that takes you through 2013 and then page two

takes you through 2020. Then we have the site plan

so as you can see the construction proposes a four-story structure not to exceed 38 feet

as evidenced by no refusal for the height. It would consist of a front stoop and then there

would be three units inside. As it is an attached structure, there are no windows on the side

elevation. However, we do propose a brick veneer facade as evidenced in the plan.

And then of course you just have the simple site dimension plan here. There will be steps

in the front steps in the back to the rear yard with regard to the floor plans

starting at the basement plan the first floor would be the living kitchen and a bedroom in the

rear with two bedrooms in the lower unit with egress wells as complied with by the

Philadelphia building code each would have its own bathroom the middle unit at the second floor

would be a one-bedroom apartment with a full bath, a kitchenette, and a living area.

And then the third floor would be, third and fourth floor would be a bi-level unit.

The third floor plan would include the bedrooms and a living room at the rear,

along with two bedrooms at the third floor, each with their own three-piece bath, closets, etc.

this is a copy of the posting of the notice

again the posting

here's a google street view of the property as you can see it's a vacant property uh along with

what appears to be i think four other uh vacant lots on that on that side of the block

an aerial view again you can see there's multiple vacant lots on the block

And again, the aerial view, you can see numerous vacant lots along this side of North 17th

Street, as well as the opposite side of the street.

We sent out our RCO meeting notice on November 19th, included the date and time of the hearing,

the calendar number, the information for the virtual public meeting

hosted by North Central Philadelphia CDC as well as the public hearing ZBA hearing webinar login

information. That notice also included a copy of the refusal as well as a copy of the actual zoning

notice again containing all the login information. That notice went out to 243 different addresses.

As you can see the lengthy list

and our certificate of mailing you'll see 243 identical pieces were mailed out postmark on

November 20th in compliance with the notification requirements of the zoning code.

The property, again, is zoned RSA5. I would submit that this block was zoned RM1 in the past, and as a result of the rezoning, the new code has rendered at least 17 properties on this block as existing nonconformities, as they are currently permitted and documented as multifamily dwellings.

I have a list of those properties here. As you can see, I conducted a search just on the even side of 2200 block, and there's at least 17 multifamily dwellings, two and three, and possibly one or two four-family dwellings on the even side of North 17th Street.

I have a list of those properties.

I would strongly suggest to the board that had I performed the search on the odd side,

we would obtain a similar result. And then these are the identified vacant lots on that side of

the street, 2216, 18, 20, 22, that's our plot, 24, 26, 28, 54, 56, 64, and 2266 North 17th Street.

Again, I have copies of the permits for all those properties showing that their history

has been two, three, and four family dwellings on that side of the block.

Now, and Tim Murray Russell is here, obviously going to address the case, but I would point

out most notably is the attendance at the meeting despite 243 notices going out there was one

affected community household in attendance at that virtual meeting two immediately surrounding

community households at that meeting nine non-affected community members and there was a

total of 14 in attendance. You will see that in their summary, there was no support. However,

again, I think it's very important to see that the immediately affected neighbors did not attend

and possibly could not care less as to what was transpiring with this application.

So based on that, I believe this property is negatively impacted by the code here because of the fact that the majority of the block is currently used as multifamily dwelling.

And the likelihood that somebody would want to erect a single family dwelling in a multifamily block is remote at best.

the big discussion at the virtual community meeting dealt with trash we have indicated

the trash would be stored indoors in the structure or we could provide a

a trash corral of some sort under the front stoop where the residents could put the trash

I would also point out that this property is managed by a professional management company

ed mcdonald of correct me if i'm wrong devis

leesville properties i'm sorry we lost you there for a minute you said correct me if i'm wrong and

then we lost you uh correct me if i'm wrong i was i was trying to confirm that the property is

managed by ed mcdonald of harley'sville property management and real estate uh ed is a manages all

of my clients properties and so they would be responsible for ensuring that you know trash is

put out either by you know for for municipal pickup or for private trash collection

uh it could be stored in the rear yard or it could be again stored under the front stoop

or we can erect designated vented trash storage rooms in each unit.

We do believe we have the room and a small modification to the plan could address that.

The other items brought up in the RCO letter, it talks about the system being overtaxed

and requiring additional volunteer organizations, as referenced above, but that's not a zoning issue.

A request about a four-story structure, you know, claiming that it's a decisive alteration in the neighborhood, but it is permitted as a matter of right, and we do not exceed the permitted height of 38 feet.

Again, the bump outs at the front facade, not in alignment with the character of the existing homes.

It's not related to the refusal.

the single family layout of the units do not support existing family focused housing stock

but again this block is predominantly multifamily in nature and a single family dwelling in a block

of multifamily would prove problematic we believe and therefore that's why we want to match the

existing uses on the block and when she indicated that there's no clear plan as to who or what the

And when she indicated that there's no clear plan as to who or what the rooms would be utilized for, I think the floor plans are contrary to that assertion and clearly indicate that the properties can be used for small families as their multi-bedroom units, two of them, and could obviously house a family and would be considered affordable housing.

rooms.

So based upon that, we would submit that the property is unique and that to require this to be a single family home and a block full of multifamily dwellings creates a hardship to the property.

I would also point out that when they remap properties and adopted the new code, I'm not sure when this was remapped, but at minimum, it would have been 2012 when the adoption of the new code came in.

But they paint with a broad brush when they remap this, you created at least 17 non-conforming uses on an existing block.

And it creates a hardship not only for those units, but for our property as well.

So I would ask Devis to raise his virtual hand so the administration can identify him.

he's been unmuted he can speak mr davis please identify yourself with the record

and i swear you in my name is uh davis juzzi uh d-e-v-i-s last name g-j-u-z-i

5-1-1-2 woodmont circle sewell new jersey 08080 the owner of jnz realty do you swear or affirm

to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you, Sean.

Davis, you heard my representations to the board?

Yes.

Are they true and correct, to the best of your knowledge,

information, and belief?

Yes.

And would you adopt them as your own testimony?

Yes.

Thank you.

Sean, you mentioned at the meeting

there were two affected neighbors are they residents on north 17th street

we don't need their address but i'm just curious effect that i don't know

that i don't know mr chair um i'm going by what was uh you know contained in the summary and the

letters from the rco they indicate that you know that that's that's that's who was there okay all

All right, questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, is there a letter from a councilman?

Well, yeah, I'm gonna ask that next.

Again, I would say, I don't have the letter.

I'm gonna ask Mr. Chairman.

If there is a letter, yeah, but if there is a letter,

I would just ask that it be marked

as indicated in my exhibit packet.

any other questions from the board

no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand

is a mary jones she's been unmuted good morning miss jones please identify yourself with a record

good morning um my my name is mary jones i'm representing council president daryl clark

um yes we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth

i do please proceed yes um please if there if please let me know if you can't hear me i'm

sort of not in my normal place.

At any rate,

the council office has received

the communication from the RCO

with concerns about density

and lack of hardship.

And so we support them in their opposition

and oppose the granting of this variance.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.

There's a Tina Marie Russell. You've been unmuted. Good morning, Ms. Russell. Please

identify yourself with the record. You're still under oath from earlier this morning.

Tina Marie Russell, North Central Philadelphia CDC and RSCO. And again, I apologize. I'm having

the technical difficulties with this computer situation so I would like to read my

technical difficulties with this computer situation. So I would like to read my letter for the record.

Please proceed. Okay, in reference to appeal to this applicant here,

I'm sorry, give me one minute. For the attachment of a structure and size

of a multi-family home with three units, but also it's the four stories there. So

I'm sorry, give me one minute. So while I'm doing that, let me just address this before I get through

the letter. I have to bring it up again. It's not the right letter attached here. The applicant

noted that there were more multi-family homes used on this block, and we indicated in our

letter that these are illegal notice. These are illegally rented as apartments. So for example,

it's 2204 North 17th Street is not listed as a rental unit, but they're renting it out with

three apartments. So I think the council might not understand that these are not legal residences

to be utilized in that way. The same thing with 2236 North 17th Street. The other rental properties,

the reason why a lot of the people may not have shown up is because, A, that's indicative of the

communities we are in. And the other thing is the CBA is hard to, excuse me, it's also hard for