Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearing.
With me is our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Ty Wynn.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And we are very fortunate this morning to announce one of our newer board members, Ryan McAdams, will be one of our new board members.
Ryan's a business agent for Union 420, the steam fitters.
He's a lifelong Philadelphian and literally has worked on numerous projects throughout the city of Philadelphia.
And Ryan, we are very happy to have you on this team and you do nothing but make it a little bit better.
Thank you. Right. And also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney.
And our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
by participating you consent to be recorded there is an in -person meeting with remote capabilities
whether remote or in person if you're called to speak you must state and spell your name
and wait to be sworn in once you've been sworn in please state your name each time before beginning
your testimony any person may enter their appearance to become an interested third party
there are three ways you can identify the case property address on your zoom webinar registration
you can see a staff member or you can call the zba appearance line by the close of business
tomorrow call 267 -270 -5548 leave a message that includes your email and the address of the
property of the appeal case the following guidance is for our remote attendees when directed by the
chair you must raise your virtual hand in order to recognize be recognized to speak second if
you're called to testify, you will be prompted to join as a panelist. Please accept the request
and turn on your camera. Third, the webinar Q &A is for questions about the hearing. Do not comment
on cases in the Q &A. Fourth, if you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star
6 to unmute. For our in -person attendees, refrain from talking, eating, or drinking during the
hearings. Verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated. Restrooms are across from the
elevators. A water fountain is just outside the room. When speaking on the record, you must speak
directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court reporter. In the
event of an emergency, please follow the direction given over the public address system or by the
staff. The main exit is through the double doors at the rear. The nearest stairwell is to the left
outside the doors. In case of an evacuation, the rally point is at Love Park directly across
art street please remain there so we can account for you let's look at our schedule
number number six
no i'm sorry no let me get that right i'm sorry number one number one we're going to hear number
sense. Number one, MI 2024, 005 -525 -1222 West Luzerne Street. Tito Reynolds is the listed owner.
E .B. Reyes is the listed applicant. There are no exhibits. This is the second listing. No one
appeared the first time. Good morning, Chair. This is Jasmine, and I will be your co -host today.
I see no one in the audience by that name.
Thank you.
MI 2024 -005 -525 -1222 West Luzerne Street.
No listing.
No one appeared.
No exhibits.
No one appeared the first time.
I vote to dismiss.
Michael Johns, my vote is to dismiss.
Michael Johns, my vote is to dismiss.
Gerald Gaston, my.
Gerald Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Tywin, my vote is to dismiss.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Are there any requests for continuances in the audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, we're going to go to our add -on list.
number one mi 2024 002 371 1639 east cheltenham avenue i vote yes
michael johns i vote yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes i win my vote is yes
ryan mcadams my vote is yes we don't need your vote for the yeah you can't that's my
Number two, MI 2024 -005 -506 -5351 Wayne Avenue.
Okay, thank you.
This case will be scheduled for a resumptive hearing.
Number three, MI 2025 -00384 -5052 -56 City Line Avenue.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, June 25th at 9 .30 p .m.
Number four, MI 2025 -001 -077 -4169 Lancaster Avenue.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Number five, MI 2023 -003 -305 -8085 -Rolland Street.
I vote yes.
Temporary variance expires 6 -19 -28.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso.
Number six, MI2024 -006 -674 -4611 Emory Street.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tyowin, my vote is yes.
Number seven, MI2025 -001 -394 -2044 Iron Street.
This is a request for reconsideration and rehearing. I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johns, my vote is no for reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tyra Wynne, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Number eight, MI 2024, 004 -578 -1722 Ridge Avenue.
I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johns, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Iowan, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
We're going to go to our regular list.
Number two, MI 2024.
005 -575 -1005 -North 6th Street.
Andrea Solomon is the attorney.
Andrea Solomon has been promoted to penalist.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning.
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Andrea Solomon from Claire Harrison, Harvey Brandsburg.
That's A -N -D -R -E -A -S -A -L -O -M -O -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is CWMLP, the owner of the property.
With me here is Robert Marquiss.
He's with us virtually.
He's the authorized representative.
And with me also is Peter Tantala, the engineer.
year. You waive the reading of the refusal. Do you agree with its accuracy? I'll just note for
the record that the refusal, we've submitted a proviso form and plans, which eliminates two
of the refusals. Why don't you share your screen and start your presentation? Absolutely.
i i would note that there is support for northern liberties association
and also a letter of non -opposition from council member young
i'm not seeing the option yet to share my screen so perhaps i'm not a panelist yet been promoted
i see it now thank you okay
I see it now.
Okay. Okay. We're here today for 1005 North 6th Street for the application of the erection of an accessory pergola in the side yard. The original application was for two pergolas, one in the side yard and one in the rear yard.
After a series of meetings with the near neighbors on Northern Liberties Neighbors Association, we've reduced the pergolas to just the one in the in the side yard.
this is the um pro the property it's just south of gerrard avenue on sixth street it's zoned rsa 5.
um a closer aerial of the property uh where my mouse is is where we're proposing the pergola
here in the side yard. It's a semi -detached structure, four stories in the front, and
it terraces down to two stories in the rear. Here are the plans that are revised and were
submitted so we've reduced to just the pergola in the side yard as part of the conversation with
the rco we've also aligned it with the building structure and set it back a little bit from the
property line as i mentioned the original proposal was for for two but we've reduced it to one
So the remaining, the two refusals for the pergola in the rear yard have been eliminated
and the remaining refusals are just for the structure in the side yard.
This is a rendering of what the pergola will look like.
It's a max height of 12 feet.
It's open lattice.
It does have a shading component that's retractable.
This is an image of the front of the property.
Here you can see where the entrance to the side and rear yard is.
And this is an image of the side yard where the proposed pergola will be located.
the property owner has already made significant improvements to the open area in the back.
He repaved the entire rear and the pergola is really an amenity for the residents of the
he wants to provide shading so that the rear yard can really be used especially in the summer months.
uh here you can see the the side yard where the pergola will be located um the rear yard
there's a an entrance from exit to from one of the units
the refusal which I mentioned two of the refusals have already been eliminated
and as chairman bergman stated we have support from the northern liberties association
um with that i'll ask that mr marquis be promoted so that he can adopt my testimony
marquis if you are in the virtual audience please raise your virtual hand
do we see his hand no chair and i do not see anyone by that name so counsel you're an officer
of the court we will take her testimony um do you want to introduce your engineer yes
mr peter tantala is here with me also
good morning please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes good morning my name
is peter tantala t -a -n -t -a -l -a i'm with tantala associates consulting engineers
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do counsel please proceed mr gentella can you state for the record your relationship to this
project i can uh we were retained by the property owner uh bob
I can. We were retained by the property owner, Bob Marquis, to construct a zoning site plan
for submission to L &I in order to obtain a zoning and building permit. L &I had issued a refusal on
the four bases, really. We originally submitted for two such pergolas, as you've seen,
uh one in the rear yard one in the front yard of the property uh l and i had um seen these pergolas
as occupied area whereas they're really open lattice hardscaping almost landscaping type
structures um and they issued refusal one for each of the pergolas on that basis as well as
one for each um that they are in the side yard and the other is in the rear yard
and you went to the to various rco meetings correct we did the i'm sorry yeah and and this
is a result of the conversations with them correct uh the northern liberties neighbors
association had been identified as the coordinating rco for this job we met with them on three
occasions over the course of the better part of a year um and crafted the uh resubmitted proviso
plan which you see before you which includes not two pergolas but now it's been reduced to one
pergola the overall pergola area has been reduced as well from roughly 330 square feet down to
roughly 285 square feet and it would be one instead of two occupying the side yard a portion
of the side yard only and none in the rear yard right okay thank you very much thank you so with
that we ask for the requested questions from the board so I have a few questions about uh one
drainage and two ground cover so it looks like the uh if you back to the image of the changes
there's a level change and so uh how is the structure going to account for the fact that
you've got two different heights of the ground level I'm sorry so you're referring 20 gig
closer to me i'm sorry i'm sorry uh ms win you're referring to the level change as the new surface
level so like is the pergola only on the checkered patio area or that is where it is proposed correct
it's only on that one area yeah and with regard to uh imperviousness i think was the other question
it is an open top open lattice structure it will not accumulate or retain any rain
what about when the when the shade structure is on like are those fabric parts gonna
hold water or drain water all to one area and they really should not the fabric the fabric
pieces are not one consistent compliant cover over the entire things they're really separate
between each lattice such that there is interstitial space between the lattices and the cover
that rain can you know can go through okay and then the last question i have is how is it being
anchored to the ground the structures are proposed to have uh poured reinforced concrete
embedded uh footings beneath each column other questions from the board
questions questions are kind of smart attorney holyra emerson uh just briefly um i just want
We did not get a proviso plans form.
We only have the revised plan, so we do would need a copy of that.
And just to in comparing the original and the revised plans, it looked like the pergola
that was originally proposed in the side yards was actually elongated once the pergola in
the rear was removed.
Is that correct?
So it's almost looked like it was like two pergolas back to back then, as opposed to
one in the side yard.
That is correct.
However, the overall pergola area is reduced, whereas two pergolas of 330 square feet were proposed in the original submission.
The ultimate submission crafted with the RCO results in one pergola only of about 285 square feet.
All right. So, yeah, that'll obviously need to be noted on the revised, the proviso form.
um all right but yes questions or comments from the audience either here or the virtual audience
this is bob marquis i am now virtually on mr marquis just please state your name is spelled
for the stenographer robert marquis r -o -b -e -r -t -m -a -r -q -u -i -s do you swear or firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel hi bob were you able to see the
entirety of my presentation? Yes, I was. And is it true and accurate? Yes, it is.
yes it is and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you um anyone else in
And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes.
the virtual audience i see no hands at this time planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission amyboid you swear or firm to tell the truth told truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
RSA 5 residential single family
zoning at this location.
The appellant would like to build just one pergola.
These accessory structures would place
their row home out of compliance with the
dimensional variances in the code.
The appellant has not shown that
allowing pergolas would cause
an economic detriment.
The Planning Commission recommends that the
board deny the proposed variance for pergolas
and all associated dimensional variances.
Thank you. Hillary, are we ready
to vote on this?
Without the...
Yes, we do. We do have the revised plans. I believe it's one page.
Okay. Thank you. We just would need a proviso form if the board grants the stamp as well.
MI 2024 -005 -575 -1005 North 6th Street. I vote yes. Revised plans, one page. Stand by CPA today.
Next vote. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, before we move to the next case, I did not realize we had an interpreter here to announce the vote for 1639 Sheltonham Avenue.
um that was the first add -on so we just bring on the interpreter and have them
advise of the vote in spanish for the applicant thank you
number one on the add -on list yep number one
we don't have to re -vote it but just if they can announce the vote thank you interpreter hello good
afternoon hi good afternoon could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes of course my name is leonel spelled as an l e o n e l last name is gillen spelled as in g u i
l l e n do you swear or do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will interpret accurately
completely, and impartially from English to Spanish, and from Spanish to English to the
best of your ability.
I swear.
Interpreter, could you please announce that MI 2024 -002 -371 -1639 East Cheltenham Avenue,
the vote was yes.
Yes, of course.
Entonces, por los momentos, se decidió que el caso MI -2024 -002 -371, la dirección de 1639 East Sheldon Avenue, la avenida, la votación, interpretó.
Could you repeat the decision of the vote, please?
The vote is?
The 1639 East Sheldonham Avenue, and the case number is MI -2024 -002371.
Yes, and the decision was?
oh thank you
entonces la votación
la decisión para esta votación
es sí, fue
aprobado
interpreter
thank you very much, we appreciate your help
it's a pleasure, can I be dismissed your honor
most certainly
thank you very much, have a beautiful day
number three
MI 2025
Ryan Avenue. Neil Sklaroff is the attorney. Leonard Reuter also has will appear. And this
is the result of an appellant, Peter McDermott. Mr. McDermott, are you are you on the first
audience good morning chair i see no one with that name okay um mr chair maybe we should um wait
sure wait then um take another case or two and see if mr mcdermott's coming out we'll come back
For both of you in a short period of time.
Number four, MI 2025, 000441 -120.
MI 2025, 000 -441 -123, Alberger Avenue, . Tahira is the owner -applicant.
It's a pro se.
Good morning.
This application is the erection of a second -floor story addition over an existing one -story portion of an existing single -family detached structure
and for the legalization of an accessory structure, a shed.
An accessory structure for residential use shall not exceed 130 square feet,
whereas this proposed structure is 387 square feet.
There is a letter of unanimous support from the Greater Busselton Avenue Civic Association,
41 total votes, and a letter of support from Council Member O 'Neill.
Are you the owner?
Okay, well, your father's going to have to testify, okay?
Pardon me?
All right, sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
I can't hear you.
Yeah, we didn't start yet, Mike.
He didn't start.
Now, pull it closer to you.
Pull it close.
My name, D -A -U -T, first name, the last name T, like a Tony, A -H -I -R -A -J.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Start your presentation, sir.
So what we want to do, so do you have a computer or we're doing a presentation for them, Hillary?
This is one staff was helping.
Okay, so we're going to put it up on the screen.
He'll testify to what he's trying to do, right?
I was going to do it with him because we all live together.
Well, the owner has to do it, and he's the owner, okay?
But we'll make sure we get through this, okay?
Okay, but I'm a little bit too English, but that's okay.
We're pulling up your documents right now,
and then you can just explain to us
what you want to do, okay?
as we're waiting for the to come up tell us what you want to do
and get close to the mic stay close to the mic from here right i want to raise two bedroom because
I have four grandchildren in the home
to make a bedroom for the kids.
So you're building up?
Has it been done yet or you're getting ready?
Okay, all right, thank you.
Let's wait until we get to the documents.
The problem,
I have a shed behind the house.
I put the
to make it up the house.
He told me you have the shed there.
You have to clean the problem with that shed.
Okay. All right. All right. We'll see where we stay.
who's putting it up oh okay
a couple more minutes we'll be ready to go sorry about the mix -up with the it's my first time
okay all right why don't you start your presentation you see some of the is that the
beginning of it the lakisha okay all right so why don't you tell us about your home and what
you're trying to do there there's a big window there you know the the roof coming slow that one
The big window there, you know, the roof coming slow, that one I want to make it up.
Thank you.
Do you want to build on top of where the windows are to the left?
Would he be able to give permission for me to talk?
We're fine.
We're fine.
okay if you see the plans go to the plans
and this has hillary am i correct this has nothing to do with the building of the property
right the only thing we're talking about is the shed the rear is too large correct correct the uh
the second story edition
that's being proposed is by Wright.
Okay, so all we're talking about
is the shed in the rear. Do you have a picture of the
shed in the rear?
Is that the
shed to the right? To the
left. Okay, yeah.
Behind the
behind the
swing. So you put the shed in
years ago? No, actually
I don't put the
And I bought the house, the shed there.
The snow come in, it's low, it's broken down.
And actually the insurance, the insurance he paid me, I repaired it.
I fixed it.
You fixed it?
Yes, I repaired it.
And that's 300 some feet.
Am I correct?
There before he had a jacuzzi inside.
And I bought the house, he had some jacuzzi.
Inside the shed?
Is the jacuzzi somewhere?
No, I clean it.
But the problem.
the problem there's no broken down okay and the insurance if they gave me around
I'm not sure around nine thousand dollar I some like that okay all right and then
you rebuild the shit okay I put some damage I fixed it better could you show
me a picture of the shed it's not showing now if I see it behind there yeah I have
I have better pictures that I sent you as well.
It's there. You can see it, yes.
And the left side behind the swimming kits.
On your packet that I gave you guys, it's on the last one.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. This is the reporter.
Could the gentleman who's speaking identify himself?
You're not speaking.
Remember, I can't tell you again.
Excuse me.
So that's the shed
behind everything that's there.
And Hilary, that's the only thing we're considering.
That is correct, the size of the shed.
Questions from the board.
What is the shed being used for now?
Well, it's some old stuff.
My wife put it some china
from the bathroom,
from dining room, something like that.
So for storage.
Yes, exactly, yes.
so so i'm trying to understand some bikes from the kids something like that so i'm trying to
understand and maybe hillary um is that so we're just focused on the shed itself not the story
edition yes so just everything by right right they're just combined into the same application
okay so legalizing it mike so we're legalizing the the the ground that's too large the shed
that's too large but the the ultimate proposal is that they're going to demolish that and build
a two -story so the shed just stayed so what's the second thing it was so they applied for the
second story it would have been by right but because the shed wasn't legal they were told
to put them on the same application
and legalize everything.
So the only thing we're considered is the shed.
Is the shed. Is the size of the shed.
Okay. That's the only refusal.
Other questions?
Do we know
what's in the shed?
He just testified to that.
Old toys, China,
things that are laying around the house.
Do we have any pictures
of the inside of the shed?
We don't have pictures of the inside of the shed.
Does the shed take up
the remaining portion of the yard? I see there's some play equipment in front, but does the shed
go all the way to take up the remaining portion of the yard, or is there still some rear yard left?
Other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hints at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the current zoning
of RSD3 residential single family. The proposed
structure was built without the benefit of the permits and that there are no unique
physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used
in conformance of the zoning code the planning commission recommends the board to deny their
requested variance for accessory structure size hillary we request a co that's proper right
yes i believe they will do a co for mi 2025 004 441 123 alberger i vote yes proviso
certificate to be obtained.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso.
Oh, I'm sorry, Ryan.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes for proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Go one more.
Mr. Chair, the appellant in the Ryan Avenue case is on Zoom now, Mr. McDermott, so we can hear that matter.
We're good.
Yeah, I saw him be waving when I came in.
Number three, MI -2025 -004 -022 -3201 Ryan Avenue, Neil Sklaroff, Leonard Reuter, and Peter McNarmid.
you know while we're waiting mr sklaroff could you state your name and spell for this
my name is neil sklaroff n -e -i -l -s -k -l -a -r -o -f -f i'm an attorney with dilworth paxton here in
philadelphia you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing the truth
yes i do mr chairman how would you how would you like to begin we are what there's other people
involved yes so i want to make sure i get them sworn in too all right you are so mr reuter could
you please state your name and spell for the stenographer sure thank you may please the board
leonard f reuter r -e -u -t -e -r senior attorney city of philadelphia right do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and mr mcdermott yes good morning
i'm mr mcdermott could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Yeah, my name is Peter McDermott, M -C -D -E -R -M -O -T -T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
So the scope of this hearing is to look at the issues raised by Mr. Sklarov.
So, Neil, you will be talking about, I believe, timeliness and things of that nature.
And then we're going to go back to Mr. McDermott, and he'll have a chance to respond to that.
The only thing we're doing today is the timeliness, the issues that you've raised.
Right.
Mr. Chairman, it's an unusual proceeding, but I will go first.
Well, you said it's an unusual proceeding.
Well, let me go through, and we'll see.
But just concentrate on what you've raised, all right?
Thank you.
And I've distributed our exhibits to all the parties, as well as the board, and fortunately, staff is going to help me out with the exhibits.
I have the honor of representing the School District of Philadelphia this morning.
The school district is building an addition to the Abraham Lincoln High School at 3201 Ryan Avenue.
The modular addition will serve two purposes, at least two, to redistribute the number of already enrolled students to result in a better teacher -student ratio within the school, and two, to provide room for students newly enrolled as the region's student population grows.
We have all the necessary permits. The school is currently under construction, and the school district's emphasis on education is not under challenge here.
We are here today because an individual has allegedly filed an appeal against the Department of Licenses and Inspections, and from the issue...
against the Department of Licenses and Inspections, and from the issuance of our zoning permit.
Because the appeal was filed with the wrong agency, filed on the wrong papers and forms,
filed without the required information, filed late, and failed to follow the requirements,
this appeal is a nullity, and outside the ZBA's jurisdiction, it is void, and the ZBA should
dismiss this appeal. I am joined today by Teresa Fleming, Chief Operating Officer of the School
District of Philadelphia, as well as Oz Hill, Deputy Superintendent of the School District
to philadelphia we take this very seriously um i have two witnesses and i will call gerald bergen
are are your witnesses relative to the timely absolutely okay thank you um gerald bergen and
he will testify to the posting of the permanent property and david perry mr perry will identify
that the documents as shown and is taken from the L &I website are in fact accurately taken
from the various websites. Why don't you bring your first witness on?
If I may, in this day of AI, we thought it was important for this as a technical and perhaps
boring presentation. Our first exhibit is the permit, ZP2025002664. And as you know, there's
no original to a zoning permit, and any copy may be used for a lawful purpose. There are three pages
here i believe and after review ellen i issued this permit on april 7th 2025 once this permit
is in hand and perfected by posting and the protection of posting an owner sets off to
realize the project entering into contracts ordering materials aging and earth moving and
the like the zoning permit is the key to an economic and in this case educational engine
for the community. Exhibit two is a copy of the site plan that was approved. Next page, please.
Who's ever working the exhibits, and I thank you. The next page is the stamped site plan.
Going on to Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 is Section 143036 of the Zoning Code, the Law of Zoning in Philadelphia.
I'm sorry, I'd like to get to that myself.
Subsection 6D .1 of the code provides that L &I approves an application if it determines
that the application complies with the code. Section C states that L &I reviews the permit
application pursuant to the zoning code's criteria. And subsection F1 requires a permit holder
to post copies of a zoning permit within five days at a property along each street frontage
and in a place and manner conspicuous to the public. I'd like to call on Gerald Bergen.
And what is, Neil, tell me what this testimony will be for, Mr.
His testimony, he posted the permits at the site.
But I think the issue is this hearing is about what the appellant did, right? So we understand
all that the question is is did he turn this in late that's the only thing we're looking at today
am i correct hillary yes i believe your your arguments were to timeliness and to to to form
and for and forum essentially so that i don't if there's an issue regarding the posting of the
property that would be for hearing on the merits if we get to that so i think today is what what
you're not on the merits of whether we needed a special exception or not we're on the merits
whether the the zoning board here has jurisdiction to hear this challenge to whether well you know
whether it was timely filed me no we're going to move on and i want your testimony to be
as to why mr mcdermott was late that's that's the only thing we're doing today and i understand
everything you're saying i understand the project and things like that this is just about whether
or not this was late and i understand if you if you think that the zoning board shouldn't hear that
And I understand if you if you think that the zoning board shouldn't hear that, we understand we'll take your testimony relative to that.
But we're going to move forward on what you can show about why it was late.
Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this short.
You don't have to make it short, but I'm just saying I want to be focused.
The zoning code says that if you wish to appeal L &I's issuance of a zoning permit, you must do it within 30 days of the date of issue.
Okay. The date of issuance was April 7th, meaning and it was posted properly within five days. You have the exhibits there. We have the photographs and I have the poster who posted it within five calendar days, but he had five business days.
So that perfected the permit. So any appeal needed to be filed on or before May 7.
All of the instructions that are included in our materials and all of the portions of the zoning code say you must apply on the application of appeal that's provided by the zoning board.
You must appeal to the zoning board.
You must have certain information within your application.
And if you do not comply, that appeal cannot be heard.
The zoning board does not have jurisdiction.
Let me go to the envelope that was presented by the appellant, which is at my exhibit 13, which is the envelope that purportedly, and we don't know how this was processed.
I was told that this was received June 6th or 9th. I think it was the 9th. That's a Monday. I was told that somebody from the review board walked over, I guess, to this building to present this envelope.
You'll notice that the envelope is addressed to the board's administration unit, but the instructions and anything that talks about whether you can mail something with regard to your appeal says it has to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, 1515 Art Street, 18th floor.
this was not. In addition, it was postmarked at best on May 7th, which means it did not reach
the Zoning Board office on May 7th. It reached sometime after that. If we look at the next
Exhibit 14, which is purportedly the first page of the application, you'll see that this is
a appeal to the board of license and inspection review the title of the of the application is
board of license and inspection review appeal application it didn't come to the zoning board
your rules and regulations i think it's 4 .2 on page two says it has to be on your forms
the type of appeal that is noted and marked with an x is a building permit we're not here on a
building permit it talks about the violation of refusal saying that the violation occurred
on april 7th and that there was an appeal of a violation on may 7th that's not what we're here
four, the form requires a reasons for the appeal to be on your application for appeal. It's very
easy. The instructions say fill out the first half of the page and then go to the second page,
which it says reasons for appeal, and fill that out. These are the wrong forms. They were sent
to the wrong place. They were filed with the wrong agency. And I suggest to you it wasn't within 30
days because there was some handling and we don't need testimony as to what that was but i was told
it was given to uh this administration uh 60 days after we posted uh in june about a week and a half
that's our argument all right thank you very much uh leonard do you have a comment uh thank you uh
leonard reuter for the city uh the city's position is that there occasionally uh have been instances
where people have filed, say, an appeal,
typically an appeal from a notice of violation
to the Board of L &I Review
because the charter generally gives the Board of L &I Review
the authority to hear any appeals from persons
that are aggrieved from results of inspections.
inspections. So we do an inspection, there's a violation issued because you're doing something
So we do an inspection, there's a violation issued
because you're doing something you don't have.
you don't have a use for. Now if the person says, well, that's been, that activity's been
taking place for 30 years, essentially making a non -conforming use argument, we ask the
board to transfer that case to the zoning board because the zoning board has jurisdiction
over zoning arguments. When that happens, by the time it gets to the zoning board, it's
usually well past the deadline for the appeal, but those are instances where the city itself
is requested typically, often usually with the agreement of the appellant. Once we determine
that the underlying issue is a zoning issue, we have it sent over to the zoning board. This instance
that Mr. Sklaroff is describing is different. This is an instance where it is straightforwardly
an appeal from the issuance of a zoning permit that was filed with the wrong board uh i my
recollection i don't recall this instance coming up in my tenure uh where there's been a straightforward
appeal from a zoning permit taken to the board i'm not saying it's never happened yes uh so in
this instance uh the city's position is that we'll defer to the judgment of the zoning board on the
timeliness of the matter thank you very much um mr mcdermott yes so mr mcdermott um this hearing
today is solely on timing and i would request that your testimony be relative to timing so
could you please start your testimony this is not about the whole case in general it's just simply
timing so mr mcdermott yeah i submitted the appeal um i got an email on thursday june 12th
from Ms. Hillary Emerson, who is the board attorney. And in that email, she stated, and I
quote, it has been the longstanding practice of the ZBA and the BLIR to administratively transfer
appeals to one another that have been filed with the incorrect board. The receiving board accepts
the appeal as timely if it was accepted as timely by the transmitting board. In this case, the appeal
was not even accepted by BLIR, but immediately referred to the ZBA for acceptance and processing
because board's administration recognized upon receipt that it was filed with the wrong board.
The ZBA thereafter accepted the appeal. They accepted the appeal as timely based on the
postmark date on the envelope. Furthermore, Chairman Bergman, Samaya then sent me an email
with a scheduled hearing for August 19th for this case.
So everything on the city's end was accepted.
Mr. I'm going to continue, please.
So Mr. Sklaroff objected to such and asked that, you know,
he have some window of time to put forth issues based on timeliness,
which he elaborated on and went further than that today,
but issues of timeliness.
and he was given the deadline of close of business Friday, June 13th.
Mr. Skloroff, who's an attorney with Dilworth Paxson,
I am a regular citizen of Philadelphia,
but Mr. Skloroff, an attorney with Dilworth Paxson,
with numerous lawyers at his disposal and paralegals and secretaries and clerks,
did not get these issues in by close of business.
He sent them over at 510.
furthermore not only i don't know what's funny mr sklar i'm just stating facts so so here here
mr mcdermott this is not really about when he applied this whole hearing this morning is nothing
on board when you applied and you i think you've testified to that you said when you applied
you said how it happened and things like that so i would say mr sklaroff do you have any questions
Mr. Chairman Bergman, I also emailed everything over as well on time. And I sent over a copy of that email as my packet, as instructed before 12 o 'clock yesterday.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sklar, if you have any questions.
I have a question. Mr. McDermott, is there any statute or instruction that allows an appeal to be filed electronically? Doesn't it say you can either bring it in person or mail it? Is that correct?
Mr. Sklar, if I mailed it and.
I asked a question as to what your authority was to email.
I mailed it.
I mailed it.
Let him ask that.
Go ahead.
I mailed it, Mr. Sklaroff.
And you mailed it on the 7th, the May 7th?
And got postmarked, made a photocopy of it.
You know what day it was received?
I don't know that.
I don't work for the mail department.
That's right.
Therefore, you can testify that your appeal was timely filed within 30 days of April the 7th.
appeal was timely filed within 30 days of april the 7th is that correct but mr scar if you don't
work there either so you can't testify so so so i think what he said was he mailed it on the 7th
and that's what paulie said okay and and mr bergman members of the board it's very important
that we keep that 30 -day window you understand that if there's a gap i understand there are
are people that will uh be committed to do certain things our permit is perfected it whether it's a
day or a year can you imagine if this was a deed and there was a gap and people could come in and
file against the property because the deed was recorded a week or two later as far as i know
what mr haggard he told me on the phone and i i'm sorry that he's not here to testify would have
expect that Mr. McDermott would go first and that he would have the people who handled this.
But I was told that the zoning board received it on June 9th. If that was true, the zoning board,
the administrators can't on their own create new law. They can't not follow your requirement in
your rules that it be on the form that says application for appeal the code says 30 days
and i've proved to you that we perfected this and the 30 -day window ended on may 7th if it wasn't
received by you folks physically there's no okay there's no law that allows any administrator to
expand that okay thank you very much chairman bergman i just want to hold on one minute and
get to you mr mcdermott yeah actually i just had one or two quick questions for mr mcdermott that
hopefully at least will clarify the record uh mr mcdermott um you testified that you uh
sent your uh appeal form uh on the 7th uh is that correct on their postmark the 7th postmark the
7th right um you are not claiming here that the that the uh zoning permit was not properly posted
are you i i didn't i didn't take a notice of when it went up it is up it is up but i didn't take
notice of when it went okay so all right so there so we're not disputing that the the permit was
properly posted and you don't know when it was posted so you're not challenging the timeliness
of the posting of the permit right right correct okay so that takes that issue off the table
i don't have any further questions all right um mr mcdermy you had one more thing you want to raise
Yeah, Chairman Bergman. There's there's not just the issue of the permit holder. OK, this this issue, based on the fact which we're going to we're going to discuss later on, on August 19th.
This issue was this permit was erroneously issued and the neighborhood and the neighbors.
So we're not in the community. Mr. McDermott, listen to me.
We're not, that will be at a later hearing. We're not talking about that. The only thing today is, is timeliness.
No, no, I'm, I'm, I'm contesting. Mr. Sklaroff's telling me that the permit holder, you know, imagine if this was a deed. Well, guess what? This is my neighborhood. This is not Mr. Sklaroff's neighborhood. This is my neighborhood.
All right. All right. Thank you, Mr. McDermott. Hillary, we'll do the normal questions from the board for this premier hearing.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time. We don't take this to the public, do we? No, we do not. OK.
We're going to hold the vote on this. We're going to vote next Wednesday at 930 a .m.
We're going to take to executive session and we'll vote on this next Wednesday at 930.
And we're only going to vote on this preliminary issue about timeliness. OK, very well.
And and I've heard everything you've said. I understand a decision in our favor, which I hope the ZBA will issue,
will make
unnecessary and nullify any
other further proceeding. Absolutely.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman Bergman.
Hello?
He's gone. Okay. Thank you
all. Thank you. That concludes
my business. All right. Thank you, sir.
Or maybe
not. Hold on. Wait one minute.
See what he...
is he coming back in yes chair yeah go ahead mr mcdermott chairman bergman i just want to make
sure it's on the record that uh delworth paxton's neil skaroff didn't send his package in till
after the close of business um thank you raise these preliminary issues
after the close of business to raise these preliminary issues.
Most of them.
Yeah, thank you. We will vote on this next week.
I'm just saying the Center City office, as well as the Jenkinson office, close at 5 p .m.
All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you all.
Number five, MI 2025, 000473, 4838 Hawthorne Street.
Sherma Gambrill is the owner applicant.
Good morning.
Sorry, Mr. Sherry, can we just actually go to the next case because we're pulling up the exhibits for you now.
So we just need a few minutes to do that.
So we're just going to take the next case and then we'll take you next.
All right. Thank you for your patience.
We'll be right back.
Number six, MI -2025 -000 -474 -1515 Packer Avenue.
Robin Novelli is the owner applicant to pro se.
There's a recommendation of non -opposition from the 26th Republican Ward RCO.
No explanation or vote count.
This application is for use as a two -family household living in an existing structure.
The proposed use to family household living is prohibited in the RSA -5 zoning district.
Good morning, Board. Joseph Consul here for the applicant, Robin Novelli.
So it's not a pro se?
I was just hired this morning.
Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Consul, could you please state your name as felt for the stenographer?
Yes, it's J -O -S -E -P -H, last name Consul, C -O -N -S -O -L -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, board.
Do you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yes, I have, I believe his name is Anthony Matea, the property manager and expediter, working with Ms. Novelli on this property.
There was a fire that has led to the knowledge and need for the application for this.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
Why don't you start your presentation?
Good morning, board.
Joseph Consul for 1515 Packer.
1515 Packer is a 1 ,650 square foot property at the corner of 15th and Packer.
All of the corner properties, this is a picture of ours.
All of the corner properties around this property are either a one -family and a professional office or a two -family unit.
I'm showing you all of the surrounding properties that are corner properties.
They all appear to be built the same and are almost exactly identical in size.
um my client will testify that 1515 has been a two -family dwelling for as far back as uh prior
to the purchase in 2012 by the current owner um the owner had been renting the property out um
prior to that obviously without licensure that i was told to family though my client can attest to
However, they're at a position where they need to legalize the property, and they've got a refusal for two -family household living in this zoning district.
There's the deed to Ms. Novelli from 2012.
There is the zero -dollar tax balance.
Showing some photos.
it's property being cleaned up see the U -Haul back there that's another two
family property there's a corner property here's the interior
Here we have the non -opposition from the 26 Republican RCO.
That meeting was held in June.
um my client can attest to the contents of that meeting i was not in attendance and there is our
proof of mailing um showing the appropriate number of mailers sent out regarding this property
um i'll call mr matea to testify regarding this property as he can fill in some of the gaps
regarding the property layout the history of the property and the rco meeting
Mr. Mateo.
Mr. Mateo?
Anthony Mateos
has been promoted to panelists.
Could you please state your name as
Bill for the stenographer?
Anthony Mateo, A -N -T -H -O -N -Y
M -A -T -T -I -A.
Could you please turn on your
video so we can see you, sir?
My video?
it doesn't work
okay proceed with your testimony
okay so the owner
purchased this in 2012
are you the owner or who are you
no I'm the manager for all his properties
and Robin
he can be called as a witness
right all right joe go through all right please proceed sir okay joe why don't you lead him in
the questions yes uh mr matea um so uh so far has my description of the property been accurate
correct could you describe the history of the property and the layout of the property
to the board please we have interior photos but not a layout to show the board
the layout it was when he bought it it was exactly the same way
no work was done in here he bought it as a duplex figure and he could rent it out
at a later date then he had a little fire in here and they told him to legalize it
he couldn't make a commercial space like the others have done on the block because it would
be a mute point it's a dead -end street there's no traffic and he decided to make it a one
bedroom legalization up until that point out of each of the two units anthony yes i i'm uh i'm
sorry i have a head called bed so excuse me if i'm yes that's the one bedroom downstairs and
one bedroom upstairs okay with two floors yes and is it is it accurate to say that the downstairs
stairs is a above grade unit yes way above for the neighborhood he also owns 1731 um packer avenue
down the street restaurant he owns multiple properties on the block and it would be feasible
for him to do the corner property as a duplex as others have done on the block because you have
two entrances parking's easy right on the park right in front because it's a legal parking space
So it would be feasible for him to turn this into a legalization of a duplex.
Okay. And could you describe the RCO meeting, please?
RCO meeting, no opposition at all. It went pretty smooth.
So, Joe, that door that's going down, that goes to the apartment in the basement?
Is that what it is?
Correct.
And then the second and third floor, or what I'm going to call the second and third floor, is one apartment?
Joe, anything else?
I have nothing further for Anthony.
Question from the board.
Yes, so I have two questions.
One, when did the fire occur?
Anthony?
About two years ago, if I'm not mistaken.
And what caused the fire?
It was electrical
out on the stove.
I'm sorry.
The stove on the first floor.
Nothing in the basement.
It was the first floor apartment that stove malfunction.
It was just smoke.
Just smoke.
I'm sorry.
Fire meaning it was, yeah, just the second air of smoke.
And when the fire department had come, they wanted to know.
They ran it, told them, legalize it into it.
Well, he actually thought it was him and his wife because they're not too savvy in the real estate or legalization.
It was brought up to legalize it from a Packer Park associate.
an attorney okay and how many units are you managing for them total they own about 75 right
now they own 75 properties but they don't know much about real estate they just buy them
rental rental licenses for all the properties everything's legal except this one was the last
one and they don't have rental licenses not on this one all the others have rental licenses yes
everything else is legal suitability led everything and these were hand but these were
handed down to him by his father had passed away so can you walk us through because in your
testimony you mentioned there being a one bedroom over a one bedroom but this is now a three -story
residence could you walk us through what's happening on each floor okay can you pull up
Can you pull up that?
I'm assuming the photos that...
I'm assuming the photos that your attorney pulled up
were from the basement unit
because that's the basement apartment, the one -bedroom?
Two beds.
Second and third floor, Anthony.
Pull them up for me, please.
I can't sit on my glasses.
No, but go back to the photo show.
which way once
that one before was
that's the one next door
that's the basement
this is the basement
you sure
yeah because I think there's the egress
windows right there
hold on one second I want to put my
that doesn't look like a basement
that's the second floor actually
yeah that's the second floor
I think the one that was dark
is probably the basement
yes that's the basement
that's probably the basement
is the only egress
from the basement the walkout
door at the front of the property
does the basement have direct access to the backyard
it does
do you have a photo of the access to the backyard
No, I don't have access to the backyard because that would be a code issue with the building.
If he gets approved and he needs to put two means of egress in, he has no problem doing it in the rear.
I believe it's there, though, because the white fence is right there.
Okay, so right now, you cannot access the backyard from the basement unit?
No, you can walk in the basement unit and walk out the back.
He's saying he's not. He don't have a picture of it.
I don't have a picture of it. I didn't think that was irrelevant.
Have you been to the property?
Yes, I've been to the property.
So if I'm in the basement, is there a back door that allows me to walk from the basement?
Yes, right out to the back there.
Hold on, hold on, Anthony. One second. Tell me if this makes it more clear, sir.
Yes, thank you.
Yes, yes, thank you, counsel.
I'm sorry.
So the exit's underneath the deck?
other questions from the board
I doubt that you have headroom to come out
of that basement with that deck
there doesn't appear to
be appropriate headroom
but so you get
out of it okay
I'm six foot and I got
16 years people living there they come out
to that
here's the property next door
Anthony listen to me Anthony
you testify there's somebody else
testifying I'm not sure who it is
just you testify at this point right okay this is the next door property any other questions
no questions no other questions questions or comments more attorney
not at this time questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hints at this time chair planning commission
amy boy with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change
in zoning from the existing RSA 5 residential single family.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances
of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning
code. The Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance
for two family. Mr. Consul, I'm going to hold this to next Wednesday.
I just want to talk this through. One way or the other way, we'll vote
next Wednesday for you at 930. Thank you.
but we're ready for number five
number five mi 2025 000 473 4838 hawthorne street shermala gambrel is the owner applicant
this application is for two -family household living in an existing structure the proposed
use two -family household living is prohibited in the rsa 5 zoning district there's unanimous
support from the frankfurt cdc and a letter of non -opposition from council member lazada
um would you please state your name it's spelled for the stenographer hi my name is sherema gambrel
s -h -a -r -e -m -a -h -g -a -m -b -r -e -l do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes why don't we start your presentation okay so i'm looking to turn my family
home into a duplex, which is in a zoning area just for a single family. Our surrounding areas
are zoned for having duplexes in the area. And I just want to turn my home into a two -family home.
a um two -family home okay why don't we
Okay. Why don't we...
the basement no living in the basement so no is no one is vacant is no living in the basement um
we're going to try to use that uh that area i guess for storage right now yeah so um it is
two entrances i was just looking at the last case but there's an entrance in the back um of the home
so you would be able to get entered through the back and then there's answering here some photos
um i thought they were attached here i'm sorry
okay so this is the home it's been vacant my father passed away in the home six years ago
okay so um i inherited the home from um my grandfather who was the original owner but
he passed away two years prior to my father so it's kind of just been sitting and um it's an
eyesore for the neighborhood because it's kind of falling apart a tree fell on it and I had to get
that removed I'm a single mother so me just trying to pay for two properties and getting nothing in
return is just like it's not good for us and then we just want to make the community look better
we want to provide more homes in a community and just to make our situation better could you tell
me the rest of the block are there many duplexes there so on harrison street there are more but
that's like right at the end of the block maybe two doors down there's a duplex um it used to
be a duplex right next door i'm not sure about zoning do you have a picture of the front of the
house um yes it is down there so you're gonna have to go in and just pretty much got the place
everything
it should be on here
I hope they went through
but this is the back of the home
is that a vacant lot next to you
that's where the tree fell from
on the property
that's the side of the home
how long has the house been in the family
since the 60s 1967 I believe and I grew up in that house when I was five this is the front of
the home that house right there next door the pink home it used to be a duplex um is that vacant now
No, someone actually bought it. I'm not sure what it is now, but someone bought it a few years ago.
So you're going to go in the front door and then you'll go straight up the stairs to the second floor and make a right into the apartment, right?
Okay. All right. Questions from the board. Yeah. So are you going to testify?
Jason Dawkins
J -E -S -O -N
D -A -W -K -I -N -S
I'm a relative
this is our grandfather's home
hold on one hour before you
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
Mr. Dawkins thank you for coming in we appreciate it
can we zoom out the plan
is that possible
is this a corner unit
is it a corner
no it's mid block
it's semi detached
oh gotcha okay all right
can we zoom in a little bit like yeah that's good
too much but i think it's okay basement's going to be storage it looks like there's a one bedroom
apartment on the on the first floor and then you've got a bi -level unit on the second and
third floors yeah that's the plan i think it's i think they showed two on the first floor
so basements yeah first floor has how many bedrooms two two and the second floor is going
to be two bedrooms can we see this the first floor please thank you this property has three floors
y 'all it's there's an attic and
there's nothing up on the third floor has there ever been anything on the third floor
you see the pictures
okay and then are you going to set it up
where they both have access to the rear yard
yes and then only the second floor has access to the attic and only the first floor has access to the basement
yes okay where is the trash going to be stored for your tenants
on the side of the home
next to the baker box yes
how do you access the attic
is there a stairwell or is it like
is there a stairwell or is it like it's full stairs it's open stairs here as of now it's open
it's full stairs
open stairs yeah as of now it's open stairs
stairs so it is livable space it's a place yeah it's just low ceiling slope soon i'm trying
is the attic closed off or is it so like if you go up there are there walls and closing it as a
room yes so one of those pictures were the 80. one of oh okay but you don't have any intentions of
use in the attic for the second floor park yes we we should be able to hopefully yes
yeah i think i think here it is that's the attic right there so it's huge i mean this could be
i was just commenting because this could be a better part of the space
okay yeah i think it goes by windows or something like that but i'm just trying to talk that's part
of it and there's a closet up there but no bathroom it's a full space right there through
that brown door yeah it's a full space in there too like okay well you got a lot of work i recommend
you hire an art yes a whole lot of work yeah a higher uh architect to work with you on a plan
that that works if we approve this going forward because you need that it's a lot of work it is
it's realistic other questions for the board
questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair why should your comments from the audience from the virtual
audience or the well there's no one left here so the virtual audience i see no hands at this time
chair planning commission amy boyb with the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing rsa 5 residential single family
This property is 2 ,627 square feet.
The Lower Northeast District Plan recommendation 11 calls for a plan for the reuse of larger homes no longer suitable for single -family owner occupancy in Frankfurt.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for two -family.
Thank you. MI 2025 -000473 -4830 Hawthorne Street.
I vote yes with Proviso. Maximum two units. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso. Another Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with Proviso. Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming in.
number seven
MI2025
000475
5017 Woodland Avenue
Zen Jin is the attorney
good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes my name is zen jen z -h -e -n last name j -i -n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client
in relationship to the property? Yes, my client is
Paschal Holdings, LLC, the owner of the property.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal, and do you agree with its accuracy? I do. Why don't you start
your presentation, Mr. Izzy? Thank you.
Should I be sworn in, Chairman? I'm sorry, did I do that? Do you swear
or affirm the whole truth, nothing
but the truth. I do. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm
going to share with the board documents
we previously submitted. Let me
go ahead and get that
onto the screen.
Can the board see my exhibit
on their screen? Yes, we do.
Thank you. So this is an
application for a
new construction at the property address
of 5017 Woodland Avenue.
The application
is refused because the area was rezoned in 2019 to RSA 5. However, due to the unique location of
this property and its surrounding uses, and with the support of the community, we're asking the
board to consider a variance for this property to be permitted to be built as a three -family
dwelling. We met with Southwest Philadelphia District Services. My client has other properties
in the area. They've been revitalizing some of the properties other developers started,
as well as building properties and managing them in the area. And they've done very well.
as well as building properties and managing them in the area.
And they've done very well in making sure these properties fit what the neighborhood needs.
And therefore, with that and other things that they've done with the neighborhood,
we have supported the neighborhood.
The neighbors of the property actually also would not have any objection,
partly because the property to our left is legally a three -family dwelling,
but it's basically abandoned. There's a make -save permit on it. The property to our other side,
facing the property to the right, actually are three or four combined properties. Now,
the permits are not clear what they're used for now. It seemed to have been either some kind of
commercial use or soup kitchen use at one point, but those permits are also expired,
and there are make -save permits on that property as well. This entire block is rather different
than other parts of the area behind us, which are residential single -family.
This block here either had commercial, multifamily, or a combined commercial -ish use of the entire
block properties, and some are also still abandoned.
And then we have immediately across the street, actually, a commercial medical center as well.
So a single -family house to be placed here, it would be very difficult to market it as
such. Now, in addition, these are very large lots for the area, relatively speaking, and
there's substantial size to the property. And this will be a, to put a property here will be
a pretty substantial size building. As far as the actual design itself, the proposal is a new
construction, three -story structure to fill the space that is currently there. There is a small
roof deck proposed for the unit on the third floor. The first floor unit has access to the rear yard
and the second floor unit does not have direct access to the rear yard or to the roof deck.
However, in our design for the property, the plans calls for trash rooms in each unit. So I'm going
to shrink it down first to get to the right page here. This is a side elevation view, and
this is the overall layout. The basement is above grade. It is, I know that it is five foot,
three inch above grade as far as the basement level now the interior layout would be one unit
on each of the upper floors with the first unit also having access to the basement the basement
will have the water meter washer dryer utilities and basically will be a open space flex space
whether they want to put an office down there or work with that, but the bedroom and living would
be on the first floor. The second floor unit is a two -bedroom and the third floor unit is a two -bedroom
as well. Now, trash rooms are actually designed into each floor. I'm going to zoom in a little
bit here. You can see that we actually put in a vented trash closet into each unit, but the first
floor and also the upper floor also have some outspace options, outdoor options for temporary
trash storage, with the second floor primarily relying on garbage disposal as well as the trash
room until trash is picked up. My client manages similar properties in the area. They have no
issue making sure the tenants have maintained these properties well and making sure the trash
is not left out onto the street prior to proper pickup times.
This, again, will be a new construction.
The community also is aware that with this setup, with their existing management in the
area, that these will likely be rentals.
They are also aware that a single -family house of this size really isn't feasible given
the circumstances of the community and the circumstances of the block.
And therefore, we actually had unanimous support on our letter, including the members of the community that did show up.
I think Southwest also mentioned within their letter that my client has been committed to supporting and helping this community develop and has been in the community for some time.
So that is the gist of the application.
I'm happy to try to answer any questions.
And I believe my client, one of the representatives from my client's company is here to verify my testimony.
One of the representatives from my client's company
is here to verify my testimony.
Would the board like me to go back to the plans or?
Why don't you go back to the plans as he talks
and what the board gets on?
You zoom out so we can see that all three of the floors
or four of the floors together.
Oh, sure.
This way?
I'll zoom in slightly to...
So then is there a rendering on how that's going to look with Nextdoor?
I do not believe that.
I mean, there's a drawing, but there isn't a rendering.
While we understand that it doesn't quite look the same,
this block has very different looks throughout the block.
What we do know is that there are other filler new constructions like this
in the area built in similar to the more there will be a brick facade at least to kind of fit
the the brick but there's no uh but it won't be well will it be set back like um i know it doesn't
have a porch um and it is set back yes it is set back so that front yard will remain yes yes you
can see on the site plan here uh we're actually set back 16 feet front yard is the face of that
facade the same plane as the face of the facades adjacent yes you can see in the in the site plan
here there's a there's existing porch on those we're actually going to be facing we'll be lined
up with the front facade of the buildings itself and the porches would be in front of our our
building in this in the past we've had community basically ask that we put porches in in this
situation the community actually did not request that we add a porch they they simply uh prefer to
have the proper setback is sufficient in this case and can you go back to the plans again sure
okay still trying to see all of them together you can't sure let me let me zoom it i just
didn't want to make them too small for it.
I can.
Yeah, I just want to see how they're laid out.
So this first floor unit is by level first floor and second
or first floor and basement.
Where unit is just a one floor unit
with two baths, kitchen, living in the middle.
So there's no windows in the living area.
um and then the third floor is similarly laid out where there's no natural light within that
living room space and then that has then that's the only one that has access to the deck
correct um there will be there will be uh lighting obviously uh lots of recess and other type of
lighting for the living and kitchen area that was part of the consideration to design but there's
no natural lighting that's correct no natural light and then no natural ventilation to the
living spaces the what i said all right all the questions
do all units have access to the rear yard or just the first i know the the first floor unit
has access to the rear yard third floor unit has access to the roof deck but the second floor does
not have direct access to the rear yard.
Any other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the current zoning of RSA 5
as an adult single family.
There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance of the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for multifamily.
Let's see here.
MI 2025 -000475 -5017 Woodland Avenue, I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanita Graham, my vote is no.
Thywin, my vote is no.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2025 -000476, 1625 North Marshall Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
there's a letter of support from the association of uh puerto ricans on the move vote was eight in
There's a letter of support from the Association of Puerto Ricans on...
support two of no opinion and a letter of non -opposition from council member young
good morning good morning council could you please state your name and spell for this
stenographer? Sure. Rachel, R -A -C -H -A -E -L, Pritzker, P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R. You swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. You identify your client in
relationship to the property? Yes. My client is Alina Kupa and her husband, Chaz Kupa. They own
the property. Do you waive the reading of the refusals and agree with this accuracy? Yes.
Why don't you start your presentation? Thanks.
can you see my screen we can oh okay this is 1625 north marshall street
first we have the refusal this property is zoned rsa 5 and we're proposing the erection of an
attached structure roof dwelling and roof deck access structure for multi -family household living
three dwelling units as per the plans this project generated two refusals one for front facades that
shall be no less than the distance between the front facade and the front lot line for the
principal building on the immediate adjacent lot and then for the three units as mentioned
just wanted to provide to the board related to the use refusal that there are the majority
of the properties on this block are two and three unit structures which is why this has been a
vacant lot for about 20 years and no single family proposal has been submitted for this
a lot of the other properties on the block as you can see from the screen are two and three units
which is why the community had no issue with our proposal for three units given this is a new
construction parcel the dimensional refusal related to the front setbacks a little bit
confusing to understand, but you'll see from the design that what we provided is in line with the
context and the setbacks of the building adjacent to it. We went back and forth with the architect
on this and just given the language, it was just confusing to understand exactly where the lining
up, what the facade needed to be, but ultimately we proposed something that's adjacent, like
completely aligned with what's adjacent and we also included porches in a feature that was in
line with the directly adjacent structures as well so we provided something that we believe
was consistent with the established streetscape on the block and that the variance that we're
requesting would be in harmony with surrounding properties given there's a mix on that block
project information form, property taxes, the deed.
Again, this is the aerial view of the site.
It's also worth noting that there's M1 surrounding the site as well and IRMX,
so the multifamily is not out of character for this neighborhood.
Aerial photos, as you can see, this vacant lot.
Again, zoning posters, as you can see, the adjacent structures do have porches.
Zoning chart with the code provisions as we went through on the refusal.
As mentioned, we met with 8 p .m. back Thursday, May 22 at the community meeting.
This is the required mailings that we sent.
And there were, I think, eight people at this meeting.
Six people at the meeting voted in support of this project.
Two had no opinion, so they authored a letter of support for this project.
as mentioned the board also received a letter of non -opposition from
councilman young's office as well i don't know if our architect is on
but i'm happy to go through a bit of the plans there's a site plan showing our proposed project
again there's no other dimensional variances requested it meets all within the considerations
of RC5, again, existing conditions.
Again, existing conditions, front facade, we're proposing a brick facade, similar to what, as you can see from this view of south, there's a mix of existing properties and then new construction properties that have a variety of different features.
we chose to leave out the bay windows we just didn't think that that made sense a little bit
of a hodgepodge on this block so made some of the design considerations difficult but we
worked with the community on a more traditional although modern but more traditional look for this
property side elevation as mentioned we meet the setback requirements
and the height. I think we're a little bit short of the 38 feet, 33 feet with the 10 -foot pilot
house and the five -foot setback as required by the code. And then just to go through floor plans.
a little bit
um this is a basement um two -story unit
you have the mechanical room family room bedroom bathroom
it's unit front of unit a living room rear bathroom
bedroom, trash, tier with ventilated closet, second floor, we have unit B, two -bedroom
unit, kitchen and bathroom, and unit C, kitchen and bathrooms, and then we have the roof deck
as well.
um do you i wonder if uh our architect is available i just want to make sure if the
board has any questions um my client is um that's a great question
do we have an architect in the audience for this property
um ron um a -r -r -i -a -r -r -i -g -h -y on behalf of here's the plan llc
how about your owners your owner here no he's currently not here so as a officer of the court
I would like to be able to have my testimony adopted
if that's okay, Chairman.
Okay, we'll adopt your testimony.
No architect, right?
I don't know if Ron is supposed to be on the call.
I see no one with their name in the audience.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, I have a question.
So you said that the block is a mixture
of multifamily duplexes and triplexes.
Do you know how many triplexes are on a block?
Or the ratio of triplexes to duplexes?
Yeah, I can pull the sample that we,
whenever we do these appeals where we have multifamily,
we always pull as much as we can for the appeal
just to make sure that it is in character.
So this is just a one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, nine, 10 properties on that block.
um one two three four half of them are triplexes one two three four five five half of them are
duplexes and do you know if any of them have roof decks too um that's a great question
i believe in the plans i think the new construction ones do some of the older ones don't because
they're just um those like brick ones that we showed say these i don't believe have but i also
can't see on top of them but there was ones the newer construction ones um down the street
down the street and the roof deck is by right and rsa5 so i understand why you're asking
what's the plan for trash management there's ventilated trash for the floor plans um
um did i miss that yeah sorry i went really quickly i apologize oh on like outside the
building right i got you the one under the stairs okay yep and then where are the meters going all
the meters going to be placed for each individual unit the mechanical room for um the basement will
have a mechanical room as per the the plans so is that for all three units i believe so i didn't
design these plans so i had hoped our architect was going to join yeah i mean i just want to
I had hoped our architect was going to join.
Yeah, I mean, I just want to say for the record,
it's really hard when you have a triplex
and all of the meters are in the basement
to service the units
because two units have to coordinate
with the renter on the first floor
or the owner on the first floor
to access the basement to be able to do any updates.
And it does make, it's like a regular maintenance issue.
The other question I have about the basement
is the only light in the basement now coming from that singular window in the rear bedroom
yeah it looks like it's going to be a very dark space i think also knowing that there was a notch
there was an opportunity to do even like glass block or higher windows it's going to be a very
dark space and i would have concern about having a well i mean a bedroom in the basement yeah i
think that if the board is um inclined that we could add that to the plans i think that's a
reasonable request and i would agree with you that that'll make it a nicer environment as well
so the questions the face of the face of this building is the same plane as the adjacent
buildings except that there's no porch yeah it was a sort of a mix as you can see on the block
on the south view i'm just trying to i'm just trying to understand that this your new building
will be not will not sit out like this guy it'll be back here with the plane of the adjacent you
houses yeah but it will have the three feet um steps if i can go to the um from facade
and that that was my question if if the property is going to kind of mirror the one that we were
looking at there where it's um not in line with the adjacent properties or how are you going to
do this right i thought i heard and i thought i saw on your site plan that you're the face of
your your um brick facade aligns oh so no you are sitting out so you're sitting out
yeah you're gonna sit out it's gonna basically mirror this one that's in this picture where it
says this adjacent one yeah where it says view south and there's two houses and then there's
the one the newer looking one with the steps is that this building yeah just without the bay
window okay if you look to the other side of the block too there's a couple new ones that are
actually red brick similar looking so we're kind of looking at this hodgepodge of what's there
what's new what you know that was what we had come up with that the community had liked as far
as they wanted the red brick we didn't want to include the bay window um but they but it was
going to meet more of the new construction than the directly adjacent with these porches i mean
And I understand that's the plan, but it does stand that this is infill lot in between everything that has a porch, like the section of the block that is more intact is exactly where this is sitting.
And while it matches the flatter facades of the new construction across the street and at the end of the block, that's not its immediate context.
So it is not in context with its immediate surroundings.
and there was no
and there was no refusal for a rear yard setback
right? No we're not
no dimensional
I mean it could be
it could be in line with
the fronts of the other buildings
which would require a rear yard
setback. I don't think so
because they have 16 feet in the back and it looks
like the others
are only setback like 5 or 6 feet
yeah again like we when we met with the community there was such a difference between
all these different like this block has such a random aesthetic like something throughout the
entire thing i don't know that it's that random i think the two new construction that you used as
your precedent are the randomness at this point there's like half the block is in line with the
red brick and the other half has porches and the the precedent that you guys used is the anomaly
across the street so are you able to see project not to assess this to you obviously council but
is there an opposition to moving it back so that aligns with the face of them i just don't i think
we went through that exercise with l and i because we were really not understanding originally like
what they were looking for with how the code provision was and we ultimately just moved
forward with something that sort of worked for this project. So I just don't know what,
So I just don't know what, if that will trigger additional refusals to go back through with that. And again, like we did meet with the community and that wasn't a concern of theirs at the meeting of the things that mattered. So I just don't want to have shown them one thing and then get approved something different because I've had that problem before where we've shown them something and then we do something different and we didn't go back to them.
if that will trigger additional refusals to go back through.
So it's not that I don't understand the concern. It's just we go through this process and we get to OK with people. And then there's other way in, which I understand. It's just I don't want to have issues with providing something different than what we submitted and got approved.
All right. I guess the one thing I'm trying to understand is the code says that you should be in line with the primary facade of the adjacent properties. And the primary facade is the masonry facade, not the facade of the porch. Correct?
Right. But then we would have to set the building back and then you'd have no porch.
So then you just have like this weird opening with grass in the front.
I'm just trying to get to what it is that I understand about the code.
Yeah. And we went back and forth with the L &I examiner because it was confusing as to like, what would a buy right look like for what they were trying to accomplish here?
So then there, but there wasn't a refusal for not aligning the.
no no that's not what it the code how the code reads maybe that's the what the original intention
of what the code should be how it should have been written but that's not how it was being
interpreted which is what caused a bit of the confusion you know the one that was written
in strawberry mansion is a lot more clear to understand what they were looking for aesthetically
that's not what how it reads here oh i've seen refusals for that so that's why
okay that's that's that's my question okay but in this case your only refusal is for the
multifamily correct no it's for not it's for that and to um board member john's comment it is for
lining up the front facade with the front of the adjacent structure but it's not for the not
including a porch okay there's a refusal for this oh you do not aligning with the front facade of
the adjacent property yeah that's what i said it but it doesn't have anything to do with the porch
okay right okay yeah you know i'm agreeing with you i'm just saying it doesn't specifically call
out the porch as in some of the other like aesthetically focused legislation that we have
in the city or some design controls this this doesn't have the porch line but i'm agreeing
with you that that the other refusal was related to the facade yes yeah yeah oh i mean similar to
the last case from last week if the board's inclined that they want us to to take a look at
that you know i'm happy to bring that back i don't disagree with any of the comments made
i'm just not an architect and so i don't want to speak to that or provide you know uh information
that might have other considerations but but your your points are well made and i don't disagree
with them i just that's not my expertise professionally right so i just want to
allow someone else to look at it if that would you know please the board that just is your
life the only vacant lot is there another vacant lot next to your life adjacent to it is vacant
as well yes two vacant lots then they're occupied then they're essentially buildings on either side
of that correct all right thank you that's it all my questions do you know if those uh adjacent
properties are occupied or not directly adjacent one to us is vacant i'm not sure if people are
living in the other the you know the existing structures but but to remember john's question
the directly adjacent one is vacant like it's a vacant lot there are the rest of them are
structures i'm just not sure of if anybody's living in them or not
questions or comments from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from
the virtual audience i see no he's at this time chair any commission amy boyd with the planning
commission this property was remapped in 2017 from r1 residential multifamily to rsa 5 residential
single family the change aligned with the district plan while many homes on this block
don't have front porches the adjacent property and the next closest developed property do
the proposed lack of setback of this project would be out of character
the proposal for multi -family is in character with the block the planning commission recommends
that the board deny their requested variance for a front yard setback but grant their requested
variance for multifamily. So, Rachel, we'd like to do a resumptive hearing here. Sure. Take a look at what
We'd like to do a resumptive hearing here.
Take a look at what it would be if you moved it back.
Happy to do that.
I appreciate the conversation.
I guess my only date is 10, 14, 25 at this point.
So if you would come back with what you put plans that would move it back.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the dialogue as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number nine, MI -2025 -000477 -2817, Amund Street.
Byron Anastasio is the attorney.
Byron Anastasio will be rejoining us as a panelist.
good morning mr chair good morning council could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yep it's verna anastasio on behalf of mr charles whalen a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do you waive do you waive
the reading of the refusal to agree with its accuracy i do there's a recommendation of support
from Southport Richmond and non -oppositions from Council Member Squill. There's also 34
signatures from neighbors in the immediate block. Please start your presentation, sir. Thank you.
2817 Allman Street is a very unique property. There is, in fact, a unique physical condition
to the property that renders doing anything with it impossible. We are asking for a parking pad
in front of the home. And the home is set back, and you'll see in a moment.
And that's the refusal, by the way. So let's take a look.
This is the home itself. It's got the parking pad in front.
there currently is a utility easement that runs across the front here, the electric company. So
because of the utility easement, my client cannot build on this space. He can't bring the house up.
He can't build a larger porch. And so it is set back, whereas the neighboring properties,
of course, are not. So what he's proposing is to be able to put a car here.
one car parking in front of his home that would align with the adjacent properties as you can see
here it is mid -block and it has been approved by the planning i'm sorry the streets department
let's take a look here we have streets department approval
in addition we have the signatures of everyone who lives on almond street everyone who we could
reach including the neighbors on both sides of the property overwhelming support for the variants
and 34 people showed up at the rco meeting 32 of them voted to support the position taken by the
rco is full support and of course you received the letter from council member mark squilla
in accordance with the support of the rco
that's the property air aerial view
and let's get to i'm going to move all 52 pages by the way into evidence thank you
and let's take a look at the plan
there's the site plan as you can see and i'm going to zoom in on the photos because
i like these photos that mr toner took
as you can see the the parking pad is behind here
and here is the the rendering we understand this is an unusual request my client is
amenable to a temporary variance I've already spoken to the planning commission folks and the
board's administrative staff on that, but that's what we're looking for.
But that's what we're looking for.
The easement renders the space utterly useless.
Parking is the only usable space use for it.
And as such, the neighbors are overwhelmingly in support.
With that, I'd like to bring Charles Whelan on.
If you could please raise his virtual hand.
Is there anything like this anywhere in the area?
Not on this block, but, you know, it is Port Richmond.
People do park where they can find spots on lots, but not on this particular block.
And, of course, everybody who lives on the block who supports it is aware of that.
Mr. Charles Whelan, if you could raise your virtual hand.
Charles Whelan has been promoted to panelists.
And I have proof of mailing.
173 households were mailed.
And as I said, 64 attended.
Mr. Whelan?
good morning morning mr whalen could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
charles whalen c -h -a -r -l -e -s w -h -a -l -e -n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you mr whalen did you hear my
presentation to the board this morning yes is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
yes do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i have nothing further questions from the board
i have a few questions oh go ahead mike i just have one question what what is the utility um
what is it is it water gas electric what's what's electric yeah below there what's what's going on
is that actually well mr wayland would know better go ahead it's it's actually bell uh verizon
oh there you go yeah what what the original plan was they were going to put one of those
like those phone junction boxes that that you see sometimes in the neighborhood
but you know they i was i've been here 29 years and they never did anything but
what they have done is they're now
hanging, they're so much smaller
they hang them
up on the telephone poles now.
Okay, so but there's still
an easement underground
there? Yeah, they still have the
easement. Yep, it's still a legal
easement. It has not been extinguished.
Interesting. Yep, and he's
unable to do anything with it otherwise.
The question?
Yeah, my question is about
is the pole an active use
currently for pico or verizon the they just put a new poll in about two weeks ago
so the poll if you want in one of the pictures that uh verne showed that you can see the new poll
and mr whalen why don't we just answer the question that was asked is the
currently in use yes thank you okay and then so mike i know that you got the streets review of
the parking pad and plan did either of the utility services review this no they would they would not
they usually do though so the reason i ask is because typically when this was done and it looks
like it was done without permits pa1 call happens for anything relating to a utility it goes to
state review after streets department, because they usually have a box around a pole of like
things that can't be touched. And it looks like this dimensionally is very close to like what
they usually don't allow. So my question would be, are we sure that if we approve this variance,
that it's going to meet all of the other legal requirements, just because it's supposed to be
18 and a half feet for parking space where it's a very narrow margin right now that we would be
approving. And then my second question is, is the car always parked on a diagonal like it is in the
photo? Well, the second question is easy. No. In fact, he's getting rid of that car. He's going to
a smaller car, but it's not always parked that way. Right. When that car is parked, does it fit
in the parking space or does it overlap the public right of way? It doesn't overlap the public right
of way but there is a couple inches that breached the line that is still
that uh breached uh the line that is still um in line with the adjacent properties steps
okay that's fine and then so the first question the first question which is i think the more
important one well not necessarily at least more mechanical one just because we get if we get
approved here whether it be long -term or short -term uh that doesn't give him as you know
carte blanche to just put his car there, right? He's still going to need to go through the regular
channels before he can actually put his car there. And that's going to require the utilities being
notified. Okay. And then my last question is, so it looks like you had a plan that was presented
by Toner Architects. Was that their design as proposed or is that an as built based on what
was already constructed and if so um what was the sub system that was put under the
asphalt on top no this is as this is a toner came in and gave us existing conditions
got it okay if that makes sense okay yep other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
and i have a picture mr chair i have a picture here that miss taya i had a the question about
the when the car might uh does it fit all within the line just i i have this photo up and i think
it can illustrate pretty well uh the car when parked uh tip to tail will come out about two
or three inches right where my cursor is is and that's in the public right -of -way so the line
that's shown demarcated in the concrete is not this here the property line this here uh begins
the public right -of -way here okay so i was just making sure that the car was not in the public
right not in that public right -of -way that's correct perfect thank you questions for our
attorney not at this time mr chairman from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time
chair planning commission amy boy by the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the current zoning of rsa 5 residential single family the area for the proposed parking
space is not sufficient to fully fit a vehicle and there are no unique physical conditions
or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance of
the zoning code for parking the planning commission recommends that the board deny
their requested variance for parking thank you mi2025 000477 2817 almond street i vote yes
with proviso. Temporary variance expires 6 -19 -28. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso. Brian McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Number 10, MI 2025 -000478 -2235 Montrose Street,
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the South of South Neighborhood Association, SOSNA,
and a letter of non -opposition from North Washington Avenue Coalition.
Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Morning, Mr. Clinton.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Henry Clinton, H -E -N -R -Y, Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Michelle Rees, R -I -E -S.
She's owned the property since 2019.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
I do, up to a point.
Up to a point. That's fine, sir. Please proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. May I share my screen?
Yes, you can.
Is that large enough?
It is.
So this concerns 2235 Montrose Street, and I represent Michelle Reich.
As I mentioned at the outset, she's owned the property since 2019.
This is a request to add just a second floor addition to an existing two -story house, which will match the depths of the homes on either side.
So it's a de minimis open space issue, but I'll walk through the presentation.
These are my contents.
A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted.
A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted.
The refusal, RSA 5 Zoning District, 2200 block of Montrose Street.
The refute.
The open area should be 25%, proposes 21 .2%.
And the reason the open space ends up being a refusal is because the second floor addition encroaches above the yard.
We're not changing the first floor, so the yard itself will remain the same size.
But because of the addition of the second floor, it results in a refusal.
As you mentioned at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we do have a letter of support from SOSNA, South of South Neighborhood Association, as well as North of Washington Avenue Coalition, otherwise known as NOAC, when we presented the project to both RCOs.
So photographs, aerial view, 2200 block of Montrose.
you can see my client's property is wedged between a three -story property
to the west and a two -story property on the other side a closer view the proposal is to take the
second floor and move it out so that its depth will match the same depth of the homes on either
side we're not putting a third floor one like the house next door that's already there that's 22
to 39, excuse me, 37.
We're just going to maintain our two -story living.
Just another photograph from the rear.
This is the front of the building now.
It's not going to change.
Just another view of the front of the building.
Again, the front elevation is not changing in any way.
These are photographs of the rear of the property.
It's two -story stucco wedged in between the two other homes.
And we're going to take the second floor, bring it out to the edge of the other two homes, and have steel poles embedded on footings holding up the second floor addition.
My client wants to maintain the yard that she has.
Also, the architect is on the line if we need any questions answered by him.
Name is David McArthur.
This is the site plan, existing, proposed, again, only on the second floor.
The refusal is a little bit confusing because it says two -story addition.
I just think the examiner forgot to put the letters ND to make it second -floor addition.
Again, we're going to come back to the depth of the homes on either side.
And this is the rear elevation.
Second floor, two double -hung windows.
You can see the first floor will remain the same depth.
There are steel posts holding up the addition, which is on the second floor.
existing first floor plan living room kitchen uh and mudroom will stay the same
second floor second bedroom on the second floor as i mentioned and there's one other thing you
know i was mistaken the first floor is not going all the way out to the you're showing a mudroom
as an addition and you keep saying it is existing but your plan is showing it right that's what I'm
correcting myself right now Mr. Johns yeah all right so and that's what that's why the refusal
is what it is because we are encouraging in the rear yard we're adding a mudroom and powder room
on the first floor even though the refusal just says the second floor addition we're adding
this first floor but not and I stand corrected not to the depth of the bedroom on the second floor
so this will still look like the rear elevation but we are coming out enough to fit in a mud room
and a powder room so that is that is my mistake and i'm sorry i wasn't clear on that
the remaining documents are what you would see in a typical presentation the application
the tax, proof that the taxes are paid, a zoning map again indicating RSA 5 zoning district,
the deed indicating ownership since 2019, a notice letter mailed out to 174 nearby properties.
And that's a straightforward presentation. So we have a de minimis incursion, as Sazna mentions
in their letter of the open space requirements for this client to expand her existing home
partially on the first floor and deeper on the second floor.
With that, I'd ask my client to unmute herself and adopt my testimony.
Ms. Reese, are you still on the call?
Michelle Reese has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Hi, good. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer? Yes, Michelle Reese, M -I -C -H -E -L -L -E, last name R -I -E -S.
Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Good. Could you please
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Please proceed, counsel.
Ms. Reese, were you on the call when I present your project? Yes, I was.
And did I present it properly with a partial addition of the first floor and a wider or longer addition on the second floor?
Okay. And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, I would.
Henry, you have your architect there if there's a question?
Okay. Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing zoning of RSA 5 residential single family.
The proposal is consistent with the open area and setbacks of neighboring properties.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their requested variance for open area.
Thank you.
MI -2025 -00478 -2235
Montrose Street. I vote yes.
Johns, my vote is yes.
Terrell Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tyowin, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose case has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you, everyone.
We are done for the day,
and I hope you enjoyed your first day.
I mean, Mr. Chair, I did.
All right.
Thanks, everybody.
See everybody next Tuesday, Mike, correct, Hillary?
All right.
Yes, Mr. Chair.