Thank you. Mr. Bertil?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Hardiman. Did you hear the testimony that I
provided to the board this afternoon?
I did.
Do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own?
Thank you, Mr. George.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I believe the rendering showed a hip roof.
Is that correct?
Or a flat roof?
It's flat.
I didn't hear your first statement you said first, but I heard you say flat roof.
What you built is a flat roof, correct?
Yes, this is what you're looking at.
Am I still sharing?
What you're looking at up on the screen is the existing structure.
And it's a flat roof.
This is flat, yes.
And the rendering that you showed, wasn't it a hip roof?
Well, this is, the roof is pitched.
I don't know if you guys can hear me if I'm still unmuted.
The roof is pitched down toward the rear of the property, so it's not 100% flat.
Okay, but I'm trying to find out if the rendering had a hip roof.
No, it's the same roof as the roof.
Flat roof? Okay. And the other garages in the neighborhood have a hip roof or a flat roof?
The other garages in the neighborhood have A-frame roofs.
Right. There are different variations of A-frames. I'm not sure if A-frame is the same as hip.
I'm not right on that terminology, but there are different variations of A-frames.
You got a picture of existing in the neighborhood?
Yes, I do. It's one of them. So here, oh, no.
though. They're pitch. There's one and you can see it. This one's an A-frame at the edge
and then it has, I don't know if this is what you mean by hit through. There's another style.
Okay. Okay. They're mostly pitch. Okay. Pitch. You're saying pitch. My apologies. I couldn't
hear. Okay. They actually blend. They actually blend with the homes.
that's it for me
any other questions from the board
I'm sure we have other folks
to want to weigh in so please raise your hand
I have a Mr. Wise Mr. Wise you can unmute yourself
good afternoon can you hear me
Yes, Mr. Wise, please identify yourself with the record, spell your last name, provide us with your address.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Corrin Wise, C-O-R-E-N, last name W-I-S-E.
My address is 100 North 18th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia PA 19103.
That's my office address.
I'm a practicing attorney.
I am not appearing as an attorney, but I am a member also of the East Falls Zoning Committee.
okay okay let me stop you for a minute just need to swear you when you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir thank you sorry for the interruption but
of course um so yeah i'm i'm a member of the east falls uh zoning committee um i believe on the call
also is hillary langer who's our who's our chairperson but i just wanted to lend a couple
points uh from the the legal side regarding this application um first mr bertiel stated that uh
the refusal is based on the height refusal which the code provides is 15 feet. That's for a gabled
roof. Section 148031A states that a height limitation for a flat roof is actually 10 feet
and I think we've already sort of gotten into the character of the neighborhood and the
garages in the area. So that one inaccuracy I wanted to clear up. Also the refusals stated and
the refusal was waived but I do think it should go into the record because the application was
originally stated and I believe you should see on the refusal that this is for an accessory garage
and accessory storage to the main property which when I got involved as far as the
committees concerned, the applicant had
uh come forward and stated that that was either a mistake or a misrepresentation or miscommunication
come forward and stated that that was either a mistake
or a misrepresentation.
but uh that's another inaccuracy that was found uh in the process also the plans that were
submitted I believe uh positioned the as built structure um inaccurately and then there were
some revised plans but uh so that was another inaccuracy that was was a part of the application
um the uh you'll hear from i believe there's probably some neighbors on the call so you'll
hear from them about made by the homeowner as to why it was being built whether permits were needed
uh and so forth um but as far as the application itself um this was built without permits that's
that's clear it's too tall it's too big and it's too close to the property line which is impacting
on privacy of neighbors. It's also very much out of character with the other garages, the accessory
garages on the block. If we were here before this structure had been built, we'd be talking about
hardship. Mr. Bertil never mentioned the word hardship. There's no hardship. The only hardship
that anybody could claim is self-created by this homeowner because they decided to build without
permits and ask for forgiveness after the fact, which I think you'll hear neighbors reference
comments made by the homeowner to that effect. So from a legal standpoint, the analysis of an
application for a variance, there has to be some hardship as to why the applicant can't comply
with the code, and here there is none. The fact that it's been built and they don't want to take
it down obviously that's onerous and burdensome but that's on them uh i think at the end of the
testimony you'll believe as many in the community believe that that was that was a intentional
choice by the homeowner uh and uh with that i'll conclude my comments and leave it leave it to the
rest thank you for the time mr weiss um i want to ask you a couple of questions uh they're
hypotheticals but i think they they they go to the heart of this issue there are other houses in that
area that do have detached garages with storage or dormers above them is that correct yeah i think
the code permits accessory garages um they do have to follow the dimensional right and storage
above i think is is fine i do not believe and i think that if this application had been submitted
I'll leave it to the zoning board or council to confirm.
But I believe if it was applied for as an accessory dwelling, that I don't know if that's permitted.
So that might have been another refusal that was not included based on the inaccurate application.
So there are a number of objections, I'm sure.
But I just want to see if we can drill this down to the objection.
Or let me rephrase that.
Now, if this structure were to be built in a similar fashion as the other detached structures in that neighborhood, do you think there would still be opposition?
If this, I mean, if they were building it as the other garages, we wouldn't be here.
They would be doing it illegally.
so well even putting aside what the mistakes that were made building without permits and all the
approvals it's the design of the structure that i'm asking the question is it designed to the
structure that is driving the opposition because it is it is it is quite enormous to look at when
you compare it to the other structures i i just it's it's yeah i mean it's massive the just and
i guess the other question is going to be to the the to the the owner i know you obviously you're
trying to get something approved here without having to tear the structure down could there
not be modifications made to this structure at least to the upper floor that's the question for
Mr. Patil yeah that was well that was in my in my recollection that was discussed but it wasn't
as Mr. Patil stated they didn't want to get into that because they can't take down the second floor
essentially that's a you know demolition of the structure I don't know I can't I don't know if
you can't take down the second floor or modify it I'm that I'm not sure but excuse me this is
Sharon Saleta can I ask a question I think I may have missed something here is there in this garage
structure a dwelling unit yep that i don't believe that was anywhere requested in or addressed in the
refusal i think that should go on the record i think the refusal needs to go on the record because
I think that should go on the record
I think the refusal needs to go on the record
because the plans are for a dwelling unit
originally it was for
elderly parents but then there was testimony
at the hearing that the parents are not
incapable
I mean it looks like
it looks like the intention was
changed over time
Mr. Chair if I can clarify some things I think
I can clear out some
some of the statements Mr. White
said some of them are
actually incorrect and some I think is kind of clear on.
Firstly, there was no revised plans submitted.
The plans that are presented on the board
are the plans that were submitted to LNI.
What I think Mr. Wads is conflating
is that in our initial conversations
with the RCO leadership, we provided him
with a different copy of the plans,
which was subsequently corrected and they received the correct copy. And that was the discrepancy
between the plan that you're seeing now, which is the plan that was submitted to Eleni that shows
that the garage structure is within three feet of the neighboring lot line, and then the plans that
was initially obtained by Hillary, who's the RCO president, that showed that it wasn't. So that
was the description there but there was no revised plans submitted these are the plans that were
submitted to the board and excuse me mr bertill reading from i'm sorry but reading from the
refusal it says the application is for erection of a detached detached structure garage on lot
with existing semi-detached structure for use as two accessory interior parking space
and accessory storage there's nothing about there being an actual dwelling unit in the
accessory no sharon doesn't it say accessory storage for single family dwelling no that's
the storage for single family household living i don't believe that that means the main use of the
lot it's not for a separate dwelling unit no the the application was always for a separate dwelling
you i don't know why well this would have to go back because i expect you would get another
refusal for this because it's rsa one and that would make it a multi-family
well no again this is a separate parcel okay not on the same parcel as the single family home
so this would not be a multi-family um it would be just in the uh it would just be a single family
use above the garage which is probably why they worded it that way but this is again these are
two separate parcels, two separate tax ID numbers, two separate OPA numbers. It's contiguous so from
an area it looks like one lot but the reason they were the applicants were able to submit
it this way is because they were separate parcels. Are there separate zoning lots?
is this on a separate zoning is 3018 midvale a separate address than the main residence
so technically speaking it's rear if you um if you look at the
i don't mean to rise mr bertill i don't mean to interrupt what is the address of the main
residence the main residence is 3018 midvale avenue okay and the address on the refusal
is 3018 Midvale Avenue.
You know, sometimes when things are separate parcels,
they're still considered a single zoning lot by L&I.
So I would ask that if the board is inclined to approve this,
that we at least get a clarification from L&I
that there is not another use refusal required.
I'm happy to help.
I don't know how, if I can be an assistant in facilitating that,
But I can obviously reach out to the examiner and get them to provide that clarification directly to Ms. Saleta or however you want that to happen.
So I'm going to ask a similar question, maybe phrase it differently than I did.
Has there been any attempt on behalf of the owner to look at possibly changing the design of the building, reach the second floor at least, the second floor, to make it more conformed to the rest of the block, the other properties on that block?
Yes, there has.
So between the first meeting and the second meeting, that's all the owner was doing, was looking for alternatives and changes that they can make in conjunction with the professionals that they've hired.
And it's just something that wasn't feasible, just the cost of it and the essential teardown of the building.
Now, I'm, you know, I can get the owner can speak to it, testify and put on record the conversations that he's had.
testify and put on record um the conversations that he's had but we they came to the conclusion
Like we
that if they can change the material from the modern materials that they were going to use on
yeah with all due respect materials one thing absolutely but but the size and the scope of that
structure i still i'm look i'm not in a little bit about construction i don't know what the interior
that looks like it seems to me and i again i could be wrong that they're certainly going to
you would have to do some demolition to the second floor to soften that look i mean it looks like a
i don't know it just doesn't really fit the character of that community the way i can see
the way i see it and just the thought that it was built to put elderly parents up there to climb up
steps that high it doesn't sound right it it was built without a permit it it really doesn't blend
in with that neighborhood it's all wrong there are i mean i want to be clear that the there are
living there are other second floor units on that um in the area on that driveway in fact
I'm sure there are. I'm interested in this unit.
Yeah, well, I think you showed that in some of your photographs.
You showed that there are...
Some are offices, some are storage, some actually had someone living in there.
Which, again, you know, I can put the homeowners on and they can testify to that.
Well, I'm sure there are a lot of other people who'd like to discuss this,
but we're running into a time issue here.
we have several more cases on the two o'clock list um are we voting this hopefully um respectfully
i would request if we could it seems if i could obtain if we could obtain the clarification um
because i want to make sure the board has all the facts of what's going on if we can obtain
the clarification from ellen i so they can confirm that this is a separate parcel in a separate um
single-family accessory dwelling use.
I would ask for some time to be able to do that
before the board makes a decision.