ZBA Hearing - September 18, 2024

and extends all the way to Trenton Avenue. You can see this is a view here from Trenton Avenue.

The properties at issue before the board are just roughly a couple lots in from this.

And again, the next photographs here show those active loading docks, which I mentioned earlier.

If I turn to the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll see the properties are zoned RSA 5.

Again, this one is 2141. 2143 is directly next door. You may notice the IRMX zoning that encompasses

the full Cramco warehouse and extending a little bit down Williams Street as well.

This IRMX zoning would allow for high-density multifamily redevelopment. This is not mere

conjecture, as a similar development is currently under construction right next to the Cramco

distribution warehouse, which I'm pointing to up on the screen here, at 2149 Rush Street for 72

apartments. The proposals for 2141 and 2143 Williams Street are shown on the zoning plans

at Exhibit 10, which will each include one new three-story structure. Let me zoom in a little

bit on the zoning plan so you can see that. The zoning plans are identical. They are simply just

a mirror image so where you see the steps on this side for 2143 the steps are on the other side so

everything is simply a mirror image in the other packet each structure is proposed to contain a

two-family dwelling so a duplex the total building square footage for each will be 2 312 square feet

which is significantly underbuilt for each of these lots. For example, while 75% occupied area

is allowed, only 62.6% is proposed for each. While a nine-foot rear yard would be required,

roughly 25 feet is proposed. Each structure is also under the maximum height, topping out at

around 36 feet. This is a slight increase from the originally proposed 33 feet 10 inches, which is why

we did submit revised plans to the board with a revised plan proviso form. But again, that is still

below the buy right allowable height. The proposed height is still compliant in full with the RSA 5

zoning provisions. Additionally, as you can see on these elevations at the bottom, each

first floor of the structure starts roughly 5 feet 8 inches above grade, which allows for

extremely shallow basement levels of just only 3 feet 4 inches below grade. That also allows this

design to include egress windows instead of the more intrusive wells, since the vast majority of

the basement levels here are above ground. We have included colorized elevations here at

exhibit 11. These will be built with traditional red brick with no paneling and no front bays,

with no paneling and no front bays and that was done very intentionally to better reflect the

and that was done very intentionally to better reflect.

character of this existing block. Each project has been uniquely designed to accommodate

considerable private outdoor space for each of the residents and let me bring up the floor plans

to show you that. There is a private roof deck on the top for the upper level unit and you can

see where they have access up to the deck here. And there's a private rear yard for the lower

level unit. And again, you can see that exit point here from the rear of the first level unit.

Each of these units is bi-level. Unit one will be 899 square feet, and unit two is slightly larger

at 1,065 square feet. Each unit has interior ventilated trash storage areas, and trash will,

of course, be stored within each unit prior to disposal on trash day. These specific projects

have been designed with the intent that each of these homes will be sold to somebody looking for

the opportunity to have supplementary income and investment growth. Here, these would be sold so

that the buyer can live in one unit and rent the other for additional income. This concept was

widely lauded by the community and, in fact, is a concept being studied and promoted right now by

a Philadelphia university in West Philadelphia. I've had a couple of developers in West Philadelphia

that are really aggressively pursuing this type of concept. Now, in regards to the refusal,

each proposal only received one refusal for the proposed two-family use. No dimensional variances

are requested, and both structures are proposed to be underbuilt in terms of dimensions that the

code would allow, further to the developer's goal of remaining consistent with surrounding new

structures. The applicant submits that literal enforcement of the RSA-5 provisions of the code

causes unnecessary hardship given physical characteristics of the properties and block,

the history of the properties, as well as the character of this neighborhood and the block.

This, all of these factors are highly relevant to the applicant's entitlement for a variance on each of these parcels.

Historically speaking, the lots at 2141 and 2143 William Street have been vacant and subject to blight for nearly 20 years, with zero evidence whatsoever that there have ever been any attempts at a buy-right development.

Prior to my client's purchase, which just occurred in 2022, these properties receive continuous violations every year due to persistent neglect.

In terms of the neighborhood, and let me bring up my fancy map here, just on this block of William Street, over 50% of these lots contain either vacant land or vacant structures.

By percentage, the vacancy is over 50% of the lots on this block, and that doesn't even include the Cramco distribution warehouse.

And as I mentioned, you're right now looking at a map of all of the vacant land just on this one particular block.

If you were to look at this area in general, this map would be, there'd be quite significant more vacant lots indicated on a map.

In addition, the context of this neighborhood suggests that at this time, new single-family development is unfortunately just not viable.

As I mentioned, many, if not most, of the newer single-family homes that have been constructed in this particular area have been done as a result of lot acquisitions from the land bank.

Those that were not land bank lots were all developed prior to 2021, with no evidence of any new single-family development since that time.

Single-family development has not been viable in this location in recent years, given the rapid rise of costs of labor, supplies, and development financing, in light of rents and sales prices that the local single-family market will bear.

For example, the property at 2120 William Street, just on this block, secured a zoning permit for a single-family home over three years ago, and there's no evidence to suggest that that owner is in pursuit of a building permit.

There's a similar but more compelling story at 2117 East William Street, again just on this block, which had a building permit in 2020, with no evidence that the single-family home is in process to be built.

with no evidence that the single family home is in process to be built at 2127 east william street

there is a property that secured a building permit for a single family dwelling

that has now been left mid-construction with no progress to complete that project for several

years now and i don't know if i have an image of that in the packet um but that actually i do so

that's right here. So this one is right now mid-development, no evidence that it's even

in process to be finished. Now, by comparison, there was a new construction single-family home

on the next block at 2042 East William Street. In support of the evidence that we've offered today,

that was a land bank parcel sold to a developer with a portfolio of 17 other properties for a

total of $60,000. Per property, that's about $3,500 a property. Now, by comparison,

public records on Zillow show that most privately owned lots in this area have been sold for around

$50,000, a substantial deviation from land bank acquired lots. The map at Exhibit 5

shows that there have been extraordinarily limited building permits issued either on this block or

even on the few blocks surrounding the properties and you can see that these maps were pulled from

open maps which is the city's own public data system and this shows there have been extraordinarily

limited building permits there have been even less zoning permits issued which is also shown

on the map that I've now shown you up on the screen. You can see here that in the several

block areas surrounding this property, there have not been even one zoning permit issued.

We would also submit that the proximity of these properties to the Cramco manufacturer

would further impair the viability of marketing new single-family homes on these lots.

And with the zoning of the Cramco lot, it's not inconceivable that the next active use of that

site will be a larger multifamily proposal. Additional density and investment here to remove

long-standing block vacancy is precisely why this proposal was met with such support from the

community. A two-family structure is the least minimum possible deviation from the requirements

of the zoning code to enable development and the productive use of these properties.

Earlier this year, the board granted three variances of the identical type requested on just the next block north at 2049, 2051, and 2053 East William Street.

Those permits are included in your packet at Exhibit 6.

While we certainly recognize that every case this board hears is different and must independently meet the legal standards entitling the applicant to a variance, these examples of precedent are particularly relevant given the similarities of each of the immediately adjoining blocks and the impact of abject vacancy on new single-family development.

And again, these were just on the next block north.

Furthermore, those examples did not have the added unique burden of a nearby industrial use, bearing zoning for a dense multifamily development that may or may not ever happen in the future.

The board similarly granted a variance for duplexes at 2055 and 2057 Rush Street.

And I can just give you a sense of where that is.

That is just two blocks over this way, which again are quite comparable mid-block RSA 5 duplex developments that this board heard not too long ago.

In fact, during the hearing for 2055 Rush Street, the Planning Commission's testimony noted its willingness to work with the local community and other stakeholders in this area in pursuit of rezoning that would allow for duplexes in the area if that is what the community would like to see.

To our knowledge, there has been no progress made in that regard yet, but we would submit that the community's letter for these properties clearly shows its intent and goals, at least for these particular two lots.

These proposed duplexes represent the most economically viable deviation from the code and only propose one additional dwelling unit above what the code would allow.

The variance assault will not increase congestion in public streets or in any way endanger the public. As the community recognized, this development will continue investment into this area and contribute to the elimination of vacancy and blight.

and contribute to the elimination of vacancy and blight.

The proposals will not harm neighbors' properties or impair light and air,

as evidenced by these structures which are significantly underbuilt based on code requirements.

The structures were designed to visually align with the varied character of other structures on this block.

A more detailed analysis, as always, is included in the memo of law that I submitted to the board at Exhibit 13,

and I'd be happy to touch on any point in more detail.

At this point, I would like to bring up my client

to just answer one or two quick questions.

So if the administrator could look for Serge Maslenikov.

Hello.

Serge is allowed to speak.

Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?

Good evening.

My name is Sergei Maslenikov, S-E-R-G-E.

Last name is Maslenikov, M-A-S-L-E-N-N-I-K-O-V.

Care or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Please proceed, counsel.

Thank you.

Serge, could you just identify yourself in relation to Mascoff, LLC?

I'm the owner of the company.

Thank you.

And your background is both as a GC as well as as a developer.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And based on your experience in developing properties in the city of Philadelphia,

do you believe that the cost of construction as well as financing would exceed what you believe these properties would sell for if you were to develop them as a single family home?

Yes. For this particular area, based on the comps that happened not a long time ago,

yes, construction will be more expensive than the sales price.

And have you heard all of the other testimony and evidence that was offered to the board today?

Yes, I did.

Do you agree that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if it were your own?

Yes.

Happy to answer any questions.

Before I put it to the board, the particular block that we're on, 2100 block, is there any multiple families on that block at all?

There is not, Mr. Chairman, but I would also point out that when the board granted them on the next block north, it was an identical condition. There were no other duplexes or multifamily on that block either at the time that these were granted.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

yes i have a can you pull up the site plan again

and what's the length of the the total length of the lot 75 thank you 75 i'm sorry 60 68 feet

68 feet so 68 feet deep and 15 feet wide each of them are they are they 14 by 60 14 by 68 okay

Other questions on the board?

Yeah, so you mentioned that prior board variances were granted for duplexes along the other end of the block.

Do we know if they're empty or if they're vacant?

They are vacant, and the guys, they just pulled the building permits on them, so they're planning to build relatively soon.

No, I meant in terms of just, oh, so they haven't built them yet.

So I guess what I'm getting at is there could be a move in that community to to reestablish single family living if the we don't know if the duplexes are actually would work there right now.

So I think in terms of hardship, there may still be some questions about whether one truly exists here.

Board member Graham, we certainly appreciate that. But, you know, again, they were they were just approved not that long ago.

And as you know, it does, they were just approved January, 2024. So it's, it's not even been a year, it really does take quite a bit of time to get through the building permit process. So, you know, these have really moved along based on what Sergei said, they've really moved along in sort of normal course.

And, you know, again, when we met with the community on these, they were really supportive of this. They, you know, they really felt like the vacancy in this area is far more detrimental to the community than this type of development, which they really are hoping will serve as a model for other developments in the future to really allow somebody to buy something like this, live there and also have the income of an additional investment unit.

So, you know, the community was really supportive of this particular development.

Any other questions from the board?

Any other questions from the board?

Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?

Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

Questions or comments from the virtual audience?

I see no hands, Chair.

Planning Commissioner?

This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.

This recommendation is for both properties 2141 and 43 East Williams Street, which are indicated for residential use on the city plan.

Our adopted district plan recommends no change nor remapping the existing zoning at these two locations.

The applicants' hardships are not supported with evidence of any unique physical circumstances or conditions of either of the sites that would prevent them from being used in conformity with the requirements of the code.

But we recommend that the request for variance for both 2141 and 43 East William Street not be granted.

Thank you.

Council, you want to respond to that?

Sure, Mr. Chairman, I would also just like to point out that that testimony is contrary to the testimony planning gave in 2022 for almost identical proposals two blocks to the west, where they acknowledge the fact that there are seemingly a trend of these types of requests in this community and that if the community was so desiring of it that they would be willing to work with the community on a rezoning.

As I mentioned during the presentation, we have no evidence to suggest it has happened, but given that the community did support this, that is clear evidence of the fact that they do desire this type of development.

So whether they have contacted planning to work towards a rezoning or not, planning's testimony on a very similar case was essentially that they acknowledge the community may have different opinions as to how development should occur in this neighborhood.

Thank you. I'm going to hold the vote on this. I want to hold this till next Wednesday at 2 p.m. I really want to talk to the three other board members and take a look at where we stand with this, take it into consideration where planning is now. I'm not worried about before, but we're going to take a look at this and we'll figure this out. And we will vote on this next Tuesday at 2 p.m.

Next Wednesday, you mean?

Wednesday, I'm sorry.

Wednesday, that's right.

Next Wednesday, yes.

Just making sure.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

Next Wednesday at 2 p.m., and we appreciate it.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?

A 3.30 case?

Chair, I have a hand up by Daniel Almeda.

We'll be allowed to speak.

Ike, could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonographer?

can you unmute yourself please

he's still muted chair

Daniel unmute yourself

sir

Daniel Almeda can you please unmute yourself he must be having some technical difficulty

all right thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience there are no more hands

thanks everyone I think we got a lot of work done today I appreciate everybody

who was the one that helped us with the attorney that was late

who was our person who helped us with what

our lawyer our lawyer that came late

Frank Turner

Frank Turner the lawyer that came late

the lawyer that came late who was our staff member that worked on that for us

well Keisha was the one

And yeah, Keisha was the one, yeah, that made sure that we didn't move ahead.

Keisha, are you on?

Yes, Chair.

Keisha, we appreciate your work on that.

And thank you.