Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA, OCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

SPEAKERS: None

NOTE: THE BOARD CAME TO ORDER AT 5:00 P.M. UNDER RECENTLY AMENDED RULE.

ITEM A: 1432-1434 Kearny Street. Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for permit holders Nan & Nathan Roth, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-258/259/260/261, heard August 22, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to REVOKE both permits. Appellants: Josef Cooper, Tracy Kirkham, and Alan Kuhn. Project: To demolish a garage, and construct a three-story two-family dwelling.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Nov. 28, 2001.

ITEM B: 100-122 - 15^th Street. Letter from Walter Wong, agent for the appellant/property owner, Larry Wasserman, requesting a rehearing of Appeal No. 01-079, heard June 13, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the subject determination regarding transfer of business service determination from 200 Kansas Street to 100-122 - 15^th Street.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders,

and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to deny the rehearing request. Four votes being necessary to grant a rehearing request, the motion passed, and the rehearing request was denied.

SPEAKERS: Alice Barkley, attorney for Walter Wong, agent for owners, requested that the Board grant a rehearing in the case because the appellant was not represented by counsel at the hearing and this case presents complex legal issues for which a lawyer is needed. The agent of the owner is not an attorney. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that a rehearing is not justified since the appellant had an opportunity to have counsel and didn’t and his agent is an extremely experienced permit consultant capable of handling such a case. He said this was not a case of a non-conforming use since the use was never established lawfully at the subject property with new legislation changing permanent use after it was lawfully established. A determination can’t be moved from one property to another with a tenant. And the case has nothing to do with Interim Mission District Controls.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Andre deBaubigny, co-appellant, said the plans are not properly dimensioned and the project is not in character with the neighborhood. Helene deBaubigny said the plans approved are inadequate and there are no proper elevations and the project will obstruct her view of the area. Duane Danielsen, co-appellant said that his main concern is the height of the roof and that planners advised him not to request DR because it would lose and that no variance is required for the project. He said that a variance should have been required but the planner who reviewed the plans missed it and the neighbors were not notified. Irene Holmes, permit holder, said that she had five letters of support from her neighbors and that the main objection from the protestors was the reconfigured roof which is necessary because of the leaking problem with the present roof. The proposed peaked roof will shed water. Dan Phipps, architect for the permit holders said the proposed alteration meets the Codes. He said a tree blocks most of the appellant’s view already and proposal doesn’t have significant inpact, reminding the Board that views are not protected under the Codes. There will be more view after the tree is trimmed. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the matter was reviewed by staff after Section 311 Notice was sent out and no additional notice was required for changes since project became smaller. He said he had reissued his letter and it was not appealed and it is too late now to appeal it. Laurence Kornfield said the project meets the minimum standards of the Building Code, and the plans are scalable though not dimensioned.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the denial of the subject permit by the Planning Commission.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said the Commission found the mass of the project too great and the project fails to meet the Residential Design Guidelines, and causes loss of light and air to its neighbors. Jerry Klein, consultant to appellant, said that he hates neighborhood fights and that this project complies with the Code provisions. He said the Planning Commission denied the application because it ran out of patience with the arguing parties. His client has compromised again and again to no avail with the addition being reduced from 500 square feet to 300. Betty Ho, daughter of Section 14 principals gave an historical perspective of the case and said that the subject lot was already over developed and that the applicant was a single woman for whom the addition was not needed, while it would destroy light and air to her parents’ building next door.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR COMMISSION: Adam Ng said that twenty-two neighbors have signed the petition opposing the project and that he too opposed it. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the permit had never been to DBI for review since it was denied by Planning first. If it had been several changes would have been required. Rick Seher, agent for the Section 14 principals said that they had gotten no cooperation at all from the applicant.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to close the public hearing and continue the matter to Dec. 5, 2001 for a site visit by DBI and Board members.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said No, No, No, and that the Commission had said no twice. He said the serial permits were a real problem. Rene Peinado, agent for appellant, said that the parapets exist and should be allowed to remain. Bob Livermore, SFFD (ret) explained the importance of parapets to fire fighters. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained the Building Code parapet requirements that in-lieu fire rated roofs made them unnecessary.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Ian Berke of the PHRA said that the Planning Commission said the developer is untruthful and that no one has had more stop work orders from DBI than the developer... whose plans are incorrect and incomplete: The last time this project was before the Board, the Board required that a new application be made for the whole project and that the façade be revised. He asked that the Board uphold the Department. Alex Seidel, an abutting neighbor said the parapets are being built and are too deep into the lot.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to November 28, 2001.

SPEAKERS: NONE