ZBA Hearing - November 4, 2026

That's correct.

Okay, our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.

Good afternoon.

Have you submitted your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of this hearing?

I have.

And do you wait to read and your refusal or simply to exact you?

We're waiting for a new refusal.

All right, thank you.

You can show your screen and proceed to key.

All right.

My frustration is this.

There's a lot of new examiners at LNI.

I don't blame them, but they're learning.

And so we're trying to hit a moving target

to get the right refusals.

So this is the fourth version of this refusal.

We need a fifth one.

And to my left, by the way, is Robert Volpe,

the member of the LLC that owns the property.

And we're very excited about this project.

This is a six-unit planned community

that's going to be in the Northern Liberty section

of Philadelphia.

It's beautiful.

We're excited to build it.

We just need a good refusal.

So we have 12 exhibits here.

At the conclusion of my presentation,

I'll ask Robert to virtually raise,

well, not virtually, raise his hand and be sworn in,

and then we'll have a few questions for him.

So we'll just go over the current refusal.

What this refusal is missing is recognizing

that we have off-street parking there.

That's the only thing we need.

It's okay.

We're taking two lots and dividing them into six.

The first refusal, I think they got wrong.

I object to that. They're saying that we have walls on the roof, and that's a refusal under

Section 604.4D.1. We don't have any walls up there, so I don't know where they're getting

that one. The second refusal I also object to, it's saying decks must be constructed so that

vertical support elements are located a minimum distance of 18 inches from all lot lines. There

are no vertical supports on our on our plans if we did have a vertical support on our plans it would

be 18 inches from the lot line um yeah and then in terms of the remaining refusals those are correct

you know we're seeking a roof deck access structure that's larger than what's allowed

under the code but we have an elevator in there so we kind of want that extra room

no harm no foul it's not taking anyone's light in there it's in the middle of of the building

structures and i also believe that given the staircase there may be a reason why we have that

as well uh the next refusal has to do with the size of the lots of of the of the six you know

uh lots um it's not of character we'll show you that uh the next refusal has to deal with the

occupied area that's because we have an easement area for a driveway but if you really measure the

real occupied area the building structures plus the rear yard setback

which is the next refusal we actually fall in line with the code it's just a

technical refusal and then the height of the building we're asking for 42 feet

high from the roof line we have support from the community with that 42 feet

because it's not out of character because the building to the left of us

that development of four single-family homes also have 42 feet and this board

single family homes also have 42 feet and this board similarly granted a height variance a few

similarly granted

years ago so we have a letter of support and just just one minute so literally okay with his

disagreement with l and i i can i i assume you're not doing uh npl against l and i usually i do ask

that yeah well i know that's why i was waiting say that one more time it's gonna you're complaining

you got two issues with l and i well yeah because this refusal we just got this morning and those

refusals were not on tree business you're not pursuing a claim against l and i for no we're

not doing l and l and i appeal they're not saying that's no we're not yeah yeah yeah no you're just

going to hear the whole thing yeah i did yeah i just wanted to object to them because i think

they're incorrect so if you look at the letter of support it says the support with one proviso

we're originally at 43 and a half feet high from the roof line that they said as long as you do

42 feet what the other project did we're in support and that's what that letter says and

which we are and then we got this so late in the game we didn't really update our presentation other

than slip in the new notice of refusal but we did have revised plans which you know track what we

gave l and i and it said the only thing we changed was reduce the building height to 42 feet high

but we'll get revised plans pretty straightforward it's 30 feet wide back here on the second floor

there's like rear decks that go into this easement area and we're leveraging a common driveway

at 840 uh north uh 4th street that comes off of 4th street and you'll see that from the pictures

but we're not even creating another curb cut we're leveraging a curb cut that was created

by this previous variance project uh let's see is there anything interesting here well you see

the garage is in the back and you see the roof deck access structures and it confirms that the

height is 42 feet and we're we're built on grade uh again we want to show you 836 north 4th street

this was what was previously approved by this board and it's 42 feet high and i gave you the

refusal as well in addition to the zoning permit oh they also saw the uh uh refusal for the size

of the lots. Because again, it's not of character to have these undersized lots on this block.

And then this is actually the plans for the previous project. And then again, from a size

of the lots perspective, our team looked at this. These are all the lots nearby that are undersized,

similar to ours. And then maps of the area. Again, we're just taking two single-family homes,

consolidating them and subdividing them we go street to street by the way from north fourth

street and then there's lithgow here and then there's going to be these single family homes

that three facing north fourth three facing lithgow and then photographs of the property

there's actually a 45 foot wide curb cut that is being eliminated so we'll add some parking

spots onto the street we're taking a curb cut from the previous project um but so you're going

to add two cars onto the street and then leverage a curb cut that's already been created for that

four-unit project for our six-unit project so and we have a two-car garage so i think it's a win-win

for a lot of the members of the community so this is uh the rear of the properties from

lithgow street this is our orange notice posters from both sides and this is north 4th street to

the right of the property, to the left of the property, Lithgow Street to the right of the

property, and to the left of the property. And then our plans and drawings. This is with Rich

Villa from Ambit Architecture. We want to do a little bit interesting use of materials and design,

having arches, but brick, you know, flat brick facades. Again, keeping the eyes on the street

by leveraging that curb cut where the cars are coming off of Lithgow, excuse me, North 4th Street

through that other curb cut and all the parking would be in the rear. We keep eyes on the street

for 4th Street as well as North Lithgow. And then I think you saw that before, the same thing about

how they access it from Lithgow, I mean from North 4th and come to the rear of the property,

each of these properties for parking. And I think you saw those photos. And then just floor plans,

let's see where we got here so we have the first floor right so you can come to the front right

and you have an entryway here's the elevator there's a guest room with a bathroom you can

also come to the back through that common driveway there's two-car parking here's the elevator

instead of oops sorry

Let's do that one more time.

let's do that one more time

You can go two directions.

You go into a lower level here, right?

And that's the lower level where there's a den,

there's a half bath, and there's storage.

Or you can go up a flight of steps to the second floor

where, again, you can go elevator or steps.

You have a common living area.

You have a half bath.

You have a dining room and a kitchen.

and then you go up to a third floor

where you have two bedrooms and two baths

and then you have the fourth floor

which is a master suite

and then you have the roof deck.

So from the refusal for here

for the size of the roof deck access structure

you can see the steps make it challenging

to have a smaller roof deck access structure

plus you have the elevator as well.

So it's a little bit much

but it's in the middle of the building structure, and we're not taking anyone's light in there

in particular.

And then this is the decks in the back.

All right, I was just trying to get to this.

Let's try that one more time.

All right, so we have our RCO meeting notice that we met with the community on October

5th.

It was a well-attended meeting.

A lot of people nearby and ultimately support.

Proof of mailing of that notice to 199 addresses.

notice of uh of application the notice of refusal the project information form the deeds of property

showing 844 north port streets the owner and then the certificate of tax clearance i'm going to stop

sharing my screen now um i would ask that mr volpe be sworn in i sure could you please state

and spell your name for the stenographer yes robert volpe r-o-b-e-r-t-v-o-l-p-e right do you

swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you counsel uh

mr volpe you heard everything i had to state today about your zoning matter yes i did is it

true and correct yes i did and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i do and specifically you

would agree to the proviso to limit the height of the building to 42 feet from the roof line correct

thank you okay um questions from the board

no questions all right questions from our attorney

no questions at this time questions or comments from the virtual audience

there are no hands planning commission michael gall with the philadelphia city planning commission

the comprehensive plan recommended a change from the previous icmx industrial commercial

mixed use zoning at this location to rsa5 residential single family attached and the

property was remapped to rsa 5 in the 2014 council action the prominent predominant condition on this

block is two-story residences so the four-story proposal with pilot house above would be out of

character with the context including the context of other adjacent blocks additionally the commission

did not have the opportunity to fully review the lot adjustment as usual therefore the city planning

commission recommends the board deny the requested variances for a lot adjustment height and minimum

lot size okay so i would just want to respond i i'm sure i'm not aware of the commission not being

uh allowed or did not have a chance that's on the original refusal yeah i don't think it's on the

yeah i don't think it's on this one that's that was another yeah we they just got the refusal just

yeah so that was another reason why we were confused because the original refusal we didn't

understand that the commission didn't have an opportunity i would say it's not out of character

there's a project that's right next door to us

which is a four unit

exactly the same

so let's target one at the same day

we'll target it for the same day

to 2 o'clock

so we're just holding the vote

except for the amended refill

thank you

can I borrow your charger

sure

who's going to

15th street

that's Alex

it fell in the back a couple hours so let me get to it thank you

I can't do it, I'm going to go.

So MI 2026-004-211-676-North 15th Street.

um alice goldberg is the attorney mr goldberg you've all been sworn in just for the record

could you please state your name alex goldberg right and mr goldberg could you identify your

client a relationship to the property sure my clients are richard kalman and russell nugerbauer

and they're the owners of the property and mr kalman is sitting to my left all right and i

you have a letter of non-opposition from spring garden civic association

our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits

14 days in advance of this hearing i have and do you waive the read another refusal

and simply to its accuracy i do all right thank you you can share your screen and proceed

okay so this case is actually pretty similar to the other case i presented on springer street

this is a cmx2 property that has three existing residential units there's a history of the

ground floor being non-residential. And at some point prior to my client's purchase of the

property in 2007, was converted to a residential unit. So now there's three units there that we

are seeking approval for today. This is an owner-occupied building. My client's partner,

Russell, lives in the building. And we're not seeking to make any modifications to what is

already there so we have three refusals they are all kind of relate to the fact that we're asking

for three units and we don't have a commercial space this block is not commercial at all the

community group said we would never in a million years want to have commercial on this block

and they supported us sort of legalizing what was already there actually one of the board members

from spring garden civic lives two doors down from the property and was very familiar with it

was very kind at the meeting didn't report any issues with maintenance or trash or tenants or