Thank you.
can y'all hear me now yes okay all right cool and chair we have 42 attendees and we can start as you
wish morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's meeting
with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed president mr chairman our board member
Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting
ZBA Executive Director at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone,
press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute.
To enter the appearance statement,
call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address
and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen
is not for testimony.
All requests should be directed
to our executive director.
That's ZBA, Executive Director, at phil.gov
Let's look at our schedule for today
Number one, MI 2024-003-538-1304-208
East Paschank Avenue, that case is continued
Number seven
M.I. 2024-003-731-2617-25 Grace Ferry Avenue. That case has been continued.
Number eight, MI 2024-003-732-1040 Wall Street. Joseph Consul is the attorney. I understand
there's a request for continuance. Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host
for today. Joseph Consul, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Consul?
I'm here.
Hi. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Joseph Consul. That's J-O-S-E-P-H. Last name Consul. C-O-N-S-O-L-A.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Consul, we have information from the council member's office that this case is going
to be continued. Yeah, well, we had we had two formal meetings with the RCO. We made changes to
the plans for the second meeting. We thought that was going to be it. I mean, we had a lot of we had
really no no negativity, all support. But I heard from the RCO that they wanted to meet one more
time before we had any chance of getting their blessing, which we recognize we want and need.
So, um, I thank you. That's, that's the deal. Thank you, Mr. Counsel. So MI 2024-003-732-1040
Wall Street, that case has continued. Number nine, MI 2024-003-740-1324-26 East
Pashunk Avenue. Bernard Anastasio is the attorney. I understand this is a request for continuance.
Bernard Anastasio, please unmute and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Counsel, could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Sure. It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
On behalf of Mr. Evan Roth, my client, occupant of the subject property.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I understand from the counsel person's office that there's a request he believes.
I understand from the counsel person's office that there's a request.
He believes there's a request for continuance.
Is that correct?
The RCO has requested a continuance and we offer no objection.
All right.
Thank you very much, sir.
So MI 2024-003-740-1324-26 East Pass Shunk Avenue.
That case is continued.
And number 15.
MI 2024-003-935, 4422 Carr-Winthin Road, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have Raymond DiRizio with their hand up.
They've been unmuted and allowed to speak.
okay the hand was up it just went back down chair
okay now it's back up again Mr. Dorizio please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
thank you counsel uh could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the board Raymond Dorizio r-a-y-m-o-n-d
last name d-o-r-i-z-i-o you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i do mr terizio i have case number three um that we do not have any exhibits for
that's m-i-2024-003-551-2506 north 16th street is that the case you want to talk about sir
That is, yes, thank you. And we will be withdrawing that appeal, a separate one pending, which is in February. So this one we would be withdrawing.
And Hillary, we don't need a letter, am I correct?
No, because it has been withdrawn on the record by the attorney.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. DiRizio. We'll see you in a little bit. MI 2024-003-551-2506, North 16th Street. That case has been withdrawn.
And number 16, MI 2024-004-744-4902 to 06 Rising Sand Avenue.
Angelo Parker is a listed applicant.
Sasha Cruz is the listed owner.
No exhibits first listing.
We understand there may be a withdrawal here.
Angelo Parker or Sasha Cruz, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
So, MI 2024-004-744-4902-206 Rising Sun Avenue.
Cases continued.
Mark must be heard.
We're going to go to our add-on cases.
Number one, MI 2024-003-742-5499 Quentin Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Number two, MI-2023-004-486-7201 Marston Street, I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Number three, MI 2024-005-342-1901 North American Street. This case is continued to 11-6 at 9-30.
Number four, MI 2024-00127-5458 West Burke Street, cases continued until 11-6 at 9-30.
and now we're going to go start our regular list
and we're 14 excuse me mr chair there's one note for the record um number five on the add-on list
MI-2024-003175-6709.
MI-2024-003175, 6709 Essington Avenue. The vote in that matter has also been rescheduled to 11-6 at 9.30 a.m.
Thank you very much. I thought we were going to hold that one, but okay, thank you.
number 14
MI 2024
North Daring Street. Jermaine Harris
is the attorney.
We do not at this point have an RCO
letter. Mr. Harris
Harris is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Mr. Harris?
Yes, good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name?
It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Sure. It's J-E-R-M-A-I-N-E. Hold on. I'm trying to get my picture up.
Video, right?
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. My right. My video. Trying to get that up right now as we speak.
Okay. That's a lot better.
tell you your last name for the courts uh h-a-r-r-i-s where a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth is nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client and the relationship
to the property so my client is the owner uh applicant is isabel flores and our vice chair
oh i'm sorry right isabel flores is the owner of the property and she should be on this call
All right.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay. All right. Good morning again. My name is Jermaine Harris, and I am the attorney for the applicant, the owner applicant.
and this is concerning uh the property at 2653 north uh darien street uh and basically uh what
the application for is for is for the legalization of a rare addition to a two-story structure
with a roof deck and it's a single family dwelling. Now I'm going to go over some pictures
so that way you can see what I'm talking about. This right here is the front of the building,
two-story, two-bedroom building. And this is a property that my client purchased in 2021.
She purchased it from a real estate developer, unknowing that there were certain, well,
she knew that there were she knew that these things were present but she didn't know uh that
these were not approved so this is the rear to the second story this is the rear
this is the rear of the uh building the rear addition and what we have is also
a rooftop deck
that was erected
that was also present
when she bought the property.
This is the front of it.
And this is another angle
of the particular
of what we're talking about
as far as the open rooftop deck.
This is a side view of the erection of the deck.
the deck hold on and this is another side view of the of the deck now we did
Hold on.
have a community meeting for this property on 1027 and a letter i thought that a letter was sent
to you guys uh but it's dated uh yesterday um but it it was only five because they took the
position that because it was only five members that was uh present that it wasn't enough to take
a vote so their position is that no vote was taken because it wasn't enough in their mind
and they didn't want to do they have a certain number that they were looking for which was six
but it's important that we did field the questions of the community that did appear
And actually, we had two meetings, and the voter turnout for both meetings were extremely low. The first was October the 10th, and the second one was October 24th.
24th. And again, the October 24th meeting that we had, it was still a relatively small amount,
so they elected not to take a vote. But of the members that came there, we fielded the questions
and they had no concerns whatsoever to it. They just felt that it just wasn't enough
members in order to make a vote so that's what we have here is the letter and i guess i can submit
that um since yeah i'll i yeah i was going to say i can submit that uh following this hearing but
yeah um hold on so
this is the deed
evidencing that the property
was bought in
2021 a deed of ownership
for this and it was
from a residential
it was from a real estate developer
let's get back
So this is the plans for the building. So we have here. This is the first floor. You walk into the building. You come straight into a kitchen bathroom.
and that's the first floor, kitchen living room, sorry.
Then you walk up the stairs, continuing up the stairs.
And then you have the first floor bathroom, first floor bedroom.
Bathroom right here.
and then the second bedroom with the bump out and the addition that was put on.
Then you walk up the stairs and you go to the roof deck,
which encompasses the entire length of the building which is reflected right here
so again this is a two-bedroom one bathroom two-story uh building with a with a rear addition
and oh uh in the open rooftop deck uh she's looking to legalize it it's important to note
also that English is not my client's first language and she didn't realize that there was
even an issue with this property until about a year ago when she got a violation from the city
and was told that this has to be legalized. No one had any problem. Mr. Harris, could we see
your referral? Oh, sure. Refusal.
So, we have the refusal right here, dated 524 from L&I, and essentially…
You are sat back because of the bump out, right, on the second floor?
Correct.
And that's basically what it is.
So I would ask that, oh, let me also go to the tax clearance.
By the way, this is a posting of the zoning notice today.
this is the tax clearance for uh the owner the record owner of the property
and i would ask that although we don't have a letter of support we also have a letter of no
opposition and it specifically says that there's no after two community meetings they didn't have
any concerns. We would ask that this variance be granted. And we would open it up for any
questions that...
Harris, could you have your testimony adopted?
Sure. Ms. Flores, could you raise your hand so you can be promoted?
Ms. Flores, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
i know she said she was having some internet problems about i see no hands here
harris you're you're an officer of the court we will take your testimony
i thank you for your consideration questions from the board
uh i do um question uh how much of an addition was this i mean what were the dimensions of this
edition was it they were pretty minimal hold on let me see if i can see that in the plan
hard to tell it's not dimensioned yeah yeah it's not it's not yeah it's not dimensioned
yeah go back let me go back to the picture itself it looks like it's about from the from the just
from the scale looks like it's about five or six feet yeah but let's go let's go back to the
picture significant bay yeah you know as a significant oh yeah significant camp you have
is two what's what's to say there's two foot left 2.5 feet yes correct yes so that's the only
about six five six foot and what's what's under the addition i mean was it
what's under the addition is the first floor which is essentially yeah yeah no but i mean
it it's overhanging so it bumps out it's right it's a backyard yes the rear yard all right
i mean that's it's a significant overhang which is yeah well i guess what
concerns me is even beyond the zoning if if they i wonder if they got permits building permits
to do this thing which is a you know a concern look like it i don't because they would have
had to have zoning right they would have to have zoning and they would have to have zoning in order
to get the permit uh clearly and i would imagine also a structural engineer would have since the
work is already done i would imagine i would imagine a structural engineer would have to sign
off on it before the permit could before it could be designated and uh in my experience if they don't
feel that it's uh a structural engineer is not going to tie his name if he feels like it it's
not safe the loads doesn't the loads aren't what they're supposed to be right right so so go ahead
and that's my concern here um it it i'm not sure how it's structurally supported here
And you're adding quite a bit of weight here to this.
And that is a big, you know, a big problem.
So even if you get the variance to get a building permit, because I'm sure they're going to want you to.
you to get a building permit because i'm sure they're going to want you to um also get the
building permit there's going to be uh more uh some kind of approvals the further approvals are
going to be a problem oh yeah i i am i am certain that with this kind of construction that's already
been done that the city that ellen i is going to require
uh a um structural engineer to determine whether this is appropriate if it's not then how would it
how can it be made appropriate whether it has to be scaled back and what have you what we're
looking for is just the zoning to be able to um allow it to be able to happen and then the permit
that's a whole nother as as you already know there's that's a whole nother process right right okay
questions from the board
questions or comments more attorney hillary emerson
mr harris do you have the site plan that would have been reviewed by l and i handy
that might be helpful for the board members i don't have a i don't have a site plan for
i don't have a site plan uh for this particular project okay there was one reviewed by ellen i
but you said you don't i don't have it yeah okay because the application
right the application was submitted by the architect yeah i i don't have it i'm sorry
okay that's fine thank you that would be helpful definitely rear yard depth is and what this
overhanging. If you're only
three feet from the property line or two feet from the property line, you've got a window that's a fire
issue. I don't know.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands here.
Planning Commission. Good morning, Amy Ford
with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D. Do you swear or
Confirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing residential multifamily, RM1.
The work was completed for the proposed changes without the benefit of permits.
The appellant has not demonstrated unique physical circumstances or conditions that would prevent the property from being used in conformance of the zoning code.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variances for rear yard setback and maximum occupied area.
Hillary, can we proviso, structural engineer, before permit?
Normally, that tends to go with building permits.
um i have to i have to talk to ellen i about that if the board would like to
to hold this i can discuss um discuss that with ellen i
that's on the board relative to that uh i would i would like that or some kind of way to
make sure that our approval doesn't mean that this is going to get used yes without the further
Hillary, why don't we do what you just said?
You'll talk to Ellen.
Okay, let me, yeah, let me just talk to Ellen and I.
This will be closed, am I correct?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
This will be closed and council, we will get back to you, okay?
Okay, sounds good.
Thank you very much.
We should be able to vote on this next week, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for allowing me to go first, and I appreciate it.
Have a good day.
Number four.
MI 2024-003-552-2001 South Redfield Street.
Yosef Kroma is the owner applicant.
This is a pro se.
Yosef Kroma, please raise your virtual hand.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record, we did receive a letter of support from the Southwest Philadelphia Consortium of RCOs.
There was a request for a temporary five-year variance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yosef?
Yosef?
Yes, good morning, sir.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name?
It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Yes, my name is Yosef Kroma.
That's Y-O-U-S-S-E-F, last name K-R-O-M-A-H.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
So this application is for use as a business and professional office on the first floor
with previously approved existing single-family household living above.
The proposed use, business and professional office, is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Our vice chair has a few questions here.
Good morning, Mr. Cromer.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
There was a document that was submitted later, which is the tax variation that was supposed to come from the website.
And that's with a GRB law, so that'll be submitted.
Thank you so much. Please proceed and share your screen.
Yes, sir.
Yep, we can see it now.
Excellent.
Yeah, so essentially, let me just make this larger, is it full screen on your end, sir?
So yeah, this is a proposal for rezoning of 2001 South Redfield Street from residential
to commercial usage.
And the proposal seeks approval from the Zoning Board Association to rezone a property at
2001 South Redfield Street. From residential to commercial use, the intent is to lease the
property to the African Cultural Alliance of North America for use as a satellite office.
This satellite office will function solely as an administrative workspace and meeting place for
ICANA staff and strategic partners. No public services will be provided at the location,
ensuring that the operations remain discreet with minimal impact to the surrounding areas.
The office will operate from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, staffed by six-person personnel.
So the purpose, as previously stated, is for administrative tasks related to the management of ACANA programs, internal staff meetings, and planning sessions, collaborative meetings with strategic partners and stakeholders by appointment only.
And the main partner that will be present is the Juneteenth organization for the planning of their festival and other yearly events that happen.
And our operating details are, as stated, Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Six employees will work on site within occasional partner meetings, and it will be closed to the public.
Again, I want to emphasize there will be no walk-ins, no public services, or large gatherings at the property.
In terms of community impact and considerations, one, no concern is traffic and parking.
Traffic is limited to six-person staff members, occasional visitors.
Parking employees and visitors will utilize available street parking.
As I'll show in the coming pictures, across the street from the property is Myers Park.
So there's a long line of parking that's normally completely vacant during working hours of the day.
So it'll be low to minimal impact on the local residents, as well as there will be no large events or client interactions that will take place at the office, keeping traffic levels low.
In terms of noise and environmental impact, it will be quiet operations. All activities will occur indoors with no significant noise generation. Property maintenance, the property will be kept in excellent condition, contributing to the upkeep and appearance of the neighborhood.
And number three, preventing vacancy and blights. So the repurposing of this property for the office will prevent it from remaining vacant, ensuring that it continues to contribute to the neighborhood's vibrancy and value.
The rationale for the rezoning request is efficiency used for the vacant property, where number two, supporting community programs through internal operations, number three, aligning with the city planning goals.
and compliance with the zoning regulations, activating a vacant property for a productive,
low-impact purpose, ensuring the property's use remains compatible with the character of the
neighborhood, and maintaining quiet operations with limited traffic or parking concerns.
The timeline for the office setup is we're in November through December,
completion of the rezoning approval and lease agreements, and January office setup including
furnishings and equipment. February 2025, staff relocation and soft launch. And in March 2025,
a full operation of the satellite office begins. So I'm going to show some pictures.
This is the front of the property, the residential property that's not being discussed in this current meeting, but I just want to give you a picture of what we're looking at.
This is the front of the property, the residential property that's not being
This is the residential side on South Redfield Street, where the residents will go through, and this is the main street of Redfield, and this is the discussed property here today that's going to be on the opposite side of the property.
So, currently, there's an awning there. When I purchased the property, there was an awning there for a hair salon, and we would like to request that we repurpose the awning for the satellite office.
I do want to be forthcoming and say that the original zoning
the awning that was approved was a bit smaller than the current one
so we would like to just sort of repurpose that one
for all uses and purposes of the office space
this is a
larger picture of the property
the street
this is the back of the property
this is the alleyway of the property
and this is an aerial view of the 2001 south redfield street so redfield is here as you can
see where my arrow is across the street this is myers uh myers facility so usually the street
parking here is usually completely empty so we refrain from parking here this is the front of
the property parking is also available there but across the street all throughout here there's
parking and lastly this is the envision layout of 2000 south rightfield street um so this is
the entrance of the building as you walk through you have the waiting area here and you have one
two three four five desk space you have a restroom and you have a file storage area
and over here this is completely un-excavated this is under the residential part which will
there's no entrance or it is not in usage at all
so this is yeah this is the front of king sessing avenue so a person could walk through here
a waiting area for for uh five person personnel files in a restroom and closet space
so uh i'll open it now if there's any questions there's an exit in the back too am i correct
yes sir so yeah there's a door in the back am i correct yes yes sir yes sir so you walk through
here and then the exit is to the left
here. Yes, sir.
Questions from the board.
Are there interior
pictures
of the space?
Yes, there are interior pictures. I sent
them. I could pull them up now.
Yeah, so it's
one big room, but I'll
pull the picture up now so you can see it.
Thank you.
I do have that picture of the interior.
Is the owning part of the refusal?
No, sir, it wasn't. It wasn't cited in the refusal.
so that would need to be a separate application uh as a that's a question
not not to that not to the applicant but to right it would be okay
okay i have hair
where did you say that is the building vacant now
Is the building vacant?
Yes, sir, it is.
Would you say the hours of operation?
The hours of operation would be from 10 to 6.
Monday through Friday, you say?
Yes, sir.
The picture here, I will include it.
i'm not sure if you can do that if you're sharing but
okay here we go i have it yeah i'm not sure if you can there we go uh okay
okay so is this storing building materials now waiting for approval and we'll clear it out
all right
okay and then just following up with the question about the sign we can't approve something that
hasn't been
refused
okay so you're going to
have to do that separately
yeah and you
should you should just know
that process may
involve like going in front of
other agencies because
awnings and things
that are considered signs
that are going to have writing on them are considered
to be signs so
infusal there may be um dimensional requirements that have to be met i think you said that maybe
that sign is a little bigger than may have been approved before you may have to abide by the
dimensions and the other thing is you may need to go in front of the um art commission that's
yeah because of the those kind of signs the awning signs they want to they often have to
approve the type of fabric that's used for it and what have you and there's restrictions on how much
writing you can have on awning signs so that's a whole nother process but understood yeah so we
have approval for particular dimensions, and then we've been working with TCB to, you know,
design it, and they have a standardized way they go about it, so perhaps they could repurpose it
in a way that would be appropriate for what's already approved. Okay. Other questions from the
board? Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson. I just wanted to note briefly,
Mr. Chair, I did just check the tax, the Philadelphia Tax Center, and it does indicate that
this property is under agreement with GRB for the delinquent taxes, so we can vote on this case today.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Craig Melodosian. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning, Craig. Could you please state your name and spell for the court's stenographer?
Craig, C-R-A-I-G, Melidosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, Chair Bergman.
Please proceed.
I just wanted to indicate that we're in agreement with the presentation this morning.
We look forward to the owner opening up his facility at that location.
It has had a long time of commercial use, including a grocery store, a beauty salon, etc.
We don't believe this will in any way affect the residential neighbors on Redfield and on 59th Street.
And as a presentation indicated, there's a significant amount of on-street parking space available across the street because it's fronted by the Myers Recreation Center.
Thank you very much.
Craig, hold on. Did you request a temporary variance?
We did. It was at the request of one of the RCOs.
The reason for it was there was not a lease to refer to, and one of the organizations that would be using it was not present.
And the feeling was that we would give the applicant time to establish himself.
It's different use as a professional space to make sure that it does not in any way impact the residential fabric of Redfield Street.
Thank you.
questions or comments other comments in the virtual audience I see no hands at
this time chair Laney Commission
good morning Amy board with the Planning Commission comprehensive plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing single-family RSA-5.
recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing single-family
The property has a document history of commercial and residential use since the 1950s, including a grocery store and restaurant,
which would have more traffic and therefore have a greater impact on surrounding neighborhood than the proposed business and professional offices.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their requested variance for business and professional offices.
MI 2024-003-552-2001-South Redfield. I vote yes with proviso. Temporary variance expires 11-1-29.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, sir. You have your votes.
Thank you, sir. Thank you. I appreciate you all.
Number 11, MI 2024-003-748-2074 Anchor Street.
Jose Azarraga is the owner applicant.
Chair Jose Azarraga is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Do you see his hand?
Good morning, sir.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Jose Arzuaga, spelled in J-O-S-E-A-R-Z-U-A-G-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you please turn your video on?
Okay, I'm going to do that now.
Okay, it's on now.
Thank you.
So this application is for the erection of a carport structure and open roof deck in the rear of the property.
The proposed carport structure and deck do not have the minimum open area required in the RSA 5 zoning district. The proposed carport structure and deck do not meet minimum rear yard depth requirements in the RSA 5 zoning.
The proposed carport structure and deck do not meet the minimum rear yard area requirements in the RSA 5 zoning.
And the proposed carport structure and deck exceed the maximum occupied area in the RSA 5 district.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, everything is emailed.
I have a witness here.
thank you so yep thank you much uh please proceed to share your screen
it's your presentation um green button at the bottom of the screen share screen
I'm trying to get on I want to call Ian Smith as a witness is that your architect
yes okay he will be able to share his screen for the documents but you will
have to speak okay he is Smith please raise your virtual hand he's coming in
is a panelist now chair morning sir and mr smith you can um share your screen and bring up the
documents uh but you will have to let the owner um represent himself and speak i'm here sorry
about that it kicked me out and brought me back in
Okay, Jose, you're going to start testifying now, what you're trying to do and things.
Jose, you're going to start testifying now what what what you're trying to do and things like that.
And as you testify, he will move the screen. OK. So here's your project information.
Go ahead. Tell us what you're trying to do. I'm trying to I'm trying to get all the right.
Permits in the zone and be legal, because when I did everything, I didn't have no idea of the permits and stuff.
I got my own stuff. So I'm trying to fix the problem. That's what I want to do.
My mom stays at this house
And stuff like that
So I want to make things right
Show us now
Is that
I would like to get the
I want to make things right
Because Ellen and I will send me some stuff
So I want to make things right
I got the tax clearance
Everything's in order
I have all the paperwork that I needed
And stuff like that
Why don't you give us a picture
That zooms in on the structure you built
Okay. All right. There it is right here with the garage on the bottom. The walls, sidewalls on both sides. And up top, new payment in front of it because did the new payment in front too because the back driveway was horrible. So we fixed that too.
I just did it when COVID hit
for my mother because
she could pull in her car to be safe
to get in the house and everything.
Here goes all the plans
you need and everything.
as a pull down garage door too yeah um it's electronic sir push button but you can also
use it as regular pull down manually if you want
we have with the public meaning and this is the mail we send out for the neighborhood
did you do this yourself then hire the architect later
um i hired the architect later on for this presentation
no i had ian already working with me for a while when ellen i started um sending me the
complaints of what i did i had to get permits and all that so i hired mr ian smith to help
me out through the process and everything so i can get things done the right way because
i don't want no problems with nobody all right um is there anything else you want to add
not at the moment sir questions from the board so what was the refusal for
um the refusal
hold on there's four four or five issues okay it's right here it's on the screen now
so so you said that you that um you're you have your architect on board to to get building
permits or you got building permits well he has everything he's working on everything for me so
he's the one been working on the stuff for me and everything for the zoning and all that stuff
so so you haven't submitted for building permits this is this is so your first step is zoning
right i think i believe so
um was there any okay when you did this did anybody uh try to stop you or
no man nobody tried to stop me this been up already for all that i would say like at least
four years ma'am so you put this up four years ago my covid kid i did it for my mother you know
because I wanted her to be safe coming into the house,
just going with her little car into the garage and stuff.
This has been up for four years already.
So there was an issue with next door.
Something went on, and then it jumped to ours,
and they sent me paperwork.
So now I just want to fix everything the right way with the permits
and everything, all the requirements.
That's all I want to do.
So this is a garage or it's a carport?
It's a little small garage
And then it has a deck above it
It has support beams over
And everything for structure
A fully enclosed garage
So it looks like it's open in the back
So it looks like it's open in the back and there's a.
And there's a
Yes, it's open because the garage door was up because when the photos were taken to show you all the inside and everything of the garage.
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.
Any commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing single-family residential RSA 5 zoning at this location.
The Apollo constructed the corporate and roof tech that brought the property out of compliance without the benefit of permits.
The encroachment of the sidewalls of the side of the carport onto the rear yard would block vehicles from turning into abutting spaces.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variances for open space, rear yard area, rear yard setback, and open area.
MI 2024-003-748-2074 Anchor Street, I vote no.
michael johns i vote no cheryl gaston i vote no ishmael shaheed my vote is no
thank you sir
we move to number here let's see here
Number two, MI 2024-003-543-319-21 North Daggett Street.
Raymond DiRizzio is the attorney.
He's coming back in as the panelist now, Chair.
good morning mr chairman and members of the board council i've already sworn you once just
for the record state your name yes raymond dorizio d-o-r-i-z-i-o could you identify your
client the relationship to the property yes i represent richard spinogati he is the
administrator, executor of the estate of his mother, Giuseppina Spina Gatti, and she was the
owner of the property, and that's 319-21 North Daggett Street. Vice Chair has a few questions,
sir. Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy? Good morning. Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and
exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes thank
you counsel please proceed and share this ring thank you okay so this is uh 319 321 north daggett
street um we're seeking to basically legalize an existing use this property was owned by my
client's parents. It was purchased back in 1968. It's a garage. And we're basically seeking to
legalize the garage parking with storage. Over the years, it's just been used for various
companies, landscaping companies and such, parking their vehicles in there, any equipment that they
have going in there. Now, my client's mother passed away August of 2023. Him and his siblings,
I don't believe they're going to hold on to the property. I believe it's going to be sold.
They're seeking to legalize it so that the property is legitimized.
My client's father passed away years prior. Here's the deed, basically going back to 1960.
And the property's basically always been used in the same form or fashion since then.
Here's some plans.
I think the photos will show a little bit better where there's three basically garage doors.
Here's a photo of the property, three garage doors, one floor.
There's no residences next door.
Those are kind of in the back.
Across the street from Daggett Street is Cobb Creek's Park, which you see on the right here, a high fence, a vacant lot on the side.
This is the inside of the property. I'm sorry it's on the side, I guess, the way I scanned it.
But there's currently no tenants in there, just basically concrete floors. It's kept in pretty much good condition.
Just basically concrete floors. It's kept in pretty much good condition.
Those are the garage doors. This is posting of the notice of the hearing on those doors.
This is an overhead view. You see Cop Street Park and North Daggett Street.
There's a little bit of a photo there of the setup of the overhead.
This is the tax clearance that my client obtained, and we have the mailings.
Essentially, we did meet with the community.
If I recall, it was unanimous support of the project.
Again, my clients, they've had a presence in the neighborhood for several decades.
The property has been what it's been, and we're seeking to legalize that as is.
do you have the the uh your uh representative of the parents to adopt your testimony here
yes i have i guess i'm sorry i almost forgot that i appreciate mr spinogatti are you on the
call do you hear me can you raise your hand
what's your client's last name mr derizio it's spelled s-p-i-n-o-g-a-t-t-i
he's been unmuted and allowed to speak good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the course stenography yes it's richard spinogatti r-i-c-h-a-r-d
spinogatti s-p-i-n-o-g-a-t-t-i where affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you sir you heard my test my uh presentation and
testimony to the board this morning yes okay and was it truthful and accurate to the best of your
knowledge information and belief yes and do you wish to adopt it as your own
yes okay thank you i have no further questions questions from the board
um i guess i'm having a little trouble with seeing how this is used is it says
for the accessory garage parking and warehouse but when you showed interior pictures part of it
look so narrow i'm not quite sure so which door is it where we have the parking and which part
is the warehouse or yeah so essentially it's just storage of the goods that whichever you know the
company if it was a contractor or like i said was a landscaping company was the last um company that
occupied it but essentially these doors allow for either you know a truck or a car or a vehicle
to drive in and there are spaces in the back it goes on for um all the way back where things can
be stored and trucks can be or cars can be parked a vehicle okay so they can i'm sorry
parked inside is that okay yes and there's a doorway there you are walking in um without a
vehicle so i'm sorry these are a little sorry but this this is kind of a photo that shows the depth
of the building and what can fit in there okay it's a little dark so sorry yes no i apologize
can you spin that council council can you spin that around uh i will try i'm sorry i'm i should
have done this on my laptop i'm on my ipad so i'm really not sure how to do that uh and i don't want
to start hitting buttons and jumping off when we turn our head a certain way we can see i'm sorry
i apologize yes okay so now is this property just the garages i'm looking at google and it looks
like this what's what's big what's behind so it's just the garages are just these properties
correct it's just the structure here these structures and then it fronts on to looks like
it's a wall across the street that's all i see is a wall yeah like a little breezeway or alleyway
behind it basically oh then it backs up a baseball field yes on the other side of the street so that
would be the alley before that there's some grass and like a pathway gotcha right yeah so there's
nothing else really on the block. And just one thing I'd like to clarify, if I could,
in the picture that's currently on the screen, the property we're discussing is only the property
the property we're discussing is only uh the property on the left hand side so it's the
on the left-hand side.
single door black door and it's the double garage door the other property that's subtle
that's a separate that's a separate property gotcha all right okay so that that's what was
a little confusing here because i'm seeing three doors but you were only showing the
interior and the one and okay so i understand now thank you the comments from our attorney
mr jerzio the you mentioned that you thought the vote was unanimous at the rco meaning do you have
a letter or an email or something it was never indicates it was never supplied to me but we did
meet with them there were maybe five or six individuals on the call there was a vote there
was no opposition in fact it was support so i assume that it was sent in to the to the board
i haven't i don't believe that i ever received a copy of it or i would have included it in the
okay so you were present for the vote yes okay all right thank you i should start comments from
virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing
residential multi-family rm1 this building has existed in its current variation since at least
1996. the appellant has shown that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of
the property that would prevent it from being
used in conformance to the zoning code.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends
that the Board grant the requested variance
for garage slash warehouse.
MI 2024
003 543
319 to 21
North Daggett Street, I vote yes.
Proviso, approved uses
or non-accessory parking and
warehouse.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is
yes with provisos.
If no, my vote is yes, reprovisor.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Have a good day.
Mr. Chair, sorry, before we move on, I believe we have a Spanish interpreter in the audience.
I saw Mr. Aubain here.
Mr. Aubain, the case we need you on is actually on the 2 p.m. list.
I don't know if you're able to come back for the 2 p.m. list.
I apologize for the confusion.
um i'll let my my manager know i have another hearing at that time but i'll let her know so
that they could find the replacement we just need someone for a couple of minutes because
the case is going to be continued and we're announcing a new date on the record so we just
would like to make sure that that is understood by the applicant so okay i'll make sure to relay
that information and um and i'll let my manager know okay thank you and i'm sorry for keeping you
waiting. No problem. You have a great day. Number five, MI 2024-003-717-6901 Woodland Avenue.
Tamika McCoy is the attorney. No RCO letter as of yet. Do we have one, Hillary? Did we get one,
Hillary? Yes, we did. We just got one this morning from the Southwest Consortium of RCOs,
and it wasn't support.
I did not see any provisos.
Tamika McCoy, please raise your virtual hand.
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court
sure tamika mccoy last name is spelled m-c-capital-k-o-y you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes could you identify your client the relationship
to the property? Sure. It's Southwest Leadership Academy. The representative who will be appearing
today is Lee Purnell. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you. Good morning, counsel. Do
you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. And there
had been some supplemental materials that had been submitted for the board, namely the RCO letter
that had been emailed that indicates support and zero opposition for all of the participants
uh support and zero opposition for all of the participants at the rco meeting thank you have
at the RCO meeting.
you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case
sounds like you added those yep no problem please proceed and share your spin thank you
Okay, here we go. Sorry about that.
So we have here the property located at 6901 Woodland Avenue on the second and third floor is a educational facility that has been used in this detached structure for several years.
There had been a prior variance that had been awarded. I would be going to go a little out of order so that way we can kind of get to the meat of it.
So there was a prior variance that had been granted to the educational facility, which is essentially a charter school that services kindergarten, first and second grade students to 8,000 square foot building in which the proposed use is to actually continue to operate as such.
What we're seeking is to make permanent the prior variants that had been given.
I'm showing interior pictures of the school.
It's currently in a detached structure that's zone RM1.
As you can see here, there's ample parking. And so with that, there's no expectation that it would cause congestion to the public in any way or any interruption in the transportation system.
There is no impairment or impediment on the light air for any adjacent property.
This is across the street from the Southwest Leadership Academy.
It's a gated premises, and there you see a fix, the notifications.
We were able to attach the actual plans for the second and third floor.
This is the second floor.
It shows a number of classrooms, restroom facilities, storage areas, a staircase, an elevator, additional classrooms, and a second set of stairwell.
This would be the plans for the third floor.
Again, that second set of stairwell.
restroom areas and a number of classroom. Again, it's 8,000 square foot of space
that's being utilized and had been utilized for the past five years or so as a educational
institution. The lease for the premise has been renewed. We did affix a copy of the lease. We're
going to just zone out. I just needed to have you guys be able to see the plans. But the lease
essentially began in 2017 and has been extended to the current occupants who wants to seek and
continue providing these valuable services for the community. There were 97 notices mailed
to impacted neighbors.
These were all of the neighbors
who had been notified of the RCO meeting.
The meeting was actually conducted
on October 7th of 2024
and it was done by Zoom video conferencing.
As I indicated,
we did get a letter indicating
that the zoning board, the RCO actually approves of the use and is in support of the project.
This is a summary of the meeting that had been sent in by the RCO committee to the zoning board
directly. And that's part of the supplemental information. There is a wage tax
There is a wage tax matter that's being resolved and restructured.
matter that's being
reserved.
We'd like to have the opportunity to continue to work that out.
That's going to be something that's resolved in the near future.
And I would like to bring in Ms. Lee Purnell to adopt these statements.
Lee Purnell has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
good morning everyone could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
my name is lee pernell l-e-i-g-h-p-u-r-n-e-l-l you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel thank you miss pernell um did
you hear the information that had been presented to the board today regarding the Southwest
Leadership Academy? Yes, I did. And if you were asked those same questions, would you provide
the same or similar information to the board? Yes, I would. And is it your desire to make
permanent the prior variants that had been obtained approximately four or five years ago?
Yes, it is.
And it is your testimony and representation that the Southwest Leadership Academy intends to continue to provide these valuable services for the community it serves, correct?
That is correct.
I have no further statements.
This is only for the second and third floor?
Yes, that's correct.
By curiosity, what's on the first floor?
There's a daycare that's also affixed within that same building.
there's a different tenant different um okay right very good thank you questions from the board
yeah okay and your comments from our attorney hillary emberson um just briefly mr chair um
at first thank you for for clarifying that um this is the second and third floor so i just double
checked the the tax balance because it was the real estate taxes that were actually the issue
for the zoning board and there was previously a balance there. I just checked the balance now
and it is now zero. So we can proceed with a vote on this matter. I understand you have the wage
tax issue to work out, but the zoning board looks solely at real estate taxes and those have been
addressed. That's from the virtual audience. Chair, we have Craig Melodosian. They have
been unmuted and allowed to speak. You've already been sworn. Just please state your name for the
record. Craig Melodosian. Please proceed, sir. Just wanted to indicate to the board that our
consortium strongly supports this application where it had been previously proviso for five
years. We're asking that that not be done again, that the variance be in place. We were before you
on 9-18 of this year for the ground floor which is an early education center so
we think that having this building and it was granted a variance rather than
the previous proviso so we think that by having both these facilities that are
strictly educational in there benefits the community SLACS is a Southwest
Leadership Academy Charter School is a longtime member of our community
and they run an excellent operation as you can see from the facility pictures here as well as
their other building over on 7101 pascal avenue so we would ask that this variance be made permanent
thank you very much other questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no answer planning commission good morning if we were with the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the current
residential multifamily r1 the plan has shown that the proposed use will not cause
detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what would normally be expected
city planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested special exemption
for Educational Facility. Thank you. MI 2024-003-717-6901, Woodland Avenue. I vote yes
with proviso. Limited use to second and third floor. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel. You have your votes. Thank you. Have a good day.
thank you have a good day number six mi2024-003-730-1224 south 20th street zenjin is the
Number six, MI 2024.
attorney there's a letter of unanimous support from the point breeze community development coalition
zenjin is coming back in as a panelist now chair
Good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N.
Last name is J-I-N.
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel, could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Mega New Investment LLC, the owner of the property, and Ms. Chaojin Huang is here on behalf of the LLC.
Police Chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning, and I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted in support of this application.
Can the board see my exhibit on their screen?
Thank you.
So we have submitted copies of the refusal, the support letter from Point Bree's Community Development Coalition, as well as photos, plans, proof of tax payment, and additional documentation.
This is an application essentially to legalize what is a two-family household living in an existing building.
This is a corner property building that at one time was given an owner's variance to have a nail salon on the first floor and a single resident unit above.
When my client acquired the property some years ago, it was presented to my client as a two-family unit.
So it seems that the prior owner, when their nail salon closed at some point, converted the first floor to a residential unit and left it as such.
There was no issue with this, so there was no awareness of any issues, at least until recently,
when my client received a notice from L&I that the use on the first floor is not permitted.
So what then she did is to apply for the use application and go before the community to present the existing conditions.
The community reviewed it, and most of the neighbors are aware that this is a two-family dwelling.
In fact, that is part of the reason why they supported it.
They never had an issue with the property, nor did they have an issue with the use.
Considering that it was at one point separated as a commercial and residential, the building itself structurally is separated.
And therefore, there is a hardship to make this building conform with the RSA 5 single family residential structure.
That is why we're asking the board for a favorable review of this variance request.
Again, this is existing conditions at this point, and we're asking the board to legalize
the two-family use.
I have additional information here if the board would like to see anything.
Photos, I'm going to go ahead and show the photos real quick so that it's, I'm sorry.
So this is the corner property.
As the board is aware, a lot of these used to have commercial uses on the first floor
and there was one here as well that was legal.
Entrances are separate, one to the first floor,
one to the second floor,
and they're completely separate on the inside.
And this is, the basement's not used for any living space.
It is simply water heater storage,
and this is the residential inside.
So again, my client should be here to verify my testimony,
and I'm going to end my presentation at this time.
could you call your client please sure uh chelsea could you kindly raise your hand virtually to be
identified your client has been unmuted and allowed to speak hi could you please state
your name and spell for the court synopsis yes my name is chowzen kwan q-i-a-o-z-h-e-n last name
h-u-a-n-g swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel thank you uh miss huang did you hear and see my presentation before the
zoning board yes can you verify what i have represented to the board is true and correct
and adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
When was this conversion done?
The conversion itself probably was done sometime back in 2014 or earlier.
The variance originally for the nail salon was going back to 2007.
Oh, okay.
And then your client, was your client the owner of the property when the nail salon was there too?
my client purchased the property in in 2014 is that when approximately yes 2015 about
okay 2014 actually i'm sorry it is 2014. all right and then just decided not to do the commercial
piece correct well it was already set up as two units at that point so they they thought they
were purchasing complex so they just left it the way it is since that time oh okay so when they
purchased it it had already been converted like it was two units correct okay thank you thank you
the first floor apartment has access to the basement i saw a washer down there uh yes the well
actually the um the basement because of the way the commercial building used to be set up
has uh belco doors that actually allow um both to access if needed to the basement because it's
actually access from flip-up doors from the outside yeah so there's no access to the basement
from the apartment i believe there is as well um chelsea is there is there access from the inside
as well for the first floor i think so yeah let me let me uh review the yes there is i see the
staircase um let me did the board want me to put the plans back up that could i'm just i just said
I just had the question because you said the basement was only used for utility, but the picture showed a washer down there.
So I'm looking at the plans just to clarify.
Yes, there's only one access from there's an access from the outside and an access from the stairway on the first floor on the inside to the basement.
OK. Thank you.
OK. Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no A's, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no changing zoning at this location from the existing residential single-family RSA 5.
The property has a history of mixed-use, a nail salon on the first floor, and a dwelling unit on the second floor.
The conversion of the first floor space into an additional dwelling unit
brings the property more into alignment with the spirit of the zoning code.
The planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance
for two-family household living.
MI 2024-003-730-1224 South 20th Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number 10. Thank you, counsel. Number 10, MI 2024-003-741-6056 West Gerrard Avenue. Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Ms. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Mr. Anastasio, just for the record, state your name because you've already been sworn.
Good morning, Mr. Chair Verne Anastasio. On behalf of Mr. Todd Pierce.
Okay, thank you very much. Our Vice Chair has a few questions. Thank you.
Councilor, do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
I do. I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case.
five days in advance for this hearing.
Thank you.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Chair, members of the board,
this is 6056 West Gerrard Avenue.
That just went blank on me.
Do it again.
Okay, there we go.
6056 West Gerrard Avenue. In my exhibit packet, which is approximately 64 pages,
6056 West Gerrard Avenue.
we've got our refusal floor plans, some photos, and support from the eight immediate neighbors
on the block. We'll start here with the refusal. The application is for the legalization of a
two-family household living in an existing structure. The property is zoned RSA-5 and
therefore a refusal was, in fact, issued. Let me show you what my client purchased.
This is the basement. As you can see, there are cutouts of two electric meters.
He just purchased this last year, by the way.
And what it was is a two-story structure that was all outfitted, sheetrocked, and cut up for a two-family dwelling.
And this is how he purchased it.
It was sold to him as a property that was being rehabbed as a duplex.
and this was the current condition upon which he then purchased the property again just 12 months
ago or so after purchase sorry there
after purchase he put in the fixtures again as the plans show the bathrooms and kitchens were
already built out the entrances were already separated he then had to put in the finishings
for the flooring and the fixtures which he did and that is here
he listed both units for rent had them occupied went to pull a rental license
and then was told the property was zoned for RSA 5 with no two-family dwelling permit on file
here a plant here's more photos here's the second kitchen
let's get to the plans
this is the front of the property
This is the basement, which is just a raw basement with washer, dryer, and heater.
This is the first floor.
As you can see, there's a front porch with a trash corral for both units.
We have a hallway.
When you walk to the left, you can get into the open concept kitchen and living room, both of ample size.
we've got a bedroom in the front and a bedroom in the rear and the second floor
ostensibly the same sort of layout with bedrooms at the front and rear
again another open concept living eating kitchen space which is of ample size and a bathroom
We went before the community group.
Let me show you the notice that was mailed.
This is the notice that was mailed to invite folks to not only the community meeting, but also today's zoning hearing.
Here are all the addresses that were mailed out.
and we do have proof of mailing
of 98 individual households as this shows here
we have the rco meeting was peculiar because it seemed as though everyone was on board
We even had someone volunteer, Mr. Robinson, who was in attendance, who's a very active neighbor, volunteered to take my client door to door, introduce himself.
But then we didn't hear anything from the RCO on that.
So, my client went door to door anyway and was able to get all eight immediate adjacent neighbors to support the legalization of the two-family dwelling.
So my client went door to door anyway.
As you can see, they're right on the block, and they all support it.
There are, in fact, several other duplexes in the immediate area.
We pulled two that have been legalized here in Exhibit 10.
Excuse me for one minute while I try and bring that up for you.
Yeah, here are two separate properties, one on Girard Avenue and one right around the corner.
They're the two that have been listed recently as two family dwellings.
But there are other properties with two mailboxes.
And we're just not sure if they're all legalized, of course.
everything's blank. Yeah. Well, it is now. Yeah.
That's fine. We never saw the extra ones you just talked about. We didn't see any.
You never saw the final one.
Okay. Here they are.
and are either of these on the same block i'm sorry one of them is oh okay yeah and one is
right around the corner and burn you showed photos of mailboxes on properties i did i don't have
mailbox photos of the other properties on the block but i know there are some in fact there
There may be a couple photos of the block itself that may have caught them, but not intentionally.
Our case, however, you know, is there a unique physical condition of the property that makes compliance, which would be a conversion to a single family, physically and financially possible and the impossible.
And yes, the unique physical condition exists.
It existed a year ago when he purchased the property.
It existed when he put in the furnishings. It existed when he he he had the place occupied.
He thoroughly believed that this was illegal to family dwelling and he did not create the unique physical hardship.
He purchased it as those photos show fully built out with the exception of the furnishings and the finishings.
Did he reasonably rely on the seller and the realtor who presented this as a two-family dwelling and purchased it in good faith?
Yes, he did.
Did he make a mistake in not pulling a city cert or demanding a city certification, even though they no longer can be used to guarantee a use?
Yeah, that was a mistake on his part, and he readily admits that.
But given the circumstances of this particular case and the difficulty it would be to remove the people who live there and convert this property back and not lay it to waste, we're respectfully requesting the granting of the variance.
And with that, I'd like to have Mr. Pierce raise his verbal hand.
Were you at the community meeting, Vern?
How did it go?
It went well for the most part.
There were some questions about, you know, he's a small-time investor.
And there were one or two questions about, hey, how come you didn't catch this? Because he does this, he purchases and rehabs often, and has never run into a situation like this. And he basically said, hey, I relied on the folks who sold it to me, and I should have done, you know, I should have done better.
and he you know he took full responsibility for not following up before you know putting folks
in there he he really assumed and reasonably relied on what was presented to him and what
his eyes told him which was a duplex so not only that were the only real questions of concern
most folks were you know again it was very unusual because we even had a gentleman by the name of
Mr. Robinson in the meeting who said, yeah, we'd love the fact it's the best looking house on the
block. I'll take you door to door and show folks what you'd like to get done. And then we didn't
hear anything. And we followed up with both the RCO leadership and Mr. Robinson. So that's when
my client went door to door himself and got the eight adjacent property owners to fully support
may i bring on my client to adopt my presentation thank you todd pearson
todd pearson todd pearson sorry todd pearson if you're in the virtual audience please raise your
hand todd pearson has been unmuted and allowed to speak morning sir
Todd Pierce has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Todd Pierce. Thomas Todd Pierce. T-H-O-M-A-S-T-O-D-D Pierce. P-E-A-R-S-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Pierce, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Yes, I did. Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is. Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I do. Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board. How long have the tenants been there?
Since he outfitted it, so it has to be less than a year because he purchased it in June of 2023.
took him a few months to outfit it and then he occupied it but he occupied it before he got
rental license he occupied it and then tried to get rental licenses and that's where the snag hit
he assumed he was able to get it uh get these rental license as a matter of right and then
was surprised to learn that he could not i got one he was able to only get one that's correct
because it was owned as a single family still zoned a single family yes sir
are both the units occupied yes sir
so then he occupied units without rental license he had them occupied then went to the city for a
rental license and was then told he was unable to secure the rental license for both so he
was able to get one. So I guess what I'm getting at is he should know that he has to have a rental
license before he rents the property. Right. He thought it was just a perfunctory sort of,
you know, method. Having done this a couple of times before, has folks in, immediately pulls
the rental license and everything's been kosher. He did not expect to be told that the property
that he purchased was not legally zoned. Is the first floor unit the only one that has access to
the basement. Yes. Yes, sir.
Are utilities have utilities been separated where panel panels on the second floor for the second floor unit?
Yes, sir.
All right. Thank you.
I guess my question or comment, whichever one it is, following up on what
as Poor Member Johns was saying, part of what you have to do once you get your property license,
your rental license, or whatever they're calling it these days, is you're supposed to give the
tenant, what is it, these, it is, it's something about habitability and what have you. So those
are things that they're supposed to have before and not after they're already have rented the
property. So I might suggest that in addition to looking into city certs that your client
for future reference get the rental licenses first and not wait or assume that this is some
perfunctory thing this is a this is a requirement um to rent a property yeah i think i think i could
speak for my client because i heard him say that the rco he is learning a pretty big and expensive
lesson here uh and it uh he doesn't anticipate ever putting that cart before the horse assuming
anything anymore okay and that can be too and again that takes me to the pictures that you
were showing too because again you have someone who's advertising the the seller is advertising
or the broker whoever it is is advertising that these are two family dwellings but they
may or may not be legally two family dwellings and that's why uh one of the things that it's
wise to do is to kind of check so yes ma'am he's learned his lesson okay
Questions or comments for our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Any comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
I am your board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing residential single-family RSA 5.
The appellant occupied the space without proper licensing.
The appellant occupied the space without proper licensing.
Further, they have not shown that they're...
Further, they have not shown that there are unique physical circumstances or conditions that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for two-family household living.
MI 2024-003-741-6056 West Gerrard Avenue. I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hold on.
Can you hear me now, Chair?
My vote was yes.
We hear you now.
We hear you now.
What's your vote?
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 12, MI 2024-003-844-1410 North 31st Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Brewery Town,
Shardswood Civic,
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young.
Mr. Consul is coming back in now as a panelist chair.
Mr. Consul, I think I swore you earlier today, just for the record, state your name.
Joseph Consul, J-O-S-E-P-H, C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Sorry.
You identify your client and relationship to the property.
Yeah, it is Jamie Turner from Acclaim Autism.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Councilor. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case?
Five years in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, Councilor. Please proceed and share your story.
Okay. I am here today on behalf of Acclaim Autism.
Acclaim Autism is an organization that provides high-quality, scientifically-driven behavioral analysis therapy services for children on the autism spectrum and their families.
They have locations in Jenkintown, PA, Chester County, PA, Lancaster, and also in Irvine, California.
They have signed a five-year lease at the subject property here at 1410 North 31st Street.
The property is owned RMX2.
The special exception referral is for medical dental health practitioner in an existing structure.
They currently have a license to operate as a daycare, but to permit the full scope of their services, this referral is required as well.
We met with the Brewery Town folks.
We got a support letter, as you mentioned, no votes in opposition.
It's our proof of mailing.
That's what we mailed.
Here's the photos of the exterior of the place. It is a spot in this
mixed-use building that faces the street.
Some other photos.
Here's the map showing the space that my clients occupy.
Tax Clearance Certificate, the company that runs Acclaim Autism and signs the lease is
Aspire Autism, Inc.
Their Human Services Certificate of Compliance, letter from the state approving them to operate
in this location, and then finally the five-year lease with several renewal options.
It's a 4,000 square foot space.
With that, I'll call my client, Jamie Turner, to adopt my testimony.
If you're available, Jamie, to raise your virtual hand.
Jamie Turner, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Say your name as spelled for the stenographer.
Jamie Turner, J-A-M-I-E, last name T-U-R-N-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Hello, Jamie. Did you hear my testimony just now regarding 1410 North 31st Street and your company's lease at the location?
Hello, Jamie.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding 1410 North 30?
I did, yes.
Do you adopt it as your own?
Okay. Nothing further, Board.
Counsel, is it Space A or Space B, or is it both?
Oh, Jamie, can you opine on that? I realize that they weren't labeled.
Yeah, it's Space B, the blue shaded area.
Questions or comments 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?
Chair, we have Conlon Crossley. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Morning. Could you please state your name? It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Good morning, Chair. My name is Conlon Crosley, C-O-N-L-A-N-C-R-O-S-L-E-Y.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And you're from Council Member Young's office?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
I just wanted to reiterate that the Councilman's office has a position of non-opposition.
My computer went out. I don't know if we heard the letter was introduced.
I did in the very beginning say that where you were on that, sir.
Thank you, sir.
All right. Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no further hands, Sharon.
Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing residential multifamily mixed use, RMX2.
The appellant has shown that the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what would normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the requested special exemption for group medical practice.
I think so.
Thank you. MI 2024-003844, 1410 North 31st Street, I vote yes with Proviso. Use limited to Space B.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you. You have your votes, counsel.
Thank you, board.
Number 13, MI 2024, 003-849-899 Marcella Street, Joseph Vaccaro is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the 37th Ward Executive Committee with several provisos.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Vaccaro.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
Can you see me?
We can do both.
Okay, wonderful.
Thank you very much.
State your name is spelled for the stenographer.
And good morning.
May it please the board.
My name is Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, attorney for the applicant.
Um, I'm Hungry Restaurant Inc, represented by Crystal Lee's Marie Paz, who is actually sitting to my left in my office.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed and required to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did, with the exception of the tax clearance certificate, which my client was
able to obtain yesterday, and I forwarded that to the board yesterday evening.
Thank you very much.
Please proceed and share this one.
Thank you very much.
Share my screen.
For my exhibit, there we are.
Can you see the red building?
So essentially, this is an application to permit this establishment to be used as a restaurant for eating in as well as dining out.
The package consists of the refusal application with project information form the lease.
My clients have the property pursuant to a commercial lease, which expires on 2026, termination date May 3rd, 2026.
So hopefully as things progress and go forward, they should be able to easily obtain an extension of the lease.
They should be able to easily obtain an extension of the lease.
We have the plans of the property, which shows the first floor.
If I could zoom in on that.
Approximately 411 square feet of dining area.
This is a corner property showing the corner door.
with a food prep area consisting of 156 and a half square feet and a 164 square feet
kitchen area in the back with an accessible restroom. Scrolling down, this is a three-story
building. My client only has access to the basement for storage as well as to the first
floor. They have nothing to do with, I believe its residence is on the second floor, but they
have nothing to do with that. They had met on August 12th with the 35th Ward Executive
Democratic Committee. There were some discussions, and the RCO had requested that the takeout
portion of this application would be for a trial period of one year, hours of operation 8 a.m. to
11 p.m. with the restaurant being closed on Tuesday. Commercial pickup for trash with an
enclosed dumpster, no liquor license and no BYOB, and the used oil needs to be stored in the basement
until commercial pickup. My client has absolutely no problem, no issue with these requests, and we
could have them put in as provisos should the board be gracious enough to grant the variance.
the letter that went out to the near neighbors with proof of mailing
but scroll down and head to the photos
okay we're starting with as i said this is a corner property bill code door with
access to the basement poster on the building
additional photos of posters on the building
Inside view of the kitchen.
One, two, three, four dining tables, actually five dining tables.
And considering the chairs, no, they're not opening up a casino at the spot with a restroom.
And their Instagram page, type of food, Latino food, chicken stew, pork, carne frita.
Rice and beans, mangoes, soups, etc.
Now that it's 11.30, we're probably all thinking about lunch.
The tax clearance certificate, it's not in this main packet, but my client was able to obtain it yesterday, and it was forwarded to the board.
I do have, sitting to my left, Liz Marie Paz, the president of I'm Hungry Restaurant, Inc.
Liz Marie, could you come closer?
Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Crystal Lease, K-R-I-S-T-A-L-I-Z, last name is P-A-Z.
Did the stenographer pick that up?
Chair, I was just about to unmute myself and ask if she could do that again.
Could you please do that again and raise your voice a little bit?
Okay, my name is Chris DeLiz. First name will be K-R-I-S-T-A-L-I-Z. Last name P-A-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, to hold truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Ms. Paz, did you hear my presentation?
And would you adopt it as your own if it were your own testimony?
Okay. By the way, who else would be working at the restroom?
yeah you're gonna have to get closer we can't hear you that'll be my mother and my grandmother
and myself
do you have anything okay questions for the questions thank you questions from the board
can i see the layout here again sure please thank you gladly let me just scroll up
Crystalis, could you open up the door for your mom, please?
So there was a, you showed a kitchen.
I showed photos of the kitchen.
You asked for the layout.
I'm just scrolling up to there.
Well, layout in the kitchen.
So how, okay.
Make it a little bit bigger, Mr. Vaquero.
Make it a little bit bigger, Mr. Vaquero.
Yeah, it's a little bit bigger, thank you.
So here's the dining area and the kitchen.
I'm going to have to move.
Hold on.
There you go.
And here's the kitchen area.
And can I see those pictures again?
I'll just scroll down.
Just one moment.
look the here's a photo of the kitchen okay oh all right okay let me see if i have another one
no these are the outside no that's the only photo i have of the kitchen man
okay and then the dining area sure scroll down okay and then the i guess
wherever whoever is coming out with this food is this set up like with the counter where people
would yes order and then um come up and get their food when it's done or are they going to have
waitress service are you going to have waitress services yes she says yes okay so then the kitchen
would be
I guess toward me.
It's not
in the picture. Right.
The kitchen is toward the back.
And if we go, if I
could scroll up to the plans again.
So the kitchen area is
over here where my cursor is.
Toward the back.
You have a food prep area
where my cursor is over here.
There's a little bit of a
of a separation wall, where my cursor is here, counter dining space, where my cursor is.
All right. So what I was seeing was basically just that dining space in the one picture
and part of the kitchen in the other picture, and this whole prep space was not in the pictures,
correct? Correct. Correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Question. The drawings here were
prepared for what, the health department? Well, they were prepared in anticipation of the
zoning proceedings too. My client was operating, minding their own business until
one day a city inspector said that they're not zoned to be operating a restaurant at this
location. So they had to start the process to legalize this restaurant. Okay. So just a couple
things that the bathroom although it looks nice this doesn't comply with what the drawing says
in terms of the handicap accessibility i guess the other concern around that is do they have the
appropriate width for the entrance doors for somebody to get into a wheelchair that that
would be my concern but the drawings show that it's wheelchair accessible but the pictures don't
understood and if they have whatever processes and procedures that they'll have to follow to
get that into compliance that will have to follow the the first application that's always use
so is this use permitted um god willing um hopefully if this board would would permit this
use then they could put in for all the other appropriate applications such as getting that
restroom into compliance with the ada requirements gotcha
and if it means and if it means additional construction work later on it'll
that's just what they'll have to do yep i got you questions or comments more attorney
um just a couple of things so mr recaro you said this is
just the this use is just on the first floor and basement correct yes the basic storage
right right right um the the refusal is only for a sit-down restaurant now um this is where i got
a little confused by the um rco's letter because while you can have accessory takeout as part of
a sit-down restaurant the primary use here is a sit-down restaurant um so there's no i think it
would be difficult to proviso a takeout piece when that is not the primary use and i wasn't
clear if something had changed at the rco meeting but you're representing now that the that sit down
restaurant is what your client is requesting but there will be takeout service well that's
let me let me confirm that with with the client because i was not at the rco meeting
uh when did the when did the discussion of takeout restaurant start was that at the rco meeting or
start was that at the rco meeting or was that it started at the rco meeting
was that it started at the rco
did you hear that but it's actually a sit yeah it's a sit-down restaurant it's actually a sit-down
restaurant yeah take out capabilities take out capabilities yeah okay
questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have samia hannibal they have been unmuted and allowed to speak
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes samia s as in sam a m i y y
a h last name hannibal h-a-n-i-v as in boy l-e you wear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. Yes. Are you a neighbor? Yes, I am. I'm directly next to the restaurant
897 Marcella Street. Please proceed. Hi, yes. I believe I may have been the only neighbor who
attended the RCO meeting. The takeout conversation came about because I was opposed to a restaurant
being next door, sitting on restaurants in my home. And we came to an agreement that only and
only if the board agreed to a temporary one year that they will only do takeout it wouldn't be a
sit-down restaurant um and we were opposed because myself and my neighbors uh were aware that all of
this work started to the building without the proper permits at all i've been notifying the
city for the last two years the occupancy of this building changes every single year and it's a
nuisance the parking they're parking on the payments they're out there until two three in
the morning the construction was going on up until three and four in the morning
with no permits and they were actually operating without the proper licenses
they just stopped operating the last month and a half
so i'm a restaurant okay thank you very much
if i may hold on let's don't miss carol let me see if there's anyone else in the audience all
right other persons in the virtual audience
chair we have tanya solomon they have been unmuted and allowed to
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes tanya solomon t-a-n-y-a s-o-l-o-m-o-n i'm at 879 marcella street
Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I'm also a neighbor, again, on the block.
And since I've been on the block and I purchased my home in 2010, that property on that corner has been a nuisance.
It's been, again, like Samia said, it's been about seven or eight things going on on that property. Trash is always out there. Trash is being left out there. They're on again. We thought they was just we thought people were in there just running that for other businesses and not what it was supposed to be intended for.
When I started here, it was an ice cream parlor.
Then someone was staying in there.
Then it was somebody that had a nail salon.
So it goes back and forth.
The parking is ridiculous.
We've already had our parking taken away from PGW on the opposing streets.
So there's really nowhere to park at anywhere.
So, and again, the traffic is horrible.
People are coming there.
They're all hours of the night.
The music is blasting all hours of the night.
So that's why we're opposed to this.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no further handshake.
Yvette Cara, do you want to respond before we go to the Planning Commission?
Yes, thank you.
With respect to whatever may have been taking place at this property before,
I'm showing you the first page of the commercial lease,
which states that the occupancy date is May 23, 2023.
So these applicants have only been there for a little over a year.
Whatever may have been going on, those were previous tenants.
So that should not be imputed onto Ms. Paz
and the current restaurant that's there.
Second of all, when I apologize for the fire trucks passing by. One moment.
Okay. Thank you. With respect to when they moved in, there already was a kitchen in there.
So my clients have taken over a spot that had previously been used as a restaurant, and they seek to continue to use it as a restaurant, which can be a benefit to the neighborhood.
So my clients have taken over a spot that had previously.
they're not going to be operating at all hours of the night the opening and closing hours were
discussed and they're agreed to and um and um we ask for this opportunity to to be able to operate
and to be a benefit to the neighborhood thank you planning commission
amy with the planning commission the comprehend recommends no change in zoning at this location
from the existing commercial mixed use cmx1 the proposed commercial use is consistent with
documented power use therefore the planning commission recommends that the board grant
the requested variance for sit-down restaurant
By 2024-003-849-899 Marcella Street, I vote yes with proviso. One-year temporary variance that expires 11-1-25, hours of operation 8A to 11P, closed on Tuesday, commercial trash pickup, and used oil stored in basement until commercial pickup.
Mr. Chair, would you also like to specify the location of the use of the property to the first floor for the first floor and basement only?
So the other listed condition was the no liquor license and no BYOB.
Is that something that we can add to that or is that?
No, we cannot.
that is enforced at the state level okay okay they would be required to come back well they
would have they would be required to go to the state and go through a hearing process with the
community if they wanted to do if they want to sell liquor yes so what about byop that's
how does that work it it you don't need a license to do that people can just bring their
their own beverages so there's nothing that we can do about that okay what about what about the
community if they don't want that how does that work is there anything that they can do unfortunately
no wow well it's one it's one year temporary variance not like it was in here for takeout
for the whole thing.
My vote is yes
with proviso,
with the provisors.
Cheryl Gaston,
my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed,
my vote is yes
with proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Vaccaro.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Is there anyone
in the virtual audience
whose case has not been called?
I see no hands, Jerry.
Thanks, everyone. See everyone at 2 p.m.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's meetings.
With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Recording will be available by contacting ZBA Executive Director at phil.gov.
For our court sonography, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To end an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All questions should be directed to our executive director at zbaexecutivedirector.philly.com.
Here's our schedule for this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2022-007-291-430 West Burke Street.
Cases continued, attorney moving party.
Number three, MI 2024-000056.
20, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 6, 13, 29 Levick Street.
Case has been continued until Wednesday, November 6th at 9.30 a.m.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, do we have a, I just wanted to ask if we had a Spanish interpreter for that one,
just so we could put that on the record in Spanish.
Is the interpreter present?
good afternoon chair this is jibet benton i'll be your co-host for this afternoon
if there's a spanish interpreter in the audience please raise your hand
i see no hands chair okay well we'll make sure that we communicate with the applicant um as well
as here on the record. Thank you. Thank you very much. Number four, MI 2024, 000502, 1936 North
Front Street, continued attorney moving party. Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did see, there it goes. I knew
there was another request and the hand was up previously but then her hand was not up when i
said there were no hands pamela laughlin has been unmuted and allowed to speak
uh yes thank you very much good afternoon counsel could you please state your name and spell for the
yes sir my name is pamela lockman it is spelled l-o-u-g-h-m-a-n i represent dorothy french yep
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Is Catherine Mismar in the audience, too?
Catherine Mismar.
Chair, Catherine Mismar has been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the courts?
Catherine Mismar.
It's M as in Mary, I, S as in Sam, S as in Sam, I, M as in Mary, E-R.
For him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Counsel Lachman, would you state your position?
Yes, we are requesting a continuance because my client has retained a traffic engineer to issue a traffic and parking study for this revised plan.
He had previously done one for the original plan.
The situation is that since we received the notice of refusal on October 16th, he has been unavailable.
His mother was diagnosed with a serious health condition.
She entered hospice last week and was not expected to live through the weekend.
He was just unable to turn around a revised parking study for us.
Under these exigent circumstances, we respectfully request a continuance so that we may get a revised parking study and traffic study.
Councilor Mesmer, please.
Respectfully, the applicant opposes the request for continuance.
While we do feel terribly about the illness of the traffic engineer's mother,
this hearing was already rescheduled once to allow for further discussion with the community
and conversations with the councilman's office and two co-coordinating RCOs date back to February of 2023.
Both those RCOs have issued letters of non-opposition and support respectively,
and the councilman has also issued a letter of non-opposition.
One of those RCOs is present today, as well as all of our experts who are prepared to proceed.
During a call with Protestants' council late Friday, which was the first we spoke, we learned she was actually engaged back in July.
The revised plans that she referenced were provided to her client and were the subject of a community meeting called by her client in mid-September.
They've now had over two and a half months to review the revised plans, as we're at the end of October.
The protestant has had ample time to discuss the project with its traffic engineer.
And frankly, the proposal of revised plans is a reduction in density.
So if anything, it would improve the traffic condition.
And frankly, it would be unfair to the other community organizations who have invested over a year and a half in this project to continue to delay it to allow for further review.
So here's what we're going to do.
Council Lachman, I'm going to have Catherine Vinsmer present her case today.
we will reschedule a resumptive hearing for you to present your case.
Thank you.
So, and when I look at the list, you're, Counsel Mismer,
you'll be about two or three down and we'll be to you shortly.
Great.
Thank you.
And then what, just so both, you know,
what I'm going to do is hold public comment on this and also hold the,
the views of the planning commission till we have to have that resumptive
So we have to have that resumptive hearing, but we will hear Catherine Bismar's case today.
hearing, but we will hear Catherine Mismer's case today.
Just a quick question, Mr. Chair.
Council Emerson, is it possible to hold the resumptive hearing prior to, you know, a typical ordinary course continuance?
The staff will work on a resumption date with you, but it's not generally set in the ordinary course of continuances.
Great. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so number 11, number 11, MI 2024-005-359-6450-Averford Avenue, Makamba Kulaibali is the listed owner pro se, no exhibits, this is the first listing.
Akamba Koulibaly, if you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Chair, we have a hand up, but it is not the name you said.
Let's see who they are.
Make sure he's got a name of somebody else.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Makamba Koulibaly, M as in Mary, A as in Apple, K as in Kite, A as in Apple, M as in Mary, B as in Boy, A as in Apple.
could you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes all right this is the first listing in this case we do not have your exhibits
um i had you send your paperwork in yes and when was that um my husband is going to
um answer that question for me uh good good afternoon sir what's your what could you state
your name, please. I am Moussa Sidibe, M-O-U-S-S-A, S-I-D-I-B-E. You swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Sir, did you send the paperwork in for this
project? Yes. We sent out everything attached to when we was doing our RCO. We sent the same
things to both parties. And also five days ago, I sent it. Three days ago, I sent it again.
Let me confirm the email that I sent you to.
We do not have the exhibits.
What you're going to have to do is contact the office, give them a call,
and then we'll tell you the proper way of making sure we get it on time
and we will hear it the next time we have the case, okay?
I have a question.
The exhibit, you mean the floor plan?
Is that what you call the exhibit?
No, there's a whole series of things you need to send in.
And so what I'm going to do is you call the office. The office will make sure that you know every piece of material you need. Okay?
Okay. Can I ask one last question, please?
Okay. So the instruction that was sent out to us was that we're supposed to email everything, all these documents, the denial letter, the zoning appeal, the project information, the blueprint.
Right. Did you send everything?
I sent everything to rcozba at phila.gov.
and excuse me chair um did you also um send it to board council at philadelphia no i only send it
to the rco uh here's what we're going to do do what i tell you the office will help you make
sure you have everything you need and also where to send it okay okay all right thank you very much
So MI 2024-005-359-6450 Haverford Avenue, case is continued, Mark must be heard.
And also number two, MI 2023-006-415-1701 Germantown Avenue, that case has been withdrawn.
And number six, MI 2024-002-479-1222-24 Walnut Street.
That case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-ons.
Number one, MI 2024-004-954, the case has been rescheduled to 11-6-24 at 2 p.m.
Number two, MI202400476.
MI 2024-004-763-3412 North 19th Street. I vote yes with proviso. Per refusal, dated 10-29-24,
maximum three dwelling units, no household living in the basement.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Number three, MI 2024-004-290-21-Wolf Street. The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, November 6th at 2 p.m.
Start with number eight.
MI 2024-003-236-5145-47 Delancey Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
The applicant also provided a petition of support from 26 people.
Alan Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Alan Nockamson.
good afternoon uh mr chair members of the board alan knockamson knockamson pc
not just for the record you spell your name for this stenographer knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yeah, my client is 5145 Delancey LLC, and in the virtual audience should be either of his members, Irfan Hassan or Saeed Hassani.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you, Counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
So what we have here is 5147 Delancey Street.
As you can see, it's a former church building.
It's also had a history as a daycare more recently.
And we're trying to do an adaptive reuse of this split zoning of RSA 5 and RSA 6 into a six-unit apartment building.
So during our presentation, I will first review the notice of refusal with you.
Then we have the letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Council, as well as a petition of nearby neighbors.
Just a matter of background, one of my clients actually has a business on the commercial corridor, which is close by on 52nd Street.
so he's the well-known quantity in the neighborhood i think that's why he was able to receive such
support from the surrounding properties maps of the area which confirms the zoning of these
properties but we're also near commercial corridor photographs of the property interior photographs
as well you know just showing the current condition again this is going to be an adaptive
reuse to make it a six unit apartment building our plans and drawings you'll see in the plans
there's no basement use the trash room is dedicated in the basement of the building and
there's no changes to the building footprint at all we are adding a ramp for ada compliance for
the first floor units and there's no roof deck that's being added either we have our rco meeting
notice uh we're you know showing proof in that notice for our community meeting um our application
for appeal to the ZVA or D to the property,
showing 5145 Delancey LLC is the owner of the property,
and our Certificate of Tax Plan
showing that that entity is in good standing with the city
as it pertains to real estate taxes.
At the conclusion of my presentation,
I would ask that either Irfan or Saeed
virtually raise their hands.
I'll have a few questions for them
so they can adopt my testimony as their own.
Our notice of refusal, as I stated,
this is split zoning. It's really RSA 5, but I think there's a sliver that's RSA 6, and that's
why you'll see two zoning classifications here. Proposed use of the property is six dwelling
units. The lot area is almost 3,100 square feet. The building size is almost 7,000 square feet.
The building size is almost 7,000 square feet.
So this is definitely a mistake.
So this is definitely a misclassified zoning classification, especially given its history as well.
Previously as a church and daycare, we have two refusals and essentially it's the same.
Because of split zoning, the zoning examiner had a refusal for multifamily use for RSA 5,
which is not allowed in that zoning district, as well as the proposed use for six units for RSA 6.
So that's why we have two refusals, one for each separate zoning classification.
We had a meeting which was spearheaded by the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council, and they voted for they are supporting this project.
I think there is even a reference of my client's relationship with the neighborhood that he's a well-known quantity as well.
then there's a petition as well my client you know personally uh walked around the neighborhood
and obtained signatures from people in close proximity to the property
and then as you can see here it's a little strange here and i definitely think this is
misclassified but you can see we're on just off the commercial corridor on 52nd street
and there's like really the cmx two and a half use should be kind of squared off where our
property is it's squared off everywhere else or at worst it should be rm1 and if it was rm1 this
use would be allowed as a right so i think there's a discrepancy with the zoning classification but i
do believe regardless we've met our burden of of undue hardship here because of you know these are
not RSA five properties or six properties, how they look.
You know, we have a structure here that's well over 7,000 square feet
and has, you know, a long history of non-single-family use.
And then this is what you can see is the Google map perspective of the property.
Again, we're just off the commercial corridor on 52nd Street.
And in order to help support that commercial corridor, it's always good to increase the residential use of nearby properties when it makes sense.
And then photographs of the property, as you can see here, we intend to put a ramp here.
That's going to be ADA compliant, which will allow these units on the first floor to be like ADA compliant units as well.
And then these are zoning hearing notice poster.
And then this is the Lancy Street to the right of the property.
And as you can see, we're actually next door to a gas station as well, which is kind of tough to have an RSA 5 or 6 use when you're adjacent to a gas station.
But this is to the right of the property, and then this is to the left of the property.
And then interior photos, as you can see, the remnants of a church as well as a daycare facility.
and then our plans and drawings um we're putting all new windows in there uh that will be more
architecturally interesting what's there also to modernize the building obviously adding a
sprinkler and fire suppression system in there and here you can see the ramp from delancey
you can see it from a better angle here as well we're not changing any dimensions in the building
all we're doing is here you can see the lower level there'll be a trash room introduced
to the lower level and then we will store all of our mechanicals as well
and then this is the property as you can see it on each floor so this is the first floor you get
in in there uh you go to right it's one unit which is a two bedroom one bath you have to start with
the kitchen dining room living area laundry for each unit mechanical store to here and then there's
the two bedrooms and then one bath each with closets in them same floor plan if you go to
left kitchen living room laundry room mechanicals bedroom bedroom bathroom that's approximately a
thousand square foot uh unit instead of going to left or right you go up a flight of steps
you have units three and four you go to to the right kitchen living room dining room bedroom
bathroom bedroom this these units are a little bigger so we're able to put a second bathroom
here that's a two bedroom two bath and that's around 1100 square feet instead of making a right
you make a left it's the same thing kitchen living area dining room washer dryer mechanicals
bedroom bathroom bedroom bathroom that's also a two bedroom two bath identical to the other one
on this floor of 1100 square feet and then the third floor it's a little bit smaller the building
footprint up there um those are one bedroom one baths approximately 550 square feet
Those are one-bedroom, one-baths, approximately 550 square feet.
But again, nice, decent size.
You have a kitchen, living room, dining room.
You have laundry, mechanical, one-bath, one-bedroom.
Instead of going to the right on the third floor, you go left, same thing.
You have a kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom, laundry, mechanical, bathroom.
There's no roof deck on here.
So we met with the community earlier this month on October 22nd at 6.30 p.m.
We always emailed the notice and proof of mailing of that notice to the community as well as other relevant parties well in advance of the community meeting.
We mailed that notice to 122 addresses, used the list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal that we filed on 5145 Delancey's behalf.
along with the notice of refusal and the project information form,
the deed to the property showing 5145 Delancey LLC as the owner of the property,
and then finally the certificate of tax clearance.
I'm going to stop sharing my screen at this second,
and I would ask that Irfan virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Irfan Hassan has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
hi uh my name is irfan hassan it's spelled i-r-f-a-n last name is hassan h-a-s-s-a-n
and i am present here where or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i will tell the truth uh nothing but the truth uh and the whole truth i'm sorry if i said
That's okay. Council, please proceed. Yes. Irfan, you heard everything I stated today about your zoning matter. Correct. Yes, I did. And is it true and correct? Yes, it is all correct. And do you adopt as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you.
Questions from the board.
I do have a question.
I see you've got a ramp.
So the entrance is handicapped, accessible, nicely laid out units.
They look good and they're furnished.
So thank you for that.
But are there going to be set aside units for handicapped accessible?
We don't anticipate.
We're not specifically setting it aside, but obviously we would love to
be able to accommodate people with handicaps.
Where's trash going to be stored? It's in the basement. It's the lower
level. Let me just share my screen one more time. It's a dedicated trash room in the
basement. Let me do that.
How will that be managed?
They're going to hire a property management company who will facilitate
the removal of the trash every single week and and placement on the curb and making sure that
it's cleaned up obviously after trash day as well you're not you're not going to have commercial
i think i think at six we're required right yeah yeah so yes okay well you were saying
it was going to be put out yeah i misstated i'm sorry but yes i i meant to put out of the curb
to like then dispose of you know appropriately with the commercial trash hauler because where
six units were required under the law to have a commercial hauler gotcha was this a partial
basement or is this you're just showing that for the trash room and mechanical that's a partial
basement okay so it's it's so there's no so the basement doesn't cover the entire building
that's right um irfan can you confirm that i just want to make sure i'm accurately yes yes
Yes, it's actually, the basement does not extend to the whole building size.
It's just the very front of it kind of correct.
All right, thanks.
Any other questions on the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilly Anderson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Plenty, Commission.
Yes, this is Ron Bednar with the City Planning Commission, first name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Ron.
This property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan, given the site's physical condition and documented use history.
Recommend the request for variance be granted.
MI 2024-003-236-5145-47 Delancey Street, I vote.
236-5145-47 Delancey Street.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Next unit.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Nockamson, could you please stay on?
I have one more case for you, I think.
Thank you.
MI 2024-004-300, 3401-03, North 10th Street.
Mr. Nockmson, just state your name for the record.
Alan Nockmson.
And could you please identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Suite 215 Events, LLC, the owner of the property, as well as its operator.
We do not have an RCO letter of yet, but we do have a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Council.
do you agree to wave the reading on the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing? Yes, we have. Thank you, council. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
All right, so I'm here to present Suite 215.
This event planning space is at the corner of 10th and Ontario.
This board previously heard this matter in 2014 and granted a variance for this RM1 property.
Similar to the other project, I do think that this zoning classification is mislabeled.
I guess you can either argue we're at the beginning of a residential portion of the neighborhood or at the end of an industrial portion of the neighborhood.
I think we're actually at the end of the industrial portion of the neighborhood, you'll see, across the street.
Just the way the property is configured, this does not show as an R-in-1 property.
What we're trying to do here, and you'll see from our presentation, which will go over the notice of refusal, we're trying to extend the hours of operation.
We originally had a proviso, which had hours of operation from Monday through Wednesday till 11, and then Thursday through Sunday till 1 a.m.
We're just looking for that extension of time from Monday to Wednesday to midnight and Thursday to Sunday to 2 a.m.
In addition, I think that the classification that was previously under the old permit is something that's outdated.
With the change in the regulations and the zoning code for event planning spaces, we would feel more comfortable to have this as a use in that entertainment.
And because it's over 50 occupants, it would fall under the nightclub and public entertainment venue section of the code.
Right now, it's stating that we're a social private club for members, which is not accurate and not accurate in terms of the use.
Anyway, the correspondence, we don't have any correspondence, as the chairman stated, from 12th and Cambria Advisory Board.
It was a well-attended meeting.
We had over 20 people there. And the commentary that we received, because Mr. Goldberg from my office handled the meeting meeting, the commentary we received, according to Mr. Goldberg, was that people were very positive about the use of the property.
It's always tough to get event planning spaces approved, whether it's by variance or special exception, especially when you gain an extension of that use.
But people were quite positive, saying that it's clean, they're quiet, you know, the operator is very respectful, and they had no objection to the extended use or just the updated use based on the current zoning permit application.
um next we have is the and and it sounds like that has gone to the the district council member
where district council member uh young has i guess and we don't have that letter but you know it
sounds like he's issued a letter of non-opposition to this project um you know gonna have the use
permit which shows the approved use of this property over a decade ago um and there's been
no issues and actually has been a positive effect on the community. Photographs of the
property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting. Notice, again, the well attended meeting of 20
individuals, our application for appeal, deed to the property, and certificate of tax clearance.
Oh, wait, hold on. All right. All right. So for 3401-03 North 10th Street, again,
this is an RM1 property, which I think is not classified correctly and has not been used like
that for some for well over a decade i think we're you know uh we're not you know anyway but
we're looking for use as assembly and entertainment um and you know we fall into the
We're looking for use as assembly and entertainment, and, you know, we fall into the category of nightclubs and public entertainment venues because we're seeking an occupancy over 50 individuals.
As you can see here from the notice of refusal, previously it was approved as a social private club for members with the following provisos, hours no later than 11 on Sunday through Thursday and 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
We're trying to expand that use where Monday through Wednesday, it would be up till midnight and Thursday through Sunday, it would be up to 2 a.m.
excuse me so it also had a proviso as a banquet hall only um again we met with the community on
october 17th we've been asking for the letter don't know if mr wooten who is the representative
from 12th and cambridge advisory board maybe he'll be on and and confirm you know what our
understanding of how the meeting turned out um but again i believe that the district council member
has issued a letter of non-opposition which speaks volumes about you know the proposed use of the
Here's our zoning permit in 2014. So this use has been active as, you know, for catering purposes for over a decade. And, you know, there has been no issues.
Here's our zoning map. And as you can see, we're RM1. It's a rather large lot of 3,500 square feet. Again, we're RM1, but we also border I2, and there's a lot of industrial use in this neighborhood too.
there's also cmx to use as well and then this is where we are 10th in ontario
photographs of the property so our trash and this is probably not the best photo
will be stored outside and this is where it's held right here
and then even though we have a 10th street address this is the 10th street side by the way
even though we have a 10th street address really we're on ontario and that's where the
the industrial uses across the street but everything all the all the traffic and everything
else is on uh the ontario side and then this is our orange notice poster on both public streets
for and that shows our proof of posting and then this is just showing the use has been consistent
for the over the last uh 10 years and then this is north 10th street to the right of the property
to the left of property and then you can see here the industrial use that was mentoring
mentioning and then this is west ontario to the right of the property and then to left their
property again the industrial use that's kind of here and then this is just you know pictures from
their website that you know they're a pretty well regarded event planning space
plans and drawing simple floor plans so we do have
while there is a commercial kitchen here with venting through the roof they don't typically
cook on the premises they have an off-site facility where they do the cooking this is
merely merely for warming and you know for for flow for the event but they do have a commercial
kitchen and um they have venting through the roof and that's all existing um but as you can see here
a decent floor space for the events, even a stage for music, a bar area.
Again, they have what's called a catering liquor license,
where they are legally allowed by the PLCB to have liquor at the premises,
and it's all regulated by the state.
There's the existing toilets, and then there's the office for administrative purposes.
Our RCO meeting notice, we had our meeting on October 17. We emailed that notice to the community members, leaders, excuse me, two weeks prior to that, along with proof of mailing of that notice to 97 addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, which we show the community leaders.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Suite 215 Events, LLC, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form and the deeds of property showing that Suite 215 Events is the owner.
And then the certificate of tax clearance showing that my client does not owe any taxes to the city, real estate taxes regarding this property.
A couple of things of note, whenever they have an event, they have security on the premises. They always have a representative from their organization as well as part of any event. They have cameras outside, the place is pre-lit, and they require insurance from any person who's operating an event on their premises.
I think that's about it.
I would, and of course, obviously we can answer any questions from the board. I do have Shawna Lester, a representative from Suite 215 Events LLC.
And of course, obviously, we can answer any questions from the board.
Is she in the virtual audience, Mr. Nocklemson?
She should.
She's been unmuted. Okay, she had her hand up, but she put it down. Ms. Lester, can you put your virtual hand back up?
Ms. Lester has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Lester, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, Shawna Lester, S-H-A-W-N-A-H, Lester, L-E-S-T-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Ms. Nockamson.
Yes, Ms. Lester, you heard everything I had to say today about this zoning matter.
Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Nackamson, before we start, could you tell me where you got the times from and
what's the purpose of changing the times? Just you think you'll make more business or
tell me about the times. Yeah. So they've been in business for about a decade and they feel like
that especially with their events you know there have been some people who have been preferring to
have that extra hour and you know again we've had no issues with the community and in in actuality
when we have the community meeting there are a couple people in the neighborhood who lived close
by who's who who confirmed that to the community leaders you think you need midnight on monday to
Wednesday too? That's what my client would prefer. I always defer to the board in that.
I mean, obviously the board, he has a ton of event planning space, you know, variance requests or
special exceptions. There's always a concern about having too much use. And I, and I understand that
this has been previously approved over a decade ago with a little lesser use. There's been no
issues um i would say at the very least the the the thursday friday saturday and potentially
sunday would be you know something that we would extremely um appreciate that additional uh you
know time for 2 a.m um but that's i i believe it to the discretion of the board questions from the
board so so i'm just trying to get the clear so the so currently the end time is what um let me
No, it's here. It's 11 p.m. hours later, 11 p.m. on Sunday to Thursday, and 1 a.m. Friday to Saturday.
The RCO, the community, was okay with the 2 o'clock time?
So all I can tell you is that we attended a meeting with 20 individuals. We did not hear any negative reaction to that request. And there were a few individuals in the community who reaffirmed that we've been a responsible operator. We don't have a letter. So that I can tell you, we've been asking for that letter to confirm our understanding.
i don't remember if they i would have to ask mr goldberg if they voted in front of us
um i feel like they did i don't want to misstate anything i can you know ask mr goldberg to text
me to confirm that they voted in front of us but we do have a letter of non-opposition
from the district council member so um i under also understand that that of those 20 people in
the meeting there were a lot of like there was a ward leader and multiple committee members because
was a separate meeting as well and so i think maybe that's why uh council member young sent
the letter his letter without even hearing the letter uh getting the letter from the uh coordinating
rco because i think it was confirmed to him that there was no issue with his request
okay so i'm gonna go back to the question chairman bergman asked which is
it's an extra hour
you're asking for an extra hour
basically
Sunday, Thursday, and Friday through Saturday
is that for
so it looks like from again
I'm just looking at the refusal
because it indicates the previous allowance
and there was a proviso in there
it looks like from the
proviso in the previous allowance
of the previously requested variants.
It looks like Thursday was until 11 p.m.
So we're asking for a few extra hours there.
We're asking for a few extra hours there.
And then Friday and Saturday, there was an allowance until 1 a.m.
And then Friday and...
So we're asking for Thursday through Sunday until 2 a.m.
So it'll be three more hours on the Sunday and the Thursday and one more hour on Friday and the Saturday.
And then my clients requesting, and I leave it to the board's discretion, Monday through Wednesday, they were looking until midnight, which would be an additional hour of what's previously allowed.
Was that part of what the refusal said or what the request was?
Well, that's what we presented in front of the committee.
Oh, that's so that those restrictions that I previously stated.
Yeah, that's in the previous approval.
So if you look at the notice of refusal, it actually referenced it in the notes of what was allowed and then the provisos.
What we presented in front of the community is that we would like to operate Monday through Wednesday until midnight and Thursday through Sunday until 2 a.m.
And we would ask for those provisos to be implemented based on what we heard from the community and the fact that we've operated as a responsible business for the last 10 years.
Okay. And again, I guess I'm just asking, you've been doing this for 10 years. So under these hours, why the change, what's the additional hours going to allow you to do in terms of events that you're not doing now?
Well, I think the thing is, is that there's some place there's some individuals who don't want our space. And, you know, again, they they they've been asked enough times over the years that they've, you know, they've hired me to go through this very long, expensive process to say it makes enough economic sense based on the money that they're losing because of the limitation of hours.
Plus, again, if you look at even the approval, it talks about it being a social private club, which, you know, for members only, which is not what the actual use is, and they're trying to clean that up, too.
Okay, thank you.
You're welcome.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments for our attorney?
um excuse me just briefly um mr nogamson is this is this um facility it's being rented out
like for private events is that okay that's what yes okay all right so i don't think it's in the
right category um but i know the the code language is a little odd in that regard because it says 50
or more under the nightclubs and public entertainment venues and it doesn't specify
a number under the event facilities, but this sounds more like an event facility.
I would like to see that corrected, if possible, before the board votes on it, or at least
check with L&I to make sure it's in the right category, because based on what you described
is happening there, it's not in the correct category.
But I know that 50 or more number is cause for confusion, and this is newer definition
in the code.
So I'm not sure how that's being interpreted.
Yeah, I mean, again, I defer to the board and obviously it's counsel to put this in the right category.
I mean, we stated, you know, in our application, the, you know, proposed use and, you know, we get the refusal based on that.
Mm hmm. Right. No, I just I would just like to double check because I mean, unless unless the interpretation is anything that's 50 or more just goes into that bucket, then that's one thing. But it doesn't really it doesn't make sense for because there's certainly event facilities that are more like private event facilities like this that are more than 50 people.
um so it seemed like it should be in a different category so if if we could just hold it for one
week i've already put in a question to ellen i to ask them about how this is interpreted um just to
to clarify because if um if it's not correct we should update the refusal but if it is correct
then it's then that's correct but it's not at this point if it is correct and maybe we can get
the letter from the community group as well within that week period yes yeah maybe yes that's true we
leave the record open for that as well. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer this time, Chair. Planning Commission. This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. Again, while this property is currently indicated for residential on the city plan, given the site's documented use history, its physical condition, we recommend the equestrian variance for assembly and entertainment uses be granted.
Hillary, we'll look to do this next week at 2 p.m.?
Mr. Nockmson, will you reach out to the RCO one more time and just let them know?
We'll be voting this next week if they'd like to provide a letter.
Of course.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nockmson.
Thank you.
Number four.
I'm sorry.
Number five.
MI 2024-001-323-1204 Wilder Street.
camille deering and walter deering applicant owners it's pro se there's a letter of opposition
from passion square a letter of opposition from council member squilla camille deering
please raise your virtual hand she's coming back in as a panelist now chair
hi could you state your name please and spell for the stenographer
I apologize for the delay. My system is running slow. She should be coming back in now.
First, could you put on your video, please?
Yep. There we go.
Camille, you're going to testify?
Okay. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Camille Deering, C-A-M-I-L-L-E, Deering, D-E-A-R-I-N-G.
Confirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So this application is for the demolition of a rear two-story portion and for the erection of a rear four-story addition,
as well as the erection of a two-story addition over the existing two-story portion with roof deck.
No change in use to existing single-family attached structure.
The maximum building height in the RSA 5 zoning district is 38 feet, whereas 41 and a quarter inches are proposed.
An eight-foot setback above the second floor is required if the budding lots on both sides of the attached building contain only two stories of occupied space, whereas the setback is proposed.
Our vice chair has a few questions to ask you, okay?
And I do want to let you know, we have our architect on the line, Ian Toner, to answer any specific questions.
Why don't we let our vice chair?
Good afternoon, ma'am.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
You can proceed and you can share your screen.
There's a green button at the bottom of the screen.
What we'll do is you do the testimony and there's anything that the board needs.
We'll go to the architects for comment, the architect for comments.
OK. OK.
OK, so, yeah, our.
Green button on the bottom.
Yeah, you're coming up.
I see the toner drawings.
I'll just share the drawings.
Um, so our proposal is to, um, are currently our property at 1204 Wilder Street is a single
family two-story home.
Um, and our proposal is to add a third story and partial third, partial fourth story addition.
Um, I guess the main reason we want to do this project is because we are planning on
having kids in the next few years. And we just need the additional space to grow into. As it is
currently constructed, we will likely have to move out in the next few years. And we really like this
area and we want to stay in the neighborhood for years to come. Additionally, we both work from
home. So having that additional space to be productive in our jobs would be really beneficial.
um and lastly our um both of our parents live out of town and so they come to visit us a lot
and having um that additional space to host them when they do come to visit
um is kind of what we're what we're hoping for here um so here's this is drawing we have
um so here's this is drawing we have why don't we do this could you start with the uh
what the building looks like now why do you start with that yeah the building in the block where
you're at now yeah yeah so this is the that's your house now the current home yep there's only notice
in the window? Yes. This is the back of the house. The house is two floors too, am I correct?
Correct, yes. And then this is the other side of the house with the other neighbor,
neighboring home. So this right now has a space here. We would demo the kitchen here
and build it back square
to the rest of the house.
This is the deed that shows
our names here as owners.
We're at 1204.
We have the letter of authorization for both Walter and I as owners.
We have our letter from the RCO meeting.
Our project information form.
Tax clearance for myself
and then the tax clearance for Walter.
Here's our notice of refusal for the project.
Again there's the refusal for the height and then refusal for the eight foot setback.
the zoning drawing you already saw and then the application for appeal
what you what you want to do now is go to the the drawing shop
and and let me ask you this question is there anybody else on the block who was already
built up yes yeah there are a few um say would it be three-story buildings yes you want to have
four story um yeah the fourth story would be set back um so you wouldn't see it from the street it
would since it's a partial fourth story the rear of the building there am i correct
yeah so the rear of the building it would go all the way to the fourth story
back street behind you are they have buildings that went up to
there's three stories yeah behind us is three stories
but you'd be four stories in the back correct
um okay question questions from the board
Was there an RCO meeting?
Yes, there was.
Opposition.
Opposition.
Say it again.
Opposition from the RCO.
The RCO.
Also opposition from Council Member Squill.
Gotcha. Okay.
Yeah, the RCO voted in opposition three to two.
The maximum height area is, I believe, probably 38 feet, right?
And you're asking for 41.
Correct.
And is there a layout of what these floors are going to look like?
This looks like the elevation.
Do you have something to show what's going to be in these floors here?
Yeah, I can pull that up. Thank you.
one of the other things while you're pulling that up it looks like you're eliminating
the shared um like alleyway between you and the neighbor on the plane that's no
we're not eliminating the alley oh we're not eliminating the alley no
There is a current alley, and the alley will be there.
Covered area on the first floor, at the ground floor level.
Yeah, he's talking about between the two buildings.
Between the two houses.
Your kitchen comes out.
There's like an inch, a little hook line there.
I mean, it straddles.
That opening straddles both properties.
And it looks like from your plan, from your roof plan, and from your elevations that you're eliminating that space, at least on your side.
Do I need to be sworn in to answer?
Why don't you state your name, please?
My name is Walter Deering, W-A-L-T-E-R, last name Deering, D-E-A-R-I-N-G.
for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes
so the currently like our house like you're saying it it cuts in on our property and then
there's an alley on the addition um we're just building out the addition to the existing footprint
of the like basic part of the house the original house so that alley will still be existing
will not be encroaching on the alley so you're gonna pull up the floor plans
what was that i said you're gonna pull up pull up the floor plans
yeah so we're just filling up our part of the property not the shared yeah
is your architect on on on the line would he have access to it yeah i think all right mr toner
mr toner yes can you hear me mr could yeah could you please state your name and spell for the
course sure uh ian toner it's spelled i-a-n-t-o-n-e-r we're referring to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do do you have access to the to the floor plans yes
could you please bring them up um yeah i just need to get promoted to be able to share my screen
we'll promote you go ahead he's coming back in as a panelist now chair
okay hey everybody
okay are you able to see those plans
So here's the first floor plan, and you'll see, I mean, it's a skinny alley, but this is what there is at the ground floor in the existing building.
These gray walls are the existing walls, and the first floor addition is just going to extend straight back from that wall.
So the alleyway just will extend under the building.
On the upper floor, it overhangs the alley just like it does on the existing second floor.
So we're not encroaching on that alley in any way.
We're not making it any lower or narrower or anything.
Gotcha.
What about the rear yard?
Yeah, so the rear yard, with the existing building configuration, the rear yard is five feet.
When we demo and we make the addition a little bit wider, we're also making it shallower.
So the rear yard is going to come into conformance at seven feet.
The only other thing I wanted to address, and I don't know how crucial it is, but the height refusal is, the measurement that they gave on the refusal is the measurement from the sidewalk, but the legal height of the building measured from the average grade plane is slightly less, so it's 39, 11 and a quarter, as opposed to 41.
is slightly less. So it's 39, 11 and a quarter, as opposed to 41, 0 and a quarter. So basically a foot lower than what's in refusal. And all I would say to that is that a normal three-story house, the roof can be up to 38 and the parapet walls are allowed to be 42 inches high, giving a building an effective height of 42 feet.
41 feet-ish, so we are below that. We're not proposing a deck on top of the fourth floor
here, so the effective height of the building is very similar to a typical three-story with roof
deck home, so I just wanted to toss that out there for conversation. Are there other three-story
houses on the block. Yes, down the block there are. And there are some behind on Dickinson Street
as well. And this house is in the middle of the block? Is that what I'm seeing in the picture?
So there's a building that faces 12th Street. And then so it's kind of a long side of it is on
on Wilder Street, then there's a row house, and then there's this house. So we are a little bit
in from the end. But it's not quite, it's not the middle, it's closer to the end of the block.
And so you currently have how many bedrooms?
Two bedrooms.
Currently there's two bedrooms. And with this addition, you're going to have how many?
Three bedrooms.
Mr. Turner, the three-story houses on this block, but they're not 38 feet, right?
I couldn't say for sure they are under three-story homes.
You're going up four-floor or three in the front and four in the back, right?
That's correct, yeah.
So the four in the back are measuring at 42?
They're measuring at 3911 from the average grade plane.
So a little bit under 30, about 39 feet from the backyard.
They're showing 41 feet here, right?
From the sidewalk.
But if you look at the zoning plan, you'll see the dimension is 3911 and a quarter from the grade plane.
I got it.
Other questions for the board?
questions or comments from the virtual audience i mean i'm sorry our our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission no i'm sorry chair we do have um matthew in the audience
matthew you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer sure my name is matthew krebs m-a-t-t-h-e-w-k-r-e-b-s i'm a resident
at 1205 wilder street across the street you swear or affirm the total truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do please proceed so just a few clarifications there is one three-story structure
on Wilder Street, the rest of the structures are two stories outside of the ones that border 12th
and 13th Street, which have several three-story structures. Additionally, in front, this is
actually going to be about three and a half stories in the front, considering there's a roof deck on
the front half of this structure. Now, the one thing that I do want to address is really a quality
of life issue for the residents on the north side of Wilder Street across from this proposed property
simply because they are on the south side. And the quality of life issue that is going to be
addressed needs to be addressed is the fact that a four-story structure is essentially going to
block about 45 percent sunlight that comes into the north side of the street during the months
November to March. So there's gonna be a dramatic reduction in the amount of sunlight that accesses
the streets across the house. That is really what drove the refusal from the RCO meeting
and continues to be my main issue here. Thank you, Mr. Krebs, for taking the time to call us.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Hannah Carlton.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes, of course.
My name is Hannah Carlton, H-A-N-N-A-H-C-A-R-L-T-O-N.
C-A-R-L-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You swear or affirm to tell the truth
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am. I live directly across the street at 1205 Wilder Street.
With the same person that just testified?
That is correct. He's my husband.
I know, but is there anything else you can add other than what he said?
My primary concerns are, yes, that of access to sunlight, but also our privacy by not respecting
the eight foot setback there will be windows directly across from us and looking down into
our property because it is a very narrow street there's one side of the street parking additionally
the new structure will stand out because it's an eye floor it's out of proportion with the rest of
the neighborhood our community has a character that we want to maintain it's important to many
of us such a drastic change will set a precedent for future developments that might diminish the
character of the community. So I strongly urge the board to consider that we should strive to
maintain the integrity and appeal of our neighborhood, ensuring developments are in
keeping with the established standards, and then also do not adversely affect the quality of life
for our existing residents. Thank you for your taking the time to call us. We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no hands here. Plainty Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Plumlee. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Given the documented use history and the physical condition of the property, we recommend the request for variance be granted, provided it include a setback of eight foot for the third and fourth stories.
in my 2024 001 323 1204 waller street um i vote yes um
third floor setback fourth floor no the the rear of the property no larger than three floors
so there'll be a setback on the second in the front and the only three floors in the rear
uh mr mr let me just clarify the proviso so what you're saying is maximum three stories
and then um eight foot setback at third story front
my vote is uh yes uh with proviso and that would be they would still comply if they comply with
a maximum 38 foot height? Okay. My vote is yes with provisor.
Sorry, just to clarify. So that's actually an additional proviso. You're saying that
must comply with 38 foot height limit because currently that's a...
You go up three floors at will, right? Yes, but you should clarify that because that is a refusal.
So then that's an additional proviso. Mr. Chair, do you adopt that proviso as well?
I do adopt it. Yes. Okay. All right. Sorry, Ms. Gaston. Yes. With that, Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisants.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with both provisants.
Thank you very much. Just to clarify, it sounds like,
I mean, the two refusals were the height and setback. So it sounds like it's really a no vote
or it's a yes vote to comply with the code is that correct it's a yes vote and they're applied to
the provisos right but I mean the provisos were to meet the height and setback requirements which
are the only two refusals that we have so okay so is this I'm not trying to be difficult I just
want to know the process wise we're handling this like we're going to submit revised plans
to to get this zoning permit as opposed to getting a no and submitting for a new zoning
permit is that correct process right hillary i may have to check with l and i about that because
we with the yeah i thought there was one additional refusal to related to the roof deck but it was
it was a different property um yeah so it's essentially i mean it's essentially no vote
because you have provisoed out i mean yeah you provisoed out the the refusals so it would have
to be marked as a denial okay all right thank you appreciate it can i ask a question so for it
Just from my mind and a design standpoint.
At 38 feet, you'd have a three-story.
There's no reason that that's there couldn't be a loft in that three story. Correct. That wouldn't make it a full story. Correct.
There's no reason that there couldn't be a loft in that three-story, correct?
I think that's right. Yeah, that's right. All right.
So perhaps we should just revote it and deny it because that would that makes a little bit more sense than the provisos.
Because we're basically saying when we tried to say you go up three floors, you can't go to the fourth floor in the rear.
is what right well they can but they could go up to three floors but they just have the height and
they can't not have the setback so that's what the two that's what the two refusals were formed
so we're basically when i write it up it would basically be a denial but i mean i mean provisos
i could go with i could go with the what was it the 40 feet or whatever i you know it's up to you
guys but do we want to take this one back to executive session what do we do well yeah
Connor, we'll take it back to the executive session.
We'll figure it out, and we'll come back and re-vote it on next week at 2 p.m. on Wednesday.
Great.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
So just to clarify for the record, that case has not yet been voted.
The board will be re-voting next week at 2 p.m.
Number seven, MI 2024-003-086-7330 Ridge Avenue.
Catherine Mismer is the attorney.
There's also a second attorney involved, Pan Lagman.
There's a recommendation of unanimous non-opposition from Upper Roxburgh Civic Association.
There's a letter of support from Ridge Park Civic Association.
There's a letter of opposition from Durnley Park Civic Association.
And a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Jones.
Chair, what is the name of the second attorney?
Ann Logman.
Unless she just grew off completely.
Ann Logman, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
we have a pamela laughlin chair that's it yeah pam i said pam oh pam i'm sorry chair i
misunderstood she's coming back in as a panelist now
Pam? Pamela?
Yes, I'm here. I'm sorry.
Sure. Now, you both have been sworn before, just for the record.
Both of you, state your names, please.
Pamela Lockman.
Catherine Mismar, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
Ms. Mismar, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure. I'm here on behalf of Terra Firma, 7330 Ridge, LLC, owner of the property at 7330 Ridge Avenue.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
i do i just want to confirm the board has received the updated refusal that was issued in october
i believe so yes um have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes sir
council hillary we do we did receive the latest one correct yes mr vice chair we do have it thank
you thank you please proceed i just want to confirm before we get into the meat of the presentation
on the resumptive hearing that was decided earlier are we limiting the scope of that to
the traffic study that has been requested and the reason for their request for delay
i just want to make sure we're not putting on our entirety of our case and then allowing them
two to three months to prepare a response so i want to limit that scope to make sure we're
all on the same page logman miss logman uh well i i believe it was my entire case was to be
presented on the next date and so i have already texted my witness you're not starting today
uh not my expert witness the other witness however you would like how many how many witnesses do you
have two an expert witness who's unavailable and i have uh my client who is an adjacent neighbor
but I can I can get her back if you would like so your client wasn't planning to attend today's
hearing my client's been online the whole time I have texted her that it looks like
she is not going to be testifying because I'm not putting on a case
i just don't know that it makes sense for us to put on an entirety of our case
I just don't know that it makes sense for us to put on an entirety of our case
if the reason for their continuance was because their traffic engineer is not available
if the reason
Thank you.
and they're not going to put on any of their argument at all i just said i will do whatever
the board would like me to do and put on her client if we depending on where we go with time
i don't think this will take that long she can have her client come on and testify okay thank
you appreciate it all right miss missman as mentioned i'm here on behalf of 7330 ridge llc
or the property at 733 ridge avenue with me today i've got owner's representative rob robertson
our project architect rustin oler our professional land planner janice woodcock our traffic engineer
kevin savage and our real estate broker samantha miller we're here today with an application for
new construction of 12 detached single-family homes, each with accessory off-street parking.
Before you, you have a letter of opposition from Councilmember Jones,
non-opposition from Councilmember Jones, a letter of support from Ridge Park Civic Association,
who is a co-coordinating RCO for this project, as well as a letter of non-opposition
from Upper Roxborough Civic Association, the second co-coordinating RCO for this project.
this vacant property oh i apologize we also have a petition of support containing signatures of
over 25 near neighbors several of those are located on ridge avenue on harman road
on in the rocksboro reserve development to the rear
this is a vacant property consisting of almost 60 000 square feet that fronts on ridge avenue
in Roxborough. The site is zoned RSD3. This part of Roxborough, especially those lots fronting Ridge,
are an eclectic mix of zoning classifications. Here's our site fronting Ridge Avenue running
through. This is what it currently looks like today, this deep lot that stretches back from the
road. This is a zoning map of showing you the surrounding area. We have a large apartment
building across ridge avenue that's zoned rm2 we've got rsa3 rsa2 rsa1 rm1 rsa5 and ca1
the rsd3 zoning district which is our site is a single family detached zoning district
it requires a minimum lot size of 5 000 square feet per lot this project is located in front of
the Roxborough Reserve development, which is here, which consists of a mix of twins and single
families. There's a large apartment building over here directly across Ridge, and there's a mixed
use building on this side of our site, as well as grow homes to the right of our site.
The proposal includes a new construction of 12 single family homes. They are detached homes,
each with off-street parking, both interior and a garage, as well as surface parking on a drive.
Each detached home has its own private rear yard, and there is also an extensive landscape buffer to the rear of that, as well as to the rear with our border of the Roxborough Reserve development.
This project's evolved extensively through the community process, as I'm sure you can imagine, based on testimony you've already heard today.
Councilman Jones' office designated two co-coordinating RCOs for this project.
Ridge Park Civic, who's here today, and Upper Roxborough have both submitted letters of
support and non-opposition, respectively. You also have a petition of support signed by over
25 near neighbors. This project has a long history. I'd like to share with you the community
engagement summary that we put together. This project was originally proposed back in February
of 2023. The project team met with the councilman's office, as well as the two co-coordinating RCOs at
that time. In its original iteration, this was a multifamily project. The proposal was 60 to 80
apartment units, similar to the apartment building located directly across Ridge Ave.
Through discussions with the councilman's office and the leadership of those two RCOs,
the project evolved to a townhome proposal similar to what's to our rear in Roxborough Reserve
with 24 units and off-street parking. Conversations continued as you can see from the engagement
timeline and the project was ultimately reduced to 20 single-family towns each with accessory
off-street parking and zoning application was made. The revised scheme of 20 units
was what was submitted originally to Illinois.
Ridge Park Civic and Upper Roxborough Civic were designated by the Councilman's Office
Ridge Park Civic and Upper Roxborough Civic
as the co-coordinating RCOs for this project.
The revised townhome scheme was presented at a community meeting that was properly noticed and advertised in June of 2024.
Based on feedback received at that meeting, which was co-hosted by Upper Roxborough and Ridge Park Civic,
further additions were made to increase the side yard landscape buffers to the sides and
rear of the project and the interior layouts. A second community meeting was held in July of 2024
and additional feedback was received at that meeting. The ownership team following that
meeting revised its plans again to further reduce density to 12 single-family detached homes that
you see today. Following that process, it was in June of 2024 that Durnley Park, a long vacant
vacated RCO, revived itself. The leader of that RCO is the protestant who is protesting under her
individual name and not under the name of her civic association. Again, because that civic
Association did not exist when this case was initially filed. The applicant was invited to
an additional community meeting coordinated by Durnley Park. We accepted the invitation and
presented our project. That meeting was lightly attended. Over one month later, the Durnley Park
Civic held a private voting meeting, which we were not invited to attend, and included several
participants that did not have the benefit of our presentation in september that meeting was held
october 16th of 24. while we worked tirelessly with the two co-cording rcos and the councilman's
office for over a year and a half on this project to accommodate the requests of the neighborhood
and work with the community on the changes the injection of a new rco with different interests
at this 11th hour, regardless of our proposal,
seemed relatively disingenuous
and will discourage future developers
from working with the community.
Developers openly and actively participated
in the community process
and ultimately has been able to produce a project
that is consistent with the single-family
detached nature of RSD3.
The density is appropriate for a 60,000-square-foot lot.
Again, RSD3 requires 5,000-square-foot lots.
so at a 60 000 square foot lot 12 homes is the appropriate density for lot size
given the rsd3 designation and this lot configuration the proposal while consistent
with rsd3 does generate three technical refusals the first refusal is for the use
as the board is familiar the philadelphia zoning code does not recognize planned unit developments
or PUDS. A planned unit development is an ownership construct which allows several single
family homes to be constructed on a single lot with each homeowner owning the simple title to
his property and sharing the use of the remainder of the property in common with his or her neighbors.
In this case, the 12 single family homes share a central driveway which provides access to each home.
As a result, the proposed use is consistent with the single-family requirements of RSD 3, but given the location of the homes on a single lot rather than individual lots, generates a refusal despite honoring the intent of the code for single-family detached homes.
were this roughly 60,000 square foot lot configured differently with more frontage
along ridge it could be subdivided to create 12 single family lots or very there close there to
it I believe it's 59,700 and some square feet each lot could host its own single family detached home
in conformity with the code however because the law is deep with limited frontage along ridge
the lawful subdivision would not be permitted. At roughly 5,000 square feet per home on the
60,000 square foot lot, the 12 homes again are consistent with the RSD3 density for this lot.
There's also a refusal for one structure, more than one structure being constructed on this lot.
Again, this is the nature of the code not recognizing the PUD concept, which I know
the board is familiar with. Each of these homes could be constructed on a single lot
were this lot configurated differently, elongated along Ridge Avenue, and divided amongst the 12
units. The final refusal in the case is for occupied area. RSD3 district permits a maximum
30% occupied area. The proposal before you today is 30.5%. The dimension
The proposal before you today is 30.5 percent. The dimensional variance at only half a percent
over the allowable occupied area is de minimis. As you're aware, the Supreme Court in Hertzberg
has held standard for dimensional variances is less than that normal undue hardship standard.
When seeking a dimensional variance, the owner is only asking for a reasonable adjustment of
zoning code here in this case because we're at 30.5 rather than 30 it's a dimensional de minimis
variance that is not impactful to either of the neighboring properties and is consistent with
the spirit and intent of the code as mentioned earlier in our presentation in connection with
this project the ownership team engaged woodcock design to perform a land use analysis of the
proposed project of this location the report concludes the intent of the zoning regulations
for this site is fulfilled by the proposed project the project is compatible with the
city's land use policies and the project is consistent with nearby development patterns
and residential density could miss woodcock be promoted to speak
Ms. Woodcock
You're looking for Ms. Woodcock
Janice Woodcock, yes
She's been unmuted and allowed to speak
Woodcock, could you state your name and spell for the stenographer
Yes, Janice Woodcock
J-A-N-I-C-E-W-O-O-D-C-O-C-K.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Woodcock, could you please introduce yourself and provide a brief summary of your education and expertise in land use?
Certainly.
I am a registered architect in three states and also an architect practicing with my own firm here in Philadelphia.
I've formerly served as the planning director for the city of Philadelphia, as well as in other positions for a number of years in the middle of my career.
So I've had a lot of exposure to this kind of dialogue and analysis.
Right. The applicant would put forward Ms. Woodcock as an expert in the field of land use and analysis.
And we would also request that her report be admitted to evidence.
um do you have any objections to that yes i do mr chairman i have not seen the report
i'm going to put the report forward she's going to do to put the report forward but
she's bringing miss woodcock in as an expert witness and i'm going to approve that thank you
have you reviewed the project consisting of 12 single family homes with off-street parking at
this location, Ms. Woodcock? Yes, I have. I've visited the site. I've reviewed the city's land
use policies. I've reviewed the details of the proposal itself and the zoning code standards
that apply to the property. Great. Are you familiar with RSD3 zoning classification as well as the
Roxborough neighborhood of Philadelphia? I'm familiar with both. The RSD3 classification is
It's a detached classification that's the third less dense of three, where the lot size is the differentiator.
Great. And would you conclude that the 12 proponents on a lot size of 60,000 square feet are consistent with the intent and nature of the RSD-3 zoning classification?
I believe so, and I can go into a few details if you would like.
Please.
I can do that best, I believe, by leafing through the pages of my report because there are some
illustrations. Sure, I have your first page to be showing here with your introduction summary.
Yes, reading the bolded sentences here. An analysis of design indicates that the proposed
development solves a hardship created by the site's depth, which you have already stated.
The layout of the site enables each house to occupy a similar amount of area as the surrounding neighborhood, while maintaining setbacks from adjacent lots specified by the zoning for the parcel.
And then secondly, just a general conclusion, this report demonstrates that the intent of the zoning code regulations for the site is fulfilled by the proposed project, the project is compatible with the city's land use policies, and the project is consistent with nearby development patterns and residential density.
thank you janice we'll reserve the right to bring janice back to the extent there are further
questions additionally we also engage hold on miss london do you have any questions yes please
um miss woodcock may i ask when you were retained for this project
I don't remember the exact date, but it went sometime in the summer.
i don't remember the exact date but it went sometime in summer
I'm not sure the relevance, given your traffic engineer was retained in July and still can't produce a report.
I understand. And I think Ms. Woodcock has answered it.
My next question is, Ms. Woodcock, isn't it true that if the lot were subdivided, if it were longer along Ridge Avenue and were subdivided into 12 lots for 12 houses, those lots each would have to comply with setbacks for RSD-3?
Yes. And because it's not a planned community, the setbacks would be strictly complied with such as 15-foot side yards and 25-foot rear yards?
Yes, but if you look at the site plan here, the impacts of not having setbacks, which you're pointing out, and which if you get a chance to read my report, you will see that I note, the impacts on the adjacent property have been addressed because those setbacks comply with RSD-3.
Well, they comply as far as a plan community.
But in fact, if these were 12 individual lots to...
We can interrupt you, but I already told you that the side lots are impacting the lots that are already on this site.
And that is actually the purpose of a PUD is to make sure that it can take a site and optimize the site's qualities and assets.
And in this case, that's not my ability to, I'm sorry.
That's not my question.
Mr. Lockman, listen to me.
Ms. Lockman, listen, let her finish, and then I'll let you have something to say, okay?
And if you eject, wait till the end, and she's done.
Thank you.
Please proceed, Ms. Woodcock.
Ms. Woodcock, you're muted.
Since I was muted, I couldn't figure out how to unmute myself.
I just wanted to make sure that it was clear to the zoning board that the setbacks for this planned unit development benefit the neighbors.
first. And granted, the point that will be made in a minute is that the houses impact each other,
which I have pointed out in my report. Ms. Lopman, do you have anything you want to comment
on or do you want to ask a question? Yes, my question to the witness is, isn't it true that
if these were individual lots rather than a planned community and the setbacks were applied
to individual lots, the footprint of the houses would be smaller because they would have to comply
with 12, 15-foot side yards and 25-foot rear yards.
Why would you defer to the designer of such lot,
which does not exist?
And we've already talked about the fact
that in order to develop this lot,
because of its depth,
we have to deal with existing conditions.
Okay, but I was asking a hypothetical.
Nevermind, I'll move on.
That was my question.
Secondly, Ms. Woodcock,
Do you believe that this site is properly designed for internal circulation, including turning around?
I'll just object to that as well, because we do have a traffic engineer who can speak to appropriate traffic design.
Ms. Woodcock's a land use analyst.
Yes, but land use analysts do look at that.
Thank you very much.
Those are all my two questions for that witness.
Great.
Are you done with Ms. Woodcock?
Thank you, Ms. Woodcock.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
next witness additionally the ownership of team has engaged dynamic traffic to conduct a traffic
impact assessment their report concluded that the parking supply and design is sufficient to support
the proposed demand and exceeds the philadelphia code requirements the proposed site driveway
provides ample site distance to satisfy pendots formula site distance and desirable
site distance standards i would ask that kevin savage be promoted to speak
mr savage
kevin savage has been unmuted and allowed to speak savage could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer yes it's kevin savage k-e-v-i-n last name s-a-v-a-g-e
for him to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth
i do proceed counsel mr savage could you briefly introduce yourself and a quick summary of your
education experience in traffic engineering, specifically in Philadelphia? Sure. I have a
bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering from Rutgers University, a master's of science
degree in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. I'm a licensed professional
engineer in Pennsylvania and six other states. I have eight years of experience in traffic
engineering, and I've worked on a number of projects within the city of Philadelphia.
thank you have you reviewed the proposed project consisting of 12 single family
Have you reviewed the proposed project consisting of 12 single-family homes with off-street parking that's been presented today?
homes with off street parking that's been
Yes, I have.
Would you conclude the proposed parking is sufficient for this density and at this location?
Yes, I would.
Would you conclude the drive aisle and access point at Ridge Avenue are safe and sufficient for this development?
Will the proposed use in parking have a negative impact on traffic in this neighborhood?
In my opinion, it will not.
And is that due to the limited density proposed here of 12 units?
That's correct.
And that was part of the discussion with the co-coordinating RCOs and the councilman when the change was made from the original multifamily use to the proposed single family you see today.
It severely reduced any impacts on traffic in the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Savage, would you like to give a brief summary of your conclusions on your review?
Sure. As part of this report, we had a chance to review the operation of the site access point along Ridge Avenue, as well as the proposed parking and internal circulation for the development.
We actually performed traffic counts along Ridge Avenue earlier this month, performed an analysis of the driveway operation.
We found that there were no operational issues with the driveway, and we found that both the internal circulation and the proposed parking met the Philadelphia Code requirements.
Great. Thank you.
You're a traffic engineer?
Ms. Lagren, do you have any questions?
Yes, I do. First, I'd like to note my objection to the record.
We have never been informed that there was a traffic engineer and never seen his report.
This is an unfair surprise.
I ask that his testimony, not as far as his expertise, but as far as his testimony with regard to this site, be stricken.
I object on the record to reflect the fact that opposition counsel engaged a traffic engineer three months ago and told us Friday she was unsure whether he'd be available to produce a report by today's hearing.
That's not responsive to what I'm saying.
I'm saying you have never been forthright that you have a traffic report.
you've never brought him to a meeting for the durnsley park civic association so i'm just
noting my objection but i will move ahead if you would like um mr chairman please please move ahead
okay um
mr savage um when were you engaged for this project
i cannot recall the exact date i think it was late september or early october again we'll object
to the question your report is dated october 23rd correct that's correct yeah okay um so here the um
the revised plan shows 12 detached houses 24 parking spaces with an 18 foot wide common driveway
on a site zoned rsd3 correct in summary that's correct okay um the site plan that you are using
Is that the revised site plan?
Is that a revised site plan with Harman Deutsch on the title block?
Isn't it correct that you're working off a plan that is neither signed nor sealed by an engineer or an architect?
Objection. Our plans are signed and sealed.
Okay. Well, we have yet to see a signed and sealed plan.
um and is it uh is just for procedural purposes ellen i would not have issued a refusal if the
plans of record were not signed and sealed then i would ask that we be provided with the signed
and sealed plans and we can do away with that um line of questioning we haven't seen it
why don't we move on here okay so so mr savage this the original plan was proposing a 20-foot
wide common driveway, correct? I was not aware of the previous plan. I was engaged
when the plan shows as it does now with 12 single family homes. Okay. And an 18 foot wide private
driveway. That's correct. Which is six feet narrower than the 24 foot driveway previously
proposed. Again, I was not aware of that. Okay. Is the 12 foot with 18. Right. And there's there
At the end of the driveway, there's no cul-de-sac for vehicles to turn around.
That is correct.
So large vehicles should be expected on a site with residences, correct?
Such as moving trucks, delivery trucks, fire engines, garbage trucks, things of that nature?
There is the potential, yes. There is also a parking lane along the Ridge Avenue frontage that I believe is approximately eight or so feet wide.
There is the potential, yes.
There is also a parking lane along.
Again, all plans have to be reviewed and approved by both the Streets Department as well as the Fire Marshal of the City of Philadelphia for safety and access review.
And Kate, just to add to that, the project will require a highway occupancy permit from the PennDOT Department.
So PennDOT will review as well.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Right. But as far as the internal driveway,
large vehicles will have difficulty turning without a cul-de-sac and will be required to
make a three-point turn on the 18-foot-wide driveway, correct? That is correct, yes,
or they will need to back out from the driveway. Correct. Back out onto Ridge Avenue, right?
Correct. Isn't that a safety issue?
In my opinion, as part of our site visit, we did identify a number of adjacent parcels that had driveways that required backing vehicles onto Ridge Avenue.
Ridge Avenue also does have traffic signals located immediately to the north and immediately to the south of the subject site, which do create some gaps in traffic to allow those movements to occur if needed.
But again, based on our review of the site and specifically the provision of the parking lane along Ridge Avenue, we feel that that would be a very unique circumstance.
The parking along Ridge Avenue is only six feet wide, correct?
I believe the parking lane is up to eight feet wide.
Is six or eight feet wide the width of a large vehicle?
Eight feet wide could accommodate some larger vehicles.
You know, a much larger truck, which would not be expected to frequent the site, could be wider than eight feet.
And, Dr. Savage, on the rare instance that a large vehicle, such as a delivery, a moving van, or a fire van.
Ma'am, can you please let the other young lady speak?
We let you talk.
We got to let the other young lady speak.
Please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So large vehicles are expected to enter the common driveway, the private driveway.
And if they have trouble turning around, the larger ones you expect will back out onto Ridge Avenue.
That's a fair summary of what you've just said.
That's correct. But again, there is an 18 foot wide drive aisle.
I believe there are curbless sidewalks provided as well, which provide an expanded aisle and opportunity for those vehicles to be able to K-turn on site.
There are 12 single-family homes as well.
I think if a larger vehicle did need to K-turn, I think there may be an opportunity if one of those driveways was vacant to use one of those driveways as well in order to perform that maneuver.
But if someone is parked in one of those driveways, could a K-turn, could someone use it to make a K-turn?
No, if no, but that would require all 12 driveways being occupied at the same time.
With with how many when you calculated parking demand, how many bedrooms are in each of the 12 homes?
We can have our architects speak to a bedroom and bathroom count, but I'm not sure the relevance
from a traffic perspective. There's 12 single family detached homes. It goes to the land use
code for the parking demand. That's why I'm asking your traffic expert. And I'm doing this off the
top of my head because I've never seen his report. Again, I would defer to the architect for the
number of bedrooms in each unit. We specifically looked at the Philadelphia code requirements
for the parking demand for the site.
And what are the code requirements for this site?
One parking space per unit.
One per unit?
Correct.
Do you expect there will be more than one car per unit?
There may potentially be more than one car per unit.
There also may be units with no cars,
but that is the code requirement is one car per unit.
The parking provided is double the code requirement at 24 spaces for the 12 proposed units.
Some of those 24 spaces are garage space. They're not?
Correct.
Okay. So let's talk about making a three-point turn on an 18-foot wide driveway.
Isn't it correct that turning radius depends on vehicle length?
That is correct.
So different vehicles have different lengths and therefore different turning lengths.
And therefore, different turning lengths.
that's correct
That's correct.
So large vehicles, did you calculate the turning radius by vehicle length?
We did not calculate the turning radius by vehicle length, no.
Did you do a study of trip generation?
We did.
How many trips do you expect will be generated by 12 houses on a daily basis?
Give me one moment to pull up the daily value.
In our report, we looked at the morning and afternoon peak hours, which we anticipate 11 total trips during the morning peak hour.
Again, that's two-way traffic.
So three entering and eight exiting, and then 14 total trips during the weekday evening peak hour.
That's nine entering, five exiting, which translate to basically a max of, you know,
one vehicle entering or exiting the property every six to 10 minutes or so.
But let me pull up the daily values.
On a daily basis, I'd anticipate about 60 or so vehicles entering and exiting throughout the day.
Correct.
Okay. Are you using the land use code for the ITE?
That is correct.
Okay. Do you agree that according to the land use code, the 85th peak parking demand estimate is 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom in a house?
I do not have that information in front of me. I believe that's from the parking generation manual.
Did you consult that before you wrote your report?
We did not consult that as part of the report.
We reviewed the trip generation manual as part of our analysis, as well as the Philadelphia
Code, as I've mentioned.
Okay, but not the land use code.
So do you agree that if the peak parking demand estimate under the land use code of the ITE
is 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom, the number of parking spaces is much greater than one per
unit, correct? I mean, these are either three or four bedroom homes, I take it.
Using that data, theoretically, yes, but that, you know, that data does not account for,
you know, I don't know where specifically that data is taken from. I don't know whether it's,
you know, urban, suburban, rural, it likely does not account for, you know, mass transit or
walking trips as well. Okay. But you don't have that in front of you. So you're not really sure,
correct? That's correct. Okay. So larger vehicles are not going to be able to make a three-point
turn on an 18-foot wide driveway that has been reduced from 24 feet, correct? As I said, there
There is curbless sidewalk provided.
Is it going to drive up on the sidewalk?
I bet, Counselor, I think he's answered this before.
I think you're starting to repeat yourself.
In exiting the site, how close is it to a bike lane?
There are shared use bike markings within Ridge Avenue along both directions.
Right.
Right. And so this parking lane that you're talking about, does that also include the bike lane?
There is no striped bike lane along Ridge Avenue.
There are shared use bike markings within the main through lanes along Ridge Avenue.
Okay. So there's some possible conflicts with bikers on Ridge Avenue.
Theoretically, yes.
That is, if a cul-de-sac were present, it would be much easier for large vehicles to turn around
on this site. Do you agree? It would. I think it would depend on the size of the cul-de-sac,
But again, as I mentioned, given the infrequent use of larger vehicles on site, frankly, a cul-de-sac wouldn't be utilized that frequently.
Frankly, a cul-de-sac wouldn't be utilized that frequently.
Okay, I have no further questions for this witness.
Do you have any follow-up questions?
Mr. Savage, could you just confirm the required parking ratio in the RSD3 zoning district?
Sure, it's one parking space per unit.
And I'll note we're proposing 12 units with 24 off-street parking spaces.
Does the zoning code require a particular turning radius for moving vans and large vehicles?
Not to my knowledge, no.
Does the streets department review all turning radius site triangles and interconnectivity of drive aisles as part of its zoning and building review of any project in the city of Philadelphia?
Is that a prerequisite for approval of a project?
Great. Thank you.
And briefly, I'd just like to call our architect, Rustin Ohler.
Your name again.
Rustin Ohler has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Thank you.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yeah, Rustin Ohler, R-U-S-T-I-N-O-H-L-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
So, Rustin, given your experience in Philadelphia and your involvement in many similar PUD projects, single-family detached homes like these, could you confirm the target typical buyers are families with one to two cars?
Could you confirm that a traffic circle, like being requested here, is unwarranted by the use of 12 single-family homes?
I'm going to object. He's not a traffic engineer.
we can call the traffic expert back for the question we're gonna allow the question thank
you can you repeat the question kate yes would you confirm and agree that a traffic circle as
being requested or a cul-de-sac in this case is unwarranted by the limited use of 12 single
family homes yes it's very uncommon in similar size developments throughout the city of philadelphia
thank you um our final witness that we'd like to call is samantha hold on hold on sorry go ahead
sorry thank you um uh thank you i'm just gonna uh mr um mr oler could you please tell me could
you please name all the documents that you have submitted as exhibits here so that i can make
sure that I have seen them? Kate would have to do that. She submitted them. And I'm sorry,
they were submitted in accordance with CBA procedures. Can you tell me what they are, please?
We can go through our list of exhibits.
Letters of support and non-opposition, near-neighbor petition of support.
Starting the architecture, if you just want to.
You have the zoning presentation package that was presented to Durnley Park, your client civic.
That was the architect's exhibit that was submitted.
And that was either four or six pages, correct?
Rustin, I don't know if you have a page count.
I can count them.
Mr. Ohler?
I'm counting them. Sorry.
So what we submitted to the ZBA is, which Kate has up and is presenting, is 18 pages, 16 of which is the presentation, two of which are zoning diagrams and site plans.
Okay. Does the site plan have your title block on it?
It does.
You're not an engineer, sir, correct?
no we are an architecture firm okay who did the engineering data
the zoning site plan was signed and sealed by our architecture firm
right and who was the engineer
the civil engineer that prepared the landscape plan was rogeria who prepared who prepared
philadelphia zoning site plan is not required to be signed and sealed by an engineer it was
signed and sealed by our office by registered architect. Thank you. And what you presented
to Durnley Park on October 16th, the plan that was presented was not signed and sealed at that
time, correct? Plans we present to the community group are never signed and sealed. Only the
submission documents to the city of Philadelphia are.
It is the same plan, though. Okay, thank you. So this plan, it shows 12 single-family
So this plan, it shows 12 single-family detached units. So it's been reduced from 20, which was also a use variance, right? So it's smaller, but it still requires a use variance for two of them.
detected.
Correct.
Okay. And the distance between the houses, I noticed the actual distance between the houses is anywhere from four to five feet for a total distance between the houses of eight to 10 feet. Isn't that correct?
The distance between the houses, I believe, is 10 feet.
The first two houses with frontage on the side along Ridge Avenue, they only have eight feet from their neighbor.
Is that correct?
Let me review the plan.
Yes, that is correct.
It's just over eight feet for the first two sets of houses, 10 feet for every other house.
but we meet and exceed all the side and rear yard and front yard setbacks to all of our
adjacent property neighbors as required by the code. Right. So would you agree that I know that
this is a planned community and so you are measuring your setbacks from the frontage?
However, a planned community still has to comply with underlying zoning in the Planned Community
act so that's a legal question but yes right and and so here um we don't have uh in the in the rsd
three you have a requirement of like a 15 foot side yard setback and if you actually measure it
from the side of these houses not from where the frontage is but from the actual side of the house
as laid out, they have much less. They don't have 30 feet between the buildings. They only
have 8 to 10 feet. The Philadelphia zoning code measures from the property line, which we meet
or exceed in all instances. Right. I'll just add, since this is a zoning question, a legal question,
the Planned Community Act requires compliance with zoning. For zoning purposes, this is one
single zoning lot. Right. But for practical purposes, for someone living there, they're
only going to have between eight and 10 feet between their house and their neighbor's house.
On site, yes. Yes. And therefore, there's going to be less light and air for them through the side.
Potentially. These homes are also only two stories and far below the height limit,
which would allow for more light and air than allowed by right.
Right. No, it's true. It's below the height limit. How many bedrooms are in the houses?
I believe it is four.
Confirming.
Yes, four bedrooms at the second floor.
Okay, thank you.
I don't have any further questions.
Ms. Misery, do you have any follow-up?
Nothing for the architect.
I'd just like to call our last witness.
Samantha Miller, please unmute and wait for the chair.
Ms. Miller, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Samantha Miller, S-A-M-A-N-T-H-A-M-I-L-L-E-R.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Miller, could you briefly introduce yourself and provide a quick summary of your education and expertise in real estate in Philadelphia?
Sure. Again, my name is Samantha Miller. I'm the managing partner of Select Commercial Advisors.
We're a commercial real estate brokerage based in Philadelphia.
I've been active in real estate sales in Philadelphia for about five years now and specialize in land development, multifamily, mixed use and townhome development projects.
Thank you. We'd put Ms. Miller forward as an expert in real estate.
I'm going to object. So I'm going to object, Mr. Chairman. I've never seen this witness's CV.
I've never seen a report she's written. And I think five years in this area is not enough to be considered an expert.
I think I'm going to allow the testimony that she can talk about what she's done in the area here and her experience working with townhouses.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Miller, did you prepare a broker letter concluding that the proposed use or the proposed site cannot be used in an RSD3 compliant way?
or the proposed site cannot be used in an RSD-3 compliant way in today's market?
Correct, yes.
Rather, the single-family detached development, like the proposed project,
is directly responsive to the narrow dimensions of the site?
That's correct, yes.
And is one of those limiting factors the limited frontage on Ridge Avenue?
Yes, it is.
How would you describe the nature of this proposed project
in connection with the surrounding communities in this area of Roxborough?
I believe the proposed project fits in with the Roxborough community.
It is of a density that matches surrounding developments, as was stated before,
and it fulfills a demand for the style of housing in this area.
And it's consistent with the Roxborough Reserve development to the rear?
Yes, it is.
were you able to determine whether this density is appropriate given this lot size
it is yes i believe so and the supply of parking in your opinion is that sufficient
to accommodate this type of development in my experience yes it is great thank you
okay um so uh once again i i don't have any idea what the witnesses opinions are based upon
um other than five years uh as as a broker i don't know how that gives her expertise
in um parking and planning but listen to me what i said was she could testify
to what she's done in the past relative to these townhouses.
I've never said she was an expert.
So why don't you continue?
So Ms. Miller, isn't it true that Roxbo or Reserve
features two-car garages and two-car driveway aprons
and parking for four cars per home?
I believe it does, yes.
That is not entirely true.
Some of those homes do not have two-car garage spaces
or four-car parking.
Okay. If you could hold your follow-up for your witness after I'm done, I'd appreciate it.
Isn't it correct that the houses in Roxborough Ridge are less dense? They're more spread out?
Some of them, yes. I find that housing development is an evolving field and it meets demand as
times and needs of the families change. And so a lot of homes in Roxborough and in Philadelphia
in general were built a hundred or more years ago. Every few decades that goes by, we see a
change in styles and demand to meet families' needs as those needs change. But Roxborough Ridge
opened in 2021, just three years ago, correct? Yes, that's one that's more recent. Right. So
we're comparing a development from three years ago that is adjacent to this property that has
uh more garage space more driveway space more available parking uh less density and more room
for on-street parking isn't that correct yes okay um are you are you familiar with uh epiphany place
in the rsd3 district in roxborough not specifically no okay um epiphany if i were to uh tell you that
Epiphany Place has, hang on, hang on, Epiphany Place has, wait, I want to make sure I say this
right. I believe it has 12 or fewer houses on a similar size lot. It has fewer houses on a similar
size lot with a cul-de-sac. Would you disagree with me? If it has 12 houses, that would be
the same. I misspoke there. They don't have 12 houses. It has fewer houses on a similar sized
lot with a cul-de-sac. Yes. Again, I'm not familiar with the specific development you're
referencing, but if that's the case, then yes, different developments have different
densities, different styles, designs. So yes. Right. And where is your practice concentrated?
Is it in Roxborough or somewhere else? In the city of Philadelphia, where we do business in
Roxborough, West Philly, North Philly, Brewery Town, South Philly, all throughout the city of
Philadelphia. It's a very big area. One city, yes. Okay, and how long were you a licensee before
you were a broker? I've been a real estate salesperson, not broker, for five years. Oh,
you're a salesperson, not a broker? That's what it says in my letter, yes. I haven't seen your
letter. I'm sorry. So you're a licensee. So you work under a broker. You're not permitted to
work independently because you don't have the necessary licensure, correct? Correct. I have
Correct. I have one business partner who holds the broker's license. We're partners and we own, we co-own the brokerage together. He holds a broker's license and I manage the practice.
one business partner who holds the broker's license. We're partners and we own.
But he's the broker with the higher license level of licensure.
Correct.
And you can only work through the broker.
Correct. Yes.
okay um thank you with with no uh disrespect intended i'm going to object that a licensee
is not an expert in uh in commercial real estate development
particularly i i again i i never said i said this twice to you now that i never said she
was an expert no but i'm so sorry it's not clear to me at what point you decide that
I don't mean to be repetitive. It's just not clear to me at what point you decide that issue.
I'm sorry, sir. Could you say that again?
Are you done with the witness?
Mr. Vizner, you have to have any follow-up.
Nothing for this witness, no.
Ms. Logman, your witness, how long do you think your witness will be?
30 minutes? Oh, oh, today. Today?
10 to 15 minutes.
Why don't you call your witness?
Okay. I'd like to call Dorothy French as a witness.
Ms. French, please raise your virtual hand.
Ms. French, where did she go?
Ms. French, please raise your virtual hand again.
Thank you. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I have a question. We were told at the beginning that we were going
to hear testimony from Rob Robertson, the developer. And I have questions about how
the number, I'm holding questions about how the number of units were decided on. When is he coming
out? I did not say he'd be testifying. What I stated was he's present today to the extent there
are questions he needs to address. We put on our case. We did not conclude our case. He's not
adopted our testimony. He is available today. Okay. Well, in your case, I mean, given that
you have to meet the minimum variance requirement, who is going to testify
about how you arrived at the number of units and what a reasonable profit is?
Reasonable profit is not relevant to a variance case.
Have you, are you familiar with that? That's not an undue hardship.
are you familiar hold on hold on hold on hold on this misery you is is he part of your case
i would just ask that i would be permitted to call him to adopt my testimony but i didn't
conclude my testimony before we switched over to miss french why don't you conclude your testimony
thank you just by way of summary again this is a vacant property with almost 60 000 square feet
in an RSD3 district. RSD3 requires 5,000 square foot lots. Proposal today is appropriate for the
12 units proposed with off-street parking. We have letters of non-opposition from both
Upper Roxborough Civic, Councilman Jones's office, and a letter of support from Upper
Ridge Park Civic, the two co-coordinating RCOs that were involved from day one in this process
in February of 2023. Rob Robertson is present, and on behalf of the owner, I'd be asked that
keep her permitted to speak and adopt my testimony.
Rob Robertson,
please unmute yourself.
Mr. Robertson.
He's been
unmuted and allowed to speak, Chair.
Could you please state your name and spell
for the court's sonographer?
Certainly. It's Rob, R-O-B,
Robertson, R-O-B-E-R-T-S-O-N.
Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do.
please proceed council thank you mr robertson did you hear my testimony today regarding
the 12 proposed homes of off street parking at 73 30 ridge avenue yes would you agree that it's
true and correct yes would you adopt it as your own certainly thank you thank you mr chairman
um yes i do um miss mr robertson um who is your expert in real estate development finance who
crunched the numbers and came up with 12 houses again we're going to object the finances and
profits are not relevant in a zoning matter so i'm going to continue because if you're familiar
with inri ridge park one and inri ridge park two which are 2020 and 2021 cases commonwealth
also roxborough very similar development here's a quote from the case uh where you're where you
where you're where you have a quantifiable departure, including even though there's a use variance, the determination entails ascertaining how many units were necessary for applicants to build, given the cost in the area.
have a quantifiable departure, including
In other words, the inquiry required resolution of the factual issue of reasonable profit and the minimum number of units necessary for it to be economically feasible to proceed.
And this goes to the minimum variance requirement.
Our least minimum variance standard was met because our 60,000 square foot lot in an RSD3 district can be broken into 5,000 square foot lots, one unit on each lot, which drives the 12 units presented today.
So why don't we do this?
Let Mr. Robertson say how he got to that point.
And that's fine testimony for me.
We're not going to get into deep finances, but Mr. Robertson, could you please say how you got to the point of having 12?
And in fact, if I'm not mistaken, it was 24.
You decided to drop it to 12 after dealing with the neighbors.
Am I correct?
That's correct, actually, that there was one configuration, 20 as well.
So it was an iterative, I can't say the word, process of getting to where we landed at the 12.
and the 12 really was driven by the 60 by 60 divided by 5,000 so pretty close math at 12
that's where we landed it um so so mr robertson but it's correct that you're asking for
multiple principal households on one lot so you're looking for a variance a qualitative variance
correct? It's a legal conclusion. Yes, I think that's a legal equation that I'm not a capable
answer for. Are you looking for a variance on how many primary households can be on the lot?
We're looking for the most optimal use of the lot that meets the code requirements, yes.
Okay. And the refusal is because this is considered a multi-family use,
even though there are 12 single-family homes on the lot. That's the refusal under the
Philadelphia zoning code I'm still talking I'm sorry please proceed come on the the this lot
although it's large could be developed with one house correct you could possibly put one house
on it it had one house on it at one time you could put two or three or four so how do you
come up with 12 being the minimum the minimum variance that you need to afford relief
well if i'm if i'm not mistaken he wanted 24
and then he went after he sat with the neighbors he went from 24 to 20 and then after the neighbors
again and all the other people he got down to 12 so he started at 24 am i correct that is correct
we were we were we worked very collaboratively with the neighbors
right we took their feedback and we adopted the items that we could that would you know
most optimally used as land. There were many questions from the neighbors from Durnly Park,
certainly, about circulation on site and whether you'd be putting in a cul-de-sac, correct?
It came up at their meeting. Yeah, I'd have to go back and listen to the recording.
They were asking about garbage service, fire trucks. Actually, I think Pam Delisio was on
at one meeting and was asking about fire trucks, correct?
Correct. Fire trucks has been brought up. And my experience is that a fire truck is going to pull in and it's going to probably back out of most any neighborhood. And I've got experience of a house next door to my home burning down and watching seven fire trucks do exactly that.
Right. So it's going to back out on Ridge Pike, right?
Correct. Pretty standard procedure for something that's 40 feet long.
Right. So it's it's not something that's ideal, though. And if we could plan for if we could plan for emergencies such as that, maybe there could be a better design. Right.
I'm just going to object to this line of question. My client is not a traffic engineer. We put on a traffic engineer and the streets plan, the streets department and the fire marshal will review all internal circulation for safety.
Flagman, please move on from that question.
So was there any, did you make any calculation about how many houses you needed to build to make a reasonable profit?
Through all their iterations, we would try to figure out what the profit would be, correct?
How much profit are you going to make on 12?
I don't think that's in your business.
Can I just ask one question, Chair?
Is the case law you're relying on related to Pechen Street? Because it's my understanding that's still pending in Commonwealth court, that it's not current law.
current law. Well, it's been brought back to Commonwealth for the third time.
Well, it's been brought back to Commonwealth for the third time.
Yeah, it's still pending, but the decisions from Commonwealth.
So it's not, it's not a matter of law at the moment.
Well, the decisions from Commonwealth court are out there. It was remanded twice to the trial
court on those issues, which are the exact same issues here.
Right. So the testimony regarding profit is not relevant to a zoning determination.
Well, according to the Commonwealth court, that is the inquiry that must be made in this kind of
case. So, anyway. Yes. So, just last one. It's true that this property could be developed with
less than 12 houses. It could be. Thank you so much. Ms. Misner, do you have any follow-up?
I do. Just a response to the last question for the record. The code requires that the least minimum variance be requested. However, in this instance, the one home on a 60,000 square foot lot would not be consistent with the surrounding area of the neighborhood.
Mr. Robertson, are you aware of any 60,000 square foot lots with one home on them in the immediate vicinity of this project?
No, and I was actually going to chime in on that and say that exact thing.
Great.
Thank you.
Ms. Logman, would you please bring your client one?
And then we're going to take that testimony.
We'll have Cross, and then we're going to move on, okay?
Dot, are you there?
Can I have the person's name, Ms. Laughlin?
Dorothy French.
Ms. French, please raise your virtual hand.
miss french has been unmuted and allowed to speak
would you please state your name and spell for the court stenography it's dorothy french
d-o-r-o-t-h-y-f-r-e-n-c-h i also go by dot you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel um okay if you don't mind that i'm going to call
you dot um could you please tell us where you reside i live at 490 harman road in philadelphia
and what properties do you own i co-own 490 harman road and i also own 7300 and a half
ridge avenue where are your properties in relation to 7330 ridge avenue
They are one to two properties away from 7330 Ridge Avenue.
So one of your properties is adjacent and another is a, there's a lot in between.
That's correct.
What is your occupation?
I'm a professor of mathematics at the Community College of Philadelphia, associate professor.
How long have you resided at 490 Harman Road?
Since 2001.
Can you tell us about your work in the community and in the Durnsley Park community and particularly with your involvement in the Durnsley Park Community Association?
Yeah, I'm the president, the current president of the Durnsley Park Civic Association.
This civic was dormant for since, I guess, for about four or five years.
We, with help of former members and also with a residence, we decided to apply for reactivation of the Civic and we were successful and it was reactivated, recertified by the city of Philadelphia in July, the 26th of July of this year.
We currently have about 50 plus members and about 30 households paid up members of our Civic.
and and when you're here with me though you're speaking as an individual correct i i wear two
hats i'm i'm i um as a as the next door neighbor to the 7330 property um i i have a i guess i'm
not a party status in this in this affair but i'm also the president of the donley park civic
Association, which has certainly had a voice in objecting quite strenuously to this current
proposal over time.
When did you first hear about this proposal or the first iteration of it that you became
aware of?
Actually, it was May 31st, 2024.
I was sent a letter by Catherine Missimer, the counsel for the Terraforma group.
that's the first I heard about it. Okay. And then did you attend a, did you also then get a notice
of refusal from the 20 single-family homes? Yes.
from the 20 single-family homes? Yes. Okay. And at that point, did you decide to try to
re-establish Durnley Park Civic Association so that you would be notified more promptly about
these kinds of things? Yeah, I and I had a lot of support with former members of the lapsed civic
and also, again, neighbors within the near vicinity of this project who felt that we should
we should re-establish a civic. In fact, I quote Georgie Gould, who's the president of the
Roxburgh-Wissahickon Historical Society. It's her language, not mine. She said she felt
naked and exposed without a civic. And so she was very thrilled that somebody wanted to put it back
together again. And I and Val Hallman, our treasurer, we worked together. We were able
to reconstitute a civic, and now we are an active civic with membership in our Dalmy Park area.
What did you do to learn about the land development proposal and the request for a zoning permit?
Did you understand it at first, or did you have to do something to learn more about it?
I had to do a lot to learn about it, and I consulted with you, Pam Lockman, as my attorney,
And I also went to, we went to L&I and we obtained the application for the appeal and why it was, why it was rejected and what the plaintiffs, what the applicants had said as part of that process.
Okay. And in that application, were they asked to explain how they, how their proposal met the variance standards?
Yes, I saw that.
And did you did you learn anything from that application or was the language just conclusively involved?
Yes, that I guess is the correct term. I mean, I I'm a math professor and I guess people I don't want to bend your ear with equations and so on.
But if a student solves a problem and gives me the answer of, say, three pi, I'm going to want to know how they got to that answer.
I'm going to say, would you please show me your rough work? And in every instance with this
application for appeal, there's no rough work. There's no explanation of how the applicants
can convince anybody reading this that, for example, yes, the proposed use creates the
least modification possible. Every time it's like, yeah, it's going to be fine. And I as a
professional as a professional math person would like to see more proof of why we get to that
how do you arrive at that conclusion okay so so you had to go down to lni to take a look at the
at the application to at least try to learn what had been submitted but it didn't
really illuminate things for you um nonetheless the next day did you get on a zoom call with
terra firma with Mr. Reddy and Mr. Robertson. I did. And did you ask, and you were shown plans
on the Zoom call, and you asked for them, but you weren't, you asked to see the engineering data,
to see how it was, the plans were diverging from RSD3, but they never gave you any engineering
data, correct? That's correct. At that time, at that time. At that time, on this plan for the 20
units. There were plenty of pictures, but not what we requested, which were engineer's notes with
a lot of details on there. Okay. And you requested to see the plans again before the
other civics had a meeting on July 9th, but you didn't receive them with any kind of data,
the plans with any kind of data, correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. So you attended the other
civics. Let me just speed ahead here. The original plan was withdrawn by the applicant
honor about July 31st 2024 as far as you know that's correct okay and just prior to that date
you had engaged a a traffic and parking operations engineer to like let you know what the impacts were
going to be of of this new development in terms of traffic on Ridge Pike and similar matters yeah
I was concerned about how the traffic how this was going to affect our our local traffic patterns and
I, as a resident and as the person right next door, I felt like I really would like to learn
about that. Okay. And so Terra Firma started asking you to meet with them and you asked
several times, you said, I'd like to meet, but please send me your written plans for your revised
plan so I can see what you're proposing. And you had set up an appointment for September 10th,
but then it had to be canceled because of your car broke down, correct?
Yeah, unfortunately, I had to go and get two new tires out in Norristown because of Philadelphia potholes, I'm afraid, are very damaging to tires.
Yeah, unfortunately, I had to go and get two new tires out in Norristown.
And it was an unsafe condition. I had to go and get new tires.
So you intended to meet with them and you did attend on September 10th, the Ridge Park and whatever UC Community Association meeting is where they showed the plans, but they didn't hand out.
They didn't provide anybody with actual access.
access, you couldn't download them and look at them or, or printed, right?
That was September 10th. That's correct. Right.
So then you sent an email.
So just as just so I understand this is 12.
Yeah, this is 12 houses. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
She started asking for them in August and she didn't get them until September
13th. So, you know, she, she wanted to see it before. Correct. Is it,
am I correct? But I'm just saying it's 12 houses we're talking about. Yes, correct. Okay. So,
okay. So you were finally given the plan in mid-September and it had a notation that it
could be changed if the applicant wanted to, correct? Correct. And so you didn't know which
plan would go forward, in fact. Not at all. Right. And at that same time, neither the
zoning board of adjustment website nor ATLAS linked to the revised plan or the second
application for a zoning permit. That's correct. Right. So it was unclear what they were going
forward with. Yeah. Okay. But you attend the meetings, you ask questions of the architect
about things like the number of houses, the amount of air and light, the circulation on site,
how will garbage trucks navigate the site, what will happen on Ridge Pike, correct?
Not Ridge Pike, Ridge Avenue. I'm sorry.
So on October 16th, 2024, you were finally sent the notice of refusal of the revised plan.
And that was the same day as the Durnley Park Civic Association meeting.
That's correct.
So you were only given hours to digest the information before your civic was going to vote on it.
That's correct.
Okay. As soon as you received the notice of refusal, did you start reaching out to the traffic engineer? And did I start reaching out to the traffic engineer again?
I asked you to do so. Yes.
Because until then, we weren't sure they were going forward with that plan and that had been refused and that had been healed.
That's correct.
And at that point, did you learn from the traffic engineer that his mom was diagnosed with cancer and was entering hospice?
And then last week that she was not expected to live much longer and he just couldn't turn around, do a revised report for you?
That's correct.
Okay. So, Dot, tell me about your objections in general to the 12 units.
Well, the application for variance, it doesn't, we got, we went down to L&I and even in the first place, it didn't provide meaningful answers about why the variances are required or requested.
It contains only conclusory statements without facts about why this is the minimum variance and why traffic and parking won't be a problem.
So I asked at the meetings, what's the hardship and why so many units?
I didn't get the answers.
So I'm here to find out these answers and more for the first time when they should have been provided in the application.
So here you are and you've seen the revised plans.
We haven't seen all of the applicants' exhibits, but in good faith, we're trying to engage with them.
Based on what you know and the limited amount of materials you've seen, what are your objections to the revised plans?
Well, during the October 16th meeting, that was when I was able to share the most detailed plan we've seen before with the numbers on it.
And I pointed out to our membership the separation between the houses, which was, as has been asserted earlier, 8 to 10 feet between the houses.
We could look at the plans.
I looked at the separation between my house and my next door neighbor's house. It's 23 feet.
I looked at separations on Atlas between houses on Harmon Road, which are newer houses that were
built and they are 30 feet apart. And when I asked Ms. Lachman, 13 feet, 15 feet, 30 feet apart,
that's the zoning requirement. That's the zoning requirement between single family houses in an
RSD 3 zoning district. So it's the density. And again, when you look at the plans, you can just
see that these houses are much closer together, even than the houses on Roxburgh Reserve,
houses on Harmon Road. This is still a very dense development. So that is an enormous
This is still a very dense development. So that is an enormous concern for us. Light, air, noise, etc.
Before you go on to the next, did you go to Epiphany Place to take a look at a similar development, at a similar lot size that was developed?
I did.
How many units and does it have a cul-de-sac?
It certainly has a cul-de-sac. I couldn't be sure of how many units. I'll accept the
testimony earlier that it's less than 12. It certainly looked that way. It's behind a local
grocery store called the ShopRite. And I had not driven in there before. It's up a slight slope.
It feels very navigable. You can drive in, you can turn around, and you can drive out again.
It's an extremely good, smart design, which unfortunately is sadly lacking still, despite our protestations in the proposal that we see before us.
That is that's one of our major concerns.
OK, Dot, last question.
What are your concerns about the parking, loading and internal circulation and egress out to Ridge Avenue from this common driveway?
Again, it's 18 feet wide.
How are they going to be able to turn around delivery vehicles, repair vehicles, larger vehicles like moving trucks, and even in a case of emergency, emergency vehicles that are going to have to turn?
Inevitably, and I believe the traffic engineer, Mr. Savage, earlier testified, and our engineer, Mr. Tovani, concluded that such large vehicles, because of the turning radius, would not be able to navigate this skinny driveway in the middle of this development, and they'd have to back out onto Ridge Avenue.
Now, again, some of you may not know this, but some years ago, there was an unfortunate accident
where a young girl was killed, fatality, right outside Roxburgh Reserve. Those people from
Roxburgh Reserve probably came to understand this because there's a memorial cherry tree there
in a little garden area, which has been preserved. My understanding is, having talked to another
neighbor at 7350. There was a car totaled on Ridge Avenue, happily with no fatality this time.
But it's a dangerous street. Ridge Avenue is fast and dangerous and has a curve and almost like a
blind hill as you come around it and you come down towards Domino Lane. So it's a great concern.
Backing vehicles onto Ridge Avenue, onto a busy street, is a recipe for disaster.
There's bike lanes.
There's going to be overspill parking that inevitably will be up and down Ridge Avenue,
and will also spill possibly onto Harmon Road.
We are, we would like, well, I'll leave it at that.
And then, finally, it's not the minimum variance necessary to afford relief.
20 units, we believe, are too many for the—
Well, this one's 12, not 12.
My bad, excuse me.
I'm looking at 12 and saying 20.
Pardon me.
12 units, we believe, I believe, and my civic believes, is too many units for the site.
Ms. Lachman, are you done with that?
Is that your last question?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
All right.
Ms. Misner, how long do you think your cross will take?
Not long, sir.
All right.
Why don't you proceed?
Thank you.
Ms. French, are you able to see the zoning notice that was sent on August 23rd on your screen?
Can you confirm you received this letter?
I did.
Can you describe, read the product description that's listed there?
Property description. This property is a project. Project description. Excuse me. The design of this proposed project has been revised since the last public meeting held to discuss the project on July 9th, 2024. The project now proposes new construction of 12, numeral 12, single family houses with 12, numeral 12, accessory parking spaces.
so when you testified that you first received notice of 12 in september that was incorrect
correct well this is a letter not a notice this is a public notice that's in accordance
with the zoning code that she just testified she received this is on august 23rd okay
so she was aware of the reduction to 12 in august my clients immediately reached out to discuss with
My clients immediately reached out to discuss with her thereafter.
her thereafter, she
She refused to meet with them, whatever the circumstances are.
We understand things happen.
We provided the plans with the reduced density, and you received those plans on the 13th, correct?
I'm sorry, Ms. French, excuse me.
I guess I didn't just refuse to meet with them.
I wanted to see the site engineer's site plan.
I would meet with them if they would have supplied that to me, but they didn't.
But they did on the 13th, correct?
Eventually they did, yes.
But, you know, when I, Mr. Robertson asked me to meet by mail on the 5th, and I, you know, I asked for the plans.
And then I said, we'll talk about it when I have the plans.
And they've been willing to meet with you the entirety of the time, is that correct?
They've never once refused to meet with you?
Yeah, and by the same token, I have been willing to meet with them, too.
So when they presented the revised plans on the 18th of September to your meeting, which was not a coordinating RCO meeting, but an additional meeting that they agreed to attend, they presented 12 units, correct?
We were currently an active civic at that time. So I do think that we were the coordinating. We were the coordinating.
coordinating um the two court coordinating rcos are the rcos appointed by council
councilman jones appointed upper rocksboro civic and ridge park civic to serve as coordinating
rcos for this project that is park was not an rco when this application was made yeah but we were
at that point and the the project had been revised and and and we were and i also sought um sought
clarification from mr goins at the rco office and and he was inconclusive but he didn't say no you're
not so we yeah we i think we were i think we returned the governing and we are the governing
rco for for dormy park then and currently when we became active we became the governing
i i think i think we're you know it's apparent to me that i understand mr chairman are there
two other rcos were the coordinating rcos and it looks like your client decided to meet with
during after that we did yes yes in an effort to meet with everybody our records still show
that two coordinating rcos were ridge park and uh upper roxburgh that's right
um miss french can you describe the development that's located at 493 harman road
493. I think that's across the street from me. It's houses that are adjoined together
and are not single family. So I'm not quite sure of the exact technical term, but they
are co-joined row houses, maybe? I'm not sure.
There are eight townhomes, which are attached homes that are connected, right?
So the 8 to 10 feet proposed between these homes is significantly larger than zero space between those homes directly located in front of your property, correct?
Are they pre-existing, non-conforming? I mean, what are they, new or old?
I'm sorry. And in Roxborough Reserve, would you agree that there are twins as well as single families?
I think there are some twins it's I haven't gone over there and looked at them very closely but
yes I think there are maybe six homes that are twins I'm not sure yes so they're connected as
well um so just to establish the record there are other homes in the immediate vicinity that are
much closer together than what we're proposing today the proposed 12 single family homes are
detached as is consistent with the rsd3 zoning district d standing for detached and they are
single family for purchase okay you have to establish whether they're old pre-existing
non-conforming or new construction i'm not sure the nature of the objection but sure
um those homes exist today our proposal is consistent with the surrounding properties
and we have remained as amenable to community input throughout this process as any other
developer has. We've started meeting in February of 23. We're now at the end of October of 24.
We've reached a amenable project to both coordinating RCOs and the councilman's office.
So we have no further questions for Ms. French. We unfortunately are not able to please everybody,
but we have met with everybody. We've responded to everybody. We've been amenable to
We've been amenable to the majority of suggestions, but we're not going to make everybody happy.
the majority of suggestions, but we're not going to make it.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're going to have a resumptive hearing.
The purpose of that resumptive hearing will for Ms. Logman to introduce her traffic study expert.
As soon as we finish that, everything else will be closed.
We're going to open this up to the board, to the public, and also to the Planning Commission.
We both agree?
Yes, but Mr. Chairman, I request that I be given copies of all exhibits that were submitted to the board and for all, as well as CVs for everyone who testified here today.
And if I want to ask more questions after I've had a chance to review them, I request they be brought back.
Mr. Chairman, she's requesting a full new hearing.
No, I think you can make reference if you want, but we're not going to bring everybody back. We specifically, we laid this out to you before we started. We're going to be closed. Listen to me, listen to me. We're going to close today, other than your traffic expert when they come back.
Ms. Mesmer will have a chance to talk to your traffic expert, and then I'm going to open it up to other people, the public, the planning commission, and also the board. Okay?
Thank you, sir.
Please just note my objection for the record.
I most certainly will.
And the coordinating RCO testified today
so she doesn't have to come back.
I think she just had a comment
that she wanted to get on the record
before we close out today.
Who's that?
Marlene Schleifer.
You're coordinating any RCOs
when I open it up to the public.
Both coordinating RCOs can...
So she'll have to come back?
Yes, yes.
Thank you.
Thank you both.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, can we call number 12 next?
And then we can go back to number 10.
Thank you.
Number 12, MI 2024-005-581-403 West Springfield Avenue.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
There's letter of support from Chestnut Hill Community,
letter of support from Chestnut Hill Forward,
and letter of support from Friends of the Wissahickon.
Good afternoon. Also, five applicant has four letters of support from their neighbors.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
For him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is Springfield Chestnut Hill Academy, represented by Frank Aloise, who is the chief financial officer for the school.
Vice chair has a few questions for you, counsel.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to perceive in this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. And for efficiency purposes, can we also promote John Keene? He is the architect of record.
Your presentation, then we'll bring him on.
So I'm going to start.
Can you see my screen?
We can.
Okay. So this is for 403 West Springfield Avenue, which is also through West Willow Grove to Cherokee Street. It is a large RSD1 residential single family detached one base zoning. Most of the refusals relate to the fact that the base zoning of this property has not been changed, although it has been an existing school, I think, since the late 1800s.
just going to go over to the refusal our proposals for the removal of an existing
one-story structure and for the erection of a one-story addition to an existing performing
arts center and an existing educational facilities for use as assembly and entertainment performing
arts with four accessory off-street parking spaces including two ada parking spaces with
all other uses and activities as previously approved this project generated three different
refusals, two use refusals, and one zoning refusal. The property is owned RSD1 and is 719,282 square
feet. Despite the RSD1 zoning, the property has been the home of Springside Chestnut Hill Academy
since 1898. The proposal in particular for this is for their existing theater building
to be partially demolished and rebuilt with these different features, as you'll see later on in the
different features, as you'll see later on in the presentation, including four accessory
presentation, including four accessory off-street parking spaces.
off-street parking spaces. There are two use refusals. One is for multiple principal uses
and multiple principal structures. Again, this property has existed, as you can see on the screen,
and as you'll see in the brief architectural proposal, it's one large campus. It incorporates
many different elements, many different buildings, fields, educational buildings,
and the like and the base zoning of the property has not been changed to reflect that it's an
existing school so it has always had multiple principal uses and multiple principal buildings
so anytime there's an application for anything else on the property or to make any adjustments
because of the rsd1 residential single family detached zoning it requires a trip to the zoning
board as before i go through those as you can just see from my screen this board has granted
several other variances for this property which helps evidence the hardship and again mostly
based on the fact that it is a zoning is rsd1 as emphasized on the refusal the other refusal that
we have is for uses allowed in residential districts again due to the base zoning being
rsd1 the proposed use for assembly and entertainment for performing arts center is not allowed in rsd1
And so that's where the second refusal is generated from. The steep slope protection is the last one. The architect will go into a little bit more detail, but the steep slopes were not created by the applicant. They've been a natural feature on this site for decades.
You'll be able to see that on our landscaping slide as well.
They predate both the school and the theater.
The steep slope disturbance associated with the proposed improvements on the subject property is limited to two areas, which our architect will point out.
The first is along the northern embankment of West Springfield Ave.
Inlets located along this roadway discharged directly across the steep slopes along the roadway embankment, which has resulted in erosion.
We propose to pipe the discharge through the site to a point along the southern side of Valley Green Road, where it will be effectively conveyed by the existing roadside swale.
All the disturbance across the slope would be restored and permanently stabilized, creating a better condition.
The second area is an isolated patch of steep slope located on the southern side of Valley Green Road.
Again, this will be more clear on the landscaping plan where the proposed egress driveway is located.
The installation of the proposed driveway and associated parking is primarily required to provide accessible parking for the theater where none currently exists.
And at the completion of construction, these areas would either be paved or within a vegetated island, eliminating the steep slopes and possible concerns of erosion along the roadway's embankment.
This renovation is a modest one for this property.
will only enhance the school's education and cultural facilities, will ensure that the project
is executed in an environmentally reasonable and responsible manner, along with both current
standards and long-term sustainability goals. It also helps support the city's 2035 comprehensive
plan for the Upper Northwest District, which outlines a vision for the city's development,
including certain recommendations specifically for this property. It suggested a rezoning to
special-purposed institutional development district. That would require a remapping, which
is no place for this board, but what we're providing would have potentially been by right
had it been remapped as per this plan. And again, this type of zoning and what we're proposing here
is in line with the existing conditions and the long-term viable use of the school for
Springside Chesson Hill Academy. I'm going to just scroll down through this presentation.
Trying to be brief, as I know it's been a long day. We have the deed, which is all contained
in the packet. And as you can see, the zoning in the whole area and specifically for this
parcel is RSD1. Again, an aerial shot of the property and specifically where the theater is.
And again, this is a partial demolition of the existing theater and sort of a revitalization and inclusion of some updated elements and parking, as you'll see from the rendering.
These were the zoning posters on the property.
Here's the different code provisions that caused the refusal.
We did meet several times, both informally and formally, with all the affected RCOs in
the area on September 6th, September 17th, and they voted on this on the 27th, met with
them on the 26th as well.
We have letters, this was the mailings we did, and we do have letters of support from
Chestnut Hill Community Association, which was the coordinating RCO.
We do have an email that was provided to the board and we just added to the packet from the council office, Councilman Cindy Bass's office, stating from Charles Richardson that her chief of staff that the councilman is not opposed.
stating from Charles Richardson that her chief of staff that the councilman is not opposed to the
variance. These are just zoning archives. As I further mentioned, this property has
obtained multiple variances in front of this board before due to the similar nature of the
base zoning, which have been granted, and letters of support from near neighbors who are in support
of this project as well.
We had no opposition and we worked really nicely
with both the near neighbors and multiple community groups.
The Friends of the Wissahickon also submitted
a letter of support as did Chestnut Hill Forward as well.
I'm gonna stop there and have the architect
just briefly go through the plans.
And then I'd like to call my client on
just to adopt my testimony.
Your architect's name again?
John Keene, K-E-E-N-E.
John Keene has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Keene, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is John Keene, J-O-H-N-K-E-E-N-E.
Referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
John, are you able to share your screen and briefly go through the zoning plan, landscape plan, and just show the board the renderings as well?
Give me a moment, Ms. Pritzker. He has to be promoted to panelists.
Okay, take your time.
He should be coming back in shortly.
Thank you.
Is that good? We see Mr. Kane.
Great. So, again, this is the site is a large parcel. I'll just outline it with my cursor. It runs from West Willow Grove Avenue. It does not include this piece.
this is the oisic and skating rink but then it runs uh in between these buildings and then it
has this shape uh there's a road uh that actually splits that's valley green road but it's actually
in the parcel so it's a unique site but this is the actual site of the project and the building
the this is an excerpt from what was submitted in terms of what is the improvements and what
we're removing from the site. You can see the one-story building in this hatch here.
There's a one-story piece here that was an addition that was done many years ago and that's
the piece we would like to remove. We're removing some paving here as well to make way for the
addition. We are removing some trees here. Most of these we did an arborist report. Most of them
are considered invasive species or are in rough shape but this is what generally what we're making
way for the project we will be replacing those with trees that meet the sort of city requirements
and native species rachel pointed out the the two areas of the refusal of steep slopes and
they're approximately right here on this edge on west springfield avenue and just over here
there's a small amount on valley green road um the primary reason uh we're working with those
one that's an existing condition uh the the reason we're disturbing this area and this area is really
to make way from some stormwater improvements and then they will be stabilized and put back
to the best of our ability
uh this is our proposed site plan uh you can see this is the one story uh existing buildings uh
this area uh shape here is what we're proposing to add back after we remove the one story piece
that i mentioned prior uh we're proposing uh you know re-paving this area in the back after
the construction's done. We have some sidewalks that are pervious pavers. We're adding this
drop-off loop and some parking spaces as Rachel mentioned before. Currently the building is not
accessible. You have to go up into the lobby and then back down into the theater. So the reasons
we're sort of touching the grades and removing this piece is actually to bring down this addition
to the same level as the theater another goal of the project is to provide so we are making the
project accessible we're also part of the reasons for the addition is to provide the proper
bathrooms to the code. So currently there are six fixtures. And for this use, the use has been
bathrooms to the code so currently there are six fixtures and for
in existence. It has been their black box theater for Springs High Shows Academy for many years.
So we are improving the use, but the use is continuing. But currently there are six fixtures
that are not accessible and there's not enough. So we are improving those to provide accessible
fixtures and providing the proper amount a total of 15 i believe
this is just our proposed landscape plan showing the trees that we're putting back along with the
different sidewalks for accessing the theater from the drop-off and parking
this is just some of the planting details that were submitted as part of the zoning
packets that are requirement and this is a view from the corner of valley green and west springfield
avenue you can see this is the original sort of piece the barn that's currently their their black
box theater will remain their current black box theater down on this end is where the piece we
were removing and then putting back this new addition which is replacing the current lobby
and current bathrooms with a new lobby and new bathrooms that make the theater more usable
and flexible for the school. It also, as again, brings the lobby down to the proper level to
provide accessibility into the main theater space. And then this is just an interior view of the
black box theater. The school does it in a variety of setups in terms of, you know, a typical theater
set up, theater in the round, and then also providing some opportunity for the seniors
to do speaking. They do senior speeches. This is the view of sort of what a senior speech
set up would be. The barn is really just one big open space currently, and that's generally
how it would be functioning after this project is completed. And Rachel, that's all I have,
and i'm happy to answer any questions thank you um if i could just bring my client on
when appropriate chairman what's your name again frank aloise a-l-i-o-s-e a-l-e-i-s-e
frank aloise has been unmuted and allowed to speak could you state your name is spelled for
the court stenography. Frank Aloise, F-R-A-N-K-A-L-O-I-S-E. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, sir. Frank, have you heard
my testimony today? Do you believe it to be true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do. Thank you. Feel free to say anything else, or if not, Chairman,
that concludes my presentation for now. Questions from the board?
have no questions questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr chair question or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning
While this property is currently and was proposed to be remapped, residential on the city plan, given the documented use history and the existing conditions of the site, we recommend the request for parents to be granted.
MI 2024-005581-403 West Springfield Avenue, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Go back to number 10.
MI 2024-005-358-2026 South 7th Street.
Bong Hang is the owner applicant.
It's a pro se.
There is a...
There's a unanimous letter of unanimous support from East Pesh-Shashank Crossing based on provisos.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilk.
Bon Hang is coming back and is a panelist now, Chair.
Hi, everyone.
Mr. Bon Hang, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, everyone.
My name is Bon Hang.
Spelled B-O-N-H-E-N-G
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear or affirm
To tell the truth, the whole truth
And nothing but the truth
Yes, I do, sir.
Yes, I
So, sir, this is for the complete demolition of all existing structures on the existing lots, for the erection of a six-story structure with a roof deck accessed from the sixth floor.
For use is retail sales of sundries, pharmaceuticals, convenience items, adult care on the first floor, business and professional offices on the second floor, and a personal care home with 24 one-bedroom units on third through fifth floors, along with six accessory all-street parking lots, including one van accessible.
That is correct, sir.
Whereas two bicycle parking spaces are required and zero.
Whereas the maximum occupied area is 80% and 0% is proposed, whereas a rear yard depth of 9 feet or 10% of a lot is required and 0% proposed, whereas a maximum height of 55 feet is permitted and a height of 65 feet is proposed, a personal hair care home requires special exception approval in the CMX 2.5 zoning district.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
I'm also with our attorney, Mr. Ivano.
Sir, wait one minute.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Yes, good afternoon, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and information that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. You can proceed and share your screen.
Our architect, Mr. Ivano, he has all of the stuff on his screen.
I was wondering if you can let him share the screen.
Yes, sir.
What we'll do is we'll let him share the screen and you'll testify off his screen, okay?
Okay, yes, sir.
What's your architect's name?
Ivano, I-V-A-N-O.
Mr. D'Angelo is coming back in as a panelist now.
Okay, thank you, sir.
Thank you, guys.
we're going to let him testify and you're just going to use the screen.
Good afternoon.
Can you hear me?
I can.
So what we're going to do is you use the screen and he'll testify.
He's the one that testifies.
Understood.
I'll share the screen now.
please.
Do you need me to say any swear in?
you're not going to testify,
right?
Understood.
I probably might need to ask.
Well, if he calls you as a witness.
Bob, why don't you start your testimony
and tell us what you want to do, too.
I mean, we know all your documents.
We see your documents.
Yes, sir.
I mean, the variance,
we're asking for the variance to,
let's see the screen.
And the refusal was that we have to require the 80 percent setback.
And then, no, I'm sorry.
We're asking that we don't do the 80 percent.
Here's what I want you to do.
Here's what I want you to do.
Show us what's there now.
Show me right now what's there now.
Yes, sir.
Right now, this picture right here, it used to be like a movie theater way back in the
1900s and then it became like a dollar store and before you're going to take that you're going to
take that down yes sir yes sir you're going to build a six-story building a five-story building
yes sir uh okay um
what it said six-story building and in the top a five-story building with the rooftop um
um that uh says here a six-story structure with a roof deck so that's the roof okay so this is
what you're taking down now yes sir show us what you're going to put up uh this is uh this is the
the new picture of what we're going to try to put up sir
could you show us floor plan too for that
yes uh the floor plan is is in in india yes sir
architect you have the floor plans can you see them yeah no apologies
how about now
yes yeah that's the first first and second floor uh the first floor uh is going to act
Yeah, that's the first and second floor.
The first floor is going to act as a pharmacy and an adult daycare for the neighborhood.
And then the second floor is an office space that we can operate as a home care office for training.
And even the local organization can come use the conference room if they need it.
So, you know, we think that is very good for the neighborhood.
But we didn't have any problem with the past junk zoning meeting that we had.
No, it's the third floor.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, the third floor, the fourth floor, and the fifth floor are very identical.
They're just one bedroom, like, senior apartment for...
That's eight in each floor.
So the third, the fourth, and the fifth has eight each.
And that's the rooftop, the roof terrace where they have some, you know, garden and stuff like that just to go and maybe clear their mind, you know, so.
Three, four, and five is basically one-bedroom apartments?
Like a senior, we were hoping to make it a personal care apartment where it could be assisted living.
Yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, that's what it is.
That's three, four, and five?
Yes, sir.
then there's a rooftop deck yes sir
went to the rco yes sir and the rco is in support of what you wanted to do oh that is correct sir
councilman also sent a letter of support in oh thank you yep so much uh so questions from the board
what's the timeline just a quick question well we're hoping uh one and a half years
to two years to finish the the project um mr johnson okay um so question um these rooms and
it's hard for me to see so you're saying this is an assisted living
yes ma'am well i mean like the plans are there i mean if we can get the license for assisted
living we would love to go that way if not uh you know it'd be a senior i'm asking you what
you're trying to do this is there's something about adult care on the first floor yes ma'am
adult daycare on the first and then this is a personal care home yes ma'am do each one of these
have um it's hard to see i'm sorry it's a little small so each one of these are sort of self-contained
kind of units where there is some little kitchen and oh yes ma'am yes ma'am depending on the level
of care well you know we can have the nurse to go and uh you know help with um you know uh depending
on how you know the their condition uh it could be simple as just a medicine reminder or bringing
up meals or it may be you know maybe someone else is a very critical condition where maybe um the
nurse have to you know stay longer or something like that but it'd be a good project for for
seniors in the area man so where where are these nurses going to be and will they be are they
living on site? I don't see anything in here about where the, you're saying there'll be some
kind of nursing care. Yes, ma'am. So where will they be? They will come like on site as needed, ma'am.
So, so what is the office space, the business and professional offices on the second floor
or just administrative offices
or how is that going on?
Administrative office, training office on the second floor.
I mean, the first floor,
maybe we can set something up there
for supplies and stuff like that
for it to work.
And where will your,
where would the residents be coming from?
Are they going to be referred from some kind of agency, or how is that going to work?
I think that right now, I mean, my office is two blocks away from that site.
And just the area alone, I think that the seniors from the income are not able to afford that much of the apartments that are priced around here.
so we need a lot
we in need of
in need of a place like this.
a place like this
well I'm not
Well, I'm not, that's not my question.
that's not my
My question is, so then how are you going to,
are your residents, this is a personal care home, right?
Yes, ma'am.
So are the residents coming from some sort of agency
or they're being referred by somebody to your facility?
Is that the plan or how?
That would be the plan.
I mean, open to the public.
i mean it's it's for you know whoever wants to apply first come first serve and uh you know we um
we're open arms uh ma'am
okay all right you're not answering my question but okay i'm sorry and then
so so i guess i guess the question too is it's it's a personal care home and i guess the point
is there's going to have to be nurses there or some medical aid 24 hours a day yes where where
will you have those people like on each floor if you know theoretically you got to have somebody
on each floor right so where where where would the medical attendance be on your plans
so what i'm saying is three four and five are going to be open to people who are assisted care
or, as you said, some of them in much serious condition.
How are you going to have medical attention for that?
Tell me, explain that.
I mean, it's not concrete.
The idea is for a senior apartment.
So we're hoping if we can get the license for assisted living,
that we can maybe put the nurses on the first floor.
yeah but i i mean i get that but um if you have people in the four floors it's got to be somebody
if they're watching where how where they are right walking around and making sure everybody's okay or
not really no i mean if uh if it was just for seniors then then um you know they can just
live on the third fourth or fifth floor without the assisted uh living
i mean the intent is for yes uh for seniors uh over 55 home you know like apartment senior
apartment then you say you're looking to change that at a later date um yes i mean i mean you know
if um honestly if that that works we'd rather just have it as a senior home instead of uh you know
personal care. Mr. Chair, can I just interject for a minute? So, Mr. Hang, under the zoning code,
a personal care home and an apartment building are two different things. The way your refusal
is written right now is for a personal care home. Your plans look like an apartment building.
If you want to do an apartment building, your application is going to need to be updated to
reflect an apartment building if you want to proceed with a personal care home you may need
to have different plans in place as this process moves along for it to actually be a personal care
home because if it's built if you get approval for a personal care home and then you build an
apartment building ellen i is going to tell you you're going to have to come back and get new
zoning approval i understand okay so you need to decide what what you are doing now and make sure
that everything matches so that you are getting approval for for what you intend to do right
absolutely i understand thank you hillary because what you've shown on this on the third and fourth
floor are individual apartments yes at three four and five michael three four and five yes exactly
an adult day on the first floor so you need to be clear on what it is that you that you're that
you want to do right now if you want to change it later on that's a different story but this is what
you've shown now I understand yeah I think it's um it's written wrong I think that we want it to
be like a senior apartment instead of um you know a personal care home okay if that that is the case
then what I would recommend as board council is that the board hold this
decision.
And then that you submit a request to the board to amend your application
so that there's a refusal issue that says what exactly what you're asking
for, which is multifamily household living.
That's what you're really asking for on the third through fifth floors.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
So you'll, you'll get back to us.
You're going to send us what you're trying to do.
Okay. I think Mr. Ivano has his hand up. Maybe I'm not.
Okay. I think Mr. Ivano has his hand up. Maybe I'm not understanding it. He understands it more than me or something.
Could I speak?
Can you hear me?
Hillary, can we take tests?
We can get clarification from the architect, but we will need to swear him in first.
Why don't you state your name and spell for the court sidocopher?
Absolutely. Thank you.
Ivano Dangella, I-V-A-N-O, D-apostrophe-A-N-G-E-L-L-A.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. I do.
The statement that's being made by counsel, I was wondering if that could be an amendment after the fact, and this could be just heard.
no we need to vote we need to vote on what's being proposed and if a personal cares home
is not being proposed we can't vote on the refusal as it is okay uh so i i guess i'm we're back to
the client making that decision if he would go forward with a personal care or if he wants to
change it back to uh if he goes if he goes with personal care there's got to be different drawings
right the drawings don't match what the needs are right so and in reference to bringing it back to
you um that procedure i can just inquire on on an email of some sort does it have to go to zone uh
rco yes you can inquire on the same emails where you submitted your exhibits okay all right thank
you sir thank you guys thank you guys thank you guys yes mr chair i would suggest bringing this
back for a resumption hearing once there's clarification and once once you figure out
where you're going to go then we'll have a resumptive hearing okay then we can take public
testimony as well as the recommendation of the planning commission yep yep all right thank you
thank you have a good night guys is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 2 p.m case has not
and heard. No hands, Chair. All right. We're going to take a five-minute break, and then when we come
back, we only have, I think, one case to hear. Okay? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing
this afternoon meeting. With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Board Member Michael Johns.
Also here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Video will be available by contacting ZBA Executive Director at phila.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before a test finding.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the prompting question.
Finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All questions should be referred to our executive director at zbaexecutivedirectoratphil.gov.
Here's our schedule for the afternoon.
Number one, MI 2021-003-878-6019-35 North 15th Street.
That case is continued.
Number two, MI 2022-
Mr. Chair, that was a Crest for Continuance Attorney Moving Party.
Oh, okay.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2022-004-033-2235 Cecil B. Moore Avenue.
That's also a request for Attorney Moving Party.
Number three, MI 2024-003-872-150 East Champlose Avenue.
That case is continued.
Number five, MI 2024-003-930-11101 Academy Road.
That case is continued.
Attorney moving party.
Number six, MI 2024-003-936-8132 Lister Street.
That case is continued.
Attorney moving party.
And number four, MI 2024-003-924-917 West Somerset.
four zero zero three nine two four nine seventeen west somerset street alga rosado
and renee rosado are the listed owners no exhibits first listing
do we see any hands
i see no hands at this time chair thank you so mi 2024 003 924 917 west summer street
that case is continuing mark must be heard and then number seven mi 2024 003 951 5518 morton
Street. David Upta is the listed owner applicant. Devin, I actually think he's an attorney. No
exhibits, first listing. Chair, I don't see his name in the virtual audience. He is an attorney.
Okay, so MI 2024-003-951, first listing. This case is continued. Mark must be heard.
And our case number eight, MI 2024-003-966-919 South 8th Street.
Michael Mattione is the attorney for the owner.
Non-opposition from Bella Vista Neighbors and non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Hi, Mr. Mattione.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Hold on.
I'm trying to turn on my video.
My video is not working.
Oh, there it goes.
No, hold on.
There.
Thank you.
Sorry about that.
There you go.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Michael Matteoni, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
It's Bella 7 LLC, and they are the owner of the property.
Vice Chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to read by the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did, sir.
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
All right. Good afternoon, everyone.
Again, I'm Michael Mattione, and I represent Bella 7 LLC.
and they're represented by a member Allison Hinman-Harvey, who is also on today. And we
presented exhibits in advance, the tax clearance refusal, the RCO letter of non-opposition. And
that letter includes an acknowledgement that we work with the immediate neighbor and they now
support the project. The letter of non-oppositional council member Squilla, again, correspondence from
neighbors in support, the zoning site plan, floor plans, and photographs.
Client purchased this property. It was originally three units, and they got a variance to have four
units. There were four units, three legal units, and then when they purchased it, they got a
variance to get a fourth unit. After they obtained the variance from this board for the fourth unit,
they then went to get a CO. When they tried to obtain the CO, they were told, well, you have a
rooftop deck, and that's not legal. So now we're back trying to legalize this rooftop deck that's
been there for many, many, many years. My client bought this property in July of 2022. They bought
it with the deck. The refusal, there were actually three refusals, but they all relate back to the
deck. And that's because this is a very unique property. They have a refusal because they
have a zero setback from Montrose Street and a five-foot setback is required for the
pilot house. They have two-foot, six-inch setback, 10-foot is required. And because
they're expanding a property that already has a variance, they got a refusal for that as well.
And just to get some context, this property is at the corner of 8th and Montrose.
I just want to show you where it is real quick. There it is at 8th and Montrose.
I just want to show you where it is real quick. There it is at 8th and Montrose.
It's on the southeast corner of 8th and Montrose, and it's multifamily. There's all multifamily around.
And here's some pictures of the deck we're talking about.
This is a very tiny deck. It only has about 66 square feet of area.
As you can see, when you walk out from the pilot house, you almost walk into the railing.
There's a little bit of room there.
And then when you look down here, you will see there's about three or four chairs on the deck.
and that's all that there is um again it's a really tiny deck and you can tell from the wood
that it's been there a long time and to put it in the context of the surrounding properties
okay this this is this is the deck in question as you can see this property is about nine feet
11 inches wide on the inside so you can't even have 10 foot setback from montrose street it'd
be on the neighboring property. So you can't build the pilot house, the existing pilot house.
You just couldn't build it. And then to have a five foot setback, you'd cut the deck in half,
you only have a five foot wide deck. Again, this has been here a long time. If you look over here
at 917 South 8th, they don't have any setback on their deck either. You look at 735 Montrose Street,
they really don't have any setback. 730 Montrose has no setback on their deck. And this is 921.
While they don't have any setback, they're not required to have a setback because they're not on the corner.
They do have the required front setback from A Street.
And these neighbors originally opposed it, but after meeting with them, they supported it.
It's noted in the RCO letter, and it's also, I have a correspondence of support from them as well.
Just to give a little bit of additional view of the other decks that surround us.
We're building in conformity with these other decks.
That's the 730 Montrose deck, 735 Montrose deck, and the 917 Southeast Street deck.
So when you look at this project, and I want to show the site plan, this is the deck.
I mean, it's a tiny deck.
And as you can see, the stairs come up.
You have the two-foot, six-inch clearance when you come up the steps.
And this is the deck.
And this is only about 66 square feet.
The deck itself, totally, including the pilot house, is about 100 square feet.
You actually do have a little bit of setback because of the bay window here, but you can't
possibly have a five foot setback and you can't, it's utterly impossible given that
it's only a nine foot, 11 inch wide roof to have a pilot house with a 10 foot setback.
You'd be building it over here on the neighboring property.
So it's a unique situation.
It's in conformity with the other decks in the area.
It's impossible.
And this is a preexisting deck.
It's been here probably 30 years, if not longer, long before my client owned it.
They're trying to legalize it so that the unit that has access to it, it's only one unit in the building, has a little outdoor area.
Again, given the dimensions of the property, it's really impossible to comply with the dimensional requirements for this deck area.
You can't have a smaller deck.
It can fit four chairs like it's shown in the photos.
You benefit the public health, safety and welfare, though, by legalizing the deck so it's properly reflected on public records.
So if there ever was an emergency, the records would reflect that there is a deck up there rather than not reflecting a deck.
So it does make things safer. It doesn't have any adverse impact on light and air.
It's been here for a long time. It's on the roof. It's not bothering anybody else.
There's no windows that it would darken or anything like that.
We're only seeking to legalize this deck. And again, it won't have any adverse impact on environmental conditions.
And we do believe that we really meet the requirements for the requested variances.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call on Allison Hinman-Harvey.
Allison Hinman-Harvey has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
My name is Allison Hinman-Harvey. That is A-L-L-I-S-O-N-H-I-N-D-M-A-N hyphen H-A-R-V-E-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, Council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Allison, did you hear my statements?
I did. And are they true and correct? Yes. And do you dot them as your testimony? Yes.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to present at this time.
Questions from the board? I have no questions.
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Questions or comments?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on a city plan,
given the physical circumstances of the site and documented use history.
We recommend that requested legalization variants be granted.
MI 2024-003-966-919 South 88th Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose 330 case has not been called
I've seen no handshare
thanks everybody
a lot of work done
that one case went a little bit longer than expected
but I appreciate everybody's work
thank you
take care
good night
good night everyone
great job