I will.
Thank you.
I will.
Do you swear for her to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes. And the other case that we'll hear at the same time is MI-2022-001-689-3530-13 Haverford Avenue, Parcel C.
Thank you.
Could you identify your client for me, please?
Sure. My clients are owner I LLC and owner E LLC, both entities, which are owned and represented by Rami Schreim, who is here today.
Okay. Our vice chair, Carl Tenere, has just a few questions.
Hi, Meredith. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading. I believe the refusal is slightly inaccurate, which I will address.
Okay, great. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, ma'am. We certainly do. And that letter is up on the screen right now to start.
Okay, start.
Thank you. Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger of Delworth-Paxson. The properties before the board today are located at 3513 and 3523 Haverford Avenue in the city's Mantua neighborhood.
The deeds are included at Exhibit 3 and tax clearance is provided at Exhibit 2.
The exhibit packet includes 16 exhibits, which I will walk you through.
To start off at Exhibit 15, which you will see up on the screen, you will see an overwhelming
letter of support from Mantua Civic Association for today's request.
As a very brief overview, the variance today requests converting a ground floor commercial
space of two properties that are currently under construction into an additional residential
unit in each property.
The board actually granted a similar variance request on this same block just within the
last couple years that the property is actually right in between these two. Now by way of overview
you'll see on the zoning map up on the screen here that these two properties sit between North
36th Street and North 35th Street. The north side of this block is zoned CMX2 while the south side
is zoned RM1. Now turning to the aerials at Exhibit 8 for more context you will see that this block
includes a school at the corner of North 36th Street, a variety of mid-block vacancies and
some newer construction residential uses. On the south side of Haverford Avenue, you'll notice a
On the south side of Haverford Avenue, you'll notice a very large Drexel-owned building.
very large Drexel.
Now, 3513 Haverford Avenue was previously approved for seven dwelling units.
So let me bring up the refusal here just so you can see where I am saying that there is a discrepancy.
So 3513 Haverford Avenue was previously approved for seven dwelling units.
The proposed is eight.
I'm not sure why the examiner here said that the allowed is five. He did not take into account that there's a zoning permit and a building permit that authorizes seven. Same thing for 3523 Haverford Avenue. That was previously approved for nine units. And again, he did not take that into account when he issued the refusal.
So again, the discrepancy in what we're asking for in both is just one unit.
So the previous permits for both of these projects are attached here at Exhibit 5.
Now, the permitting for both of these projects started back in 2020.
As a result of some hardships stemming both from the makeup of this block of Haverford Avenue, in conjunction with the owner's actual attempts at finding commercial tenants,
the applicant is before the board today to request the elimination of the commercial space requirement in exchange for one additional residential unit in each.
Now, with respect to the refusal, one of the refusals relates to the elimination of the commercial space, while the second refusal relates to the unit count, which I did previously address.
Now, practically speaking, the applicant is only asking for one additional unit over the previously approved amount.
Now, as I mentioned, one of the factors contributing to a hardship here is the nature of this block.
So taking a look at the photographs at Exhibit 16, you will see the first photograph is of the under construction project at 3523 Haverford Avenue.
Now, immediately next door to this at 3525 Haverford is a single family home.
Scroll down so you can see that there.
this property has no commercial use and next to that on the corner is the school
now if you look towards the other direction towards north 35th street you'll see mostly
vacant land although I did reference the board did approve a project right here in the middle
which I will mention in a moment now if you move a little farther up towards 3513 Haverford Avenue
you will see that there is one commercial use next door, which is a small takeout restaurant.
Any dense commercial viability for this block is further limited by the very large Drexel-owned property across the street,
which dominates nearly the entire south side of Haverford Avenue.
Now, if you take a look at Exhibit 9 I have up on the screen, you'll see the city's business license map for this particular street and area.
Now, aside from the school, you'll note that the only other business license on this block is for that takeout restaurant next door to 3513 Haverford.
You'll also notice the general lack of dense commercial uses in the few block area that surrounds this stretch of Haverford Avenue.
Furthermore, if you look at some historical maps for this block, shown at Exhibit 10,
you'll see that the history of this block indicates that it was comprised predominantly
of dwellings. Now, as I did mention earlier, the Board did also recently grant another variance in
between the two properties that are before the Board today. And you will see that history here
at exhibit 12, and that's the project up on the screen. This project is located at 3519 Haverford
Avenue and is for 21 dwelling units with no commercial use. Now, despite the character of
the street and the limited commercial use, the owner did attempt to find a commercial tenant
for these spaces. So at this time, if the administrator could please promote Rami Shrine.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Rami Shraim, S-H-R-A-I-M.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Rami, you were involved in the permitting and development of these properties, correct?
Correct.
Now, at what point in the process of developing these properties did you start marketing them for commercial use?
So we actually started as soon as we got the permits.
We thought that, you know, building the place, you know, while having a tenant.
you know, building the place, you know, while having a tenant in line would, you know, we can
custom make the place or whatever we feel the tenant is. So we started pretty early, I would say
within a few months of purchasing the property. So over a year ago.
And how did you market it?
We listed it with the realtor and on the multiple listings.
Did you have any interest? Did you receive any interest?
So not really. No. The the the listings are actually still on as we speak. We started we started at at a certain price, which was I believe it was twenty eight hundred, which was a pretty competitive price given like, you know, commercial comps in the area.
And we lowered it. I think right now it's sitting at 2200, which is which is about, you know, 15 or 20 percent decrease and still really no no interest.
And that's why we're you know, we are where we are today.
And you've not received any feedback that would suggest that it's it's the way you design this commercial space that is preventing finding a tenant.
Is that accurate?
it yeah well actually the fact that we started advertising for it early on before the construction
even started uh and and even right now it's just basically an open vanilla box space so it would be
custom made to whichever tenant that is you know that would be interested in leasing it um so no
yeah i mean i don't think that we're not at the design phase yet it's it's like i said it's just
an open space ready for whoever is looking for for for a commercial space to design it for them
Thank you. Sit tight for a minute. So members of the board, given both the predominantly residential character of this block, in addition to the owner's actual failed attempts at leasing space, we do submit it would be a significant hardship to retain this ground floor commercial use in this location.
Regarding the number of units, again, we do submit that the one additional unit above the previously approved allowed amount is a de minimis deficiency.
We submit that these are the least minimum variances, given the proposal only asked to convert the ground floor use of these two structures, which is consistent with the neighborhood, as well as previous variances that were granted by this board.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm the neighbor's properties, or impair light and air. A full analysis is provided in the memo of law that I always submit to the board at Exhibit 13. And I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
Now, with respect to the community, Mantua's letter of support is in the packet at tab 15, and I do believe that a representative from Mantua is here as well.
So before the board asks for any audience members, Rami, have you heard all of my testimony given before the board today?
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Thank you very much. We ask that the board grant our application.
Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Carol?
Happens every time. No, Mr. Chair. Ishmael?
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no one is here.
Thank you, Ishmael.
Planning Commission.
Mr. Chair and members of the board.
This is Mason from the Planning Commission.
My testimony on the two cases are slightly different, but I'll try to be efficient and speed for the second.
So the first one for 3523 Haverford Avenue, this property is designated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan,
and that CMX2 zoning matches that designation.
Whereas if the application were submitted under the current zoning rules, a 10th unit could be earned by right through the mixed income housing bonus program, it would require a payment of $170,000 instead of the $90,000 agreed to as a part of this application.
Further, the CMX2's zoning was supported as a part of a community-led remapping to support
the development of commercial uses in this historic commercial corridor.
There is no hardship that would prevent the project from being developed as has already
been permitted, and therefore, the staff of the Planning Commission recommend denying
the requested variances.
And just to cut to the chase for 3513, it's exactly the same, except the details are that, whereas if the current application were submitted under current zoning, an eighth unit could be earned by right through a mixed income bonus program.
And just to cut to the chase for 3513, it's exactly the same.
It could only be earned by providing the affordable units on site, whereas the two units that are currently approved were earned through an in-lieu payment.
And consequently, the Planning Commission staff recommended against approving the request of jurisdictions. I apologize.
Mr. Chairman, to the Planning Commission's point regarding the community involvement, I do believe that Gwen Morris is here from Manchua Civic, who I believe can touch on the specifics related to why they did support this on this block.
I was hoping, okay, I'll go back to the audience one more time.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Ms. Morris, you can unmute yourself.
Okay, am I on?
Yeah, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Gwendolyn Morris, G-W-E-N-D-O-L-Y-N, Morris, last name M-O-R-R-I-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
I've been a resident of the Mantle community for 50 years.
I'm also a member of the Mantle Civic Association and the Association Secretary.
And we have supported this particular zoning variance request.
The one thing about this particular community, we, of course, as you know, did a significant remapping of the entire community some years ago for a variety of reasons, and particularly around issues of housing.
Part of what we wanted to make sure of was that our residents in this community, this community remained a community for families.
If you're not aware, we have a lot of vacant commercial space, not only on this corridor, but we have an entire block of vacant commercial space unused for almost eight, nine years in a 3,500 block of Fairmount.
And I think that does our families a disservice. There are no services there, but there are also not the kind of opportunities for our residents to obtain housing.
So we strongly support additional opportunities for residential development in this community because it has proven, and I'm going to say for 10 years, we've had an entire block of unused commercial space in the 3,500 block of Fairmount Avenue.
I think that suggests that it's not necessarily. And also, Haverford Avenue, you may call it a commercial corridor, but if you start at 34th and Haverford, if you start at 31st and Haverford, it is primarily residential.
There's a small portion of commercial properties in that space.
There's a senior building one block from this particular development.
So I, as representing the Managing Civic Association, we strongly support any opportunity to create housing opportunities for our residents.
Thank you very much, and thank you for calling in.
Hillary.
Hillary?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm here.
So if when I vote this, because of the mistake on the paperwork, should I make a proviso of how many units?
No, because the total number of units is fine.
I just leave it as is.
All right.
Thank you very much.
No problem.
MI-2022-001-675-3523 Haverford Avenue and MI-2022-001-689-3513 Haverford Avenue. I vote yes for both.
Harold Tineri, my vote is yes for both.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes for both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes for both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you. MI-2022-001-690-3920 Gerrard Avenue and MI-2022-001-545-3922 West Gerrard Avenue.
Alan Nockamson for both. Letter of support from Centennial Parkside CDC for both.
Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Nockamson, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street,
Suite 1600, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19109.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client for these properties?
Yes, they are both owned by H&M Developments, LLC.
And with me, I have Ghazi Ida Seven, a representative from the company.
Our vice chair has several questions.
Mr. Nockm, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, in all respects, and we have a letter of support from the coordinator of the RCL.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin sharing your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So I'm here to present 3920 and 3922 West Gerard Avenue.
They are separate zoning matters, so the board would have to vote them separately.
if the board should grant our zoning requests, we would respectfully request two provisos.
First, based on negotiations with the community, we are actually providing a commercial use where
one was not provided in the original plans. So we are eliminating CERN refusals. And secondly,
we did update um our plans our site plan to accommodate that so we we did provide a revised
plans to uh hillary emerson the cpa's council beforehand to make sure that everything was
appropriate um it sounds like it is from a technical standpoint uh so we would ask for
those to provide those uh commercial use um on the ground floor uh or in the property or in
properties and as well as revised plans. So as you can see, we're here. Mr. Nathanson, sorry,
this is Hillary. Just a quick question. So with the, you're asking for the, just a vacant commercial
use and that's in addition to the six family dwelling or is that instead of one of the units?
In addition to, that's, that's correct. So the proviso would be vacant commercial space
plus six residential units.
And then this proviso would be the revised plans.
Okay, and the revised plans are one page for each one.
That's right.