Let me grab him.
I'm here.
Thank you, may it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R for the city of Philadelphia.
First, I just wanted to make it clear that I was notified that the Planning Commission
and commerce uh departments were both uh opposing this uh variance which is why i'm here just to
represent them i'm not planning on calling witnesses other than of course the city planning
representatives um recommend the recommendation to the planning commission uh that would be made
um you know and i may ask for you know everybody's indulgences if i have uh might have an opportunity
to ask a couple questions later after Mr. Feynman does. As far as the break goes, the only thing I
would say is that the Board of L&I Review starts at or about 1 or 1.15. I just have two matters to
at or about 1 or 1 15 i just have two matters to continue there they shouldn't take more than 10
continued there.
minutes because they do that at the beginning although they typically won't start until about
1 30 so um but other than that anytime you want to start i'll just simply make sure that i'm you
know can be back here uh whether that's 1 30 2 o'clock whatever that's fine with me
mr chairman i'm i'm at your mercy whatever whatever you whatever you should decide to do
we're willing to work with you chair can i suggest that if you want to go forward with
worcester street agree that there will be a half hour break after that and i will text or email
all the parties to let them know exactly what time you will be resuming that that's helpful
thank you and if i could state one last thing this is tanya sunkett here um unfortunately we only had
one a morning session scheduled so we will not have the support of it and others to continue to
zoom after two just so that you're aware well based on what i'm hearing from mr fineman we may
not be able to complete everything by two o'clock i believe that's correct mr chairman
chair may i suggest in that case that it would be best just to schedule a resumption hearing for
that now for this case we're hearing yes i think that's the only way we're going to be able to get
this uh the other cases heard and the date that i previously sent you would be the same date for
this that was no October was it or November 10th at 9 30. Mr. Feynman Mr. Mulvihill Mr. Horvitz
uh through no fault of anyone we're running up against this clock and I in the best interest
of all parties I think it would be helpful if we have a resumption hearing we're agreeable Mr.
chairman mr mobile i mean really have no other options unfortunately i understand
chairman i'm simply checking my calendar right now that would be november 10th yes at 9 30.
we are available mr chairman
i am available i just wish to confer with my client and my architect to ensure they
are available i'm available this is logan the architect
i'm on there for other zba hearings anyway so i'm i'm good
client mr mobile and mr clark are you still on the line yes he can just unmute himself
i think mr clark said he was available
hello can you hear me yes yes yes i'm available thank you and the only other one mr horvitz
yeah he's available yeah i'm available thank you okay thank you all right thank you all for
resumed on november the 10th at 9 30 a.m at which time the board will consider well we'll consider
the entire case so thank you again gentlemen for your cooperation uh having said that we will now
move to case number 12 for your courtesies thank you uh now we will move to case number 12
MI 2020-001171, 541 East Worcester Street.
Mr. Whelan is the attorney of record.
This is a resumption hearing.
Mr. Whelan is coming in now as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Plaza has questions for you.
Good afternoon, sir. You agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. And just to advise the board, this is actually the fourth hearing after almost two
years in this matter. So this has been put on the record a number of times. I certainly agree to it
now again and stipulate that I agree to everything I previously agreed to each prior time.
It is my understanding, Chairman, I can do a very quick reintroduction, 30 to 45 seconds if you like, but this matter was continued. It was actually called and decided on June 16th, and then that vote was rescinded to allow certain community members who I believe are on the call today to put their individual testimony on the record.
It is my understanding, Chairman, I can do a very quick reintroduction.
I'm happy to allow that to happen, but would very much press for a decision, a re-decision today, given that this, again, has been almost two years in the making, and this is the fourth hearing.
The RCO opposition letter has been on the record for almost that entire time.
I believe it's dated early-ish 2019.
I could actually pull up the date itself.
And the last thing I would note, just so that everyone is brought back up to speed, is that
this is, there were a number of provisos that we agreed to.
I sent in a letter to the board on March 11th, 2021, two hearings ago, with a number of
provisos that relate to an agreement that we made to correct, or not correct, but to
revise the plans based on community input, RCO concerns, and the comments of the Planning
Commission who we met with individually. This is not a CDR matter, but we met individually with
the Planning Commission to find out what their comments and questions would be, and we addressed
as many of those as possible. So again, this has been an exceptionally long process.
um you know i i understand that miss brodus from the rco was here earlier today uh at the june 20
at the june 16th hearing you heard that uh for over seven months the rco refused to meet with
us or speak with us and i entered into the record at that time uh 80 some odd pages of email
correspondence between myself and the board um trying to answer not the board uh the rco rather
trying to answer any and all questions that they may have.
So if the board is up to speed on the case, I'll stop there
and let the community present its individual opposition
since we already have the position of the RCO.
The last thing I would say is Mr. Charles Richardson
from Councilwoman Bass's office got involved
between the April hearing of 2021 that was continued until June.
He was actually extremely helpful to move this forward.
And then he bowed out in May at the time when the immediate neighbor retained her own lawyer.
And that was who you heard from on the June hearing requesting another continuance of this matter.
And after the immediate neighbor had raised a number of non-zoning relating concerns, but concerns with regard to construction and traffic and
people parking in her parking spot and things like that. So again, I'm happy to share my screen
and show the board any questions, any documentation that they may have questions about,
including the proviso letter that I sent in if the board doesn't have it available.
But otherwise, I would, in the interest of time and getting this case heard and, you know,
re-decided today, since it was already decided in June, I would just say that all the documentation
is in the record um you've got probably six hours worth of testimony on the record at this point
i think we're ready to move forward for my purposes and maybe the purpose of the other
board members could you give us like a three-minute uh encapsulation of what we're looking at again
today. Absolutely. Okay. So hopefully, again, I can't see what you're seeing, but hopefully
you're seeing a letter from myself to you, chairman and the board. This just outlines
the proposed revisions. Here is a copy of the refusal. There were significant refusals. This
was going to be a proposed mixed use building with commercial on the first floor with apartments
above. The primary, and obviously the RCO letter speaks for itself, but the primary issue that the
RCO had was that there was going to be commercial at this block that they did not deem appropriate.
So we have removed all of that and then, in fact, reduced the number of units that we will have down from 22 to 16 to try to assuage some more of their concerns.
so again we have the you can see the date june 17 2019 is the first letter of refusal
So, again, we have the you can see the date, June 17th.
and uh opposition we presented 39 signatures of in petitions of support
and here very quickly i can try to and of course i'm going to go quickly because of
the timing that you guys just laid out in the last hearing but please interrupt me at any point
is this the case where your client uh owned the it's like a an attached duplex or a twin
yes so that this parcel right here this is right okay i got it now yeah um so i can just show you
one quick picture if that's um so here you can see basically everything around us has been
granted prior variances yeah uh here you go okay i i don't know about the other board members i
recall this now yeah okay yes yes mr chairman all right so i'm i'm happy to stop there um again we
are we are this uh built out one story garage uh this side of the twin the other half of the twin
is there, and these are the properties immediately adjacent to us. That's just an image of what we're
doing. Originally, you had retail or commercial on that first floor, correct? Originally, we had
retail and commercial on that floor. You received an expert planning report and testimony regarding
the use of this project. And so the last thing I would show you is simply we have this triangular
parcel. Here's the twin. Right next to us is a very large LaSalle associated. It's not LaSalle
building, but it's associated with LaSalle for rentals. And then there's a lot kind of going up
around here around our property. You can see what we've done. And then specifically, we removed all
the commercial uses from the proposal. We've reduced the residential units from 22 down to
16. I don't believe that this item is a zoning matter, but there was a concern that there would
be rentals here, and so we agreed to make all 16 units condos. We removed all proposed upper
floor residential balconies which the neighborhood did not like we agreed that all the trash will be
screened from the neighboring properties there is some off-street parking here and then finally
in accordance with along with some other design changes in accordance with the planning commission's
comments the building's amenity space will be relocated to
what would have been the
this would have been the commercial space
and this will now be the amenity space for the building
to kind of activate the street.
All right. Does the board have any
questions for Mr. Whalen before we move on with the rest of the testimony?
No, Mr. Chairman.
All right. Thank you. Who else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
In case you're breaking up.
We have Sharon Harvey. Sharon,
you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair to swear you in.
Good afternoon, Ms. Harvey. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Sharon Harvey, Sharon, S-H-A-R-O-N, Harvey, H-A-R-V-E-Y.
You swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And your address, ma'am?
It's Harper and Paul, 140 West Maplewood Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19144.
And I'm the attorney for the adjacent property owner at 453 Worcester Street.
thank you please proceed thank you uh at the last hearing on june 16th 16th we asked for a
continuance um so that i could be brought up to speed in what was happening over this two-year
program and i thanked the board for granting that continuance um after talking to mr whalen looking
at the plans and discussing it with my client uh we have a better understanding of what is going
on and there have no immediate objections to the plans as stated and with the provisos
to the plans as stated and with the provisos
so you're correct me if i'm wrong your client is not objecting as provided the board if the board
were to approve it we approve it with provisos that's correct thank you uh is there anything
else you need to add miss harvey no not at this time no thank you uh anyone else would like to
testify in this case. Yes, Chair, we have Sandra Broadus. Ms. Broadus, you can admit yourself.
Ms. Broadus, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
My name is Sandra, S-A-N-D-R-A, Broadus, B-R-O-A-D-U-S. I am the president of the RCO,
coordinating RCO, a concerned community association, and we are the RCO that hosted
the meeting with this applicant. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. First of all, I'd like to thank the board for taking the
time to allow us to present. This has been a long journey for this community and the community
members. I'd like to start by making some clarification of some misinformation that
was provided by Mr. Whelan that has possibly swayed the board in their understanding of this
RCO's participation in this process. This project did come before us in 2019. Mr. Whelan was
not the attorney at the time. There was, in fact, a community meeting that was held by ACCA,
participated by Bellfield Area Neighbors Association, Penn Area Neighbors Association,
and LaSalle University. And they all collectively and strongly were opposed to this process. And the
2019 letter has been followed by two additional RCO letters reporting on our concerns in that matter.
Even though this project has been conducted as though it is about the house at 543
The letters that you have received are not, the opposition of the community is not reflective
of what is going on at the house, even though we are, we're grossly concerned that the detachment
of the home was an issue.
That was not the reason for the community concern.
Further, Mr. Whalen, who was not at the 2019 community meeting, is not aware that the conduct of his client was very concerning,
starting with the fact that the refusal letter itemized undesirable uses that would we felt
and put in our letter that we felt were being used to frighten the residents at the 543.
Did you speak to what those uses were that raised that concern?
um and let me ask you this and are they the uses that the applicant has agreed to
remove well that is the point that i'm trying to make we confronted the applicant at the
the 2019 meeting and suggested to him that they were in fact the scare tactic and he all but
conceded that he didn't care about any of that and he'll take it all off he just wanted to know
So if the resident next door would sell their home, and in fact, if the other residents on Armstrong Street wanted to come up and to discuss selling their homes to him, he said he would take it all off then.
And we were then confident and comfortable that it was being used as a scare tactic because the removal was not after talking to city planning and agreeing with the RCO, but in fact did happen at the RCO meeting in 2019 because the applicant was only interested in the acquisition of property.
and he basically conceded that we put that in our letter based on the the manner in which this this
this whole hearing was conducted we were very concerned about the intentions moving forward
um miss brutus pardon the interruption again uh i hear what you're saying
Ms. Brodus, I hear what you're saying, but could you speak specifically to the application that we have in front of us with the provisos, and do those provisos meet with the RCO's expectations?
No, no.
Let me just say to you again that our applet, can you hear me?
Okay. The community concern is not about the house or what is happening to the house or pretty much anything in those provisos, except that in the provisos, there is no trash plan because streaming trash from neighboring properties is not a trash plan.
But, Mr. DiCicco, in that we have waited since 2019 to present this case and understand that because in 2019 it was continued as moving parties, in 2020, October 2020, Mr. Whelan showed up as a new attorney without announcing himself to the RCO.
But ma'am, again, I need to interrupt you. I hear what you're saying, but a lot of things have happened since that first, since the first hearing.
Absolutely nothing has happened.
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, Mr. Whelan is proposing several revisions, provisos to the original plan. So if you can stick to those issues, that would be helpful.
They're saying they've reduced the number of units from 22 to 16.
There are no longer any balconies.
Trash will be screened.