Thank you. I would worry. All right. Wait a minute. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Here we have a caller ending in 3552. Adrian Fernandez, they have been unmuted and allowed
to speak
good morning Adrian you've already been sworn
you've already been sworn
just state your name and start your testimony
we did send in a
letter
Adrian just state your name first
say my name yeah
okay Adrian
Fernandez okay then start your
presentation
okay we're asking
that we do have a compliant process here, RCOs, the affected RCOs were emailed by this applicant
and we answered back in each case.
That would be a swamped RCO, all-in-the-family first, and also strawberry matching concern.
All-in-the-family early on even offered extensive assistance with helping the applicant to follow
the instructions from ZBA and Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
We have not heard anything from this applicant since the 8-27-25 hearing.
We would like to not forego our right to have a public meeting, especially now.
We just learned about this hearing last night because Strawberry Mansion Concern noticed it on the schedule.
We did not see it during October, and we did not receive an email from ZBA showing the notice of continuance and any posters.
the property was never posted and recently there was an eight and a half by 11 paper
placed over six feet tall that could not be read i still don't know what it says
um we saw that last night but the property was never posted we turned in photographs showing that
um throughout 2025 just since we were aware of it so we would like to have our right to a public
meeting especially learning today that multiple uses are being requested on that small street
the neighbors have notified us at three to four other public hearings along that street
that they do not want hair salons there so we are concerned that they be properly notified
we're proof of mailing that they get a chance to have a public meeting so we're asking if
there's a resumption hearing because nobody knew about today's hearing in our community that the
public comment be also heard during a resumption hearing i wouldn't be here if strawberry magic
concern didn't tell me yesterday evening that this hearing was today and i do check the schedule
regularly so we're asking also that we have full knowledge of the amended refusal because
Because we do not like to have public meetings without a correct refusal so that neighbors are truthfully and factually aware of what the meeting is about and what the property, what type of zoning use the property is asking for by variance with special exception.
So, again, we're asking that the public comment be heard at the resumption hearing, hopefully after the holidays, because it's difficult to schedule meetings during the holidays, major holiday periods, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, and also that we have full knowledge and documentation of the amended refusals so we know what the hearing is actually about.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Plenty, do you want to make comment now or do you want to hold?
Chair, we can make comment.
All right.
Go ahead, state your name.
Good morning, Commissioners and Chairman David Vecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The city rezoned this neighborhood in 2014 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan.
the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2014 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive
plan at that time this property was zoned cmx 2 commercial mixed use the city issued a permit
in 2009 for personal services and a permit in 2011 for another commercial use the proposed use
or uses are in keeping with documented prior use the city planning commission recommends the board
grant the requested variance for personal services and other uses described in the appellant's
testimony. Thank you very much. So we're going to have a resumptive hearing on this on 2-3-26
at 9 30 a.m. And go ahead. I have proof that I did reach out email to everybody and my posters
were up and everything. Oh okay. Your testimony and we understand it all right. So it'll be 2-3-26
at 9 30 a.m and the staff is going to help you with your amended refusal okay okay thank you
oh did you want to speak to the okay no thank you who do we want to speak to no that's okay
thank you all right
number four mi 2025 002 163 1410 to 26 what cheltenham avenue this is a resumptive hearing
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning.
Good morning, Counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, it's Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
So this is a resumptive hearing. And my understanding is that you will make a presentation of the amended refusal and revised plans. There'll be questions from the board, public testimony, and then a planning recommendation. So could you please start your presentation?
Yes. And I apologize. I'm a bit under the weather. So I'm going to try not to cough, but I'm not feeling my best today. But I wanted to make sure to get through this. So this is 1410 to 26 and 1428 West Shelton Ham Avenue.
um that my client is jerry johnson on behalf of blue diamond car and truck spot llc we also have
our architect here with us rustin oler and we have um our engineers here as well
this was a little bit ago so the board may not have it fresh in their mind but um this was is
basically for a lot line relocation to turn three lots into two um and we're doing a demolition
of the structures on one lot to do a brand new personal vehicle repair maintenance, a car wash
with seven accessory off-street surface parking spaces, a van accessible space, and then the
existing three-story structure will remain on the other lot. We went back for an amended refusal
because as you can see from the refusal on my screen, some of the landscape buffering and the
landscape requirements were still contained on the refusal despite making changes to them in the
actual plans, but we had not completed fully the process with the Planning Commission. So what you
see in front of you is the amended refusal that was revised to basically show the compliance with
all of the Planning Commission requirements for landscaping and the waivers that we obtained
because what we're proposing is in keeping with the spirit of what's required from a landscaping
perspective. So all that we have here on the amended refusal or revised refusal is just for
the use, which is for personal vehicle repair. The site is zoned CMX2 and has a refusal for
that specific use in CMX2. Here's our leave to amend letter just stating the changes.
And again, this was really just related to making sure that the refusal reflected the compliance with the landscape requirements.
I don't know that I need to go back through the hardship argument.
I'm happy to if the board would like.
I just think maybe refreshing the board on the plans and then just going through again the landscaping compliance would be helpful.
We also had support. So this is the site, if you remember, half of the on this side of the street is Philadelphia County on the other side of the street is different.
So not a whole ton of affected neighbors on this side of the street, just given the oddness of the split municipal townships, I guess, if you if you could say this is just an aerial of the site, if you recall.
townships, I guess, if you could say. This is just an aerial of the site, if you recall.
And so again, while it's zoned CMX2, it's been sort of auto-oriented and is on a pretty busy
street. A lot of the conversation we had in the prior hearing was about turning radius and the
parking and just making sure that we had thought through sort of how to get in and out of the site
and not too much idling, and that we're actually including more parking spaces than required
so that we can make sure to mitigate any concerns with parking and idling on the street.
This is just the zoning posters, again, a fenced-in lot.
Same as before, just a little bit further away, views of the site.
Here's just the portion of the code where we don't comply.
CMX2 doesn't allow for a car wash.
We did a community meeting over the summer, and we had support.
These are the notices for mailing, and we had support from the 10th Ward Democratic RCO for this.
Let's see if I can make sure.
11 in support and one opposed to the project.
And then just the plans showing the lot line relocation.
New legal descriptions, site plans, as well, turning radius, elevation of the existing structure, and then the site plan with more of the renderings.
Also showing the landscaping, buffering, and green space to comply with the planning commission requirements as well.
A rendering of the site, rendering of it at night, a little more artistic rendering of it, and then this was more of a landscaping plan as well.
I don't know if we want to bring on our architect or engineer to go through this in more detail, but essentially we're now in compliance.
Well, they testified the last time, am I correct?
Yeah, they did.
Is there anything you want to do that you want them to bring out?
Maybe they can just briefly go over just because I don't have a license to discuss architectural plans or engineering plans.
so just for benefit of the record just having them briefly go through it and if in the event
the board had any questions the only thing i would want is if there's something different
okay i don't want to you know if you tell me there's something different you think one of
them yeah do that there was there's nothing different essentially we just had not gotten
an amended refusal we had reviewed this with the planning commission they had sort of signed off
on the plans but we had not finalized the process the way that we had thought we had so we that
that's the whole point of why we went back through but we're meeting the requirements and we have a
waiver for any elements that we can't meet but that are in spirit with what the planning commission
requires for landscape buffering okay um and more detail on the shrubberies and the planting scheme
um and then obviously the the proviso plan form so um did you see the proviso's the 10th word had
commercial trash pick up two times a week
and no illuminator and animated signs?
Yes, and I believe we were fine with those, yes.
Okay, all right.
Do you want to bring your client on
to adopt your new testimony?
Is Jerry Johnson in the audience?
The only, I think,
just point of clarification
that we discussed related to the lighting
was that it would be front lit nothing would be rear lit um we don't have a we're going to have
a sign we don't have it on this application but just we i think we had agreed that we weren't
going to have it lit in the rear at all on the site so that it would not be there's that apartment
building behind in a parking lot okay i'm here could you please state your names there and
spelled for the stenographer uh jerry johnson uh j-e-r-r-y johnson j-o-h-n-s-o-n do you swear
or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir counsel jerry
have you heard my testimony today do you believe it to be true and accurate and do you adopt it as
your own. Yes. Thank you. Questions from the board.
Just some booth. Yeah. Did I see you said there was something about an apartment building? I thought
you said there weren't too many residences. Yeah, there's an apartment building in the back
too many um residences close yeah there's an apartment building in the back of the site which
we uh went over um when we first presented the case yeah but like were they they were part of
the mailing that went yes everybody was notified it just was a limited list just given had half the
side of the property is not even in philadelphia county so it just was a weird just the location
is unique in that way it's my first time experiencing that all right thank you sure
questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair their comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair
um planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david
with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the cmx2 commercial mixed use zoning at this location the city rezoned this neighborhood
in 1977 in a council supported map change according to the 1942 works progress administration land use
map this property was recorded as a gasoline station back then the property appears to have
been in constant use as an auto related business since then a city planning commission recommends
the board grant the proposed use variants for personal vehicle repair and maintenance thank
you um mi 2025 002 163 1410 to 26 west cheltenham avenue i vote yes with provisos
commercial trash pickup two times a week no illuminator or animated signs
And Mr. Chair, there's an amended refusal as well.
Her amended refusal dated 10-6-25.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tywin, my vote is yes with provisos.
Okay, Rachel, we have one more for you.
M-I-2025-002-666-9313 Busselton Avenue.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
Rachel, just state your name, please.
Yeah, Rachel Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
There's unanimous support from the Greater Busselton Civic Association,
a letter of support from Council Member O'Neill,
and also six form letters from neighbors adjacent.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning.
Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
And do you waive the reading of the referral and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
You can proceed with the case.
Thank you.
So this is 9313 Old Busselton Avenue.
My client is Rachel Gonzalez on behalf of Land of Learning.
And our architect is Carl M. Berger, should we need to bring him on.
In front of you is the referral, as mentioned, the property is zoned CMX1 and RSA2.
And this is just an application to extend the existing use of a child care center on the first floor to the second floor of an existing detached structure.
And that is the only referral and variance that we're seeking, or I guess special exception that we're seeking today.
The Land of Learning is an experienced child care center that operates out of the first floor of the property.