The width, as you can see on this, I don't know if I have it here.
Oh, here it is.
There it is.
So the width of the building is 54 feet.
of the building is 54 feet. You can see that here. So each of the units is 43 feet, 10 inches deep
You can see that here.
So each of the units.
by about 27 feet wide. So each one's 11, 183.5 square feet and size totals 2,367.
So this application is to solely utilize, was to utilize these two units for CMX2 permitted uses
and then have CMX2 permitted signage.
RM1 obviously has very rigid and strict
and limited sign provisions or sign permissions.
And it makes more sense here to have CMX2,
particularly when you take a look at the cover photo
and you see this sign was actually resurfaced.
It was left over from a diner that was permitted back in 68.
You can see that here.
Actually, before that, there was a permit for a service station
at the other end of the property down at Bloomfield Avenue, which you can see right here.
But again, so there's existing signage, the pole sign freestanding, and then there's existing
signage that was previously permitted on the front of the building. You can see the signage
that exists there now is for the last tenant. That tenant took both units, breached in between.
It was a dentist. It was there for a long time, was very popular, eventually moved to a larger
facility, and it's been vacant for quite some time while the owner's been trying to get a tenant
to occupy the space. As indicated by Ms. Emerson, I think there's a letter of support from the
Greater Busselton Civic League. We met with them the other last week, and we had a very lengthy
meeting to discuss the uses and how that would be phrased. We imagined that even though we were
applying for all CMX2 permitted uses, that some would come out, and we wanted to get the feedback
from the community. And Ms. Udovich can speak to it. When she spoke at the meeting, she expressed
desire, and again, not to put words in her mouth, for the councilman that not referenced CMX2,
given his remapping of his district to eliminate CMX2 and instead go with CMX1 and then add in
some uses from CMX2. So we're kind of good either way. And that's what Hillary was talking about.
It's the same uses. It's just how it's referenced, whether we keep it the way we apply CMX2 and
excluding, or we do CMX1 and add in additional ones and have what L and I will do to accept.
But the issue with CMX1 and adding is CMX1 has a limitation.
You can see here.
Actually, I didn't include it.
There's a note, this note five that you see under CMX1 for a lot of these uses state that that use can't take up more than 2,000 square feet.
So we have an issue if one tenant occupies both, having it be solely CMX1, we'd have to eliminate that exclusion.
So we're going to leave it up to the board to determine and Ms. Emerson's consultation with L&I to discuss how if the board elects to approve these, and it's the same uses either way.
It's just how you're coming at it from CMX2 or CMX1, or you just want to do a separate list with not referencing CMX1 or CMX2 to the uses that were approved.
So the notice of refusal, I showed you in the application again.
And you can see, if I blow it up, that I did reference, along with accessory signs and signage, permitted as a matter of right in CMX2.
I did reference that in the accessory signage.
I did reference that in the application online as well.
Unfortunately, the notice of refusal did not, I just want to go back to, here we go, did not include the reference to the signage at all.
And if it was CMX2 signage since the property zones RM1 or RM2, it should have also generated a refusal just like the use did.
I did reach out to the examiner after I got the notice of refusal back in April, alerting them to this, asking whether they viewed the CMX2 permitted signage to be included within the CMX2 permitted uses.
I didn't receive a response. I followed up last week, still did not receive a response to that.
I did include the application and the screenshots in my communications.
Again, the property is located at Cruz Town and Surrey Road.
You can see this is a real zoomed out image. We have commercial and light industrial. You have the John Meehan and Son operations across the street. You have the Croosedown Shopping Center down the street. Down here you have a gas station with Wawa. You have a fitness center. You have a short strip shopping center as you go down to Bloomfield.
you have a fitness center, you have a short strip shopping centers, you go down to Bloomfield,
and then you have the gas station that was originally way back in the 60s was permitted.
There are two, these two buildings you see here between Bloomfield and our property used to be
apartment buildings that were going to be apartment buildings that were owned by my client and his
family. They were converted to condominiums, you know, condominiums right now. And you can see as
As we zoom in, you can see what's across the street, you know, having commercial on.
This is a commercial corridor right here.
So the uses that were previously permitted, we would like to continue without the need to constantly come back and potentially lose clients every time somebody wants to utilize them when there's a vacancy.
The hearing notice for today's hearing is at tab 14.
Posting photos are at tab 15.
The ownership, the deed showing that my client owns the property is included at tab 16.
Our tax compliance that, again, we provided to Ms. Emerson this week is at tab 17.
And again, as I mentioned, we did meet with the Greater Busselton Civic League, who issued the letter of support.
The email from the Planning Commission from last June, this past June,
indicating the Greater Busselton Civic League is included at tab 8.
the list of addresses, residences, businesses, the councilmen, the planning commission,
the zoning board is included at tab 18B. Our notice, again, our meeting was September 26th.
We were there until very late going through the different variables of how we approached it again
from CMX1 and adding or CMX2 and eliminating. I don't think we got out of there until after 10.
So it was a very lengthy meeting. It was a hybrid meeting. So you had a number, a lot of people were there in person, a number of people who called in as well. So it was very well attended. I think the Greater Busselton Civic League did a great job in kind of working through the complicated aspect of this in terms of how the uses were going to be phrased, approved uses.
I don't think anybody had an issue. Obviously, the vote was 20 to 2, and you can see in the letter from Greater Busselton Civic League, they went with staying within the context of how we applied CMX2 and excluded.
But there was also a discussion Jack O'Hara put out just to be comprehensive and cover everything to also show CMX1 and then adding in certain CMX2 uses that might be tenants at this property, like a prepared food shop, a coffee shop, an ice cream shop, a deli, potentially sit down restaurant, you know, commissary or catering services where those CMX2 uses.
There are a lot of other ones that are permitted, but that we said if we're going to go with CMX1, we at least want to add those.
And those are referenced in very detailed fashion in the Greater Busselton Civic League letter of support.
And so with that, I would rest for now.
I would move my exhibits into the record and then reserve the right for any type of rebuttal or response to any questions there might be or any objections or protests from anybody in the community.
Do you want to bring your client on and adopt a testimony or no?
I would love to.
If Mr. Bienenfeld could raise his hand and he could be sworn in and then I can have him adopt my statements.
Jack Bienenfeld is allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Jack Bienenfeld, B as in boy, I-E-N-E-N-F-E-L-D.
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i did please proceed counsel thank you chairman uh jack did you hear the statements that i made
to the zoning board this afternoon i did and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes and would you adopt them as your own yes okay thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman questions from our attorney not this time mr chair okay um questions or comments
in the virtual audience yes chair i have alice udovic i will allow her to speak hi alice could
you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer certainly chairman alice udovich
u-d-o-v-i-c-h on behalf of councilman brian o'neill right do you swear to do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed
first and foremost the councilman wants to thank mr orphanetes for his handling of this compromise
i know it's a somewhat complicated issue and hillary has been of great assistance as well
So what we were essentially asking for, if this could be inclusive of the entire CMX uses and adding in three of the food uses that are allowed under CMX2.
of the food uses are better allowed under cmx too um and that's basically it okay thank you
we appreciate your call and and is there anyone else in the virtual audience i'm sorry
i see no hands chair miss hillary do you want planning to take a position on this
um yes i think we can do everything today we'll just we'll just hold it so we can word a mutually
agreeable provisor that also works for L&I. Planning. Thank you, Chair Bergeman, and good
afternoon. David Fechtow with the City Planning Commission. Chair and board members, the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
This property was rezoned in 1985. This property has a documented history as an apartment building
with two legally non-conforming commercial units. The City Planning Commission recommends the board
grant the proposed use variants for uses as permitted in the commercial mixed use to zoning
district but limit the uses to specific use categories and we would also support uh commercial
signs if uh that would be an appropriate uh variance per mr orfinity's testimony okay thank
you um mr bergman if i can just say one thing just real quickly um so and hillary's aware of this but
I just want to put it on the record.
So the main reservation we had, and I shared it, Alice and I have spoken about this, about
the CMX-1 is that, as I mentioned, there is a limitation for most of the non-residential
uses, the commercial uses, to 2,000 square feet.
So if the zoning board were to go that route and say CMX-1, allowing CMX-1 uses with the
additional possibly with the additional uses that are listed cmx we would need the we would ask that
the cmx one square footage limitation per use be lifted and be removed we're limited to the sizes
of the units by the granting of this variance per the plans that were some floor plans that were
submitted um but again if one if it's not lifted one tenant were to take two spaces they would be
in violation of the cmx two and they would need of the permissions for the commercial use and they
we need to go to the zoning board and we can,
we don't want to hold up any more than we need to getting businesses in
generally helping providing benefits to the community and providing revenue
to the city of Philadelphia.
Okay. Thank you.
So we're going to wait Hillary till we find what's appropriate from L and I
and then what we could all agree to.
Yes, Mr. Chair. I think I've had conversations with L and I,
it's just a matter of, of drafting the language and having everybody review it.
I think we can vote this next week at 2 PM. No problem.
Fine. We'll do this next week at 2 p.m., David, okay?
Yeah, thank you very much.
And the record is closed.
It's closed. Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience whose 2 p.m. case has not been called?
No hands, Chair.
Okay. So instead of taking a break, I'm going to move right to the 3.30 list because it's just a matter of calling cases out.
I don't believe we have any cases that we'll be hearing.
So why don't we just move right into it? So good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the ZBA 330 hearings. With me is our vice chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sukit.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised if proceedings are being recorded.
Video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunday.
So let's look at our schedule here.
So here's our continuos.
Number two, MI 2023-001-365-2108-12, North 6th Street.
This case is continued. Number three, MI 2022, 005-434-5853 Masher Street. This matter is being continued to Wednesday, November 1st at 2 p.m.
Number four, am I –
Number four, MI 2022-005-088-4913 North Lawrence Street.
This matter should be continued to Wednesday, November 1st at 3.30 p.m.
Number five, MI 2022-007-458-5218 Art Street.
This case is continued.
um excuse me mr chair yes yeah i was gonna say could we ask for the request came from
the council office yeah that's why i'm calling jeffrey young is jeffrey young here
jeffrey um i see no hand i don't see a hand from jeffrey young
here. All right, so this MI 2022-007-458-5218
Art Street, the case is continued.
Number six, MI 2022-002-928-549-51
North 10th Street, Vern Anastasio.
I believe this may be a request for continuance.
verne anastasio has been allowed to speak good afternoon mr chair counsel could you state your
name please and spell for the court stenographer sure it's verne anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o
right you do you affirm do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do swear i understand you may want a continuance for this yeah mr chairman i
want to first apologize. I know this is the fourth listing. I'm asking for some special
dispensation here. We have been in contact with the RCO. They've requested a walkthrough of the
property before they can do a final disposition, and we are working on settling on a date for that
walk through. So number six, MI 2022 002 928 549 to 51 North 10th Street. Cases continued. Mark
must be tried. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yep. Thank you. Number eight, MI 2021 002 827 2132 North
Daring Street, this case is a request for continuance.
Is Brandon Saverin in the audience?
Hi, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I'm actually still a panelist.
Mr. Saverin, you've already been sworn to state your name for the record.
Yeah, Brandon Saverin.
Right.
So this is the fifth listing.
Could you give us where we stand with this?
So my client was represented by a prior law firm that did not know how to put the exhibits
together.
And what I discovered when I came aboard is that there had been an RCO meeting, but somewhat
comically, both the RCO and the former attorney forgot what happened at the RCO meeting.
So we're going to have another RCO meeting one week from today, and then the case will
be ready to go.
So MI 2021-002-827-2132 North Daring Street. Cases continued. Mark must be tried. Thank you for giving on the phone. Thanks. And number nine, MI 2022-005-973-3200 Tyson Street. The case is continued. Does anyone have any comments relative to the cases that have been continued?
i see no handshare okay also number one mi2023 00094 3251 fox street this
was a reconsideration hearing the request has been withdrawn and number seven