reflected in the plan, similar to the others. The third note, similar to the last one, was that
streets department approval is required to grant a zoning permit and that approval was granted
as it was under review and we provided that information back to the reviewer
thank you are there any questions any questions from the board no sir i have no further questions
of this witness i'd ask that he be excused sure thank you thank you um at this time i would like
to introduce into the record the four summaries that were provided by the RCO with regard to these
properties that weren't available at the time that I forwarded the packet to the board.
In addition, I'd like to now call Jesse Hunting.
Mr. Hunting should be in the waiting room. Mr. Hunting, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
okay mr hunting state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
sure jesse hunting and that's j-e-s-s-e and then hunting h-u-n-t-i-n-g all right do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed thank you
Mr. Hunting, would you please state your title for the record?
Vice President of Finance and Real Estate at Norris Square Community Alliance.
And are you here on behalf of NARA Square Community Alliance?
And are you here on behalf of Norris Square Community Alliance?
Mr. Hunting, have you heard the presentation and the testimony provided today with regard to 148 West Cumberland Street, 152 West Cumberland Street, 2503 North Hancock Street, and 2505 North Hancock Street?
I have.
And do you agree with the presentation and testimony given here today for the properties that were previously noted?
Yes, I do.
And do you accept the presentation and the testimony on behalf of Norris Square Community Alliance?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
At this time, Mr. Chair and Madam Vice Chair, it would be the request on behalf of Norris Square Community Alliance to grant the variances as noted.
And at this time, I would respectfully close my presentation.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have slow folks with this hand up.
Mr. Folks, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
uh good morning again chairman uh bergman and zba board sloan folks uh office of councilman
maria canada sanchez 7th district from 508 city hall mr folks you've already been sworn
yes sir the applicant uh having met with the coordinating rco and receiving a letter of
support uh the councilman has no opposition to the granting of this various request thank you
Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Andrea Bibiloni. Ms. Bibiloni, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Chair Bergman and members of the committee.
Could you state your name and then spell it for our court reporter?
Sure thing. Andrea Bibiloni, A-N-D-R-I-A, last name B-I-B-I-L-O-N-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Proceed.
Good morning. I'm a resident of the 2400 block of North Hancock Street, and I'm also here as the co-chair of the North Square Community Alliance RCO Zoning Committee.
And I just wanted to be here this morning to express the committee's support for this project.
Our committee scrutinized this proposal just as we would a proposal from any other development team.
The team generously met with us three times for pre-zoning, zoning, and a follow-up conversation about the programmatic goals of this affordable housing development.
We appreciate the difficulty of putting together a truly affordable housing project, and we need more projects like this in our community.
I just wanted to, again, express our support. We are so excited about this development proposal, and we hope that you will grant the variance.
Thank you very much for calling in. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
I'll show you no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, H-E-G-A-R-T-U-Y.
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir i do proceed thank you sir uh chair bergman if it pleases the board um i would just
want to recap for the record the uh variances that are now on the table here uh following the
revisions that were made post refusal if there's any corrections um we can uh ask the applicant
just to correct me, but I'll go through my understanding. 148 West Cumberland Street,
the sole remaining refusal is for two-family use in a single-family district. 152 West Cumberland
Street, two refusals remain multifamily use in a single-family district and open area.
And the remaining two, 2503 and 2505 North Hancock Street, each have a single refusal for
multi-family use in single family district is that correct
that is correct thank you miss nixles miss nixles i appreciate that um city planning commission
recommendation on these i'll combine there's a pending zoning map amendment from various zoning
districts all to rm1 at each of these four locations in accord with a neighborhood remapping
that is in in committee with city council at the moment the proposed use is consistent with
The proposed use is consistent with the pending zoning district, and so the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variances in each of these four cases.
the pending zoning district and so the city planning commission
Thank you, Ian. I'll list all four, then we'll vote. MI 2021 003736148 West Cumberland. MI 2021 003745152 West Cumberland.
MI 2021-003746-2503-North Hancock, and MI 2021-003784-2505-North Hancock.
I vote yes to all four with proviso relative to the height in the parapet that was changed.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos on all four.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to all four with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso to all four.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with all four with proviso.
Thank you, Ms. Nichols. Thank you very much.
Thank you. May I be excused?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Okay. Number three, 2021-003721, 1716 North Uvier Street.
Zin Jin is the attorney. There's three different RCOs. One is in opposition. Two are in support.
I'm sorry, Chair, this is Tanya.
I'm the administrator.
My question to you all is, were you going to put the proviso for revised plans on?
I did.
If you could just state that for the record, please.
Or Sherman.
Sherman, what I stated was proviso change of height relative to the parapet that was changed on all four.
yes that's correct um there was a vote i think each of the council persons did say yes with
the proviso regarding the change reflected in the plans of the parapet okay thank you just to add to
the record chair so it's very clear for all it's yes with revised plans one page yep thank you very
kindly that has to go into decisions i just wanted to be clear thank you
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Zinn has been promoted to panelists.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes. Good morning. Zinn-Zinn, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA, 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
You should allow her to read your paper before she left.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Carol has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Jinn.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
It appears that we have all of the documents required.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the information we submitted relating to this case.
can the board see the uh exhibits before you yes thank you so we have submitted copies of the
refusal um one of the uh coordinating rco which is beach community services issued a letter in
opposition and i will address these the opposition letter in a minute we also submitted photos plans
tax clearance and other documentation i want to first point out that this is an rm1 zoned
district, we are proposing basically a subdivision of what was once a consolidated double lot
back to two lots, and then having one on each lot a duplex, which the use itself would be by right.
As you can see, all of our variances before you are dimensional in nature. That is because
the lots on this block, North Bovier, are smaller in size. What we are actually doing is to make the
lots more consistent to what are existing on the block versus allowing what is essentially a double
lot in the middle of the block being built with the original by right project of a quadplex with
a much wider front. Beach Interplex issued a letter in opposition indicating they were attaching an
explanation of their rationale. However, no attachment was with my copy of the letter. I
don't know if the board got any rationale from them. My understanding at the meeting,
At the meeting, they did not actually give us specific objections other than that, you know, additional student housing development in the area they're not in support of.
they did not actually give us specific objections.
So I'm not sure what their exact reasoning for opposition is.
However, Friends of 47th Ward and also MAP Holistic CDC, both of which are RCOs in the area, affected RCOs, are in support because they saw our project, which shows that we're actually proposing a much better design than what the original design from the by right would be.
So with relating to the project, what we're proposing is essentially two separate units subdividing the lots into original width of what most of the other lots on the street would be, about 14 and a half feet wide.
The depth, the width, and the overall size of the lots are constrained by the lot size and constrained by the overall block lot sizes.
So we're not doing anything unusual here.
In fact, what we are doing is to put this lot back to what it was on the block.
Having these kind of super wide buildings filling in the middle of the block is unusual on this block, on this side, because all the other houses are basically smaller width.
My client actually saw the original project approval and did not like the 38-foot floor design and rather would lower it to the 35-foot being proposed here, which is more consistent with the block, making it look more consistent with the block on width, height, and design, maintaining the duplex use, which is by right in itself.
However, by taking a whole floor off and changing the layout, he is asking for a slightly slight bit of variance on both the rear yard size and the rear yard and the complete open space requirements.
But I do want to point out also that even with those variances, this two buildings will be completely consistent to both 1714, which is currently approved for the same exact open space and rear yard, as well as the building on the other side.
And from a height standpoint, it would also be consistent to what would become 1714 and also other three stories that are on the block.
So based on that, both MAP and the ward, 47th ward, were in support.
From the interior layout standpoint, it is basically a duplex, three stories, and split
into two units, one unit on the first floor and basement.
The second unit is the second and third floor.
Complete height is 35 feet with an accessible roof deck that is set back.
on both ends. And again, the design here is very consistent to what else is on the block.
It is consistent to the RM1 use. The only variances we are seeking essentially would be the lock
being smaller than what is required by code and the dimensional variance for the open space
coverage as well as six foot versus nine foot rear yard. So I would ask the board's favorable
consideration for this particular request and again this is a dimensional variance that is
required due to the smaller overall lot size once subdivided and it is again very consistent to what
is in the area on the block. So that is the same reason that both MAP and 47th Ward issued their
support mainly because they see this is not unusual and out of place and it's consistent to
what is being used on the block and how it's designed so i'll be happy to answer any questions
or redirect to any particular part of the exhibit for the board is your client here
i believe mr copa should be present alex can you raise your hand virtually so that you can be
identified? I'm sorry, if the board would allow me as an officer in court. Yeah, that's fine.
That's fine. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No. No. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? Chair, we have someone by the name of Bernard Savage. Mr. Savage, you can
unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
hello hi mr savage could you state your name and spell for the court reporter yes my name
is bernard savage i am with beach interplex and we're a non-profit at 15 10 seas will be more
avenue um mr savage spell your name please oh yes sir b-e-r-n-a-r-d
Bernard Savage, S-A-V-A-G-E. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, sir. Okay. We also met with Mr. Zinn and his client,
and overall design and the layout and everything was good. However, our main issue was concerning
the bedroom counts. And as I understand it, the first unit has two bedrooms in it. The upper
bi-level has four bedrooms in it. And for our position historically, and as I understand the
code, that the limit is three bedrooms. The concern is that we approve this. Now this opens up the
floodgates for developers coming in wanting to do four, five, six bedrooms. The push also has been
by beach the community and it's our understanding the council person that they they were not
supporting or pushing um student housing we haven't we feel we have an overabundance of student
housing we feel that the need to provide affordable housing for families um is where the present um
effort and activities should be um these units are nicely laid out for their use but they're laid
out for students they're not laid out for families and the other concern is
that if this and we've seen it already if this client cannot secure the
students or the population that they're promoting or targeting they usually tend
to go to another population and that normally tends to be a program which
brings other programs into the neighborhood that's not family-oriented.
I would object to that particular characterization.
That's very speculative.
I sustain your objection.
I understand.
Proceed, Mr. Savage.
Yes, it is speculative.
But if you ask the client how many affordable housing units or families do they rent to,
they're doing others.
And we've been doing this for some time here.
this is the norm and understood it's a business model and that's the clients
business they need to get an investment they want to return an investment so and
also we were okay with three bedrooms and that was a conversation that came up
in the in the presentation the architects said they can do a redesign to
do three and three there was no issue with that for us our issue is four
bedrooms now opens up the gates for other developers to have a a precedence
say hey you did it for them why can't we do it so that was our main objection to this layout design
works good three bedrooms we have no issues the owner said he wanted four bedrooms and that's
what the owner wanted he wouldn't change thank you mr savage mr jin you want to respond to that
yes um as far as the bedroom count the layout the original layout and i'll share with the board the
the application again so that we can see