so I believe Mr. Savage is mentioning is the layout here for the bedroom count I believe that
if if it's solely a bedroom count issue if it's going to be adjusted for three bedroom three
bedroom I don't think it would ultimately affect my client's ability to build the project however
However, I do want to point out that this is originally set up as a different type of project where, and I'll share with the board that information, this was originally set up in a way for a much larger building with four stories by right coverage, however, it actually has four units with even more bedroom count.
We're actually reducing the overall bedroom count here. Again, if the issue here is purely bedroom count, which I do recollect some discussion about it.
However, when we were asking Beach for their update, we just received a letter in opposition. We didn't actually get specific discussion on the bedroom count again.
And if my client, I don't know if my client is in fact present this morning, I can certainly confirm that, you know, whether he would be willing to accept as a three bedroom maximum.
However, I do want to point out that if this was built as it was originally designed, there would be no limit on the bedroom either way.
As it was originally designed, there would be no limit on the bedroom either way.
This actual project still is less dense and a better design than what was originally proposed and approved through the city.
Other comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with a phone number ending at 6894.
or whoever has the phone number ending at 6894.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Would you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Reverend Lewis Nash, Sr., L-E-W-I-S-N-A-S-H.
Good morning.
Reverend, do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth of nothing but the truth?
I do affirm.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Nash.
And I'm also here with the ward leader, Louise Bundy.
She will speak after me.
We do not have any opposition to this.
And I just heard the statement.
We don't know who's able to rent these properties.
And I'm sure I didn't hear that it was dedicated to student housing.
And so as long as they agree, like he said, that whoever can afford the property to rent it, it's okay for them to rent it.
And then I understand that it's three, four bedrooms upstairs and it's two bedrooms downstairs.
I'm living in my own house.
I have two bedrooms downstairs and four bedrooms upstairs with two full bathrooms.
And my family is pretty large.
But also, I hear that they reduce the building and only ask them for yard size.
So we really have no opposition to that as long as they maintain the trash, the noise tolerance in the community.
And also, as far as tenants are concerned, once again, as long as there's not no restriction to whoever can rent it.
And I do also recognize if he was to build it three bedrooms upstairs and three bedrooms downstairs, changing the design, it would still be six bedrooms.
So if it's four upstairs and two downstairs, we don't know if a section eight tenant will have a mom with three daughters and a husband.
So I do wish that you guys would consider and grant this and approve it.
Now I'll turn it over to Ms.
good morning miss bundy good morning miss bundy state your name and spell for the court reporter
please l-o-u-i-s-e-v-u-n-d-y right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed um well my main thing was the fact that it's not dedicated
to students okay it's dedicated to anyone that can come in and can apply for it and there and
they will accept them also okay and also um on the reduced it already says about reducing on
the size of the building and another thing that i was concerned about was about the trash and i
think that that's already taken care of my main thing was to be honest with you was about the
dedication to anyone that came and applied for it okay because um i already knew that the other
things was satisfied okay thank you thank you miss bundy i said i i accept them okay
thank you miss bundy any other comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands at this time chair okay planning commission thank you chair
ian hegarty with the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing multi-family zoning at this location the
proposed lots as we've seen in the presentation are consistent in size and frontage with the
adjacent properties on this block and the dimensional variances are related to this
smaller lot size city planning commission recommends that the board grant this variance
M.I. 2021-003721, 1716 North Bouvier Street, I vote yes with three bedrooms per unit as a proviso.
Carol Tannery, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Mr. Bergeman, I did just, Chairman Bergeman, I just heard back from my client.
He did reflect to me that because he was looking to
he did reflect to me that because he was looking to keep it open rental to any possible tenant it's
that's why he had his structure the way he had one was four bedroom one was two bedroom
it's actually easier for him to find tenants that way the three bedrooms we do understand the board
just folded the three bedrooms generally is uh because the rule in the city is that no more than
three unrelated people may be in the same unit that is why i think beach was asking for three
bedrooms, that's specifically targeting students as tenants. I just wanted to say that that was
the feedback from my client. I just wanted to let the board know.
George, so that was our vote, and you'll have to work with him on that, okay?
Thank you.
Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. MI 2021-003717, 2028 North 29th Street.
RCO letter has not yet been received. Michael McElhaney is the attorney.
Chair, Mr. McElhaney is coming back in as a panelist now.
Sorry.
Good morning, sir. State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Michael McElhenney, M-C-I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Based on the notes I have, you've submitted everything as required timely, is that correct?
that is correct okay you may proceed and mr chairman may i share my screen sure
and good morning mr chairman members of the board michael mcelhenney of the law office
of orphanetes and toner here on behalf of the applicant brighter view investments inc and my
client, Shamari Lewis, will be on the Zoom as well. The property at issue is 2028 North 29th
Street. This is an existing structure where my client was seeking approval for legalization of
a roof deck and for use of the property as three dwelling units. We did meet with the Strawberry
mansion cdc uh the 32nd democratic ward um and held two community meetings um at those meetings
we at the second meeting we came back at the request of the rco to reduce the request from
three three dwelling units to two dwelling units and the rco there was a dispute between the two
rcos in terms of keeping the roof deck or removing it my client did erect the roof deck in 2019
19, well before the overlay came into effect, but it was done without a permit. So that is the reason
for the roof deck refusal at this time. The RCO meeting held by the Strawberry Mansion CDC,
the vote was 100% in support of two dwelling units without the roof deck. We did get a letter
from the 32nd Democratic Ward, which is the other RCO at the meeting, and they issued a letter of
support. They were hoping we would keep three dwelling units because my client was offering to
do one unit as affordable, either through a community benefits agreement or a deed restriction.
But the vote that was held was for two dwelling units without the roof deck.
The Strawberry Mansion CDC was supposed to send a letter directly to the ZBA. I have requested a
copy, but I have not received it. The property at issue, if I can pull up the zoning map to orient
at the board. The property at issue is on the southwest side of North 29th Street. It is
currently zoned RSA 5. It is the property that abuts the CMX 2 zone to the south, and RM 1 and
CMX 2 are properties to the east. The property itself, looking at the overhead map at Exhibit 3,
is abutted to the south by a community park this on strike that ridge avenue abuts the
the property to the south with diamond street to the north to the immediate south of the property
is a public park owned by the city of philadelphia um to the north are several single family houses
in addition to four vacant lots on the same side of the street on the west side of the property
on the west on the east side of north 29th street is what will be coming is a 94 unit
apartment building that will span from 29th street up to diamond street just for context
Just for context of what's going on in this block of North 29th Street.
of what's going on in this block of north 29th street
To the south on Ridge Avenue, my client's property abuts a commercial property on Ridge Avenue, which is an existing seafood restaurant.
If I can pull up Exhibit 4, you can see the street view photos of the subject property.
The property at issue is this green and yellowish colored building, an existing three-story structure. As mentioned, my client is, there are no additions or extensions as part of this application. It's merely for, was for legalizing the roof deck and for three dwelling units.
As I mentioned, the property is to the north. There's three houses. Then it's vacant land, a few more houses, and then another vacant lot at the other end of the block.
the property to the south is that park that i mentioned and the seafood restaurant on ridge
avenue that has the mural of the police officer on it um the interesting thing with the seafood
restaurant the exhaust literally blows out onto my client's property at the rear so it makes for
not the best um living experience especially for a single family home at this location
One of the issues that the community brought up in addition to housing density was trash and trash removal. As you can see, the property actually has a alley easement next to the property that would allow for easy removal of trash from the units from the rear yard out to 29th Street for trash day.
way. The zoning plan itself, there's no changes to the structure. For the request of the RCO,
we would do a proviso to remove the roof deck. The floor plans for the two units, which is
what we presented at the last community meeting, would create two dwelling units that would
be approximately 1300 square foot each. And that would consist of the first floor unit being a
one bedroom unit, full one bedroom, living room, dining room, kitchen, and bath, and with a in
suite laundry and mechanicals in the basement. The second unit would be slightly larger, it would
consist of the second floor and third floor. And again, the second floor is a full living room,
dining room kitchen layout with the bedrooms being on the third floor, and that you end up
with a very large master bedroom with a second bedroom and a full bath. As noted on the roof deck
plan, the roof deck has been removed from the proposal at the request of the Strawberry Mansion
CDC. And I should mention, over the objection of the 32nd Ward CDC, they think, and I agree,
that a roof deck at this location where you're abutting the commercial corridor of Ridge Avenue
and a non-residential block makes sense to have a roof deck, but we did agree to a proviso to
remove the roof deck as part of the support from the Strawberry Mansion CDC.
And Exhibit 8 are the current interior photos. As I mentioned, my client did work at the property under a selective demolition permit back in 2019 to stabilize the structure.
Because a lot of structures in Strawberry Mansion are being torn down. His goal was to save the structure and fit it out as multifamily.
So, exhibit eight are just interior photos. And on page five is the roof deck access structure that was built in 2019 that matches the one across the street on the northeast side of North 29th Street.
But as mentioned, the Strawberry Mansion CDC would like to see that removed, which my client is agreeable to in this instance.
Upon review of the planning commission, I'm not sure of their position on the project, but the 2035 plan I pulled up and attached as Exhibit 9, which is in the center of the photo, appears to call for multifamily at this section of North 29th Street, where it intersects with Fridge Avenue, which logically would make sense given the access to transit and commercial amenities at this location.
The Exhibit 10 is just the permit for the properties across the street that are going to be erecting the large market rate 94 unit apartment building.
So with that being said, the property itself is on a numbered street, 29th Street, that is immediately abutting the commercial corridor of Ridge Avenue.
It's abutted to this open park that's used for the community.
It shares this rear alley, rear yard with the seafood restaurant at the back.
It shares this rear alley, rear yard with the seafood restaurant at the back.
And by allowing the multifamily use of two units at the property, it creates a buffer between the other single family houses on the block and allows for quality living and affordability in the neighborhood.
Although we won't be able to do an affordable unit with only two units, it still will allow for better quality living and bringing this property back to life.
As I mentioned, the 32nd Ward gave a letter of support. The Strawberry Ranch and CDC was supposed to send over a letter of support. It was a unanimous vote at the meeting, so there should be a letter of support in the ZBA's file.
And with that, if I could call up, if the board has any questions, or if I should call up my client now.
Where do you call your client up, Michael?
Shamari Lewis, can you please raise your hand?
mr lewis you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr lewis state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
it is shamari lewis s-h-a-m-a-r-i last name l-e-w-i-s all right do you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed sir mr lewis did you
hear the statements that i presented to the board this morning yes and to your knowledge were those
statements true correct and accurate yes um including the statements regarding the meetings
the two meetings with the community rcos yes and would you adopt those statements as your own yes
um no further questions mr chairman questions from questions from the board no mr chairman
Questions from the virtual audience?
So we have someone by the name of Thomas L.
Mr. L, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. L, could you state your name and spell it for our court reporter?
Excuse me.
Good day to everyone.
My name is Thomas D. Eal.
The E is long.
that's t-h-o-m-a-s middle initial d as in david eel spelled capital e lower case l i am the
homeowner of the property directly adjacent wait one minute wait one minute wait one minute do you
swear affirm to tell the truth to hold the truth nothing but the truth sir i do so affirm thank
you proceed. You're welcome. I live, my wife and I are at, we live at 2030 which is the property
the property obviously directly adjacent to 2028. I never have spoken with Mr. McElhenney
or with the current owners of this property. I am, I must say I'm glad to know that they
have been that the deck has been disapproved. It's been my personal experience since the change of
property, change of ownership of this property, which has resulted in the new owners. And this
gentleman, Mr. McElhinney, says that the actual roof work began in 2019. I'm not sure it's that
quite that old I'm thinking maybe the end maybe the beginning of 2020 be that as it may since
the new owners of this property have undertaken this work it has not gone well for me and my wife
as a matter of fact we still are going to pursue the possibility of having structural damage to
our own home investigated because when this these individuals start sir we we listen to me we
We understand issues you may have with them, but what we're trying to do is work on the zoning.
So could you testify relative to what the zoning issues are that you would object or agree with?
Okay, well, the zoning issues, number one, there is no, the only ingress and egress that this particular property has to the street is a side gate, a side gate leading to the rear yard.
uh the abutment that the lawyer is speaking of is a where all the properties actually come together
no one can can uh can move from their rear yard directly into or out to the city-owned property
that that part that lot right there is a city-owned lot so if you look at the if you're looking facing
the property that would be on the left side walking for the further back toward the restaurant
on ridge avenue there is just a gate that allows you access to the rear yard of the property
that allows you access to the rear yard of the property otherwise you cannot create anything else
Otherwise,
to that city property because that would create that would cause a gross amount of reconstruction
on the part of the property owners all right any other issues you have and the issues of that okay
now the group that because there was a great amount of debris every time that they began work
So the permits, the restrictions that the L&I had imposed, the workers, there were like three or four sets of workers.
So I'm just mentioning this as a matter of reasoning.
Listen to me.
Sir, listen to me.
I understand that.