we are not really increasing or changing any conditions on the property that would trigger
any additional new negative impact to the community, this is again a change to the
existing non-conformant condition, which under case law generally is not something that the
court would find in this favor. Now, addressing the existing uses, one is a convenience store
which has prior zoning, and the other is a pizza shop that also has prior zoning. So
both properties running all the way down the street has all existing uses as part of their
zoning permits. Now, what had happened originally is the lot line that my client tried to do before
a subdivision ran through the middle of one of the properties. This application is to correct that
by making sure the lot line actually runs to the back of the building number one here,
leaving building number two, which includes the pizzeria, facing Wishart Street, its entire
property. There are existing trash storage, existing AC storage. All this is existing here
on this property. None of this is new. When we worked with the community, we tried to work out
a community benefits agreement with them based on the fact that this area is an area that is
is suffering from some issues, both in trash and other issues, safety. So we worked with the
community to try to come up with the agreement to limit certain things, particularly trash
management. We agreed to put a camera system in that will link to the police department.
And this way, we'll avoid and disallow and kind of hopefully monitor any activity that will be considered illicit activity at the property on the convenience store site for the future.
There are one point on this discussion which my client could not agree to, and that led to the opposition from Hasse, and that is Hasse wanted an indefinite and absolute prohibition to any application for alcohol at this location.
While we understand that alcohol application is always an issue, we do want to point out that the Liquor Control Board controls that and not the zoning board.
And that a indefinite, and they want this to apply to future owners as well.
That is essentially a deed restriction against alcohol on a property that has no alcohol now, no application for alcohol in the near plans.
But I cannot in good conscience advise my client to accept such a restrictive term for a subdivision of lot.
On the other hand, what we offered in our proposed agreement very clearly is that my client would notify the community of any attempts to go for any liquor license.
Not to say that liquor license itself wouldn't require notification, but we would make the extra effort to make sure that the community would be given notification of any intent to allow feedback before the liquor licensing process begins.
But again, HACI does not accept that and wants essentially a prohibition.
So I would ask the board to take into that consideration. That is the only point that caused essentially an opposition from the community RCO. It's because they want us to indefinitely agree to never sell or have a liquor license at the property.
I think that is an unfair request, given that if the area changes and ultimately in the future becomes viable for a restaurant, my client may very well need to have a liquor license.
And there is a public notice restricted process through the liquor board for that.
Other than that, Hasey's letter really has not had, I mean, the community meeting went very well.
We did not have other issues.
Again, we agree to make sure we provide trash storage, monitor it, and put a camera system in.
And I have no problem having those still as provisals or have that as a benefits agreement with the RCO.
Finally, I want to point out again, this is a very limited application to simply allow the two lots that was consolidated to be once again subdivided according to its property line.
once again, subdivided according to its property line. There's no other point we're asking for.
There's no other point.
We're not asking for use changes or anything other than that specific point. And again,
it's pre-existing conditions that trigger the refusals, not something my client did at this
point to change anything. So I would ask the board's favorable consideration in this request
to subdivide the lot into their respective deed mentioned sizes. I'm happy to answer any questions
or present any aspect of the presentation
again to the board if needed.
Does the board have any questions?
Is there any existing code violations
from the building?
No, not at the present.
I actually checked the Atlas again this morning,
especially on the convenience store side.
There are no existing code violations on file.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
who has any questions if so please raise your hand yes jason i'm sorry
one of the folks has the same race i've allowed him to speak okay good morning again madam chair
cba board sloan folks office of councilman maria canada sanchez 1508 city hall i am sworn in i
I know you are. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. The applicant has met with the coordinating RCO, which is I say, I say did raise a number of issues at the community meeting with the residents.
Issues included nuisance, I'm sorry, substance loitering, poor waste management, substance abuse on or around the site and illicit activity.
Now, the applicant had worked with HACI to address a number of those issues, but the primary issue, as stated, was the prohibition of alcohol sales.
Until an agreement can be made between the applicant and the community, our office cannot support this application request.
Thank you.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
And Mr. Folks, you do understand that the board would not be able to add that as a proviso.
It's understood that that's outside the board's purview for the proviso.
But that's the stance of our office.
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you.
Mr. McNeil, go ahead.
If I may, just to address that again, I understand the community's position with regard to the situation in the community.
There are issues with trash.
There are issues with loitering.
However, I asked for any evidence of my client's property having those particular issues being reported to the police, being reported to the L&I.
I received no such evidence, and I have not found such evidence on the Atlas system of Philadelphia, which addresses the property as well.
There are only two minor violations, which one is, I think it is a building co-violation for fire alarm cert, which was addressed years ago.
And then there were no other violations relating to trash loitering or anything of that nature on file. So I cannot, I have to, again, indicate that there has been no evidence presented to me of the claims from the RCO of these particular issues at that particular location.
I understand that they mentioned that there are problems all around.
I understand that, and I appreciate that.
And that is why we agreed to do the trash management.
We agreed to do a police cam, which is actually an extensive addition to the building to allow the police station to monitor that particular store.
My client had faced that the store was not doing anything illegal and was willing to put that in, and we're still willing to put that in.
The only item that we cannot agree to, and this is the impasse I've reached with the RCO, is that to put a restriction on a contractual basis indefinitely to not ever have alcohol is essentially a deed restriction to my client's property.
and they wanted to apply to future owners as well.
So even if my client doesn't want to do this,
when she sells the property,
everybody will have to then go through the RCO again
to negotiate that because it becomes something
that would be a title issue.
So that is why we did not want to agree to that.
What we said in the agreement very clearly
is that we're willing to notify
and keep the community within any process
that involves a alcohol application.
Again, Chairwoman Tenere, there's no alcohol at this property.
There's no plans to put alcohol at this property at a convenience store.
So this is, again, it's a very speculative request.
So this is, again, it's a very speculative request from the community that is also extremely restrictive.
And quite honestly, I do not believe it should be applied to a zoning process like this.
We're not even trying to open a restaurant here.
This is an existing store.
So I just want to ask the board's consideration in that, that we're asking for what is really a very minor subdivision of lot
to allow the two lots to be back to what they were before and there are pre-existing
non-conforming conditions nothing new was introduced during this application so please
again i would ask the board's consideration in granting just the subdivision aspect of this
zoning case thank you thank you does anybody on the board have any questions additionally no no
Planning Commission. Good morning, Chairwoman Tonari. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City
Planning Commission. H-D-G-A-R-T-Y. You swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. I do. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Board,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed use zoning at this
location. The proposed dimensional variance does not represent any proposed change to the existing
dimensions or use. We believe the variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose
and spirit of the zoning code and is clearly the least possible variance to avoid an unnecessary
hardship. City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance. Thank you.
Calendar number 2603, 100 East Allegheny Avenue. My vote is yes.
i'm sorry if i may may i see if my client's here to um uh adopt my testimony
thank you uh it should be mrs stamia um i know her last name's a little difficult to pronounce
um poppin poppin cool out sorry i probably am doing a poor job of it um stamia are you there
can you raise your hand?
I'm sorry.
I don't know.
We can stimulate that with you being an officer of the court.
Thank you.
With her hand, the hand went up.
I'm allowed to speak right now.
Okay, great.
Excuse me.
Can you hear me?
I'm right here.
Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Name and address.
Stamatia Papanicolaou. My address at home, it's 11742 Academy Place, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19154. Okay, now I'm going to have to ask you to spell your first and last name.
Sure. It's Samatia Papanicolaou. It's S-T-A-M-A-T-I-A. My last name is P-A-P-A-N-I-K-O-L-A-O-U.
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Mr. Jin?
Thank you.
So, Mattia, you have heard my testimony and saw the representation I made to the board regarding your property.
Can you verify that my presentation and testimony are true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, yes. I testify to that.
Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, confessor, you can continue with the vote.
Yep, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thanks, guys. Calendar number, sure. Calendar number 0983, 1542 Fontaine Street. Oh, you're the attorney again. Mr. Jin?
I removed them. We'll pull them back.
I re-promoted it to Panama Smith-Sahaw.
Good morning again.
Hi, name and address, please.
And you're already sworn in.
Xenjin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103,
here on behalf of the applicant.
Okay. I'd also like to note before you start that there's a 30-second ward RCO letter of
that there's a 30-second ward RCO letter of non-opposition.
So you may proceed.
Thank you.
But is the exhibit packet in with proof of ownership,
tax compliance, refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share with
the board the information relating to this case. I will go ahead and move right to the refusal.
We did submit all requested information as required by the board. So the refusal for this
property, I want to point out, 1524 Fontaine Street is zoned RM1. It is, however, in the overlay
of north central Philadelphia. My client would like to build a duplex property, a new structure
at that location. We are short from the bite right requirement of 850 square foot by about
38 square foot. So I mean, 38 square foot. So that is one of the primary triggers of this refusal
is that we have a de minimis shortage of lot size.
Given that it's a new structure,
my client is looking to build it slightly larger,
reducing the rear yard and open area
by, again, a rather small amount.
The rear yard would normally require to be 144 square feet.
We're proposing 126 square feet.
It is much easier to see the proposal
from a plan standpoint.
so I'm going to put the plants up before the board. The reason part of the open space is
rather small is because this is a rather narrow lot of 14 foot wide. It is relatively deep at 58
feet. However, once you put a structure, it is more difficult to keep the open space as large.
The area is, again, overwhelmingly multifamily, so we believe a duplex, which is only
short from a buy-write used by a few square feet, would not be out of character or would be
consistent with the area it uses. The property itself would simply be a duplex. One is a unit
that is on the first floor and basement, and then a larger unit that is essentially covering the
above three floors with a rooftop deck as the final piece on the top providing some open space.
We actually met with 32nd Ward RCO and having worked with them closely to address some of their
concerns, we were met with non-opposition. There were 10 attendees at the meeting. What we did
provide to the RCO is a sanitation plan and actually we're working with the RCO directly,
my client would be, to make sure maintenance and trash removal on the property would be constantly
monitored. As a result, we received their non-opposition for this application. The existing
structure will be coming down. It is an older two-story structure and a new structure will be
built in its place and that is essentially the proposal here before the board again if the even
with the north central overlay we're only short by about 38 square feet as far as the lot size
is concerned so i would ask the board's favorable consideration in this particular request for a
duplex use i would be happy to answer any questions or represent any aspect of my presentation
Does the Board have any questions? No. No. No. Is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions?