Are there any other?
Excuse me, Chair, this is the court reporter.
I apologize for the interruption. I need one minute to address a battery issue on my backup.
If I could just ask for a pause.
You got it.
Thank you.
thank you chair okay well where were we uh chair you were ready to ask planning commission planning
planning commission thank you madam chair ian hegarty with the philadelphia city planning
commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change from ca1 to
RM1 multifamily zoning at this location. The proposed use and building height are consistent
with the proposed zoning district in the adopted comprehensive plan. The growth strategy in the
comprehensive plan recommends that two factors determine suitability for multifamily housing
growth, wide streets and good transit access. Chew Avenue is an 80-foot wide right-of-way,
one of the widest in East Mount Airy. The site's also within a 10-minute walk of regional rail
and a five minute walk of frequent buses.
Given the consistency with both the growth strategy
of the comprehensive plan
and the recommended zoning specific to the site,
the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the variance.
May I just have a brief close?
Yes, you may.
yeah thank you um so i appreciate um the concerns we heard today and i just want to remind the board
Yeah, thank you.
So I appreciate the concerns we heard today.
that we met with the community on more than three occasions um the response and i think what you've
heard today the response has been um overwhelmingly no development um the concerns that were raised
were um not about um you know how you can make a ca1 use work um they were not about um you know
whether it's how a residential building would impact them.
They were based on dimensional issues,
which are not a variance for you.
So the question is really use, safety of the children,
privacy where the entire park is surrounded
by residential uses with windows looking into it.
This is typical of most playgrounds
in the urban fabric of Philadelphia.
We have an apartment complex directly across the street.
This is a consistent use.
um we did uh remind me we did reduce the number of units um from 37 to 33 we did include three
affordable um units we did um uh contributor make an offer to contribute um six thousand dollars a
year um to to the park um we did um uh offer to move the dumpster into the interior remove any
traffic from the street where it was on Slocum Street and put all of our traffic on the Chew
Avenue and you did hear evidence that any CA1 use would have much greater impact on traffic.
The plan is consistent with RM1 use as the Planning Commission just testified
um and in terms of the hardship um and the costs um uh council um mentioned the marshall case but
the scott case from the commonwealth court makes it very clear that uh environmental cleanup costs
are indeed a hardship um and can be calculated the economic hardship of the property and what
you heard from the testimony was the ca1 use is not viable they talk about commercial spaces
on Chu Avenue. You have historic CMX2 style buildings with maybe a ground floor cafe and
apartments above that are supporting that use. You have, to the admission of the witness,
that there are no ground up new commercial that's viable in this corridor. So essentially,
the opposition to the variance is really opposition to developing this parcel. It means that this
parcel sits vacant forever for the foreseeable future in this environment. And I think that
is not what zoning is about. The goal here is to get this project cleaned up, which you heard
from the expert that that is a concern, and put this back on the city rolls and make this a
contributing building. The building meets the RM1 dimensional standards. My clients worked
really hard to meet with the community, and the answer was always do a park, do a hydroponic
garden, do something that doesn't work. So, you know, we respectfully request the grant of the
variance because this is, we believe, a legit hardship. There is no project that can be
developed and you heard testimony from mr thomas in compliance with ca1 as a result i respectfully
request the grant of the variance and if the board's inclined we do have revised plans showing
the changes that we made uh as a result of our community engagement okay is there yeah is there
anyone else here who wants to justify yes we do have a request from the councilwoman to testify
if that's allowable, we can unmute Mr. Richardson's mic so she can do so. Okay.
Hi, hold for just one second, please. Okay.
hi uh i'm putting you on i'm putting you on right now all right i'm ready go ahead okay can you put
your can you put your name on the record and spell it and i'll see you in okay okay go ahead
I think she can hear you now.
Councilwoman, are you there?
Can she hear me?
Can you hear me?
I can hear you now. Yes. Can you put your name on the record, spell it, and I'll swear you in?
I can hear you now, yes.
Can you put your name on the record, spell it, and I'll swear you in?
Say again?
Can you put your name on the record, spell it, and I will swear you in?
Certainly. My name is Cindy Bass, C-I-N-D-Y-B-A-S-S.
I am the 8th District Councilperson, and I am here to give testimony on the project on 2 Avenue, 6717 2 Avenue.
I believe that's the address.
okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do okay thank you you may proceed
well i wanted to weigh in on this project uh for a number of different reasons um number one this
is a project that is near and dear to my heart as a former member of the pleasant playground
advisory council and as the uh former uh president of the community association east
Mount Airy neighbors that represents that area. And as a resident who uses that neighborhood
recreation center, this is my recreation center in my neighborhood, where I go with my daughter
to use the pool and use the other amenities at the playground. I wanted to weigh in and feel,
I'll let you know that I felt very, very strongly in opposition to this project. With all due
respect to the property owner who purchased this parcel of land. This is not the right project
for this site. Cramming in this number of units into this site, I think, is detrimental to the
quality of life of the residents who live and have lived in this neighborhood for a very long
time, most of them. And the idea behind this is purely profit-driven. Generally, there's nothing
wrong with that. I'm not opposed to people, you know, making a living or, you know, this is how
they earn their income. That's perfectly fine. However, I think there's a lot of things that
we need to take into consideration when looking at this particular site. Number one, it's already
in a very dense neighborhood. So adding additional units, adding the parking that's going to
undoubtedly come as parking congestion in the neighborhood, I think we have to think about that.
I think we have to think about number two, that we're adding a considerable number of people to a neighborhood that's already, again, very well populated.
That's also a consideration.
And number three, this property will be backed up essentially against a swimming pool where residents of this unit would have the ability to overlook onto the pool deck,
onto the pool um and and essentially watch um in my opinion young children families whoever in
swimsuits out um you know enjoying themselves having a good time but i am i do have a safety
concern about the ability for whoever may be living in that apartment building to uh to to
have this opportunity to view in the privacy of their home i have a great amount of concern about
that as well. And I just don't think that this is the right location for this type of project.
We have, as a community, looked at a number of different things. At one point, there was someone
from the community who was interested in purchasing the lot and turning it over to the community as
sort of like green space and community lands and, you know, a place where people could sit,
meditate this is much more appropriate for something like that and i am uh you know i
have to say that you know we support development uh we want to see growth in the city but we want
to see growth that makes sense and that will make a positive change in the neighborhood and i don't
believe that this will do that um we feel very very strongly that this is not going to be a
positive project for this neighborhood. It is not going to have a positive impact for this
neighborhood. And so we certainly hope that the ZBA hears the concerns, the cries, the experiences
of the people who live in this neighborhood, myself included. And we know this neighborhood
like the back of our hands. You know, we know this community. We know what works, what doesn't
work and we are absolutely certain that this is not something that's going to be a positive for
this community this is not going to be uh something that is well received and uh we certainly hope
that the the vote today will be reflected uh to support the community at large and of course
um our office which represents this community and is on the ground day in and day out attending
marching meetings uh you know talking to folks on social media you know zoom meetings whatever
it may need to be so that people can share information and that we can work together
so that people can share information and that we can work together to let people know that this is
to let people know
not something that this community wants i have heard probably um from 100 200 people directly
and i would say i've only heard from less than five less than five people who have personally
approached me and said that they wanted this and when i say less than five i actually mean
like the two I can think of right now it's probably more like two but I have been contacted
spoken to been in meetings with like I said probably over 200 people over the course of
this process so we feel very very strongly that this should not proceed. Okay chair that's all
thank you thank you is the board ready to vote
madam chair i have a question for the uh yes but i have a question for the uh council
for the applicant um light of all the opposition do you think that
your architect could design a site that could be by right
i i do not believe a ca1 by right use i do not believe that i could get a user and i could
lease this and i think we had testimony earlier that we spoke to urgent cares and others and there
is no there was not demand for a ca1 user and even a one-story building would not with the
up costs and with the demo etc would not justify um a rent that would meet all the site improvement
costs so i do not believe i could do a buy right ca1 use thank you thank you so is the board ready
to vote i just wanted to say one last thing that um there i was aware that there was discussion
about parks and rec taking this before my client bought the property but um they were not interested
in in taking this land and maybe that's what caused um some of the opposition that there was
a hope that this would be a park but i think probably because of the environmental cost and
just the cost that wasn't possible thank you thank you calendar number 1862 6717 chew avenue
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is no
Can we, can I just amend that because we have revised plans that are two pages?
Calendar number 1862, 6717 Chew Avenue, my vote is yes, with revised plans consisting of two pages.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Mine is consistent with no.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, everyone.
Calendar number 1010, 6747 Castor Avenue has been continued.
Calendar number 2703, 802 North 63rd Street.
The attorney is Christopher Kaufman.
Mr. Kaufman has been promoted to panelist.
Mr. Kaufman, can you hear me?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
Name and address on the record and spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in and
ask a few questions.
Yes, ma'am.
Chris Kaufman, last name is K-A-U-F-M-A-N-N, 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1216, Philadelphia
PA, 19102.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes ma'am. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos under 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 Madam Chair. Thank you. You may proceed.
Madam Chair, this application comes on behalf of my client.
They currently own a building at 802 North 63rd Street.
That's a six unit.
And they're asking to make it a seven unit building.
They already made this application back on, it's like January of 2017, where they did appear in front of the ZBA.
Same application, exactly the same, was approved.
unfortunately the owner she's in Singapore her dad was here handling the
project and failed to obtain the certificate of occupancy in time so
um so that's kind of why we're here today i had two meetings with the neighbors of overbook
that's kind of why we're here today I had two meetings with the
association uh the first meeting i took questions i wasn't able to put everybody on notice in time
so we scheduled another meeting for the end of january and as you can see there was multiple
questions asked uh related to garbage and things like that they were answered and you could see
we received the letter of non-opposition we do have that supportive any questions
no is there anybody in the virtual audience thanks guys is there anybody in the virtual
audience with questions no hands at this time madam chair planning commission
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
With regard to 63rd Street, the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to RTA
1 to family zoning at this location.
It appears the applicant has a legal non-conforming use containing six dwelling units, and so
don't feel that there's a reason that having a seventh unit presents a hardship sorry that not
having a seventh unit presents a hardship in any way clearly the property can continue to be used
as a six unit multi-family building and so the city planning commission would recommend that
the board deny the variance thank you calendar number 2703 802 north 63rd street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Calendar number 0980, 9998, Frankfurt Avenue.
The attorney is Al Foscaldo.
We have a letter from the Civic Association of Support