You're ready.
Chair, we have about 38 attendees.
You can start when you wish.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board
President. Professor Plaza. President. And board member, Mr. Thomas Holloman. President. And board member, Mr. James Snell. President. Also in attendance is our board administrator, Ms. Lakeisha Dandy. And our board attorney, Ms. Melissa Freeman. Also in attendance is our zoning board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will
be made available to the public by contacting the Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya
sunkit at tanya.sunkit at phila.gov. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat that. Anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'd also like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments, concerns, or questions should be directed to our board administrator.
So please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Having said that, I will begin by reading the add-on list for today.
number one on our add-on list is MI 2021-003066 1131 South 19th Street. Before we get into the
vote there's a letter that was submitted by the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition
addressed to the board, dear Mr. DiChico and Zoning Board. Below is a summary of a public
community meeting held regarding the above-referenced zoning. The above-referenced zoning is 1131
South 19th Street. It goes on and explains what the code means, whereas the proposed use
two-family dwelling units is expressly prohibited in RSA 5 residential district,
whereas the proposed used prepared food requires special exception approval
from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the CMX 1 commercial zoning district.
Position from the RCO, four in support, zero oppose. Reason for position from the RCO,
Point Breeze Community Development Coalition, and the Zoning Committee does support this project
with the following proviso. And I don't believe that the proviso is enforceable. The proviso
reads on second unit on second floor will not be a rental unit. I do not believe we can
enforce that, but I'm putting it on the record anyway.
The near neighbors within a two-block radius area are in support of this project with that proviso I just ran in.
The near neighbors within two block radius area are in support of this.
To the record, the date of the meeting was October 25th, 2021 at 6 p.m.
It was a Zoom meeting.
A number of attendees was 45, including the developers.
17 people voted on this project.
Sincerely, Albert Littlepage, Point Breeze Community Development Corporation Director,
and Pietra Gamble, Zoning Co-Chairperson. Having read that letter in the record,
my vote is yes. And the only two others who vote on this are Mr. Plaza and Mr. Holloman.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
jane snell my vote is yes oh jam you were not at the hearing show just oh that's right i'm sorry
that was a different case yeah sorry no words no words um mi 2021-00 i'm sorry tier this is tanya
i'm sorry to interrupt i just wanted to be certain that we weren't supposed to hear another case first
before we did the add-ons
are we talking about um hold on are you referring to 22nd street mr anastasia i thought we were
supposed to hear him first oh i thought we were going to do that before we got into the regular
list i apologize so it was before the add-ons okay you're right thank you so much chair thank
you okay we're going to go a little bit out of turn mr anastasia who has some personal issues
he must take care of early this morning so we're going to go to number two on our regular list
mi 2021-002-605 129 north mole street logan square neighborhood association as of right now
we have not received a letter of mr anastasio hopefully can clear that up so mr anastasio
please raise your hands by your full name and i swear you win morning mr chairman and thank you
for the accommodation today.
Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O,
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006 Philadelphia, 19107.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
Ms. Canary has some questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
Am I on?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the 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?
I don't think I have a letter, but everything else, yes.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
This is 129 North Mole Street.
The application is for visitor accommodation in an existing structure.
This is one of a row of homes right behind the 1515 Arch, which is where we would normally be having these hearings, across the street from McGee Rehabilitation Center.
It is only one of three owner-occupied homes on the block.
Here are the plans.
Here are the photos.
We did meet with Logan Square.
We did meet with Logan Square.
There's a proof of posting.
There were 40 pieces of individual mail that went out.
We do have a tax certification.
and i also want to share with you i'm going to stop sharing that binder and i'm going to
share it with you if i can we went door to door uh with the list of the 40 households
on cherry street and mole street many of the homes were unoccupied permanently but we were
able to secure 16 signatures of folks who live both on cherry and on mole street uh in support
of the visitor accommodation uh and i'm going to stop sharing this for a moment
come back to the binder
Come back to the binder. And did want to mention to the board, and I thought I had it here, but I don't seem to have it handy.
all within a five-block radius of this property. There are over three dozen hotels or Airbnbs
all serving the area that surrounds City Hall, McGee Rehabilitation Center, Love Park.
This would be nothing different than any other house on the block. The only difference is it
would allow the owner to rent it out for weekends or visits for folks who want to visit Philadelphia
and are not comfortable staying at a large hotel. My client, who I'll introduce to you in a moment,
has in fact had families stay with her while she's in the home. They're not needing the visitor
accommodation uh for i'm sorry this is the wrong uh for families who have patients who are staying
at mcgee during rehab and those families get to stay with my client on mole street
And with that, I'd like to have my client raise her hand, Betsy Deisroth.
Ma'am, could you please spell your full name and I'll swear you in?
certainly my full name is elizabeth e-l-i-z-a-b-e-t-h dice roth d as in dog e-i-s as in son
r-o-t as in tom h i also go by by betsy you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do affirm sir thank you and mr amastasio thank you uh betsy you heard my
presentation to the board today i did burn thank you is it is it accurate to the best of your
knowledge yes it is do you adopt it as your own testimony i do okay is it true in fact that you
and your husband and or your husband circulated this petition with the list of addresses given
to us by the planning commission and you secured these 16 signatures in support is that correct
That is correct.
And is it true and accurate that, in fact, surrounding your home, there are literally
dozens of visitor accommodations, both hotel and otherwise?
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And in the past, when you have actually lived in the home, you have hosted families of patients
at McGee Rehabilitation Center.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And you'd like to be able to do that without you being there as well.
and that's why you're seeking this visitor accommodation is that correct that is correct
okay i have nothing else mr chairman thank you any questions from the board no mr channel now
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have dennis boylan please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
you good morning sir please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear you in
good morning mr chairman my name is dennis boylan b-o-y-l-a-n and i am the president of the logan
square neighborhood association the coordinating rco for this uh hearing well for him to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr boylan please proceed um the logan
Square Neighborhood Association met in its capacity as an RCO with the applicant and
for their presentation for the RCO presentation. And after that, the board voted to oppose
this request based on a number of considerations. The first was this is a commercial use prohibited
in a residential area. It would provide an unregulated and unsupervised facility. And
that's important. Unlike an Airbnb, which comes with regulation, unlike hotels, which come with
regulation, this would be a facility in which the owner could not be present and the house could be
let out. We did receive communication from residents living in the near neighborhood
who wished to remain anonymous. They were fearful of some sort of retribution.
I have to object to that, disrespectfully. I have to object to that. Thank you.
Okay, well, I will simply communicate some of the things that they brought up, that there has been observed drug use, urinating in the backyard drain, fighting, and this is when the house hasn't been occupied by the owner, who's the applicant.
Okay well I will simply communicate some of the things that they brought up that there has been
And that was what was communicated to us.
We believe that having such an unregulated and unsupervised facility also presents a safety hazard in that there is no one responsible on site, nor is there an outside city agency that's coming in to regulate the property.
And so for those reasons, the Neighborhood Association opposed this on a unanimous vote.
Mr. Boylan, Mr. Anastasia, we've not yet received a letter from the RCO.
i did not receive the letter and i would like to ask my client to go on the record to speak
to and we did detail this uh at the meeting uh that she would be hiring a property management
company to deal with the property when uh if she were to have visitors so i do want betsy are you
still there yes i am here okay was it your intention to to if if this were to be granted
to hire a local property management company that would not only deal with the leasing,
but also the vetting of the folks who would sign up for the short-term visits. Is that correct?
Absolutely correct.
Okay. And none of the activity... By the way, you've lived in this house for how many years,
you and your husband?
I moved in in June 2003.
2003. Okay. So you've lived there 18 years. And again,
And you are practically surrounded by the other homes that are rented out on a regular basis, is that right?
That is correct. Other homes are long-term rentals on this street, primarily.
And none of the alleged nonsense or fighting that was proffered today, that hasn't come from you and your husband, is that correct?
That has not come from myself or my husband.
Thank you.
I'll simply go on the record as the communication I have would disagree with
that. I also want to make note that the letter was sent and Mr. Anastasia was copied on it
because I did receive a response from him. So yes, the LS&A fulfilled its obligation
in notifying both the CBA, the applicant's attorney, and Council President Clark's office.
i won't dispute that i probably just forgot receiving it is there anyone else to uh wishes
to testify in this case please raise your hand and mr chairman just for the record
the witness did testify that the board voted um none of whom uh i believe uh list or live in any
of the properties listed by the planning commission given to us thank you again i'll ask
is anyone else to testify in this case no hands at this time chair thank you can i can i make one
note there that the board did do a thorough review of this as did our planning and design
and zoning committees so yes the the neighborhood is very engaged and we watch over our uh our
full neighborhood understood thank you uh planning commission good morning chairman
to chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission last name h-e-g-a-r-t-y
we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth sir i do please proceed
thank you members of the board in 2014 the zoning map was amended from cmx4 to rm1
on this block that was in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
We don't dispute that visitor accommodations exist in the surrounding area.
However, on this block, which is zoned RM1, the applicant's hardship claim is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
And it's clear that the proposed variance is not necessary to enable viable economic use of the property.
So in this case, the City Planning Commission would recommend that the board does not deny the variance.
Thank you.
I guess my question is for Melissa.
We do not have the letter, a physical copy of the letter in our file.
Is that correct?
You're muted.
There you go.
That's correct.
My follow-up question is, could we vote on this without the letter, or should we just wait for the letter?
I mean, that's typically what we do, wait for the letter.
I mean, if there was a meeting, there can be a vote on it without the letter.
Just if there's not a meeting without the hold for the letter.
The meeting was at the hold for the letter.
I understand.
So there came.
So there can be a vote.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
Am I 20, 21?
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is always sorry.
We do have the council person's rep, Mary Jones, available, if you would like her to speak.
Yeah, yeah.
I didn't hear anybody else.
That's why I moved on.
Okay, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Jones, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good morning.
uh mary jones um representing council president daryl clark city hall room 494
or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you um the the main thing i wanted to just uh interject is that you know our office is
in receipt of the letter it was dated i let me just see if i have the note but at any rate it
was it was sent to the rcozba mailbox and it was well in advance of the hearing um and
i just wanted to confirm that on the record that's a person does the councilman have a
position on this he does not have a position on this case thank you mi 2021-002605 129
North Mole Street. My vote is no.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thomas Howland, my vote is no.
All right, we're going to move on to case number eight.
another case from mr anastasio mi 2021-002 606 27 north 58th street 27 north 58th street
achievability i believe is the rco but my records indicate we've not yet received the letter
mr anastasio please identify yourself you're still under oath
Thank you, Vern Anastasio, 1315 Walnut Suite, 1006 Philadelphia, 19107.
This is an application for two-family household living.
My client purchased this property in 2020, and the history of this property is, in fact, two families.
as you can see here with my cursor going back decades 1958 the property was recently renovated
prior to my client purchasing it it has of course the multiple electric meters with the two furnaces
and two water heaters you have plans of the property with the porch living kitchen bath
and two bedrooms and then we've got unfinished basement where you saw all the multiple
electric and gas and water and then you've got the living kitchen and two baths
On the second floor, we did, in fact, meet with the RCO, and Achievability did send a letter of support, and that should have been received by the board.
It was sent quite a while ago.
with that i'm going to have my client uh raise his hand
mr battle menage battle that's mr battle you are now unmuted you can wait for the chair
mr battle yes
can you can you hear me yep mr mr chairman yes should mr battle put his name on the record
Yes, please.
Spell your first and last name, sir.
M-A-N-I-J, last name Battle, B-A-T-T-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
i do thank you mr thank you mr battle did you hear my presentation to the board this morning
Thank you, Mr. Anastasia.
Thank you.
Mr. Battle, did you hear my presentation to the...
yes is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and you adopted as your own testimony
yes are you aware of the property's history dating back to the 50s as i explained being
a two-family dwelling yes and are you aware of the letter that was penned september 16th of this year
by achievability where in fact they are supporting 27 north 58th street philadelphia in its zoning
variance application were you aware of the community support yes thank you i have no
further questions thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no no anyone else like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you mr chair ian hegarty for
the philadelphia city planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing rsa 5 single family use at this location however the proposed use is consistent with
documented previous uses on this property as council has shown city planning commission would
recommend that the board grant this variance. Thank you. MI 2021-002-606, 27 North 58th Street,
my vote is yes. Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman,
my vote is yes. Thank you, Paul. Mr. Chairman, before I excuse myself,
there is a case on your list
I'm not quite sure what number it is
it's 1938 North 24th Street
after the morning list
the 930 list
1938 North 24th
yes it's a continuance
very well I just wanted to confirm
that it was in fact being continued
thank you
and again thank you for the uh thank you for the accommodation this morning and good luck i hope
things turn out well for you i'm sure they will thank you bye now uh okay we now go back to the
uh add-on list uh carol are you there
yes i am adam vice chair uh i'm not participating in the second case so you'll have to read that off
Okay. Here I am. Okay. Calendar number MI-2021-003248, 1201 West Gerrard Avenue. Appeal denied.
Professor Plaza, appeal denied. James Snell, appeal denied.
Thomas Harriman appeal granted. Okay, thank you. We'll now go to case number three on the add on
MI 2021-003-376 1718 Fairmount Avenue.
um this is carol carol was not present this was heard on october the 27th of 2021
uh i have a letter that i will be reading into the record from the uh
city uh hold on one second let me get my facts right here this is the right one
uh submitted the city has submitted written testimony of the examiner
relating to this case i will read that letter into the record
uh into the record okay affidavit of palouse isaac p-a-l-u-o-s-e last name i-s-a-a-c and i'm
pronouncing the name wrong i apologize letter regis follows i palouse isaac being duly sworn
hereby state the following to my knowledge and belief. I serve as a Building Plans Examiner
Engineer 1 for the City of Philadelphia's Department of License and Inspection. I am
fully familiar with the facts set forth below and the statement contained herein is based on my
expertise, personal knowledge, information, and or belief. I'll be viewed in my capacity as a plan
reviewer zoning permit application z as in zebra paul p as in paul 2021-004593
dash zero zero four five nine three the application underwent a thorough review
under the zoning code and relevant city regulations the issued permit was properly
issued and the city stands by this issuance per the zba's order on october 27th of 2021
the City reassessed whether Section 14-305-6-G of the Zoning Code applies to permanent application.
The City maintains that Section 14-305, Section 6, Section G does not apply to the application.
Furthermore, the city would like to make clear that Section 14-305, Section 6, Section G does not prohibit the expansion of gross floor area in an existing nonconforming structure on CMX2 Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use 2.
section 14-3056 clearly contemplates and allows the expansion of non-conforming structures
it supports city policy to allow for the adaptive reuse of non-conforming structures
the city also determined that the one-year rule does not apply to this the application
this application because the permit may be granted as a by-right permit.
The permit was properly issued and the ZBA should deny the appeal.
Signed, Palouse-Isaic, Department of License and Inspection, City of Philadelphia.
My vote is to deny the appeal.
Confessor Plaza, appeal denied.
James Snell, appeal, deny.
Thomas Holloman, appeal, deny.
Ms. Denary?
Am I voting on this?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I missed that one.
You're right.
You're right.
Okay, move on to the next case.
number 4 MI 2021-003450, 4003 Filbert Street. This case was heard on November the 2nd.
West Palnton Saunders Park RCO sent a letter of opposition. We're voting on it today,
following uh review of revised plans held for revised plans and reform of plans
um my vote is yes with revised plan one page approved today carol tenere my vote is yes
confessor plaza yes with proviso james snell yes with proviso thomas holliman yes with proviso
Okay the following case is MI 2020-010184 1631 South 52nd Street. Mr. Mulvihill represents the
applicant. David Feynman and Josh Horvitz for Protestants. Leonard Reuter for the city.
um this is a resumption hearing carol was not present this original hearing was september the
21st of 2021 pidc and commerce oppose we were waiting for a letter and councilwoman gautier
sent a letter of non-opposition uh i believe i covered all the opening statements is there
Anything I left out, Melissa?
You're muted.
Good morning, Chairman, members of the board.
We haven't left anything out.
Who's up first, Mr. Mobile or?
One moment, Chairman, I'm trying to get my video to start.
It's being a little .
This is David Primeman.
And my understanding is that Mr. Mulvihill...
David, David, before you go any further, please spell your name and I'll swear you in.
S. David, F-I-N-E-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, David. Please proceed.
My understanding is that Mr. Mulvihill had arrested his case.
And we were at a point where we might cross-examine any of his witnesses.
cross-examine any of his witnesses. At this point, we ordered the notes of testimony
At this point, we ordered the note to test
in the prior hearing, and we have... Excuse me again, David. Someone has another device on.
We're getting some feedback. Maybe we can ask everyone to mute themselves except for Mr. Feynman.
Everyone can mute themselves except for Mr. Feynman and myself, I guess. Okay, please proceed.
So my understanding is that I was at a point where I would cross-examine any of those witnesses.
We ordered the notes of testimony from the prior hearing, and at this point, I have no questions of any of his witnesses and would like to proceed with my case if I can.
Any objections to that, Mr. Mulvievell?
No, my only statement would be that I reserve the right to call witnesses and rebuttal if necessary.
understood um so before we get started let me swear the other folks in
mr horvitz please spell your name and i'll swear you in
it's j-o-s-h uh h-o-r-v-i-t-z um and
we're going to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr reuter
can i proceed mr chairman
Hold on.
I just want to get Mr. Reuter to be sworn in.
Good morning, members of the board.
Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R,
senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia.
I'm here basically because PIDC and I believe also...
Leonard, just before you go,
do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
So I'm just here because PIDC sent in a letter in opposition
and they're a corporation that's owned by the city of philadelphia so i'm basically just just
here to establish our presence and at the hearing i don't have any questions of any of the applicants
witnesses and i don't plan on calling any witnesses myself i'm just really here to
to make sure that we're on the record thank you okay mr feinman chair excuse me this is the court
reporter. Was Mr. Mulvihill sworn in? You know what? You read my mind. I wasn't sure if I did
swear him in, but thank you. Mr. Mulvihill, spell your name and I'll swear you in. Thank you, John.
Certainly. It's Leo Mulvihill, M-U-L-D as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L. Address 315 Green Street,
first floor, Philadelphia 19123. On behalf of the applicant.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Please proceed, Mr. Feynman.
David, make sure to unmute yourself.
David, you're still muted. I think I'm good now. You're good now.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I'm accompanied by Ronald Dissenbaum, who's the CEO
of D.C. Humphrey's Cover Sports. I'm going to summarize our case and at some point ask him
if he adopts that testimony. I think it'll take us a little bit further and quicker. I'm also
accompanied by John DiBenedetto, who's an architect, and we'll explain why we have to
call him during my presentation um our our client has a business which actually if you remember
mr chairman you looked at photos and said is there an operating business uh adjoining the the
property and uh what mr what we've put up now on the board is i believe exhibit three of exhibit
six, exhibit six of our presentation. So what you can see there is 5000 Paschal Avenue and 5102
Woodland Avenue, which is the properties that my client owns and operates. And you'll see that it
abuts, directly abuts into the applicant's property where he's trying to build multifamily
in an industrial area. Now, just to understand, and I think the chairman asked, well, you'll get
a chance to tell us what you do, so let me try to tell you what we do do. We're the oldest
continuing operating family-owned manufacturing operation in the city of Philadelphia. Began in
1874. Manufactured various different kind of products, basic
We manufacture various different kinds of products, basically used for tarps.
So if you're trying to think about what we do, think about the Phillies bringing out
in a rain the tarp that covers the infield.
We manufacture that.
All of the back end, when the left fielder goes into the left field padding, that padding
was manufactured by us and we do that for stadiums all over the country including but not limited to
you know high schools uh colleges um elementary schools even you know and um but that's like the
sexiest part of our business we also manufacture tents and uh other things that are used by the
military and have various government contracts. The flags that you see flying in Center City
announcing different events, those are being manufactured in the facilities that we've just
shown you. We employ about 150 people, and about 50% of those people come from the surrounding
neighborhood in the King Sessing neighborhood. We've been in King Sessing now for about 11,
12 years. Prior to that, we were located at 1231 Carpenter, if my memory is correct,
in South Philadelphia, and had to move. What we tried to do was to move, you can see here,
to one-story buildings.
The other thing that we do do is
we acquired a company called Jeffco Awning.
So the awnings that you see,
let's say in Center City at various restaurants
and the awnings that have been put up
as a result of COVID,
those awnings were manufactured and sold
by DC Humphreys Cover Sports.
during COVID. During COVID, we stayed open as a result of an emergency so that we could fulfill
contracts for the federal government, particularly for the military. And we also manufactured 10,000
masks that were used by the Philadelphia firefighters. As I said, we employ about 150
people, about 50% come from the King Sexton neighborhood. Many of the employees have been
with the company for an excess of 20 years, some as long as 40 years. The company starts its
unskilled labor at $15 an hour, full medical, full vacations. People like to stay working
with the company, and then we give them advanced training. The company has a reputation in the
neighborhood, we have acquired numerous single family homes, rehabilitated those homes, and then
sold those homes at below market rate, at below market. In February, and you're going to hear from
our architect, in February of 2020, the company was awarded a $1 million grant from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, commonly known as an RCAP grant, a redevelopment assistance capital program
to build in addition to their property. So what you're going to, what you saw before, and
we can go back down to, I think it's exhibit six, which right there, you see that there's two
properties that we operate on. And what's going to happen is we're going to build,
and you're going to hear from our architect a new building as a result of that grant,
and we're going to match that grant with over a million dollars in financing to build a new
building that's going to connect these two buildings. That's a little bit significant
because the building that we're going to build
is directly abuts the property in question.
It directly abuts it.
So these multifamily homes that you saw
being proposed by Mr. Mulvihill's client,
those balconies on that property
are going to directly look onto our operating facility.
How do we operate?
We operate at least six days a week. That includes Saturdays. We bring in people on a regular basis. I remember, although we had a little trouble finding it, that the picture that the chairman referred to when he asked me a question about whether...
the picture that the chairman referred to when he asked me a question about whether it was an
operating facility, there was a large FedEx truck. Trucks come in and out of that facility.
We are delivering product all over the United States, and we are getting product on a regular
basis. So trucks come in and out of that facility on a regular basis. How else do we use the outside
For one occasion, we have to weld. We don't want to weld inside the building. So we weld outside.
So let's take a look. Let's look at Exhibit 2, which I think pretty well looks at what the neighborhood is.
um you can see here the on exhibit two exhibit three you look at what is the purple that's our
building all surrounding it are other industrial facilities and single family homes not multi-family
homes as is being suggested here.
And before I present our architect to explain the new addition, I want to comment, and I've
read over the notes of testimony carefully, so I decided not to waste the time of the
board and not to cross-examine anyone.
What was described to you as the so-called hardship to the property was an easement from the water department, which comes directly into our property as well.
We have the same easement. It is a large, and it will be described by the architect, it is a large pipe that comes through. So the water department has to be able to access that property and access the facility.
And that's why they built two multi, they're suggesting two multifamily properties, two multifamily properties rather than one.
I suggest to you, first of all, you could have, if they wanted to build in that fashion, you could have two industrial facilities rather than two multifamily facilities.
But let's leave that aside. What you're going to hear from our architect is that we had to deal with the same exact problem. We abut that property. That means we are directly next to that property.
And what happens is that we have to deal with that as well. And our architect is going to explain to you in some detail as to how we have dealt with that property.
Let me also suggest to you that the surrounding, the other surrounding properties, first of all, you've got the railroad on one side, but the other surrounding properties is a bus company in which buses come and go.
In other words, they store the buses and they come and go as they're needed for various projects.
It is not, there is no multifamily residential in there.
And our suggestion, quite frankly, is that it continues to be that.
Let's see how it was marketed.
It was marketed by Century 21.
You'll see a sign on their property, a Century 21 sign.
I think we can all believe that Century 21 usually does home.
Our client, who is landlocked, has been looking for this property for a while.
So what did they do?
They went to, and we can show you, LoopNet, which is the place to market commercial industrial properties.
Never was it put on the market for that.
And I'd say...
Lack of personal knowledge, lack of foundation, unless Mr. Feynman is somehow a real estate expert
who's going to have somebody testify that they looked up on LoopNet every single day for this property.
There's no evidence in the record to sustain what Mr. Feynman is saying.
I'll have my client adopt my testimony shortly.
He can cross-examine it.
Yeah, if you can get to the relevance of your comments, for me at least, it would maybe clear it up.
I'm not sure.
The relevance is that for whatever reason, I don't believe that this property was ever marketed for industrial.
For whatever reason, I don't believe that this property was ever marketed for industrial use.
And we'll leave that aside.
The board can determine what kind of relevance and what kind of weight to give to that evidence.
We would, at this point, I would ask Mr. Nissenbaum if he would adopt the testimony that I've given
And if he has anything in addition to add, I'd be more than happy to listen to that.
I'd ask him to make those comments to the board.
Is Mr. Nissenbaum here?
Yes, he's available.
He can unmute himself.
Good morning, sir.
Please spell your full name.
Yes, I am.
Good morning, sir.
Sir, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Ronald Nissenbaum, N-I-S-S-E-N-B-A-U-M.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I affirm.
Thank you, Mr. Finer.
Mr. Disabam, you heard what I summarized as your presentation.
Do you agree with that presentation?
Yes, I agree.
Is there anything in addition that you would want to make comment to the board?
Okay, thank you.
with that mr chairman and um i i would call our architect at this point who i believe is on the
call chairman if i may interrupt this is all the hill speaking i'd just like to have the ability
to cross-examine mr nissenbaum before i'm just going to ask you please proceed please proceed
uh good morning mr nissenbaum good morning uh do you ever make a written offer on this property
uh verbal a verbal offer can you explain to me what that means to you i can't uh i contacted
century 21 okay and asked him uh whether or not uh the property was available that was about five
years ago um secondly uh when uh i felt that uh they were asking price was and i consulted with
the commercial realtor and that the asking price was way beyond market value. I contacted Century
21 approximately a year and a half or two years ago and spoke to the realtor and he told me
the building was under agreement. The realtor that you spoke with, was that Mr. Kwasniewski?
uh yes who's ever on the century 21 sign yeah and i'm just going to spell that for the record
it's k w a s n as in nancy i e w s k i
so at this point you never made a formal offer on the property a formal written offer correct
that's correct and that's because you thought the price was too high correct
That was five years ago. There was no back and forth negotiation.
Okay, well, let's answer my question now. You thought the price that they were asking for was too high with respect to the recent conversation you had. Is that correct?
That's correct. But I might add that the property, when I spoke to the owner five years ago, was not officially listed by the realtor. It would have been a private transaction.
Okay. I don't have any other questions for you. Thank you, Mr. Nissenbaum.
Does the board have any further questions?
No, I'll ask that. I'm just asking, do you have any questions?
No, I do not.
Okay. Is Mr. Horvitz, are you presenting?
No. We're going to call. Is John DiBenedetto, is he here? The architect, our architect?
i thought he was on i would i thought i see his hand raised yeah so he can unmute himself
and wait for the chair can you hear me now yes john please spell your full name and i'll swear
you in john d benedetto it's d-i-b-e-n-e-d-e-t-t-o you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Feynman. Before Mr. Benedetto begins,
I have an objection to Mr. Benedetto's testimony. Number one, it's irrelevant. We're talking about
a completely different parcel at issue. We're talking, we're talking, we're talking, well,
we're talking well as based on Mr. Feynman's discussion we're talking about this property that
as based on Mr. Feynman's discussion, we're talking about this.
they had acquired we're seeking to acquire via this grant that they received number two
despite the fact that I see I received previous to this hearing voluminous documents from Mr.
Feynman's office we're now being surprised with drawings for what appears to be a completely
different property. So essentially what we're having here is rebuttal by ambush rather than
having a fair opportunity to review these documents and allow my architect potentially or any other
witness that I wish to bring or perhaps even an expert the opportunity to testify in this instance.
Mr. Feynman has had Mr. Feynman's had the opportunity to review our documents and plans
at length. Apparently Mr. DiBenedetto has also had those opportunities although I guess he'll
testify one way or the other. But nevertheless, I object to his testimony based on relevance and
basis of unfair surprise. Mr. Feynman, what is the relevance of the ARCHAB?
Yeah, right. I think maybe he's mixed up and I'm hopeful that the board is not mixed up.
This construction as a result of the ARCHAB grant, and that's what he's going to testify to,
is on our property what will happen is there will be a connection and this is will directly abut
their property and there will be a connection which if you can go up to exhibit seven you'll
see there's going to be a connection between or actually i guess the other exhibit where we had
both of the properties there's going to be a connection between the two properties that we're
talking about between the one we now operate out of two properties that are not connected
on located on our property this property is going to be built on our property directly abutting
their property moreover what we're going to talk to you about in some detail is how we've dealt
with what they've identified as a hardship to their property we had to deal with that in building
this new property the commonwealth of pennsylvania gave a grant of a million dollars to do it why
did it do that because we're going to employ about 50 more people i get i get that property
it's not an additional property gentlemen hold on mr feinman i i hear what you're saying
and uh i'm just trying to figure out what is the negative impact of mr mulvihill's client
as it relates to what you want to do
as it relates to the proposed building
of adjoining these two buildings.
I'm not clear on that.
Mr. Chairman, our position,
and it is the position of PIDC
and I believe the Commerce Department is,
these properties were zoned industrial.
There's a reason they're zoned industrial.
And the reason is we have very little industrial property in the city of Philadelphia to give good jobs to everybody.
I also hit, hit.
You know, I understand, David, I understand that and I'm all for that.
I mean, I pretty much made my whole life.
I'm just trying to figure out how does what is being proposed by the applicant interfere with the expansion of your client's facility?
Either we will not be able to expand further because we can't buy that property, or other industrial uses won't be available to us.
But moreover, Mr. Chairman, the only hardship that he has identified to that property is this so-called water facility, water plate.
Let me tell you, why don't you just listen to our architect as to how we have dealt with the same problem.
Chairman, if I may.
Hello?
Yes, Chairman, if I may respond.
Yes, please.
Yeah, for the record, I am not confused.
I know specifically that Mr. Feynman is speaking about the client's, his client's property, where he wishes to have an additional expansion done.
What it seems to me to be the case is that Mr. Feynman's argument is going to be predicated on his client acquiring the parcel that my client has under agreement.
No, it's not. It's not. What you're going to see now is what we're going to build.
Mr. Feynman, Mr. Feynman, David, let Leo finish and then you can.
If the chair would just kindly direct Mr. Feynman to direct any objections to the board rather than me directly.
That's essentially where we are. This is a different parcel. Every parcel in Philadelphia is unique, Chair. That's why we're here in front of you, because as you know, the zoning code treats every parcel differently.
That's essentially where we are.
This is a different parcel.
Every parcel into the bill.
So what we have, at least according to the plans that I can see on my screen as being shared by Mr. Feynman's office, is the proposal for the expansion, which is not on our property whatsoever, the property that we have under agreement, the subject property 1631.
It's connecting the two buildings that are already existing.
So this is all speculative, number one, and it doesn't necessarily deal at all with our subject parcel.
So this entire testimony is irrelevant, has nothing to do with what's going on on the proposal on our property, except perhaps to show some sort of animus here that the reason they're here to oppose is because they wish they could have acquired this property.
But as you heard the testimony earlier, it was too expensive per Mr. Nissenbaum's testimony, and he didn't want to pay the price that the seller wanted to sell the property for. And that's not really a reason to oppose a zoning matter.
The only reason, the only way he can win in front of this board is to show a hardship to the property and therefore entitled to a variance.
Okay, the hardship in this case, he's identified as being this pipe that he has to build two buildings rather than one.
I want to show, if I can, I won't even talk about what additions we're going to make, but I want to just show the board how somebody deals with that hardship.
somebody on the adjoining property the same easement comes immediately through the property
i maintain it's irrelevant your honor our chairman
i'll let it in i i think it might be irrelevant also but we'll let everybody mr fineman understood
Good, Chair. Thank you.
John, are you there?
Okay, John, just briefly for the record, you are a registered architect in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, am I correct?
And how long have you been practicing as an architect?
41 years.
Okay. And you were hired by D.C. Humphreys Cover Sports to come up with plans to build an addition on their property. Is that correct?
And that addition, just briefly, will connect the two buildings that we presently have referred to. Is that correct?
The original intent was to connect the two existing buildings. Yes.
Yes. Okay. And plans have been submitted to the City of Philadelphia, is that correct?
Yes. And the expectation is that the full plans will be approved sometime before the first of
the year, is that correct? Yes. And you're going to begin construction before the first of the
year, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Now, in doing so, you've had to deal with what we've called
as the property in question, 1531 North 52nd Street,
you've had to deal with an easement
that comes directly from their property
onto the property in question.
Is that correct?
Objection reading.
Why don't you explain for us what that easement is?
There's an 80-foot easement.
If you can put where your cursor is now showing these parking spaces, go to the right.
Okay, so that entire area is an 80-foot easement that has a 12-foot-6 diameter regional sewer line, as well as a 3-foot-6 concrete pipe sewer line.
um the the water department prohibits construction within that easement our initial intention
was to connect the main building at the bottom of the sheet with the building to the north of
of the sheet um with one continuous building because we we were prohibited from building
over the easement, we submitted a plan to the water department to build a pre-engineered
building up to the easement line and connect the building with a fabric mobile structure
that in the event that the water department had to have access to the pipe and
In the event that the water department had to have access to the pipe and excavate within the easement,
that mobile structure literally could be rolled out of the way and allow them to have access within that 80-foot easement.
And has that been accepted by the water department and accepted by the city of Philadelphia?
Well, it has been accepted by the water department, yes.
And the expectation is that your building plans will be accepted within days, is my understanding.
Is that correct?
Hopefully, depending on the schedule of the planning of the review department, building department.
Have you received any other comments which would make you feel that your plans are not going to be accepted?
We have not.
I have no other questions.
just one last question how big is this additional space 22 000 square feet
okay so the 22 000 square feet adds to what is the square footage of the other two buildings
the main building uh which i call the south building if you go back to your
plan that you were right there that building on the on the south end is 94 000 square feet and
change the awning factory which is uh that that one there correct that's 40 that's almost 42 000
in round numbers and the proposed building is almost 23 000 22 8 and change
okay I have no other questions thank you Mr. Mulvihill before you proceed
for my benefit I guess the benefit of the other board members to refresh my memory
how does your applicant application address the issue that we Mr. Feynman and Mr. DiBenedetto
just spoke about as it relates to the sewer line what is is that one of the reasons you're here
just refresh my memory to get relief for that no members of the board not specifically but
if i may uh share my screen i can then proceed to show the board my plans
i believe mr whomever is sharing at this point just needs to stop so i'll be able to share as well
thank you
so essentially we're doing a very similar thing although we don't have a
mobile sort of tent above exactly, above the easement area.
One moment while I pull up the correct page, members of the board.
So while I try to find this specifically, essentially we have a similar thing in that we have two separate buildings.
You have building A and building B. It has to do with the way that the site is laid out, and that's one of the hardships endemic to at least the design of the building itself.
What I'm now showing on the screen is page 106 of my presentation packet, and members of the board can see what we've done with this, with a circulation drive aisle, with a loading zone and parking spaces, a green space in the middle, and then parking spaces off to the right.
but this maintains essentially the easement area that is open to the sky here's building
a off to the left building b off to the right if the board has any more additional questions
about that our architect Logan Dry is on the line and he can testify to some greater concerns if the
board has those but that's essentially how we're dealing with it in a very similar manner just
without a rolling tent any questions from the board uh yes mr chairman no it seems to me
is that the residential selling the land by century 21 will make more money
than the industrial people are willing to pay for it that's what seemed to me the problem
Tom do you see any issues as it relates to the sewer line and you're the
architect on this board so I'm asking you. Both of them have to conform to the sewer line that's
why the residential has two buildings and the industrial has two buildings they both have to
conform to the uh right away for the uh sewer line
correct and chairman and members of the board i just want to reiterate from last presentation
correct and chairman and members of the board i just want to reiterate from last
that these are going to have green roofs we have pwd approval for stormwater and our landscape for
the entire process was all approved as part of the cdr process for this site um so with respect to
just getting back to uh the elements of you know whether to grant a refusal a and i've heard no
testimony as to what the design is, but I'm assuming with parking spaces is going to be
a cement or asphalt sheet essentially on the other site that's adjacent to us.
This is a far better way to manage stormwater runoff and things like that as well with the
green roofs and full stormwater that we have approved by water department.
Thank you. Any other testimony? Mr. Chairman, I just like to make one more
comment if I can and then I'll be finished. I looked over, as I said to you, I ordered the
notes of testimony from the prior hearing and read them. And what you have here is his plan.
And he is saying to the board, we have the property has a, it is really burdened, has
a hardship because we have to deal with the sewer line.
And quite frankly, that is the only hardship that has been identified.
And I read over those notes of testimony very carefully, and that's exactly what they identify
as the hardship.
I'm saying to you one of two things. One, you could build two industrial facilities if you
wanted. The second is we presented the architect only to show the board how in an industrial
setting you could deal with the same so-called hardship. Look, I'm at my wit's end to understand
why this property should be changed
from industrial to multifamily,
understanding that there is no hardship to the property.
Mr. Chairman, I would tend to agree to that.
Thank you.
Ms. Mulvey, will you rest?
Just to reiterate, members of the board,
that we do have as mr fineman noted and what i'm pulling up now is page 13 my exhibit packet
the subject property is indicated in blue in the middle of that purple area we're located just south
of woodland avenue it's a mixed use area and this residential use of this property kind of
works as a transitory space between the icmx industrial use and the pre-existing both residential
use rsa5 and the commercial mixed use cmx2 which as this board knows allows for residential living
above commercial ground space that's essentially what we're looking at with respect to this property
i defer to the board's recollection of the facts at hand in rendering their decision
and what i suggest at this point is that as you've heard based on the testimony that what we have
here is an existing company which is respectable they employ i believe it's 150 people 50 from the
neighborhood next they're going to be expanding their area where they are right now potentially
employing more folks it's wonderful but the opposition here seems to be based on a speculative
purchase or desire to purchase which was first reached out to five years ago with no response
and then i guess based on the testimony that i heard the board's recollection controls another
year and a half ago uh to which the uh protestant didn't offer enough money based on what market
rates for the property might be and that's where we are that's what i think is the is the bone of
contention here is that the company next door wants to buy this property and they're going to
do what they can to try to buy it so that's why i suggest the members of the board uh with that
i have no other things to add at this time i would just like to ask uh my client lavar
clark just to adopt the remaining testimony that i made today as my own or as his own rather
mr clark if you're if you're here would you please unmute and raise your hand
or raise your hand and then unmute
and he's available to speak now good morning sir please spell your full name and i'll swear
Hello, my name is LeVar Clark. L as in Larry, E as in Edward, V as in Victor, A as in Apple,
R as in Robert. Last name is Clark without an E on the N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Moblehill?
Yes, Mr. Clark, you've heard my testimony?
Yes, I have.
And it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And is there anything you'd like to add at this time?
I would like to add that we have overwhelming community support for this project, part of this project.
It's a multifamily project, but we're also offering affordable housing as a percentage to this actual project.
We've had multiple meetings with the community itself.
All of the RCOs in the area and the neighborhood have overwhelming support for the project and what we propose to do for the community.
And I would ask that there hasn't been no other opposition to the project except for the next door neighbor.
That will be my complete testimony.
Mr. Chairman, if I can just add one thing. I'd ask the board to look carefully at the
letter that was sent to you. And I see Mr. Reuter has his hand up, so I hope I'm not
interfering with this. The letter that was sent to you by PIDC, that letter describes
in some detail why PIDC opposes this project. And it does so because there's been a continual
rezoning of this entire area. And this is one of the few industrial sites that's left.
And if you read carefully their letter as to why they're opposed to it, and it's in the record at
this point. I think that you'll see in a clear, let me talk about it in a clear public policy
manner as to why this property should not be rezoned. And what's up in front of you today
shows that the purple area, quite frankly, is the all industrial area. And then you see what are
small commercial neighbor small commercial and some residential that is what the area is and I
see I'm asking the board to spend some time looking at the PIDC letter thank you Mr. Reuter
thank you members of the board again Leonard Reuter for the city of Philadelphia
first of all just to reiterate I don't have any questions of Mr. DiBenedetto or Mr. Clark or Mr.
or any of those persons other than, again, to correct the misperception that there is no other
opposition to this project other than from the adjoining property owner. The PIDC and the
Commerce Department, which joined in the letter, are strongly opposed to the variance requested
here. And again, as Mr. Feynman just noted, a letter was sent. I want to clarify, I'm not sure
it was actually on the letter, although it came from the author. And the author of the letter is
Troy, middle initial M as in Mark Mandy, M-A-N-D-Y. He is the director of real estate services for PIDC,
which is the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. And again, as indicated in the
letter, the Department of Commerce for the city of Philadelphia also joined in that.
A couple of things that I just want to highlight about what was stated there simply had to do with
the fact that again in the comprehensive plan this property is to remain industrial also
and it is within the southwest industrial district and that it is part of PIDC's industrial
land use and marketing strategy from 2010 it remains that way and again as I just mentioned
And the Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan still indicates this and actually is having a high potential for intensified industrial use and development.
The PIDC helped with the Department of Commerce, worked with the City Planning Commission to create the master plan for the lower Schuylkill District area.
So again, and that was, I think that was in 2013.
So it wasn't that long ago. And again, it remains there.
The city actually, PIDC, as they again, as they indicate in their letter, there's actually been a substantial increase in potential purchasers and potential users of industrial spaces, particularly smaller industrial spaces, but also.
of industrial spaces, particularly smaller industrial spaces, but also something which I
would think would qualify as mid-sized here. So again, in terms of like the appropriate uses
for the property, the city is pretty uniformly opposed to a change of this property to
residential use. I don't dispute that the adjoining property to the, I guess that's
northwesterly side, is ICMX. But again, that would still incorporate some industrial uses
that mostly be things like artisanal type things, which again would also be permitted for this
property. So we don't believe that a hardship has been established here. The possibility that this
could, you know, might arguably be some kind of a transitional area from the industrial to the
residential. Again, those are the sorts of things that the Department of Planning and Development
and City Planning Commission considers all the time. That's what goes into the development of
master plan and we we do have some traditional transitional areas nearby but this property was
not indicated for that so again it it is that's a decision and a determination that was made by
the city when they developed the comprehensive plan for the local lower school district um
so again we don't and and you know that's not part of the standard for uh obtaining a variance
anyway uh you know the fact that it might seem like a good idea to some people that's not the
basis for a variance what they need to establish here primarily in addition to other things is
they need to establish a hardship and they haven't done that again as Mr. Feynman indicated and we
agree it sounded like the only hardship that they had identified was the the city's
drainage and sewer easement which is a below ground easement which you know again would not
allow any kind of foundation uh any kind of structure that needed a foundation to be built
upon it but there are certainly uh tons of such easements throughout the city uh and it doesn't
necessarily stop all development uh and again we're not saying they have to adopt the same kind
of creative plan that mr fineman's client uh is apparently employing at their property but again
we don't believe that the existence of that easement uh creates a hardship that would
necessitate turning the property to a residential use i mean i don't see we don't see really what
difference it makes i mean if the easement is there and you can't build on it you can't build
a residential property on it you can't build an industrial property on it whatever you build has
to be built around it so why does that why is it any different uh just because it's an industrial
property that that part i don't think was established uh through this in this matter
So, again, I just want to wrap it up and just say that, you know, in terms of the harmful impacts, again, the board is required to consider whether a variance is going to conflict with the comprehensive plan.
And in this case, it clearly conflicts with the comprehensive plan, and we believe that it will also have a harmful impact on job creation and the city's intention and need to preserve industrial uses in areas where industrial uses have long been established.
So we don't want any erosion of those industrial sites.
So that's it for the city in closing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any members of the board, if I may respond to that.
What I'm showing now is, which was previously submitted as a CDR letter at page 37 through 39 of my packet.
we were actually praised by the civic design review committee for our design moreover we didn't
have the effect of any input of pidc during any community meetings or any cdr meetings
and from what i understand as a result while they took a look at our maybe took a look at our plans
we never had any sort of conversation with them whatsoever and i'm happy to allow if the board
would so grants the opportunity, my client, Mr. Clark, to speak as to that as well.
Mr. Chairman, I mean, we don't have any issues and we don't dispute that, you know, it's a nice
design. That's kind of not, the CDR makes a recommendation to the zoning board and those
recommendations primarily deal with things involving, you know, dimensional aspects, height,
massing, you know, how the property, the square footage, things like that. And they make
you know how the property the square footage things like that and they make recommendations
about whether or not they like the design and the board's required to to hear those recommendations
but the civic design review typically doesn't get into uses and what we're talking about is the use
of the property so I'm not here to suggest that we have any quibble with the design of the property
so I don't think it would be relevant to introduce any additional testimony on that I don't even
think mr fineman's uh raised any issue about the design of the property this is this is strictly
a uh our opposition at least is strictly based upon the use of the uh the proposed use not not
the design so i don't think we need to go and and that's why pidc wasn't involved in cdr it didn't
the design of the property it wasn't really relevant to them thank you thank you yeah mr
mobile i don't think we need to burn the record with that we appreciate the cdr and you went
through the process. You did all the right things as it relates to the application. Anyone else to
testify in this case? No hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman DiCicco, members of the board, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning
Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends this property for industrial and commercial mixed use
has been established. This parcel is in the Lower Schuylkill Innovation District and this is
an industrial preservation district that's intended to create and preserve jobs for Philadelphians.
Our main objection here is that allowing residential development to encroach
on this industrial district will permanently impair appropriate industrial use of the
adjacent property. And this is one of the findings that are required to be heard for
use variances and we feel that this application clearly violates that finding it would also avoid
the comprehensive plan zoning recommendation to create a light industrial buffer in this location
between the existing row house neighborhoods and the existing manufacturing uses along the railroad
tracks and then finally the proposed variance is likely to expose residents of the proposed
residential development to the smoke dust and odors that are permitted as a matter of right
on uses in the adjacent industrial zoning district so we'd also like to note that while
the applicant has indicated that there will be affordable units on site these units are not part
of the mixed income housing bonus program and cannot be enforced by the city or guaranteed to
meet those requirements there will be nothing in the deeds of the property for example allowing
the city to enforce for affordable housing rent caps given all this we would recommend that the
board deny the requested variances. Thank you. MI 2020-010184, 1631 South 52nd Street, my vote is no.
Carl Tenere, my vote is no. Confessor Plaza, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
thank you uh case number cases there's three cases i'll read off now mi 2021 that's 000242
1720 north 22nd street mi 2021-000784 1744 north 22nd street and mi 2021-000242
1750 north 22nd street to my understanding that miss uh tenere was not present and i also believe
Mr. Holloman has a statement to make thank you Mr. Chairman I will now sign off because
I'm recusing from this these cases thank you thank you um chair um maybe I'm confused this
is Tanya these this wasn't going to go last
excuse me chair you're muted
muted you were but you're good now okay i have my apologies to everyone mr masters
no we're going to hold this to the end of the regular list which shouldn't be too much longer
oh thank you chair i'll get tom back yeah i have tom back my apologies um could i
could i just get a clarification i was logging in um as a panelist when mr holliman was speaking
i didn't hear what he said he was recusing himself so when we get to it uh he'll he'll
make his statement again and just to be clear chairman steve's not the applicant's attorney
applicant's attorney here he's the protestant's attorney here yes i understand thank you okay
here he's the protestant's attorney here yes i understand
all right thank you uh all right we'll go to the regular list i will now read off the
request for continuances uh for the 9 30 list case number four mi 2021-002-607
1938 North 24th Street is continued case number five MI 2021-002827
2132 North Darien Street is continued MI number case number six MI 2021-002
608-2235 South 7th Street is continued. Case number seven MI 2021-002-585-250 Byberry Road
is continued case number nine mi 2021-002-538-3549 sunnyside avenue is continued
excuse me sir you're muted again
oh please if anyone objects to those cases being continued please raise your hand at this time only
if you object to the cases i read into the record to be continued please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you is there anyone who would like to request a continuance or withdrawal
on the 930 list
no hair share thank you with that we'll proceed with case number one of the 930 list
mi-2021-002572-1025 arch street zen jin is the attorney of record philadelphia chinatown
development corporation sent a letter of non-opposition as did councilman mark squiller
and mr zen is coming in now as a panelist you
good morning good morning mr jen please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
Zen Jen, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. Tenere has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, 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.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and share with the board the exhibit package we have previously submitted.
As you can see, we have submitted the refusal, RCO letter, photos, plans, tax clearance, and related documentation.
In this particular case, what we're asking for before the board is located in Chinatown.
My client is a tenant at a CMX4 property where they have been operating as a karaoke lounge bar.
As the board might be aware that this is very popular within the Asian community.
what they are is they're small rooms where people come in, sit down, have food, drink, and they can
sing their hearts out in karaoke format. So there's no live performers, nor is there any kind
of live performances other than by the patrons themselves, if they choose to show off to other
people. So in this situation, it is, while it's being requested to be zoned as a nightclub private
club. It is not essentially a nightclub in operation. We explained this also to Philadelphia
Chinatown Development Corporation in our meeting with them. And based on the structure of the
property, they have a few provisals they requested as part of non-opposition, one of which is that
it's tied to the lease, which is a 10-year lease term. Secondarily, that the karaoke rooms will be
limited to 20 occupants and there's a bar lounge area that's limited to 60 occupants for singing
purposes for karaoke purposes um and and dancing will be limited uh as accessory to the karaoke
and dancing will be limited as accessory
to the karaoke performances.
So we have no issues with any of these requested provisals,
provided that the board finds that it is something
that it's enforceable through zoning.
We're happy to accept them.
Based on that, what the location is,
it's a tall building with residential above.
However, we're really talking about the first floor,
second floor and basement areas which are all part of the commercial business and again as you
can see it's a karaoke lounge and bar operation so while there is alcohol service and and there
is proper liquor licensing again the actual performances and saying everything will be
contained within mostly within private rooms. The the building itself has commercial trash pickup
You can see from the photographs the inside setup.
This is a teap area that's part of the overall building businesses.
Here's part of the restaurant area.
This is the bar lounge area that was mentioned.
This is one of the larger dining slash bar areas.
And then this is an example of one of the private rooms that is on the larger side.
So, again, everything within the building is self-contained into individual rooms where it is privately hired for the purpose of having dinner, some drinks, and, again, karaoke scene by the patrons, no live performances.
with the operation it is not unusual to have in Chinatown nor is it outside of what I believe
CMX Ford contemplates for business services based on the above we would ask the board's
favorable review of this matter and grant the request of variance with the stipulations and
provisals that the board may wish to include within any decision I'll be happy to show the
board. The floor plan, which is extensive and kind of hard to understand, but if the board wants me
to zoom into any particular aspect of that, I will be happy to do so. But again, this is an overall
karaoke business. Here are the individual rooms, again, on the plans and dining area here and
dining area here as well. So again, this is a pretty extensive sized restaurant karaoke operation.
uh again be happy to redirect to any particular exhibit the board would like to see in a
more up close would any board member like to have
regarding the floor plans
thank you getting feedback mr jen you have a client to adopt your testimony uh yes uh
billy wong should be with us um if billy if you could raise your hand on the zoom app to be
identified i have a william wong could it be him oh yes william wong yes that's correct
good morning mr wong please identify yourself spell your name
good morning chair uh my name is william last name is w-o-n-g
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Jin?
Thank you.
Mr. Wong, you heard my testimony and saw my presentation to the zoning board?
Can you verify that what I've explained to the board and represented and testified are true and correct?
And you would adopt it as your own testimony?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Now, if anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, we have a person by the last name of Wu.
Hi, this is Chair Wu.
Hi, please spell your first and last name, ma'am.
First name Y-U-E, last name W-U.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Hi, this is Yue Wu.
I'm representing Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, the RCO for the case.
I just want to reiterate that PCDC opposes the granting of a permanent variance because we don't want to allow nightclub in Chinatown area.
But we understand that the business owner is operating a karaoke business and has been operating the business for several years and only recently was required to get a nightclub license.
required to get a nightclub license. So we want, we hope to, hope the board to issue a temporary
variance tied to the term of the lease and also we would like the applicant to restrict the
variance to current use, current business owner and current use.
we have no issue with a temporary variance running with the lease
what is the what are the terms of the lease the lease expires on march 31st 2029
it's a 10-year lease
march 30 march 1st march 31st 2029 wow okay i want to point out i believe there's also an
option to extend the lease but i think that's a pretty substantial period
already so all right anyone else to testify in this case
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you chairman de chico ian
hegarty with the philadelphia city planning commission in 2014 the zone the zoning map
was amended uh in this area in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
This parcel was intentionally not changed. While this use is typically permitted in CMX-4, the assembly and entertainment uses such as these are prohibited in the Chinatown area of the center city overlay.
This use, while it's classified as a nightclub, is more akin to a restaurant or a bar use in this specific case in terms of impacts.
And so the City Planning Commission concurs with the RCO and recommends that the board grant the variance with a condition that it expire at the end of the 10-year term of the lease.
Thank you. Mr. Jim, would you put up the provisos?
Yes, I will.
is that clear on the screen uh yes i just want to yeah i can read it okay thank you and
miss freeman if if there's anything in here that you see that is not enforceable
Let me
It seems to be pretty forward
I'm not seeing anything yet
I have two more to go
Okay, thank you.
So MI 2021-002572, 1025 Arch Street, my vote is yes with the following provisos, temporary
variants to expire March 31st, 2029, Mr. Jim, would you put that back up again?
I'm sorry, yes.
No worries. I don't have it in front of me. That's why I need to read it.
Okay, not a problem.
And following provisos, variance is restricted to current applicant and proposed use.
There will be no professional law. I don't know if we can do that one.
I'm sorry, Chair. I hate to interrupt.
If I could ask, did Ms. Saletta review these provisos?
I do see a couple
that it might be a question
but it is as you wish
but it was just a couple
yeah number two
might be I'm not enforceable
right?
it goes with the land
and my client is a tenant
so it's yeah
but tenants could change
it could go to a different tenant
and then we got the dancing
it's just a couple
things that's just questionable. Well, I think they want that in there because they don't want
it to be what would be typically a nightclub type of dancing environment. I think that's what
they're asking for. I think in addition, the space actually can hold, overall can hold hundreds of
people, Chairman. I think number seven actually prevents it from becoming a whole nightclub
anyway, because we're limiting the areas into 20 and 60 occupants, which would prevent a mass
dance situation. I read it in a proviso for the temporary variance. Number three,
there will be no professional live entertainment on premise. There will be no operation for
premise there will be no operation falling under the definition of adult cabaret under the zoning code
I don't know.
the business will provide on-site accessory restaurant food and drink services
and dancing will be limited as an accessory to karaoke performances
each karaoke room will be limited to 20 occupants
And the bar and lounge area
Will be limited to 60
Occupants
Carol Tenere
Carol Tenere
My vote is yes with provisors
Professor Plaza
Yes with provisors
James Snell yes with provisors
Thomas Holliman
Yes with provisors
Thank you
is there anything further
excuse me Jerry you're muted
every time I put some paper
on my computer it does that
MI 2021-002611
6101 Harley Avenue
Wenjiang Lee
or Lai
48th Ward, Republican RCO, Eastwood Community Network, Eastwood Friends and Neighbors Coalition,
Empowered Community Development Corporation, Paschal Betterment League Incorporated,
all sent a letter of opposition.
Owners must present themselves or be represented by an attorney.
if you're the applicant for this case can you please raise your hand
the applicant is available uh chair i have somebody with the last name lee
that looks like the person yes hello hi please spell your first and last name
My name is W-E-N-Q-I-A-N-G-L-I
Are you representing yourself?
Or do you have an attorney?
I have someone in the room.
Are you the owner of the property?
Yeah, I'm the owner of the property.
do you have a corporation let me call you you should be in the zone i can't hear you
are you a corporation yeah i'm a corporation then you need an attorney
yeah i have one person he he waiting for yeah is he an attorney yeah
what is the name
what is your what is your attorney's name
Kevin Kevin Chang
Kevin Chang
you see the K-Chang here
is your attorney available
Mr. Zoe, are you the attorney for this case?
No, we are exploited for the case.
No, we need an attorney. This case will have to be continued. MI 2021-002611. 6101 Harley Avenue is
continued must be heard all right I think we are now ready correct me from wrong Tanya we're ready
to go back to uh 1700 block in north 22nd I believe so too okay Mr. Holloman will excuse
himself in this case thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you and Ms. Tenere was not
present at the original hearing uh i'll read the cases into the record again three of them
mi 2021-000242 1720 north 22nd street mi 2021-000784 1744 north 22nd street
and MI 2021-000242.
And MI 2021-000242, 1750 North 22nd Street.
We left off, Ms. Pritzker was the attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Masters is an attorney for the Protestants.
This is a resumption hearing.
I think we left off with Mr. Masters being the next person up,
correct me if i'm wrong um yes mr chair that is correct um we were in the middle of our first
witness when we were asked to adjourn thank you so you uh do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you we already went through all the other issues
about uh stipulation and so forth correct that was in terms of the refusal no i will well we
normally ask, well, that's the applicant. We ask the applicant. I'm sorry. I apologize. You're
protesting. Sorry. Yes. Good morning, members of the board. I have to say, initially, I'm a bit
confused as to Mr. Holloman's recusal. He was an active participant in the first hearing that we
had. And I wasn't aware that he was going to recuse or what the grounds of his recusal are.
Is there something that you could share about that?
Excuse me, sir, you're muted again.
Does Mr. Holloman, Ms. Friedman, does Mr. Holloman have to explain his purpose for recusal?
for whatever reason he felt he needed to to recuse himself i'm not aware of his uh of his
reason for recusal or the fact that he has to um to explain that but he felt it wasn't necessary
to excuse himself typically mr masters uh i think i've recused myself maybe twice once i was asked
to recuse myself because the applicant's attorney in one case thought that one of my clients
would be a conflict which it wasn't at the time but I'm not sure I'm not the lawyer here so I
don't know if we need an explanation he did recuse himself he won't will not be participating in this
hearing and will not be voting on it. No he doesn't have to give an explanation if he felt as though
it was a conflict, that is his right. Thank you, Tanya. Yes, I agree with that. It's just that
it's highly unusual in the middle of a hearing and not at the beginning of a hearing, and that's
why I was asking. We have a, I'm going to share my screen. Our witnesses for the resumption
hearing, we're going to finish with Kayla Franks Jenkins. Our second witness would then
be Mary Jones from Council President Clark's office. And then we have a number of other
witnesses that we will go through as expeditiously as possible. Let me ask you this, Mr. Masters.
You do have an extensive list. And I got in trouble when I proposed this in the past,
but I'll put it out there again anyway. You've got a lot of people. We respect their time
and their willingness and wanting to be a part of this procedure but i would ask that you advise
your those folks in advance that they do not repeat as much as they can do not repeat
testimony that has already been given we are not like city council we cannot put any restriction
on time we understand that but i would ask that you ask as you bring your witnesses up that you
ask them to provide something new and different that would be helpful yes chairman i understand
chairman um this is rachel pritzker um i represent the property owner the applicant i just want to
also make it uh known or important that these witnesses put their address on the record because
this is the 20 this is a 1700 block of north 22nd street and it doesn't seem like any of these
witnesses own property or live on the 1700 block of North 22nd Street. So while I appreciate
the desire to put on extensive testimony, I would be, you know, for the brevity of some of this that
is already, this is now a resumption hearing that we've already discussed, if Mr. Masters to try to
this is now a resumption hearing that we've already discussed if uh mr masters to try to
to keep it relevant.
keep it relevant to the 1700 block of north 22nd street that would be appreciated and
to the issue on the refusal which is uh parking for just nine parking spaces
um mr chair just to just to um uh help um refresh the recollection of of the board on this
The only supporters of this application for variants are developers who purchased lots on the 1700 block of North 22nd Street.
They do not live there. They do not live in the neighborhood. They never made any representations of any connections or ties to the community whatsoever, other than buying a block of property and perhaps flipping it right after they construct it.
So we will be providing with you, for you, a number of individuals who have deep ties to the community, who are community leaders, and who live in very close proximity, because Krosky Street, where most of them live, literally is the back of 20 North 22nd Street.
So their properties are actually bordering the properties that we're talking about.
You can't really get much closer than that.
And we've already established in the first hearing that there's literally no one who lives on 1700 block of North 22nd.
It's basically all vacant lots and there's no dwellings that have been occupied.
The applicant has constructed his buildings, but he has not placed any tenants in them because it's our understanding that he hasn't closed out his building permit. He doesn't have a certificate of occupancy. And that's part of the concern here is that he's basically adjusting and modifying his building permit to incorporate what he hopes to get some variances today.
i'm gonna object to that was that's speculation you don't have a copy of the building permit and
you don't have it reviewed and also there's no amendment to the building permit application
which would be public record with all due respect to well we have testimony on that and i'd like to
proceed i would like to proceed i don't believe that you're mr masters yes mr masters miss pritzker
was making a statement would you let her finish and then we'll get to you miss pritzker i just
wanted to make it clear and I don't even believe that it goes that I have to say this but just
because someone's a developer they are a landowner just as equally as anyone else's and so they
having own owning property on the block does give them standing and doesn't make them any less
important in so far as their ability to have standing or speak in support or on behalf of a
case so um it doesn't matter that they're developers the point was that the people that
mr masters is presenting testimony on the behalf of or that are going to be testifying don't live
on the block and so i appreciate that they feel impacted but i just wanted to make it clear and
that we do have those landowners um who actually own property on the block um here as well to
testify in support of the project. Thank you, Mr. Masters.
You're muted, Mr. Masters. Yes, I got muted. Yes, one of them did testify. That's correct. The other
ones just gave a boilerplate letter with one of them being an illegible signature. So we don't
even know his name. We do know the names of three out of the four because we were able to get
screenshots from the video testimony since Ms. Pritzker, despite repeated requests, has never
provided us with any exhibits. Steve, you've never reached out to me once, so don't perjure yourself
on the record. You've never emailed me asking me for any documentations for this case, so I
completely object to you perjuring yourself on the record and stating that you reached out to me
multiple times. I don't have one email from you. Thank you. We reached out to your co-counsel and
we stated it at the hearing in September. Well, you just said you reached out to me,
which is inaccurate. So make sure. During the hearing. We'll establish that you did not reach
out to Ms. Pritzker. You reached out to her associates. So can we proceed? You're muted
again, Mr. Masters. We are going to be focusing members of the board on the four provisos that
board member Holloman proposed, and they've been endorsed, and you will hear from Council
President Clark and the community. These four provisos were, one, the new concrete sidewalk
is removed on all three properties, and a new concrete sidewalk is poured with a five and a
half inch curb. In other words, the curb cut or the curb depression is removed, and there is a
or the curb depression is removed and there is a full curb put back in front of these properties.
Four trees approved by the City Planning Commission are planted near the sidewalk
curb between each property line on all properties. Five bike racks are installed at the already built
on-site parking spaces on all three properties. So they prepared parking spaces as Mr. Holloman
was able to develop in his questioning with the applicant's witnesses, they prepared parking
spaces even though they didn't have any zoning permit or authority for it, but now they can be
parking spaces for bikes, which don't require curb cuts. And four, complete landscaping recommended
by the Philadelphia Planning Commission on the on-site parking spaces for all three properties.
I'm going to ask Kayla Franks-Jenkins to raise her hand so that she can be sworn in again and continue her testimony.
Before we do that, let me ask, does the court reporter need a break?
Chair, I would appreciate a brief break. Thank you.
Let's take a five-minute break, Steve. Okay, and we'll come back.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
is the court reporter have you returned I have chair and thank you very much
I apologize for a couple of things I'm not hitting on all cylinders today that's for sure
I think I skipped over the case number three
is there any objection Ms. Pritzker and Mr. Masters if we go to another case which should
probably take a few minutes only a couple of minutes uh because we're i mean you got a lot
of you got a lot of witnesses um and i went out of order it was my mistake so if we can i want to
go to case number three uh mi 2021-002578 1609 Ellsworth Street Michael McElhenney is the
attorney of record
East Point Breeze neighbors sent a letter
of support
again I apologize to everyone
skipped over three
is Mr. McElhenney
available
is there anyone for
1609 Ellsworth Street
he's coming in now as a panelist chair
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is Tanya, the Zoning Administrator.
I can speak.
Yes, ma'am.
Mr. McElhenney, we are trying to hear your case, and we're trying to promote you, and it's saying you're declining.
I will allow audio now for you to speak to this case so we can move on.
Thank you.
McElhenney, please spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
you need to unmute yourself good morning members of the board apologies i was having trouble
reconnecting i kept getting a glitch yeah my apologies i skipped over your case
thank you um michael mckelhenny law office of orphanities and toner
here on behalf of the property owner at 1609 ellsworth street the that's coke coco's
please spell your last name it's m-c-i-l-h-i-n-n-e-y you swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed and i should we have a question for you
i'm sorry mrs canary has questions for you
carol you're muted
sir you agreed uh to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? I have. Have you met with RCO and have a letter? We have and we do have the letter. Thank
you. Please proceed. Thank you. And members of the board, if I may share my screen.
Share. As I stated, I'm here today on the behalf of the property owner, Coco's Chicken and Waffles
LLC. As a preliminary matter, we did post the property with the zoning notice. We do have
attached the deed to the subject property showing my client's ownership and tax compliance, which
are at Exhibits 13, 14, and 15 of the package given to the board. We did meet with the East
Point Breeze Neighbors Association on October 20th, and we have received a full letter of support,
which is Exhibit 1 and the Exhibit Packet. Exhibit 2 of the packet is the refusal, which is the
reason we're here today. My client's plan, and let me zoom in so everyone can see, my client's plan
for the subject property is it's an existing structure. We are proposing a partial demolition
of a rear addition and then erection of a new rear addition with a smaller footprint. There
There will be a roof deck access structure and a roof deck on this application.
And the use is for a three family dwelling.
In meeting with the community and prior to meeting with the community, we have actually
changed that from three dwelling units to a request for two dwelling units.
And the reason for the refusal of the property is RSA 5 and the two dwelling units multifamily
creates the refusal.
And the subject property that we're here about is on your screen today. It's Exhibit 3. It's a three-story existing structure. And to orient the board, the subject property is on the north side of 1600 block of Ellsworth, which abuts the industrial properties on the south side of Washington Avenue.
And Exhibit 8 shows the current zoning map. As you can see, to the north are the I-2 industrial
properties. The properties on the 1600 block of Ellsworth are zoned RSA 5, although most of the
uses, the majority of the uses on the block are currently multifamily. I can go back to the
exhibit three the site photos going through the the subject property and the neighboring
properties the 16th and Ellsworth the corner property is a two-family multi multi-family
property 1603 is also a multi-family property with two units going to the west again is a
Going to the west, again, is a duplex on the other side of the subject property.
duplex on the other side of the subject
Thank you.
Continuing down the west side of the block, you'll see there's many pink or purple doors on the existing structures.
Those are all multifamily properties.
They're all owned by a common owner.
The properties were sold off by the city as part of a redevelopment effort back in the 1990s to provide quality, affordable housing in the neighborhood.
And I know the board's had a busy day, so I'll try to go through this more quickly than usual.
Looking at the additional units at the other end of the block, capping off the block, is another two-family dwelling unit.
On the south side of Ellsworth Street is an off-street parking for the properties that front on 16th Street.
And then continuing to the west again are various multifamily properties at 1606, 1608, 1610.
And farther down the block at 1620, 22, and 24, again, are all duplexes.
And looking at page 9 of Exhibit 3, there's a new construction renovation at 1628 that is also multifamily.
and then there is an abandoned property farther down the street on the south side of Ellsworth
Street. The subject property itself is has and I should say my client Jameel Harrison should be in
the room and he'll be able to adopt my statements at the conclusion of this presentation. The
property has been in Jameel Harrison's family for a few generations at this point. He has purchased
from this the estate of a relative and as you can see the property suffered severe water damage
and requires major renovation to bring it back to habitability
we do have a revised zoning plan as part of the presentation and
And that is the original zoning plan, only to remove a front egress well at the front
of the property, a covered basement escape well.
That is not going to be part of the application.
So the revised plan has removed that from the plan.
Otherwise, the plan is the same as was submitted to L&I.
So Exhibit 6 is the revised zoning plan dated October 21st, 2021.
Again, it's the existing three-story structure.
My client will be removing a two-story addition at the rear and a one-story addition at the rear, and then building a new three-story addition that will not encroach into the rear yard as deeply as the existing one-story structure that's there now.
That'll allow the property to have a full 15-foot rear yard, whereas nine feet is required.
The property is fully dimensionally compliant, and the rear of the property does abut an open alleyway that goes out to the east and the west to 16th Street and 17th Street, respectively.
As previously mentioned, the property will have a roof deck as a part of the application.
The floor plans, what my client intends the floor plans to look like is the first unit to consist of the first floor in the basement and the second unit to consist of the second floor and third floor.
the first floor the first unit would end up being a two-bedroom two-bath unit consisting of
approximately 1,000 square feet full kitchen living room dining room in suite laundry services
full amenities to give a high quality living space one of the units my client does intend to
move into and rent out the other the first floor unit does have access to that full backyard which
will provide secure trash storage for the residents. And the second unit is a two-bedroom,
two-and-a-half bath unit, again, living room, dining room with full utilities and laundry
service inside the units. And that comes out to approximately 1,100 square feet or so.
So the proposal is for two dwelling units with sizable units and in keeping with the other uses
on Ellsworth Street. And I did do a summary at Exhibit 10 and 11 of just trying to do a quick
chart of how other properties on the block are currently being used. And as you can see, more
than half the block is multifamily of two units or three units, which makes sense in terms of
abutting the industrial parcels on Washington Avenue. So it's not a multifamily block. And we
would submit that it is a hardship to have to use the subject property as a single family dwelling
where the majority of the properties on the block are multifamily in current use.
where the majority of the properties on the block are multifamily in current use.
And it would be in keeping with the characteristics of that block.
As I mentioned, the RCO did provide us a letter of support.
And the main comment that we did receive from the RCO was to please keep the front of the property intact
because it is a uniform block with cornice lines that extend, which is rare these days with interblock teardowns.
And my client's intention, of course, is to keep that property intact with the cornice line.
With that being said, members of the board, I have no additional information to add at this time.
I would request that I be allowed to bring my client up to adopt the testimony and take any questions from the board.
Please bring your client his name or her name.
His name is Jamil Harrison.
Jamil Harrison, please spell your full name when you get on and I'll swear you win.
can you hear me yes uh jameel harrison j-a-m as in mary e-i-l as in love last name harrison
h-a-r-r-i-s-o-n where we're from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you mr mckelhill mr harrison are you a member of coco's chicken and waffles llc
yes i am and did you hear my presentation that i presented
yes i did and were those statements true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes they were and do you adopt them as your own
excuse me do you adopt those statements as if they were your own oh yes yes i do thank you
any questions from the board no anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission thank you chairman de chico uh the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing single family attached zoning on this block
however the property has a documented history of use as two-family dwelling so the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the variance with the condition that the dwelling
unit count be limited to two units. MI 2021-002578, 1609 Ellsworth Street. My vote is yes.
Was there a revised plan, Mr. McElhinney? There is a revised plan at Exhibit 6.
One page. One page revised plan to remove the front egress well. Okay. So my vote is yes with
The proviso revised plan one page approved today and maximum two units.
Confessor Plaza, yes, we'll provide them.
Tom, Jim, Carroll.
Some technical problem I think we're having.
Ms. Tenere, are you there? Mr. Snell, Mr. Holloman?
they still they're still on the zoom as being logged in yeah i see that
Ms. Tenere, do you know that you are muted?
Errol, if you're there, you're muted.
Jim, you're muted.
We don't see Tom.
um maybe we can ask if they please log out and log back in if they can hear us
jim tom and carol log out then back log back in
jim there i'm on i'm on frank seven no worry i don't know what the heck's going on here
All right.
We took a vote on 1609 Ellsworth Street with the proviso.
Revised plan, one page approved today.
Maximum do you?
Yes, with proviso.
That's three.
We can now proceed back to our earlier case.
Again, I apologize to Mr. Masters and Ms. Pritzker.
to Mr. Masters and Ms. Pritzker.
Ms. Pritzker, the court reporter is telling me
Ms. Pritzker, the court...
that I may not have sworn you in.
So I will swear you in.
And if, just give us your, spell your name
and I'll swear you in.
Sure, can someone enable my video?
It says that I can't start
because the host has stopped it.
Say that again.
Oh, okay.
There you go.
yep it's Rachel I probably failed to swear you went so please do sure it's Rachel R-A-C-H-A-E-L
Pritzker P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R 1635 Market Street Suite 1600 Philadelphia PA 19103 do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and as stated earlier
do you swear that everything you said up to this point is true yes thank you again my apologies to
you and the other folks waiting on the line went out of turn.
Before Mr. Masters starts, we do have one witness that has to leave by 1220.
So I just wanted to see if we could accommodate that in the next 24 minutes.
Yes, we can.
And I will, Tanya, we have a hard time for this.
um chair not necessarily a hard time but i would ask that we not go beyond 12 45 to ensure
all employees get their break yeah that's what okay chair i i was under the impression that
the applicant had rested um and had called all their witnesses and it was our we were now on
the opposition witnesses so i'm not aware of any of any additional witnesses that hadn't been called
Let's proceed with your witnesses, and Ms. Pritzker said later she may need to bring that person on.
We'll be excited at that point.
All right, sure.
I'm asking Kayla Franks-Jenkins to raise her hand.
Again, Mr. Minister, it's not to put pressure on you.
We do have a time constraint.
Well, we had asked Mr. Chair for this to be a dedicated hearing, and that was, I think, stated on the record,
but it ended up being put into the regular list.
And that wasn't our intention.
And our understanding was that we were actually
going to have plenty of time.
Chair, this is Tanya.
I'm sorry.
It was the only way we could accommodate having this hearing.
There is no other time for specials until January.
Just so everybody's clear.
We're fine to proceed again, Mr. Chair.
This is just on the issue of parking.
So maybe Mr. Masters can attempt to limit his witness's testimony to the relevant refusal.
Ms. Pritzker, we understand what your variances are, and that is the focus of this hearing.
But to say that it's just about parking is trivializing both the opposition of the council president and 99 people.
Mr. Masters, not to interrupt. We're having some technical problems.
Everybody froze there for a moment.
Tanya was trying to speak.
She froze.
And we didn't get all of your statement either.
So we are having some significant technical difficulties.
Ms. Sunkit, you wanted to speak?
Oh, I'm sorry, Chair.
I thought it was heard.
I was just letting everyone know that in order to accommodate this hearing, this was the only scheduling and that no specials could be listed until January 2022.
that was why we had to push it into this spot yeah i think you made reference to that uh when
we decided to uh schedule it for today all right let's not belabor that point so mr masters try
again hopefully you will um sure are you able to hear me now mr chair yes okay i i was just saying
that um we of course understand the issues of the variances in this hearing and we um
vehemently disagree with the applicant's counsel's attempt to trivialize the opposition of the
council president, the 99 people who signed the petition, the three RCOs that have come out
against it to say that it's just about parking. We're going to be having testimony as to why this
is a terrible idea on this block, something that Mr. Holloman was able to demonstrate.
I'm going to object to any reference of Mr. Holliman's testimony given he's recused himself and any testimony is provided is now mute.
Well, he doesn't testify, Ms. Pritzker. He's a board member and he engages in-
He has recused himself, Mr. Masters.
He was on the record. We have the transcript from the first hearing.
He has recused himself?
He has, but he was on record from last time we heard the case, yes.
do you want to go you want to go over from the beginning rachel because of no no no no no
Do you want to go over from the beginning, Rachel?
No, no, no, no, no.
see you're eating up the clock you know okay um kayla um franks jenkins are you
Cedar.
are you um has she been elevated to these speakers yes and she can be sworn in now chair
and chair you're muted
it. Mr. Tachiko, can you unmute yourself, please?
There we go. We got you, Frank.
I went out completely. Can you hear me now?
Yes. Yes.
Thank you.
um he probably missed it mr tachico we have someone that you need to swear in
could you speak please ma'am yes my name is caleb franks jenkins
miss jenkins please spell your name k-a-l-a last name is hyphenated it's f-r-a-n-k-s
there's j-e-n-k-i-n-s and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
the truth yes wow mr masters um yes miss um frank jenkins um you testified um to some extent
at the last hearing um and we're just gonna um complete your testimony now um you had testified
previously about the 99 petitions that you that you took around the signatures that you got on
the petitions and uh showed us a bunch of photographs uh talked about the the situation
on on the block um did you have an occasion to speak to an lni inspector over over the summer
about this project yes and do you remember the name of that inspector brian wright and um would
it be correct that you that you reached out to him or spoke to him approximately on the third of
june of 2021 yes and then you had multiple conversations or or communications with him
between june and september of this year yes um can you tell the board um what it is that you
were talking to mr right about and what it is you learned we're not we're not asking you to
say about hearsay we're asking if you would listen to my question rachel then maybe that
would help you with your objections. What I said was, what I asked was, what did you learn after
you communicated with Mr. Wright? And that is not hearsay and that is admissible. It's admissible,
please. The plans that I had asked him about was whether or not what I was seeing at that time was
a driveway. It did not have the finishing that's on there now. He stated to me that the plans that
I had told him, which was the driveway. He said that his plans did not have a driveway. He said
that it was completely closed up and there was no anything that had like a carport or a covered
garage of any sort. And then he told me that they could do this basically right now until they
entered the last stage of inspection. So based on your communications with
L&I Inspector Wright, did you come to a conclusion about what the building plans that were submitted
to L&I, whether they provided for these carports or not on the building plans?
They did not. I was told that what I showed him and what he had was two different things.
He could not provide me the plans because of security issues.
you're talking about the the right to know kind of um yes limitations so um as far as you know
um miss franks jenkins has there been a certificate of occupancy issued for any of
these properties no not that i know of and when miss pricksker had mentioned the patio
that was not even discussed in the rco meeting
um are you how long have you lived um in in this in this neighborhood my whole life 34 years
and did you grow up on on north krosky street yes um and are you familiar or very familiar with
um north 22nd street and cecil b more and the and the septa um buses that travel along those
those routes yes are you aware if there have been any um accidents with septa buses um recently
and have you seen any of them personally?
I did see a septibus, it hit a light pole on the corner of 22nd, it seems to be more.
I've also seen multiple accidents, more or less, on Montgomery and 22nd, and currently
and currently there's potholes and sinkholes on 22nd street
there's potholes in St. Crohn's.
do you um did you uh hear the provisos that i read um in the beginning of today's hearing that
were created by um by board member holliman yes do you support those provisos yes um did you hear
my testimony earlier and did you do you do you adopt it as your own and say that it's true and
correct? Yes. I have no further questions. I'd like to ask Ms. Franks Jenkins a question
briefly. Ms. Jenkins are you an expert in planning? Do you have a background in plan review
traffic engineering traffic planning i'm objecting to this um on the basis of relevance we're not
introducing her testimony as an expert she's a fact you got her on the record talking about
traffic and other issues that could impact her neighborhood we understand she's not an expert
and i don't mean that disrespectfully so i think we'll allow that miss franks jacins can you answer
the question and if you need me to restate it i'm happy to do so no i said no okay um are you uh
and your residence is on crossview street not 22nd correct yes okay i don't have any further
questions okay um second witness i have is mary jones
good afternoon miss jones just identify yourself with the record you're still under oath from
earlier today? She may have to raise her hand to get acknowledged. Oh, there she is. Okay.
Hello, this is Mary Jones, Council President Gerald Clark's office, City Hall, room 494.
uh yes so yes the council president sent a letter um back in may um opposing all of these variances
uh and that um opposition remains um just out of not only does the the community is against this
installing these curb cuts will disrupt the pedestrian right away and jeopardize the safety
of the residents. While no one is disputing the fact that property owners do have standing
in cases like this, obviously residents of the neighborhood are impacted
differently than someone who just merely owns property there. And our office takes very
seriously the concerns of the community and the safety of the residents there, regardless of
whether they happen to live on the actual block. This is a much-used block. It's at the intersection
of Stephen Klein Wellness Center, of MLK Recreation Center, and other major bus lines, such as the 33.
And so people, obviously, more than just whoever lives on this street will be impacted by this
disruption of the sidewalk. Further, the applicant has
um presented no hardship whatsoever to um to justify the granting of this variance
in fact he's built the property so there's no argument that um this variance is creating an
unnecessary excuse me there's no argument that there's any physical circumstances of the land
that makes use of it impossible because they're using it now. And we do also want the
zoning board to take into consideration the neighborhood character and the detriment to
the public welfare that allowing this disruption could cause. And to please take seriously the
people who live there and will be affected by this project. Thank you.
Ms. Jones, I have a couple questions for you.
So you go to many, many RCO meetings since you were the zoning council for the council president,
and you hear many times neighbors complaining about the lack of parking.
and you hear many times neighbors complaining about the lack of parking and and upset about
proposed developments because they don't have parking what is what is it about this project
that um that you that your office and the community um based on the the community folks
that have reached out to you what what is what is the reason why you are so opposed to these parking
spaces um well still speaking on behalf of our office um in this situation there is not being
any there's not any added parking for the neighborhood these parking lots will be for
the residents of these new properties um in fact will take away parking spaces from the general
neighborhood. This is also, again, an intersection where there is two main bus lines. I forget the
one that goes down Cecil B. Moore to Broad Street. So the residents here, residents,
they may have cars, but it's also very easy to get around the city. So this particular corner,
um again with the adjacency to the recreation center where children um come and go to partake
of those services this corner is not good for um this kind of uh parking so is it safe to say that
that that it's the location the specific location of these lots and the location of these driveways
and curb cuts that has the council president so opposed to this and the neighbors so opposed to
this? Yes. There were some of these developers have submitted letters in support and their names
are Joe Quinonez, Emmanuel Ligudakis, and Arum Dotti. Have you been approached by any of them
who have reached out to your office to ask you to support this project?
no no one's been in contact with me or as far as I know our office either to support this project
have you received communications from neighbors and community groups in opposition to the project
yes and I was also present at the RCO meeting for this project it was quite heated and
And this was discussed also in the previous portion of this hearing, where the residents were very clear about what the applicant has the right to do on that property versus what they were asking to do, what they need permission for.
and the um community was not happy um and the way that our office works we respond to
the community's concerns and that's what we've been doing this entire time
I'm gonna um put on the screen the four provisos that um board member Holloman proposed at the
last hearing um and i believe you've you've seen these um before um are these provisos
something that the council president would be in favor of to to allow the developer to maintain
those um those uh parking areas outside of uh of these of these buildings but to reserve
them for bicycles and to restore the the curves um put some landscaping in
So essentially, as long as the community is supportive of this and there are no curb cuts involved, the council president doesn't have any issue with it.
Mr. Ministers, has the community had an opportunity to look over these provisors?
We have, the next few witnesses, Mr. Chair, are going to be the heads of the RCOs and so they can address that.
I'm going to call.
I'd like to ask Mary a few questions,
but I also want to keep in mind that our other witness has to leave in six
minutes. So I wanted to make sure he at least had an opportunity.
I'll ask Ms. Jones and then we'll move on and we'll get your other witness.
Ms. Jones,
did you receive a meeting summary from the RCO for the meeting that was held
on this?
Jones?
Rachel, why don't we move on to the other witness who has to leave.
Oh, here's Ms. Jones.
I think she's back.
Ms. Jones?
You're muted.
Yes, I'm back.
I'm sorry. There you go.
Yep. Ms. Jones, I just had asked if you had received a meeting summary from the RCO after
the RCO meeting?
I've received a letter.
But there was no meeting summary stating how many votes were taken and how many were in
opposition or support, correct?
No, I did not receive a meeting summary.
Okay. Just because we're going to make statements that everybody was in opposition?
we don't have a meeting summary to support that.
And just for the record, I don't have one as well.
So I didn't know if you had received one
and was curious to see if you had.
No, I made that statement based on
the sentiment expressed at the meeting.
And you had mentioned that the meeting was heated.
Could you explain why the meeting was heated
and if all of that had to actually do with parking?
that I think that there was some concern
about the ability of the property owner
to build in the neighborhood,
build extensively without having to come
before the neighborhood.
And I believe that you covered some other issues
in the previous um hearing as well um other other than that i think someone briefly mentioned up the
the case that he had pending with one of the neighbors um and so those are probably the two
things um outside of the actual parking itself that people were upset about right so um it
wouldn't be incorrect to say that some of the energy around the community meeting had to do with
just a developer this developer being able to build by right um and also some uh outside of
the zoning variance issues that are being addressed separate i'm going to object to relevance because
whether there was other concerns that doesn't take away from the fact that they were adamantly
opposed to these parking lots these curb cuts in these driveways and so we're yes there there are
sometimes community meetings where people have other attitudes or other positions, but how is
that relevant to what you want to focus on, Rachel? As you said, you want to focus on the parking,
so let's focus on the parking. Ms. Jones has testified that there was absolute opposition
to these parking... Steve, you're now testifying. You want to put your objection or you want to
testify? Your objection, Steve. My objection was that it's not relevant. You've already said that
the only thing that we're here to talk about is parking so why are you talking about other things
I was making the point that at the community meeting most of what was talked about or the
energy of most of what was talked about does not relate to the actual parking so that any
sort of vote or any discussion at the community meeting while some of it I'm sure has had to do
with parking that's not was not the fatality of it and I just stated Ms. Pritzker the first hearing
that you weren't at the meeting wait but you missed so you stated that you weren't at the
meeting mr young testified as to the meeting so now you're testifying about something that
happened in the meeting that you weren't even at whereas miss jones was at the meeting um and she
just testified i can't get a word out i'm sorry i'm sorry mr masters i'm sorry chair you can
continue yeah you're you're fine no you're fine tanya that's precisely why chairman i was asking
mary about the meeting because i was not at the meeting so i just had asked her at when because
she was at the meeting. She was allowed to ask what took place at that meeting. I wasn't
testifying as to what happened at the meeting as I was asking Mary. The only other question I have
for Ms. Jones is I guess just a real Ms. Jones you had mentioned that this is a well-trafficked block
so you're aware that if 138 units come on this block that it would be an even more well-trafficked
block and that we are providing nine spaces and taking only three parking spaces off the street
as a result of the curb cut. I just want to make sure for you to clarify your statements that this
is a well-trafficed block and if you believe that adding an additional 138 units... I'm objecting
i'm objecting that i have an objection that this is calling for speculation
that you're calling first. I have an objection that this is calling...
that you're giving a hypothetical about how many units are going to come on and how much
hypothetical we have uh there's been documents submitted to the city that are both in you're
asking her to speculate about a hypothetical and that's asking her to clarify her statement
on if it's a heavily traffic street and due to city records that show that 138 units
is in planned development, if she would agree to her statements that it's a heavily traffic block
and the addition of additional units will add to it being a heavily traffic block.
Could you answer that?
Will the addition? Yes. More people will be a heavier traffic block. I don't like, can I,
Are they going to let me talk? Oh, can you hear me? Sorry. Oh, I couldn't tell if I was allowed.
Yes. I agree only to the first statement, not that adding more parking will help that in any way.
Thank you. Okay. And the last question I have for Ms. Jones is just, is there parking? You had
mentioned there was a well-used um wellness facility and rec center and church do those
uh organizations or buildings have parking um i i can't speak to the the off the top of my head
to the rec center or the church but i do know that the well the um wellness center does have
parking in the back for staff, and I know this from personal experience because I used to work
in that building, are the vast, vast majority of the patients arrived on foot. Can you see my
screen, Ms. Jones? Yes. So is that the rec center at the corner there? Yes. Does it have parking?
um from what you're showing me i don't see a parking lot okay thank you um if we could bring
on unless uh if we have some redirect sure steve um miss jones you were at the testify that you
were at the rco meeting correct yes and how would you characterize the community sentiment about the
parking the proposal to have these three parking spaces at each of the properties
uh their the sentiment was they did not want it because they did not see it as adding anything to
the neighborhood um and also just the concerns about the safety and um of of people who are
needing to access who are walking down 22nd street um needing to access uh the rec center
etc there was you know just based on my my best recollection um they did not think it would add
anything to the neighborhood do you recall if there was anyone who spoke up in favor of the
parking spaces at the meeting um no i don't recall would that be something that you would recall
normally um steve i'm gonna object to that that's the point of a meeting summary it's not mary's job
to count votes right yeah well she's there and she's listening could you answer that mary if not
we'll move um generally yes i do i mean in a situation like that where there was all opposition
i do not recall hearing one person speak in favor of it and i would just questions i would just
object to that given the fact that we don't have any written proof of one way or another even how
many people attended the meeting and how many people voted in any kind of a way what's the
basis of that objection she's a fact witness and she was there and she's testified to what she saw
and heard how is that objectionable she's actually giving you an eyewitness account you have to pause
when you ask a question so another person can respond
i think i think the chairman gets the point uh and the board i i don't need to belabor that
further if mr um canonez who has to leave could be promoted to provide his testimony that would be
appreciated i believe uh he should be available
mr canonez please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
i just have a logan kramer with his hands up is that no that's the owner
mr kenyon is his first name joe joseph
Joseph.
I'm not seeing anybody with their name at this time.
All right, let's move on.
And if he comes back on, we'll go right back to him.
Mr. Masters.
I want to start.
Rachel, other than Mr. Quinones, you rest right now for the time being?
uh yeah i'll reserve the right to rebut with additional witnesses chairman thank you mr masters
sure i'd like to call anita franks
well i don't want to listen
i'm gonna submit my time finally mary you're not on mute just so you know
can you ask your witness again to raise their hand
i'm sorry lakeisha what was that mr master witness um can you ask them against and raise
their hand sure um anita franks could you raise your hand in the zoom room
and she's ready to be sworn in chair can you see yes can you hear me
yes miss frank spell your name and i'll swear you in anita franks a-n-i-t-a capital f-r-a-n-k-s
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you mr masters um miss franks can you tell us where you live i live 1717 north
Crosby Street.
And is that
right behind 22nd Street.
And so
are you behind
do you know where the address
of the property on North 22nd that you
might be behind?
I believe 1714.
be one number off.
But they're right back to back with me.
Sorry.
Are you also the block captain for your block?
Yes, I am.
Have you talked to your neighbors about how they feel about this proposal for parking?
I'm going to object. The witness should be only testifying to herself.
Excuse me.
Objection is sustained.
Steve, you know what she has to do.
She can't speak on behalf of other folks.
I wasn't asking her to speak on behalf of other people.
I asked her if she spoke to other people so that she would have information about where her block was since she's the block captain.
I believe that that's a completely proper inquiry because that's her role.
Ms. Franks, do you have a strong position, a strong opinion about this project for zoning variances for these parking spaces?
yes i do i'm against them and and why is that
uh the 1700 block of north krosky street between cecil b moore and montgomery avenue
get the brunt of not only the people in the block but others from the block i am across
directly across the street from 1710 North Croskey Street which is Bentley Hall
seniors seniors living and we all have I have polls and there are and then the
polls do no good for me at times because there are people who come into
the block and they drive and they have the right under the law to bring their cars and
set them there as long as they have handicapped parking. And we have seniors who have to walk
down the street or block the street so they can get their groceries out and they are complaining
out loud and they come to me with their complaints. And what can we do? And now we have the
problem of 22nd street not my words their words what what is the problem on 22nd street in your
view one we're talking about parking for those buildings come that have come up and this you say
nine parking areas. But what happens with the other people who will be living in there?
They're going to come on 20 seconds. They're going to come on to Kroski Street.
they're going to come on to Cecil B. Moore. We're going to be in competition.
They're going to come on to Cecil B. Moore. We're going to be in competition.
The community people who live there, I've lived there since 1978.
So you're talking about people who have longevity there. You're talking about seniors there.
And we are being moved and misplaced with the parking and other things. I have seen cars coming
down 22nd street and hit the garden across the street at 22nd and cecil b more knock down the
poles i every morning i gum around i have to detour and do a snake drive down 22nd street
in order just to get around the corner from my home
so 22nd street is it's really just one lane of traffic is that correct two lanes of parking
one lane for the buses and one lane for traffic one lane for traffic one lane for the buses if
the bus is not there then you're going to try to get over but right now nobody is really trying to
go get in that lane in the bus lane because they are trying to get around the the the chaos of the
ditches or potholes whatever you want to call them and and in competition with the trucks and
if the trucks the vans and the cars they drive their people drive is any indication as to what
we will have to deal with afterwards, we say no. Ms. Franks, I want you to focus, if you can, on
the safety issues around these driveways and curb cuts and the parking, the cars that would be
coming in and out of these driveways on North 22nd Street. What are your concerns about that?
My first concern after us, the seniors that are there, and the community itself, is also the children.
One day, they had so many trucks out there on both sides of the street, angling into perpendicular to 22nd Street itself.
and I stopped my car because there were four young ladies trying to walk to get to the bus
stop at 22nd and Cecil B. Moore and I stopped and I told them go ahead I stopped my car so they
could go past me and go ahead and walk because it was dangerous for them to even walk out in the
street. Have you, um, participated in any meetings, um, with your neighbors about this
project? We have, some have participated on the telephone. Um, we had meetings, the RCO,
I've been to the RCO meetings. Um, I also have participated in, um, uh, Helen Brown's
community we're doing community things for the community and I participated in that and
inadvertently every time up pops what are we going to do about parking how do we how do we get around
that um how do we get what's going to happen with the dumpsters because we have a dumpster out on
Montgomery Avenue? I have no further questions. And it's just the safety issues.
I just cannot even begin. I've talked to you all about it, but you cannot imagine unless you live
around. Thank you. Ms. Pritzker. Yep. Ms. Franks, you mentioned in your testimony that the biggest
concern in these meetings is parking are you stating that uh with these new buildings going
up that you're concerned about where people are going to park and that the current people who
live there including seniors etc are going to have trouble parking or that the parking is going to
overflow on across q street miss franks you have to unmute yourself please
Franks, you need to unmute yourself.
Also, Rachel, your client is ready for...
Yeah, there was a technical difficulty, so he actually is logged in as Logan...
Yeah, there was a technical difficulty, so he actually is logged in as Logan Kramer, but I just wanted to get Mrs. Franks on record as well.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes, ma'am.
Yes, you can now.
Thank you.
Mrs. Franks, did you hear my question or would you like me to repeat it?
No, I don't need you to repeat it.
I heard what you said about the parking.
Yes, I did talk about the parking, but I also talked about us having to walk around finding that parking.
Let me give you an example of why safety is so important.
if it were your mother or your father who had to park around the corner and then try to walk back
to their home safely, would you want that for them? I'm happy to answer that. That's where I'm
talking about. I'm talking about safety. I'm talking about safety for children. I'm talking
about safety for adults i'm talking about franks miss franks miss franks miss franks please uh
chairman because joe has to leave is it okay to pause my questions just to get to him and then i
can uh very quickly and it is now 12 36. let's get your client on uh not your client is that your
client it's not it's mr canonez he just wasn't able to log on and he doesn't know how to change
the name so i'm sure he'll put his name and address on the record chairman thank you mr
canone is please spell your full name and i'll swear you in q u i n o n e s or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr ms pritzker uh joe i know that
you spoke at the last hearing but um i wanted to give you an opportunity um because you own property
on that block and are very familiar with it. I wanted for you to discuss the properties that
you own, the current parking considerations that you have, and also if you could speak to the rec
center on the block and some of the other facilities that were mentioned if you're aware
of them and how parking is or isn't handled for those events. I think, Mr. Chair, because we have
a time issue and i have a number of witnesses and mr quinones has already testified at length
at the last hearing he's a rebuttal witness steve i'm prepared to stipulate that mr quinones believes
that the parking curb cuts that mr kramer wants are are an asset and are proper for the community
we can stipulate to that but i don't see the point of mr quinones continuing to testify where our
witnesses won't be able to testify uh if it's okay i would like to have my voice heard if that's okay
um so with that being said uh rachel you've you've given me a tall order but um
let me properly introduce myself i am an owner on the block
I live in zip code 19132. And to fully introduce myself, I'm also a Temple University graduate
and a eight and a half year veteran of the United States Navy. It's literally the Navy
that brought me to this fine city in 1985. And afterwards, I chose to stay, continue my education,
and then became a real estate investment professional after some years in corporate
America. Let me also say that I kind of came in the middle of this conversation. And so let me
just speak to what I know and what I understand. So looking at this through the lens of a developer
and as a businessman, it seems straightforward to me. The proposed variance, from what I
understand, will give the community a net plus two parking spaces. Let me also say that,
to be quite honest, as an investor developer, I understand how the refusal of such a variance,
which will net two parking spaces for the community can actually destroy a project.
This young man, Logan Kramer, has based his performer on selling out at a particular price.
And that selling out at a particular price is being able to provide the prospective new owner
who will probably add value to the community off-street parking.
an off-street parking. If he can't do that, he'll sell out significantly lower. He could
If he can't do that, he'll sell out significantly lower.
basically lose a ton of money. I know Logan Cramer to be someone that has developed,
oh Lord, at this point, probably hundreds of units in this very same community.
Looking at this through the eyes of a developer, adding units, redeveloping units in this community
is a plus, not a minus. However, I think that my unique position is that I sit at the intersection
between race, community, and politics. And as an African American who has a particular value system,
I never have and I never will go up against the best interests of my community.
I had an opportunity to talk to the community, which I have not been given. I could better
understand the issues and the objections here, but I haven't had that opportunity. Although
I will just for my own edification, get a better understanding of what the community's objections
are. But in the absence of being able to have that conversation and to be able to better understand
what is the heart of these objections because for me just the math I don't quite understand
and so in absence of having that conversation let me just say that in my 35 years as a servant
leader in this community which started when I was a freshman at Temple University I never have
and I never will oppose the best interests of my community which again as I stated in my opening
I live in. Just to clarify one comment you made, Mr. Canonez, you stated that the parking that
we're proposing will be a net positive on spaces for the community. Could you just clarify if you
meant two spaces per building? Because as you may know, we're proposing nine parking spaces
with 24-inch curb cuts, which will only remove less than two cars off the street per building.
So if you could clarify that comment, that's all I have.
Okay. Just as someone that operates in my community as a developer,
based on my assessment, probably about 150 new units are coming to market. So if you want to
talk about losing parking spaces race for shock um especially when the rec center does events
it's going to be like trying to get parking around city hall and so if the net is is that
this project will give a net one parking space for a property then just doing the math it seems
that that would be a good space because that's with three units i guess that would be three
additional parking spaces and again i'm not that familiar with all the facts but just back of the
envelope it seems to me that your project would add a net one parking space for each property
thank you and just because you brought it up um if you could just briefly speak to the rec center
and the events. I know that Ms. Franks also mentioned the rec center. Are you aware that
the rec center has events that bring in individuals outside of the community? And are you aware that
the rec center currently has no parking provided on its property? I'm going to object to that's
been confirmed by the testimony to date. And I don't see any relevance into why Mr. Quinonez
has to testify to that.
We have other witnesses that are going to say new things.
And I know that-
Objection sustained.
Objection sustained.
We're running up against the clock.
We're going to have to continue this case.
There's no other way around it.
Yeah, Rachel?
Chairman, just to be considerate of time,
I think you got the point from Mr. Canones
and you're aware of the outside events at the rec center.
All rec centers have events.
and people from everywhere come to those events so not unusual uh it is now 12 44
uh tanya
i'm here chair uh we're out of time yes chair we're out of time and i'll apologize and take
any uh criticism on behalf of the board uh for those out there who have been waiting we apologize
uh for those out there who have been waiting we apologize we understand sometimes it can be
We understand sometimes.
frustrating but we have rules on our end that we must abide by as it relates to employees
does mr chairman does mr master believe that the additional testimony he's looking to provide is
going to be different than what we've already heard because i don't know and i asked that at
the onset um yeah either way absolutely it will be mr chair because it will be it will be leaders
of the rcos and it will be people we have a representative from the rec center to testify
um so okay so having said that um
tanya we're going to need to have a resumption hearing but bear in mind um i won't be here
yeah you know next wednesday is my last day on the board so i it doesn't work for us chairman
we don't want you to go anywhere unfortunately I gave my resignation in back in July I think it was
so uh in any event I'm only putting that out there so that Tanya understands that
since uh I guess Ms. Tenere was not present at the first one she can I guess it's her choice
review testimony from the first time we had a hearing and that would bring her up to date and
you would have a quorum, even without me.
Yes, Chair.
So if we do a resumption,
it would have to be January the 18th at 9.30 a.m.
So MI-2021, that's 000242, 1720 North 22nd.
MI 2021-000784-1744 North 22nd Street, and MI 2021-000242-1750 North 22nd Street.
This hearing will be resumed on January, what was that date again, Tanya?
January 18th at 9.30 a.m.
So stated.
Thank you.
and again to the folks out there we apologize uh but we have rules and regulations staff needs to
have a break uh thank all of you for attending and i'm sure you'll be back at the next hearing
in january thank you thank you thank you all see everybody back at two o'clock okay okay chair all
variety. Does everybody need a couple of minutes? Nope, everybody's sitting here waiting.
God, you are so efficient, Ms. Sunkett. Good afternoon. My name is Carol Tenere, and for a
while today, I'll be chairing the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's
hearing along with board secretary confessor plaza and board members thomas holliman and james
i went really fast
thomas holliman are you present
present okay our board administrator will also be sitting in but lakeisha today will be the
Administrator. Is that correct, Ms. Zunkit? Yes, Chair. Thank you. Sharon Soleta is our board
attorney. No, Chair. That would be Melissa. I have it right here. Melissa Freeman.
Thank you so much. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our
virtual hearings. That sounds as if I've never participated in one of these hearings, so I
apologize. I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individuals' participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. This is available to the public and also by contacting Tanya Sunkett at tanya.sunkett
at phila.gov. Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine, then star six to unmute yourself. That's star nine, then star six to
unmute yourself. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and leave your email address and address of the property at issue the number again is 267-270-5548
and address of the property at issue.
the question and answer box is not for testimony any comments are to be directed to miss tanya sunkit
or to akisha
If you are an LLC, an LLP, or a religious organization, you must be represented by an attorney.
I have on my paper for the two o'clock list continuances that I'd like to read in, and then I will ask if anybody has any objections to those.
For 2 o'clock, number 5, calendar number 3220-2801 Grant Avenue.
That case is continued.
Number 7, 400 Wolf Street.
Calendar number 3231.
That case is continued.
Calendar number 3235-824-30 Catherine Street.
that case is being withdrawn. Does anyone have any objections to those continuances? If you do,
please raise your hand. Chair, we have Alan Nockmson. Mr. Nockmson, you can meet yourself.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Alan Nockmson of Nockmson, PC.
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Thank you. Do you spare a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you can move forward.
Number seven.
400 Wolf Street.
So this isn't a matter where we have the community meeting next week.
It's a non-controversial matter.
It's form over substance.
So I would like to just present the matter, wait for the letter from the community group,
and then, you know, obviously the board would hold it under advisement until then.
Unfortunately, we need the letter first.
Really?
You need it. So this case is calendar number 3231 is continued.
Does anybody else have any objections?
Chair, we have a call-in user.
Call-in user, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Thank you, Lakisha.
Is the call-in...
Call-in user press 6, I believe, to unmute yourself.
Okay, Chair, I guess we can move forward.
Does anyone have any requests for continuances or withdrawals?
We have Allen Knuckleson again, Chair.
Mr. Knuckleson, can I unmute yourself?
Hi Alan, you're already sworn in. Yep, 622 North Shedwick Street we would ask for a continuance.
What number? Okay, that's number nine. Calendar number 3233, 622 North Shedwick Street,
there's a request for a continuance. Is anyone opposed to that?
and would you like to comment on it please raise your virtual hand
no hands at this time chair okay great thank you thank you mr knockamson
i'm going to try this calling user one more time um calling user and then in 4969 please unmute
Please unmute yourself.
yourself.
Call the user test six.
Hello, this is Stephen Russell.
Can you speak a little bit louder, sir?
Yes, my name is Stephen Russell.
i'm at that's my ending in a telephone number 4969 okay uh sir can you spell your last name
r-u-s-s-e-l-l do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do okay you may um speak
i mean what i can't hear you you may speak to a continuance oh no i'm good i'm listening
so why are you calling in because i'm i'm going to support the project that's going on with okay
well we're we're just taking continuances thanks thank you um whoever did that yes you can continue
Chair. So are we ready to begin the regular list? Yes, Chair, we're ready. Thank you,
Ms. Sunkett. Calendar number 3232, 1100 Pine Street. The attorney is Alan Ockamson.
And he's coming in now as a panelist. Okay.
Thank you.
Good afternoon again.
Hi. You're already sworn in, but put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, 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, we have a letter of non-opposition.
Thanks. You may proceed.
May I share my screen?
So I do apologize. My internet is rather slow and lagging behind.
so today there's a lot of prissy problems happening so we understand yeah and it's a
rather large packet but i'm going to try to keep it really simple uh so in front of you is 1100
pine street uh along with me is uh gabe deck of gnome architecture who's the architect for the
project as well as the owner's representative for the project leonard till uh who will adopt my
testimony as you can see we're at the corner 11th and pine this is the rendering of the property
It's a very handsome-looking property that we propose to build.
We propose to build a four-story structure, brick facade, kind of matching the scale of what's around there in the 1100 block.
What you'll see in our presentation package is our notice of refusal or letters of non-opposition,
both from the coordinating RCO and from the district council member, maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area,
our plans and drawings, proof that we sent the RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal,
our deed to the property, and a Certificate of Tax Clearance.
There's only two refusals here. This is CMX1 property. We're looking to put it as a mixed-use
building, five residential units with commercial on the ground floor and in the lower level.
Our two refusals are as follows. One is we're adjacent to RSA 5, so we are getting a use refusal given the size of the property. We're looking to put five residential dwellings here. And the second refusal is the height. We're proposing to put 45 feet where 38 feet is allowed.
Just as an aside, my client purchased this property before they changed the affordable housing bonus program in Philadelphia.
When he was in the process of purchasing this property, he was building this project.
When he was in the process of purchasing this property, he was building this project.
And under the old program, he would have been allowed to do this as of right by availing himself of the program.
And the reason why we're here for variance is because he's not allowed under the current program.
So nothing that he's doing is out of character for what he was purchasing the property for.
He actually relied on his acquisition based on what he was going to be allowed under that version of the Philadelphia zoning code.
But, you know, we did meet with the community.
As you can see, it was unanimous in non-opposition to this project.
They were very enthusiastic, especially how we contextually, like, took what was around there and applied it to our property as well.
But, you know, there's a long letter.
there are two provisos um one i think is enforceable one is not enforceable uh the one
enforceable proviso is to have a trash room location and access per plans presented on
september 28th you'll see those same plans like we have a trash room in the rear so we did revise
our plans for the community meeting and we have these same plans in front of the zba the second
proviso is short-term rentals or airbnbs are to be prohibited on a property as you know the board
knows that classification is visitor accommodation and that if we were going to use this as a
short-term rental or Airbnb, we would have to come back in front of this board for additional
approvals. So we have no objection to the first proviso in terms of the trash room because that's
where we're putting it anyway, as you can see from our drawings. The second one, I don't think
it's enforceable because we're not asking for visitor accommodations. And if we did ask for it,
would have to come and find this board again. Our letter of non-opposition from Mark Squilla.
We also have that. It refers to the WASH WASH letter in non-opposition with the provisors.
That is correct. That is correct. And then you get to see we're on the historic part of
Philadelphia, you know, 1100 Pine Street. You know, when I first moved to Philadelphia,
I didn't live far from here, beautiful part of town. And we're excited about putting something
that would kind of fit within you know what you would think of that part of town this is the
current condition the property is a two-story structure uh you know the side of the property
from south 11th street uh pine street to the right of the property um you can see these arches in the
in the photograph you'll see that we mimic that in our own design uh pine tree to the left of our
property uh south 11th to the right of the property
and south uh 11th to left of the property and then our plans and drawings
um okay there we go uh again this is what we presented to the community this is what you
saw on the front page again our arches kind of mimic what is um in the neighborhood as you can
see across the street even. The 45 feet in height is that fourth story but it's set back in the
front and on the side as well and you know given the metal cladding that we put in there we tried
to diffuse or soften that fourth floor as much as possible. And then just the rendering from
South 11th Street again completely brick facade something that you would you know think of when
you're thinking about pine street in this part of the city and then just more renderings
but again we try to keep the scale of the building matching the roof lines except for the fourth
floor which we would which we are proposing to set back again this would be allowed would have
been allowed under the old version of the affordable housing bonus corner of you know
where we get nearby properties where we contextually get some of what we're we're thinking about but
with a modern twist and then you know you see maps of the area which i had in my presentation
materials more pictures does the board have any questions
no no i can stop sharing if you want so i do have leonard till um who's the owner of the property
Mr. Hill, can you virtually raise your hand so you can adopt my testimony?
Mr. Hill, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Sure. Can you hear me?
Yes, I can hear you. Can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name,
and then i'll swear you in my name is leonard hill you said spell it you said is that what you said
My name is Leonard Hill. You said spell it, you said? Is that what you said?
Yes, please.
I'm sorry.
That's for the sports stenographer.
Sure. Leonard Hill, first name Leonard, L-E-O-N-A-R-D, last name Hill, H-I-L-L.
Address? I'm sorry.
That's okay. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
okay you may proceed mr knockinson yes mr hill you heard everything i stated today
i did is it true and correct yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes
thank you uh we also again if needed have uh gabe deck the architect
for this project as well if any questions need to be uh answered
i don't think the board has any questions no madam chair no okay planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission my last name is spelled
b as in boy a as an apple r as in roger n as in nancy a as an apple r as in roger d as in dog
thank you so much i like that do you swear we're firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do chair great okay you may proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed use at this location however we feel the applicant has demonstrated
sufficient hardship for the use however we do not feel that they have demonstrated a hardship
for the requested height accordingly the planning commission recommends that the board grant the
variance for news but not the variance for hype. Madam Chair, this is Tanya. May I mention that
there's someone waiting to testify regarding this project? Okay, great. Can that person please
hit star nine and then star six to unmute yourself?
It was Mr. Deck. Mr. Deck, were you still interested in testifying?
i guess not sure you can move on thank you very kindly for your indulgence oh thank you
okay calendar number three two three two eleven hundred pine street my vote is yes
confessor plaza yes and wait wait what's happening professor
the um proviso is the duration of rentals or to be at least one month and trash stored
in the rear of the property is that where the trash was going to be stored that's correct um
madam chair i again i would defer to council but i don't know if uh if it's necessary to have that
proviso in terms of the one-month rental, because that would fall under then visitor accommodations.
Madam Chair, this is Tanya again, and I'm going to ask Melissa for her assistance, but
I do believe it was discussed this morning that we were going to err away from that particular
proviso. So we're not using that proviso at all? We did talk about that, and my understanding was
that it can have a proviso of a short-term rental of at least one month or whatever duration
you want, but it just had to be specific. So having a proviso with the duration of
rentals at least one month, is that not specific enough? That was determined at the meeting
that that was specific. Correct, Tanya? Your understanding is that we were trying to get
away from that but i thought that was okay okay we can go with it and if not mr knockison will
reach back out to us i'm not sure okay thank you and trash stored um behind the building
no it's it's inside in the rear there's an actual room in the rear okay trash the trash
stored inside of the building sorry for the confusion confessor plaza yes with proviso
James Snell yes with proviso. Thomas Holliman yes with proviso. Thank you. Calendar number
3211-1439 West Venango Street. The attorney is Steve Bertil. Thanks Melissa.
He's coming in now as a panelist. Okay.
Thank you.
good afternoon madam chair hi mr bertill can you put your name and address on the record
spell your last name and i'll swear you in absolutely steve bertill b-e-r-t-i-l
claire harrison harvey and bransburg uh 1835 market street suite uh 1400 philadelphia pa
19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, 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 of the above.
okay great you may proceed thank you thank you very much i'll start sharing my screen
is the board seeing a presentation there housing choice program yes yes okay
um good afternoon again as i stated my name is steve bertill um i represent uh mr alex
were Wilson Luis Luciana doing business as Brotherly Love Investments for this variance
request for 1439 Venango Street. Brotherly Love Investments are a small local minority
owned real estate investment company that specializes in mixed income multifamily
properties in Philadelphia. Particularly, they participate in the Philadelphia Housing Authority
low-income housing voucher program. In fact, one of the units in the proposed project will be in
that program. More on that a little later. The program itself is designed to improve the living
conditions of low-income families while maintaining rents at an affordable level.
The intent is to promote housing choice and integrate lower-income and minority families
into mainstream society. And it also provides an incentive for private owners and investors,
such as the applicants by offering assistance with payments, helping them get access to a pool
of families, and ensure regular inspections of the upkeep of the property. We're seeking a
variance approval to convert a property that has historically been a four-unit building into a
three-unit triplex. As I just referenced, one of the three units will be subsidized affordable
housing through this program. Now, as participants, the applicants have gone through extensive
training as responsible landlords and good neighbors. And so I just wanted to highlight
that as the context of what we're proposing to do here in the context of their overall
business approach. Now the property in question is 1439 Venango Street, as you can see here
highlighted in blue. It is situated on the 1400 block of Venango Street with Broad Street to the
I guess that's east and 15th Street to the west. This is 15th Street here and this is Broad Street
here, and that's the subject property. As I stated, the property has historically been
a four-unit building since the 1950s, more than a moment, but it's currently vacant due to a fire
that took place previous to the applicant's ownership. The prior owner did start rehabilitating
the property post-vacancy, so once the applicants acquired the property, the interior was already
framed out as a triplex, including load-bearing walls. In addition to wanting to do family-sized
units, this is a physical hardship and part of the reason why we're proposing to reduce
the density from 4 units to 3 units. Just so you get a sense of the interior. Actually,
before I jump here. This is just another area, so you get a more sort of 3D view of the block.
This is the property here. You see it's a residential block with a large church on the
corner. This is the street frontage. It's this vacant property to the left. You can see a little
bit of the framing from the exterior, but I'll have interior photos in a second.
Here are photos of the interior framing that was done.
That's already in place.
As you can see, it's framed at every level here, including load-bearing, just to give
the context of the updated framing. That's the last one there. So the refusal that we have
is because the property itself is zoned as RSA 5. There's actually no record of this property
ever being used a single family. It's only been used as multifamily or vacant. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the comprehensive plan proposes a zoning change actually to the entire block, not just this property, to RM1.
I obviously can't speak for the planning department, but I assume part of the reason is because this property and the rest of the block has basically been multifamily for over half a century.
But for the purposes of our presentation, let's start with the zoning history of the subject property.
As you can see here, with this zoning permit dated 1955, that this property has been approved and used as a four-unit structure since 1955 up until the vacancy.
And prior to 1955, the property was a triplex with three units.
And so essentially we're trying or we're attempting to bring this property back to the pre-1955 used as a triplex, as opposed to the quad, I guess, for lack of a better term, that it was since 1955 and up until the fire that took place created the vacancy.
so in terms of the area context that we're dealing with here um the not the the history of this
property is not unique the entire block has a similar history that i want to reference um just
for the sake of context and um understanding of the board um our address is 1439 venangle street
So every property that I'm referencing now, it's on this block. So 1429, Venango Street has been a duplex and approved as a duplex since 1992. As you can see here, 1420, excuse me, that's 1426. 1425 is actually a five unit building that's been approved as a five unit building since the 1950s. Here's a certificate of occupancy for that property.
1427 is a three-unit building since 1962 and so on and so on notably I do want to highlight a few
more that I think that are relevant 1433 through 1435 have all been triplexes since the 70s and
before the 70s they were five-unit buildings and so they went from a reduction in density for five
units to three units. Interestingly enough, prior to the 50s in Philadelphia, there was this
designation of housekeeping units versus non-housekeeping units. And that's why you
have, you may wonder, like, how do they have such high density counts in terms of five, six unit
buildings in these structures? It's because some of the non-housekeeping units were a little bit
smaller. Excuse me, some of the housekeeping units were a little bit smaller, as you would
imagine the non-housekeeping units that trend obviously started to change over time um in terms
of living housekeepers became less prevalent um and therefore some of these higher units that were
higher density buildings that were like five units got converted into traditional residential
units such as three units um 1435 which is two doors down was actually recently approved uh by
the board earlier this year for an identical proposal, a three-unit building.
In that case, they actually were approved to demolish the structure and rebuild it as a
three-unit building. In our case, we don't need to demolish it. It's already been structurally
made safe and sound and been framed out as a triplex. And so all, if not most, of the work
interior outside of cosmetic on the exterior, but we don't have to do any structural demolitions for
our project. It is also my understanding that the RCO in this case supported this particular
variance earlier this year. I'm not sure what about our project is distinct in any way. The
only difference that I could find is that our project doesn't require full demolition
our project doesn't require full demolition and incorporates affordable housing, two things that
and incorporates affordable housing, two things.
I would assume are positive. And so hearing that the property itself has historically been
multifamily, and in fact what we're seeking to do is a reduction in the historic use,
and hearing that the area is essentially entirely multifamily in this block and across the street,
I guess the natural next question is, well, how does it fit within the comprehensive plan?
Upon review of the comprehensive plan, as you can see here, you can see that the city and the
planning commission is proposing a zoning change to RM1 for this entire block. Let me zoom in here
so you can see. This E section here is where our property is located. And let me zoom in a little
bit more you see where the sort of this orange block on both sides this is venango street this
is broad our property sits on this block here as i showed earlier um in the orange that you see is
the proposed zoning to residential multi-family um at minimum rm1 uh i guess at maximum arm four
now under the minimum residential multi-family um district arm one uh our proposed
use would be as of right by right. In fact, we would be able to do four units by right
under the RM1 designation. But again, we're not seeking to do four units. We're seeking
to reduce the historic use of this property from four to three. Just so you get a sense
of the floor plan. As I stated, we're seeking to do three units. Unit one is a two-bedroom,
one-bath unit. Unit two and three are both four bedrooms, two baths. Again, the intention
here is families. Both unit two and unit three are bi-level. As you can see, the entirety
of unit one is to the left here in this basement entry and unit two, the entire first floor is
unit two and half of the second floor. So it's a bi-level apartment. And then it's the identical
situation just in reverse, excuse me, going from the second to the third floor for unit three.
and so although the entire although this property and the entire block has been multifamily since
the 50s some much before the 50s and the proposed variance is a reduction in density
uh to what's historically been there um brotherly love investments bli prides themselves on making
um positive community impacts as part of their model and thought it was important to talk
directly to the neighbors on the block about their proposed project. I'm pleased to report
that the immediate neighbors support this project, some of whom I believe are on the
call today to testify. Brotherly Love Investments was able to obtain over 20 signatures of support
from immediate neighbors that either live on the block or on the block cluster that the property
is placed on or across the street. I will say that the demographics of the community are such
that there are many elderly individuals who could not necessarily navigate accessing the
community meeting. Therefore, we end up actually having to have two community meetings with the
RCO, Nicetown, and Tioga Approvement Team. The first meeting we attended, essentially no one
attended. That was outside of the RCO board. And so they didn't have enough of a quorum to even
take a vote. That sort of speaks to, you know, the difficulty of being able to get
community members to access it. And then so we scheduled a second meeting, presenting the project
again. To our surprise, after the second meeting, the RCO took a position of opposition. The votes,
as they did do a roll call, and the votes were from residents that were further away from the
property than most nearby neighbors who have had the trouble accessing and unfortunately their
support of the project was a little overshadowed because of that they weren't able to actually call
on and speak um for themselves we were just we were forced to have to represent their position
which I under you know I understand that at an RCO meeting that you know that's kind of taken
with a grain of salt um by the organizations and so they were kind of had to go with with who's
there. I would like to reiterate that our signatures of support double the amount of
double the amount of people who even attended the meeting. As for where those signatures are from,
people who even attended the meeting as for
because that's the natural next question, every one of our signatures are either on the block
cluster that the property sits. Actually, let me bring it up. It'll be easier to show you than tell
you. Every one of our signatures are on this block cluster or across the street. So that includes
Venengo, this is Lennox here, this is 15th, and this is a Carlisle here. And so every one of our
signatures are on this block cluster or across the street on Carlisle or further down here on 15th.
And so these are the people that are the most directly affected. These are the people that
would have to deal with any issues that would arise from a residential property. Now,
they all live near residential properties anyway, as I stated, because literally every house on this
block is multifamily. So in conclusion, the proposed variance is one, a reduction of the
historic use of the property, because we're going from four units to three units. Two,
it squarely fits within the character and context of the entire block, as this has been multifamily
for frankly longer than I've been alive. Three, it supports the comprehensive plan of the city
and planning department, and probably maybe most importantly, the most immediate and near-adjacent
neighbors support the project. And just as I add on, this board recently approved an identical
application two doors down that was less de minimis than us because they require actual
full demolition. And lastly, just for the sake of the record, there is a hardship here. It's a
physical hardship due to the physical condition of the property that they did not create, I want
to reiterate. The property itself is already framed as a triplex, and to have to go in and
literally tear out framing, which includes load-bearing walls, is a hardship. And so for
all these reasons, we respectfully request that the board grants our variance. If the board doesn't
have any questions. Well, let me ask if the board has any questions. If not, I'll ask if Alex Robles
from Brotherly Love Investments could raise his hand and be recognized to adopt and affirm my
testimony. Does the board have any questions? No, Madam Chair. No. No. Thank you. Okay, can you get
your client so he can adopt your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It should be Alex Robles or
maybe it's Luis. Good afternoon. This is Alex Robles and I, sorry, repeat it for me.
Yes, we can hear you. Just wait to be sworn in, Alex. Hi, can you put your name on the record
and please spell your last name sure my name is alex robles and that's r o b as in boy l e s
thank you do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
okay you may proceed okay mr chair sure uh alex did you hear the testimony that i provided to
the board this afternoon yes i did do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
And is there anything you feel like you need to add to the record?
No, I feel like you summarized everything.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission?
And Chair, we do have people with their hand up.
Yeah, I strike what I said.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to testify?
And Ms. Phillips, you can unmute yourself and wait for the Chair.
Ms. Phillips yes ma'am can you hear me I'm sorry can you hear me yes ma'am okay hi Ms. Phillips can
you put your name on the record and spell your last name for the court stenographer and then I'll
swear you in. Yes, Antoinette Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S. Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, you may proceed. Okay, first of all, I was at the RCO
meeting last month and our community voted no for the overuse of the property. It is zoned for RSA
It is zoned for RSA family, and it's overuse of property with 10 bedrooms and a property that's for a single-family home.
family and
And also, there are other houses on that block that are single-family homes.
I live in the 1500 block of Vidango Street, and I was at both of the meetings.
And we, as our community, said no because of overuse of the property.
Okay, is there another witness who would like to speak?
Yes, Chair, we have Mr. Louise.
Yes, I am here.
Okay, can you put your name on the record, and can you spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in.
Yes, Luis Luciano, and then my name's spelled L-U-I-S-L-U-C-I-A-N-O.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
I am part of the applicants and I'm obviously in support of 1439 West Fendango
project. Okay, great. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, we have Ms. Young. Ms. Young, you can unmute yourself.
denise young you can unmute yourself
yes good afternoon good afternoon can you put your name on the record spell your last name
and then i'll swear you in yes my name is denise young y-o-u-n-g
do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed and tell us what your thoughts are about this application.
Okay, I was also at both meetings, and the community stood firm 13 to 2 against this project.
One of the big objections is the digging up of the front of the property to make a basement entrance for an apartment.
Also, we were rejecting the overuse of the apartments.
10 bedrooms is excessive in our community.
We don't want our community to become overrun with multifamily housing.
We are a community of houses that are owner-occupied.
Almost all of the houses in our community are over-occupied.
And I'm also questioning all of these signatures because those people had an opportunity.
to come to two community meetings, and they were not there.
We were there.
Excuse me.
Are you saying that the homes there are over-occupied or owner-occupied?
A lot of the homes, most of the homes are owner-occupied.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
But you can continue.
we uh we just reject the overuse 10 bedrooms in a house that size is excessive and we just um
as a community we rejected the overuse and we would like our wishes to be considered by the
board we took a vote the vote was 13 to 2. thank you thank you and i'm sure just for the record
I just want to correct something. There was only one vote taken at the second meeting because only
one person attended the first meeting. In the second meeting it was 11 to 1 and that's the
only vote that was taken so I'm not really sure. It was 13 to 2. If the chair would like I could
I could share actually are you seeing this the letter of opposition on the screen?
yes this is the letter from the rco so it was 11-1 right just for the just for the record um and
So it was 11.1. Right, just for the just for the record. And, you know, for the sake of time, I didn't go through every property. I mean, in terms of the actual use of those properties that because I anticipated that would be a reference because I know it's a common sort of point of contention to maintain single family housing and communities throughout the city.
You know, I only went through about seven or eight of them, but, you know, I have about 10 more that I can go through on this, on the same block that are all, they're all multifamily and they've been so, as I stated, most of them since the 50s, some 70s, but for the grand majority of it, it's been since the 40s and 50s.
And the ones that had any records of approval before the 50s were actually higher density because they were essentially rooming houses because they had these living quarters for, I guess, housekeepers, for lack of a better term.
And so in terms of this property specifically, what we're proposing is a reduction in the density.
The four, you know, I know people keep stating 10 beds, but the three units, the intention here is to be a family size unit.
And that's exactly how the applicant is able to participate in these housing choice of voucher programs for the affordable housing because that's what they need the most.
That's what it's hardest for them to place, to be able to place families that are seeking affordable housing because there just isn't enough available.
And so it's not only, I think, support city policy, but the housing authority is something that they've communicated to the landlords that are participating in their program.
Like, look, we're trying to find homes for families.
And so that's the intention here.
Okay. Does the board have any more questions?
No, Madam Chair.
I think there may be more.
Do you think there are more people in the virtual audience?
I believe so.
Yes, Chair. We have Gregory.
Mr. Gregory, you can unmute yourself.
sir can you hear me
if we could just remind people to press star six maybe now
we had the same issue with the community meetings it's just no that's only for a phone call
he just has to press unmute star six is four if you're on the phone sir if you can't unmute we
are moving on i did i did unmute do you hear me now uh we can hear you now can you put your name
on the record spell your last name and i will swear you in my name is gregory brought my last
name is b-r-o-u-t-h-t-o-n thank you do you agree to wave the read and strike that do you swear
from to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You may proceed.
My name is Gregory Broughton and I live at 1437 West Benangelo Street which is adjacent to the
building and we're speaking on 1439. It's been vacant for quite a moment. I've been living on
this block for four years and it's been empty 40 years or better prior to me arriving on this block.
I approve of this situation myself I need I need some I need for it to be done because it will help
my building as well I've been here for a while and it's been vacant for a while as well as the
building 1435 and I support the project because I need we need improvement on the plot
thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience
yes chair we have eva
miss eva miss eva you can unmute yourself okay um eva eva can you put your name on the record
and spell your last name and i will swear you in i thought i did i just typed it in
where do you want me to put it under chat can you speak can you hear me yes i can
Okay, tell me your name and spell your last name.
Eve Williams, W-I-L-O-I-A-M-S.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
I sure do.
Okay. You may proceed.
I live in the area and I've noticed this building has been down for a long time. As long as I've lived in the area, I do caregiving there. I live in and do part-time work at Temple Hospital.
Let me interrupt you. Can you put your address on the record?
I did. I put it there.
What, can you say it again?
1425 East Van Angle.
Okay, and how far is it from this project?
It's on the same block.
And I think that this, I totally am for this building
because a lot of my coworkers,
they do look for rooms to rent that are near the job,
right in the area by temple.
Also, I think that it would be a convenient thing to do.
I am for it.
Thank you.
Thanks for taking the time.
And no more hands, Chair.
Okay, I'm gonna go to Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends multifamily
residential at this location and has not yet been remapped. Additionally, this proposal
advances the comprehensive plan's goal of increasing density and close proximity to
public transportation. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the
variance.
okay um we have a letter in opposition from nicetown tioga improvement team
and councilwoman bass uh opposes this calendar number three two one one
1439 west venango street my vote is no professor plaza my vote is no
James Snell. My vote is no.
Thomas Harleman. My vote is yes.
Calendar number 3230-2339, North 10th Street.
The attorney is Alan Nockramson.
And we have Clemente Amazon coming in as a panelist now.
Great.
Good afternoon, Amanda.
Hi, Clementa.
Can you put your name and address on the record, and then I will swear you in and spell your
last name?
Of course.
Clementa, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name A-M-A-Z-A-N, address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600
800-191-09. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Do you 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,
copy of the 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, in all respects.
Thank you, you may proceed.
Of course, Alan will actually be presenting this project.
As it turns out, I'm having better luck
when it comes to technical support.
So I'm just going to be sharing the screen
and he'll be presenting this.
Okay, great.
Mr. Nockamson.
something is going on yes he's coming in now there's a pan of it okay
it's just not letting me promote
uh can you hear me i can hear you mr notkinson
you're still under it all right yes I'm actually going to be sitting on Clementa's my computer is
all messed up so I do apologize for that uh so and for some reason I'm sorry we're not able to
promote you no there's something wacky going on with my computer and so if you wish you could
just speak through it if that's okay yeah exactly I'm going to go through Clementa's so I do
apologize so um i'm going to go through this i'm gonna let's see so 23
um i'm going to go through this let's see so 2339 north 10th street you're going to see uh
our table of contents which is the notice of refusal a letter of support from the 37th
ward executive democratic committee i would say that they unanimously supported this
uh permit uh for a nearby property with similar support and approval by this board maps of the
area photographs of the property in the surrounding area i would point out that we had a photograph
that we saw on google earth in 2007 or 8 which showed that the property even though this is a
cmx property it showed when it was a where there was a building structure it was full residential
and that's what we're trying to do here uh plans and drawings um our meeting notice showing that
we had our community meeting oops uh deed to the application for appeal deed to the property and
certificate of tax clearance. I also have Bill Archer on the line, the owner's representative,
who will adopt my testimony. So first things first is our notice of refusal. This is a CMX2
property. All we're looking to do is swap out the commercial component with the residential component.
Three units are allowed as of right, but one of them need to be commercial. This is not a commercial
part of town. At least this street, we're nearby a commercial corridor on Germantown Avenue,
and the neighborhood wants to create the density to help support that commercial corridor
by giving residential support. Our letter of support from the 37th Democratic Ward. As you
can see, six people attended that meeting, all in support of it, including their executive board.
so attendees as well as their executive board support this project permit of uh that shows that
2316 north 10th street which is not too far away received support from this board as well as the
community you can see a zoning permit has just been issued this is a cmx2 property which allowed
for five residential units and eliminated commercial component again north 10th street
Well, we've been told by this community is that they want residential solely and then to have Germantown as their commercial portland.
Oops, sorry.
Maps of the area showing that, you know, we're orange all around other than CMX2 here.
but again this is more of a commercial area so we believe that you know again it supports
the commercial corridor in germantown area google map showing where we are in relation to germantown
avenue and then photographs of the property it's a little bit smaller but you know we're baking lots
we are not on the corner we're just one off you can see north 10th to the right of the property
again residential nature north 10 to the left of the property a lot of vacant lots though
this is our property 2339 north 10th street in 2007 as you can see this is a three-story brick
facade we're trying to replicate that by you know with our um with our design so our plans and
drawings. So, as you can see here, we have a brick facade. We're looking to put three
units here. So, you come through the first floor, you have a vestibule where you can
go have the first floor unit which is the first floor and lower level you go up a flight of steps
the second floor it's its own unit
and then the third floor the fourth floor are bi-level
and this is just proof of our mailing of our notice
we sent out to community so we had a well-attended community meeting on october 18th at 5 p.m
and again we had unanimous support we sent that notice out to 172 residents
within a 250 square foot radius with that being said i mean we have a certificate of tax clearance
or PLRD to the property, I would like my client, Bill Archer, the owner's representative,
the owner's representative to adopt my testimony and then you know we can
to adopt my testimony, and then we can answer anything.
answer any questions the board may have. That sounds good.
Mr. Archer?
Or it could be Robert. Hi Mr. Archer.
I'm not seeing. It could be it could also be a Mr. Dewey as well.
And Mr. Dewey's, um.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, can you put your name on the record and can you spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, it's Robert Dewey, D-E-W-E-Y.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Dewey, you heard everything I stated today.
yes i did and is it true and correct yes it is and do you adopt it as your own testament
i do thank you does the board have any questions no better no is there anyone in the virtual
audience with any comments questions
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use at this location
we feel the proposal represents an overuse additionally there is no hardship for regularly
sized or shaped lots accordingly the planning commission recommends the board deny the variance
okay calendar number 3230-2339 north 10th street my vote is yes
confessor plaza my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
thank you calendar three two um mr de chico are you back
okay calendar number three two three four twenty five forty septiva street
alan knockamson uh yes that's me again okay again okay put your name and address on the
records. Fill your last name. You're still under oath. Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nochamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N,
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19109. Thank you. Do you agree to wait the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the 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 uh yes we do in all respects okay thank you you may proceed all right i'm going to
share my screen if you do not mind and i'd like to put on the record that the old richmond civic
Association has sent in a letter of opposition and Councilman Squilla has sent in a letter of
opposition. That is correct. Although I would say that you'll see from our presentation materials
this is a rather benign property or project. We're not looking to increase density. We actually made
inroads with the people who would be most directly impacted on that block and the individuals that
did attend the meeting. We have made good faith efforts to reach them. And for whatever reason,
they have not reciprocated. I don't know if they're online, but we would like to find out
what their issues are, which I believe are non-zoning related. So we're 2540 Sephiva Street.
We're a two-story structure. And it's a single family, you know, RSA 5. All we're trying to do
is put a third story on and this is you know really a situation where we do have an undue
hardship because we're trying to put a third story structure um as as it pertains to this property
and we can't because if we had to comply with the code we would not have a functional floor
plan on the third floor so from this a legal standpoint we're asking the board for for zoning
bearings. You'll see in our table of contents, our notice of refusal, correspondence from Old
Richmond Civic Association, correspondence from Councilman Mark F. Squilla, our petition,
our letter of support from the nearby neighbor. So we actually have a letter from the nearby
neighbor at 2542. My understanding is that we, although we personally could not get a hold of
My understanding is that although we personally could not get a hold of 2538 from our conversations with 2542, it does not seem that 2538 has any opposition, but we have not heard from them directly.
And then correspondence from Anjali Patel, the owner's representative, showing that we have made good faith efforts to actually, you know, reach out to the three individuals who were at that community meeting to find out what issues we have to deal with.
So we have maps of the area, photographs of the properties around the area, showing that it's not two photos in particular showing it's not uncommon to have three-story structures in close proximity.
We have photographs of those three-story structures, plants and drawings, and we'll go through it with the architect, Kevin Ryan of 24-7 Design, proof of our meeting notice, our application for appeal, our DTIF property, and the certificate tax credits.
So first things first, our notice of refusal. Again, this is an RSA 5 property. We are not trying to increase density here. We're just trying to create a 21st century functional single-family home in this part of town.
The first refusal that we have here is that the proposed roof deck access structure is located at the rear of the property. It has no setback while five feet is required.
Again, as we'll go through the drawings and confirmed by the architect Kevin Ryan, you will see that because of the depth of the property, because of the width of the property, and because of where the stairs are located, we have no choice but to put the roof deck access structure at the extreme rear of the property.
Again, not uncommon in front of the board.
We've had these refusals before, which the board has supported in the past.
Second refusal has to do with the setback.
And again, not uncommon.
As you can see from our design, and we'll go through our design, even though it's not a mansard roof, it does look to the point where it's pitched, and we try to soften it with the change in materials.
We kept the roof line on the second floor, and then the third floor addition has a different set of materials to kind of, you know, break up the brick beside so it doesn't seem as tall as, you know, one may think.
And then the third refusal has to do with the open area.
Again, we're trying to square off the rear of the building, again, to give a functional layout throughout.
out. The individuals who would be most directly impacted, 2542, which would have a letter of
support, and 2538, even though we haven't talked to them directly, our understanding is they have
no opposition. And then you'll see the petition. Now, while they're in the letters from the
coordinating RCO saying that there were three individuals who were in the affected area who
were against this project, none of them are, my understanding, are directly next to us. And those
people who are are in support of our law. So the letter from Old Richmond, you will see that there
were four people who voted in the affected area. And three people voted in opposition and one person
voted in non-opposition. So that was a close vote. The part that like I think is a little bit
difficult to understand in a vacuum is that there are other individuals who were at that meeting
who voted, you know, who were not affected. And they overwhelmingly voted in opposition. I will
say that when I was at this meeting, there was another project that was very, very, very
controversial to the neighborhood. And I felt like that project, the people that attended that
project those individuals also voted not only against the project that was the controversial
project but they also voted against this project so when you look at the people who are affected
there were four people that are affected three did vote in opposition one voted in non-opposition
which was a close vote and then if you look at the letter that orca put it had all to do with
the fact that my client was you know she stayed instead of boarding up the windows on the top
floor they left the window they left that those openings open and anticipating that when they
you know when they start building the property they would put windows in um there was no issue
in terms of boarding up the windows we agreed to do that after the meeting there was also allegations
that you know there may be a you know an emphasis a pest infestation that may be our fault again
We reached out to the community members who were given email addresses to the people who attended.
Unfortunately, we could not start a dialogue with them, but I will say that the person to
But I will say that the person to the right of us and to the left of us are in support of this. So if there was a rat infestation or issues with the property, we would have known about it. And they would not have supported our project knowing that.
the right of us and to the left of us?
uh we do have a letter uh from councilman swilla again he is in opposition i will say
that the letter is not completely if you read the language in complete opposition
um they do recognize that we did have a petition it said the applicant did submit a petition of
support from some nearby neighbors we appreciated this effort but it was in it was not enough to
change our stance on supporting the community and their votes petition is attached for the
board's review so we did show them the petition we showed them the letter of support unfortunately
you know a lot of times it's who shows up at the community meeting we were really surprised that
there was such pushback because again none of the issues are zoning related we're just taking rsa 5
property adding a third story addition which you know did not seem controversial i think that
there were several individuals for whatever reason were upset with this project um but i think they
had to, it was more so that they were dealing with another project, and they just voted against
this one as well, essentially. So our petition, again, I tell all my clients, you know, when you
do a petition, like, just make this a little small, you know, just don't get, you know, anyone,
get the people who are going to be most directly impacted. So if you look at it, 2551 CEPFIVA,
25-48 Cepheva, 25-67 Cepheva, 25-65 Cepheva. And then we're adjacent to Hazard, 24-75 East
Hazard, 25-46 Cepheva, 25-20 Cepheva, 25-22 Cepheva. We're next to Sergeant, 22-10 East Sergeant,
2208 East Sergeant, Rainier Tulip, 2540 Tulip, 2218 Hazard, and 2173 East Fur.
Most importantly, we did make direct communication with the owner of 2542 CEPVIVA, and they're
in support of this project.
and then you'll see the email that my client sent that copied individuals we received these
email addresses from the coordinating rco we indicated to them they were surprised about
allegations regarding the condition of property and we felt honestly bad if anything that caused
issues with these nearby neighbors so we reached out to them i originally reached out to them via
email. And after receiving those addresses, I received no response to that email. I did email
one of them the night of, and I said, you know, I indicated to one individual we would like to
meet with them, never heard back from them. I did follow up by getting their email addresses
straight from the coordinating RCO, and these are the alleged affected property owners. Did not
receive any response my client took it upon herself to personally respond you know to my
email and copy them on it to indicate that we would like to work with them that if there are
non-zoning related issues we like to deal with them personally and you know that email is is in
front of you right now um but you know um but she's like i stated she stated i truly do love
the neighborhood which is why we chose it i know new development can seem daunting but i really
think it's a positive sign of stability and security and that she wants to personally work
with them if there was any construction related issues. Madam Chair just to let you know I've
been listening to this case so I'll be participating. Oh great you know what just why don't you just
continue. Thank you. Me? Yeah. Okay I'm sorry Mr. Nockamson what is the height of the proposed
building uh i can look at that right now i i believe it's in the low 30s let me take a look
it doesn't exceed 38 feet oh it's nowhere near that no we don't have a height variance at all
all right i just wanted to make sure that all right yeah and and again just and i'll skip over
a little bit well let me first put the pictures so i have another i got another question before
you answer of the three people who voted no at the meeting do you happen to know where they live
no i don't i don't um i don't i just know they're in effect area all i got was their email addresses
and you know we really did try in good faith i emailed the one individual uh the night of
because um i put my email in the chat um and she she responded um but i don't all right no worries
okay 2529 tulip street as you can see it's not uncommon around the corner to have a three-story
to have a three-story structure go straight up. But then our plans and drawings again, even though
structure goes straight up. But then our plans and drawings.
this is not a mansard roof, it does look like one. We did try to purposefully change the materials to
kind of lessen the height of the building and that's the front rendering. The rear rendering
you know shows you know again the rear and you can see the building structure, the roof
structure in the back again you'll see from the the plans and drawings um we really have no choice
so um and i'll go back to the height i'll take a look to see what that height is but i would
it doesn't exceed 38 feet oh no and i would think it's probably closer to 33 feet um okay that's
fine but um but again if you look at it yeah if you look at it again we're not trying to increase
density. First floor, open floor plan. Second floor, two bedrooms and a bath. Third floor is
a master bedroom and a bath. And as you can just see, it's just like you look at the stairs,
there's no other way to do the steps than to go up and down. It's not wide enough. The building
is just not wide enough to go across. And that's why the stairs in the rear hug on the third floor
and then on the roof deck access so that and if you look at the third floor master plan
excuse me third floor plan if we did the eight foot setback this is the master bedroom like
basically just you know estimating we would lose this much space we would have a functional floor
plan on the third floor either and then the other one is just the open area we're just trying to
square off the building so summarize and we'll get your red yeah so so those so that's basically
a summary we're really trying to do the least modification possible under the philadelphia
zoning code um we would still love to work with the people who are affected who had some issue
with our property but we have haven't been able to reach out to them we did reach out to many many
neighbors on our block who are in support of our project including the next door neighbors and we
hope that the board finds that this variance is reasonable in the circumstances and grants it.
With that being said, I have Anjali Patel, the owner's representative on the call,
and I would like for her to adopt my testimony. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself,
spell your full name, and I'll swear you in. Hi, my name is Anjali Patel. My spelling is A-N-J-E-L-I-E,
last name patel p-a-t-e-l you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you mr knockinson yeah mrs patel you heard everything i stated today
correct and is it true correct yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony i do
any questions from the board no mr chairman uh anyone else like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you uh planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the single-family residential at this location
we feel the increase in non-conforming open space is de minimis but that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate a hardship for both the third floor and roof deck setbacks accordingly the
planning commission recommends the board grant the variance for open space but deny the variances for
setbacks. MI 2021-003234, 2540 Survivor Street. My vote is yes. Carl Toneri, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
thank you carol do we go to case number six now because i don't remember yes we do okay thank you
mi 2021-003218 2716 east monmouth street catherine missomer is the attorney of record
the southport richmond civic association sent a letter of support
and she's coming in now as a panelist here thank you uh miss missomer when you get on
please spell your full name i'll swear you in sure it's katherine missomer m-i-s-s-i-m-e-r
1835 market street suite 1400 19103 do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you uh miss denari has some questions for you
I do. Thank you. Ms. Tenere has some questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive. I just want to confirm there was an amended refusal issued in this case.
I want to confirm you have a refusal dated 10-29.
do we have that melissa i'm not aware of a an amended refusal i could check to see if one came
in in late um but all i was submitted to the board on the 29th via email to both tanya and
Sharon. So it should be of record. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. We'll proceed.
Thank you. Okay. 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, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed. Thank you. And you should be seeing my screen in front of you now.
We are. Great. As mentioned, I'm here on behalf of the Ownership Brickstone Group LLC at 2716 East
Monmouth Street. With me today are Tom and Carolina Hewell. They will be living at this residence,
it's their personal residence, as well as the project architect David Whipple. We're here today
for a single family new construction with accessory parking. You should have received
a letter of support from Southport Richmond Civic Association as well as a letter from our direct
next-door neighbor at 2718 East Monmouth that is also in support of this application.
The property is a vacant lot zoned RSA 5 on this block of Monmouth between Salmon and Edgemont.
there's parking garage, front access parking garages on both sides of the block.
Your materials contain a chart which shows, this is a site plan just briefly, but I also submitted
a chart of those neighboring properties. This is our lot here. You'll note the property next door
at 2714 has front-loaded parking, as well as on this side of us at 2718, a recent permit was
granted for front-loaded parking as well. This chart does reflect some of the addresses on this
block that already have accessory parking from Monmouth Street. And you can see through our
surrounding area photos, this is the existing condition in this neighborhood. And this is the
end of Monmouth where it dead ends in desoulment. So you'll note several commercial garages at the
of the block as well. As this property is zoned RSA 5, the proposed accessory parking does generate
a refusal for front-loaded parking. Again, this is the existing condition in the neighborhood.
We also received two technical refusals and these are reflected in the revised refusal
that I mentioned earlier. This is the zoning permit for 2718 which allows parking next door
and this is our refusal on our location what we're proposing is something similar to this
um what you would see in different neighborhoods of the city because it's open to the sky
lni is interpreting this front door which is typically a garage door as a fence and that's
why we were issued the fence refusal and the setback lni is interpreting this not to be the
front of the building, even though this brick structure will be at the property line adjacent
to neighboring structures, L&I issued a refusal because they're considering this to be a setback.
Again, that's really just by virtue of this design. There's no difference between what we're
proposing and a traditional garage, just the fact that it is open to the sky. That's why it's
generating that different interpretation. As mentioned, we did meet with Southport Richmond
Civic. They are in support of this application, as well as the directly affected next door
neighbors. I will just add to the record that as evidenced by this letter of support, this
proposal will not be detrimental to the development of neighboring properties. Again, the proposal
is in context with existing uses on this street, as the majority of these buildings do have front
loaded parking. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, again,
as in we're conforming to what's existing there on site. I will just ask Mr. Huell if you would
unmute yourself or if he could be allowed to unmute himself.
He just has to raise his hand. Tom could you raise your hand please it should be
Tom, could you raise your hand, please?
It should be indicated at the bottom.
indicated at the bottom.
And if not, as a member of the board,
I would ask the board to stipulate that
he would adopt my testimony if he could.
Mr. Tom, you can unmute yourself.
We got him.
There he is.
Good afternoon, sir.
Yes, please spell your name.
Tom, your last name, please.
Tom Kuhl, H-E-W-E-L-L, and I'm here with my wife, Carolina Kuhl, same last name, H-E-W-E-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. Zimmer.
Thank you.
Tom, did you hear my testimony this afternoon?
sounds like you're being an officer of court we're going to adopt this that your testimony
appreciate it i did all right any questions from the board no no no no mr chairman no anyone else
would like to testify in this case please raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you
planning commission good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa single-family residential at this location
while garages are common on the block front-loaded garages increase conflicts with
and hazards for bicycles and pedestrians reducing public safety and well-being
while privatizing public on-street parking additionally the applicant has failed to
demonstrate sufficient hardship for the setback accordingly the planning
commission recommends the board deny the adherences thank you mi 2021-003218
i'm sorry here this is tanya the zoning board administrator may i interject yes please we did
receive the uh uh refusal however if i could ask uh miss missomer was the same zp number used
for both refusals i believe so yes okay so the latest refusal is 10 29 21 correct and chair if
we could just add that notation that that will be the um dated refusal that the l and i would use
how should i phrase that um okay i just drew a blank um uh yes the refusal is 10 29
Dated, 10-29-21.
Related refusal is as stated?
As dated.
As dated.
Yes, 10-29-21.
10-29-21.
Thank you.
Okay, MI 2021-0032182716 East Monmouth.
my vote is yes with the proviso related refusal as dated 10 29 2021 carol tenere my vote is yes
with proviso confessor plazo yes with proviso james snell yes with proviso thomas holliman
yes with proviso thank you i believe we now go to case number eight thank you thank you mi 2021
721-003-219, 6114-16 Lansdowne Avenue.
Joseph Consul is the attorney of record.
HMC Squared Community Association sent a letter of support with provisos.
So, Mr. Consul, if you're out there, please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll
swear you in.
I'm here.
Joe Consul.
how's everybody doing consul madison llp one west third street suite 204 media pennsylvania
one nine zero six three and consul is spelt c-o-n-s-o-l-e do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you miss uh nary has questions for you
hi do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
copy of the refusal or referral 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 we have a letter of support okay great
you may proceed everyone joe console 6114 lansdowne avenue i have with me leonda reason
i have with me leonda reason she is the uh tenant and the applicant for this property
She is the tenant and the app.
this property i'll pull it down here is a uh 1250 square foot space on lansdowne avenue
back view there it is there this property is on cmx2 we have a special exception referral
She's seeking to use the property for baby showers, graduations, funerals, memorial services, family dinners, and local RCO-type events and that sort of thing for the community.
We got a couple of bathrooms, one of which is ADA accessible.
She's seeking to use it for up to 50 people at one time.
she has a five-year lease and has been upkeeping doing some upkeep on the space since then
here's some pictures um with the approval she expects to get off the ground
in december she gets all the approval she needs we went in front of the rco on september 22nd
HMC Squared give us full support. With Provisos, they asked for armed security for events. I don't
know how much of that can be enforceable, but they also asked that the events don't run past
11 on weekends and 9 p.m. on weekdays, both of which we agreed to, that the events themselves
would stop and then there'd be some time afterwards for Ms. Reason and her eventual
employees to to close down and clean up and that and that sort of thing i don't have a lot a lot
to add she's excited to get involved in the community council what are the terms of her lease
it's a five-year lease started in june of 2021
again right okay and she doesn't expect to get operational till december correct if she gets
approval today correct next next month yeah she's just been it was a daycare they shut down during
the pandemic she's fixing up the inside now okay um i can't alter so the term of her release was
june of 2021 and it expires june of 2026 correct yes sir okay um you have your client to adopt
your testimony? I do. Ms. Reason, would you raise your hand? Hello. Hi, ma'am. Please spell your
first and last name. L-A-Y-O-N-D-A, last name R-E-A-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Counsel. Good afternoon,
Good afternoon, Ms. Reason. Did you hear my testimony today about your space on Lansdowne Avenue?
Do you agree with it and adopt it as your own?
Do you have anything you wish to add or alter?
Okay. I have nothing further.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Would anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
We have no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair Peter Bernard
for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the CMX2 commercial mixed use at this location.
We do not feel that there will be any unusual circumstances
for this use.
accordingly the planning commission recommends that the board approve the special exemption
thank you mr council as it relates to the hours of operation is it fair to say that if we go to
11 p.m no no events later than 11 p.m that would be friday and saturday yes and sunday i meant to
say saturday and sunday uh miss reason could you weigh in on on sunday
because the next day is a work day and that's why people usually don't want
these events to take place late yeah so it would just be saturday on friday and saturday
it's considered the weekend okay and nine o'clock uh sunday through thursday all right
MI 2021-003-219-6114-16 Lansdowne Avenue.
My vote is yes with the following proviso.
No events to take place past 11 p.m. on weekends.
to take place past 11 p.m. on weekends
and events not to take place
after 9 p.m. weekdays,
Monday through Thursday.
Five-year temporary lease
to expire December 1, 2026.
Thank you.
Carol Tenere.
Give me the extra six months
to get up and running.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes,
with provisors.
Professor Plaza yes with proviso
James Snell yes with proviso
Thomas Holloman yes with proviso
Case number 9 MI 2021
003233622 North Sedgwick Street
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney of record
I'm sorry, Chair, I believe we continued
Okay, thank you, I wasn't here for that, thank you
Okay, we go to case number 10. MI 2021-003221, 800 Cotman Avenue. Amy Farrell is the attorney of record. Burholm Community Town Watch and Civic sent a letter of support. And I've also been informed that Councilwoman Parker sent a letter of non-opposition, or is stating that she's not opposed to this.
Ms. Farrell? Ms. Young, are you the attorney on this case? Yes, my name is Natalie Young. I'm from
Kaplan-Stewart with Ms. Farrell. I'm the attorney. Okay, Ms. Young, would you please spell your first
and last name? Yes, it's N-A-T-A-L-I-E, Young, Y-O-U-N-G. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Tenere has a few questions
for you and she's coming in now as a panelist chair thank you do you hello do you agree to
weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes hello i believe i actually got
disconnected there for a second can you hear me yes so yes you again so do you do agree to weigh
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the 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 of that. Okay, great. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay.
Okay. Are you able to see my screen?
Not yet.
Not yet. All right. One second.
All right.
You, but not the screen.
Me, but not the screen. All right. Hold on.
How about now?
Got it now.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
All right, so my name is Natalie Young. I'm here on behalf of Newtown Park Association, who is the applicant in this case. I do have, I believe, Dave Waterman on, David Waterman on with me on this call, and possibly Ben Willner, both of Newtown Park Association.
Okay so this property is located at 800 Cotman Avenue. This property is zoned RM2 and consists
of a multi-story residential apartment building with a one-story component along Cotman Avenue
frontage that's historically housed several commercial tenants. This property has a long
history of small-scale commercial tenants on the first floor that cater to the building
residents and also provide services to the surrounding area. However, those tenants have
often struggled to maintain a commercial presence in the community given the location of the
commercial spaces and the setback from the roadway as the property appears to be residential.
several tenants in the recent years they vacated they miss young do you have any
exhibits you can show us aside from the table of contents yes well let me let me start with
just to put into the record we want to mark all of our uh exhibits that were provided
and we do have um well here's the refusal and then we will start with where this is located
so this is located along cotman avenue um here's where the property itself is uh courtesy from the
um here's where the property itself is uh it's hard to see from the zoning but here's the
zoning but
storefront but it's a mix of uh industrial and commercial uses as well as residential uses
along this area um so it's important to note though that several tenants have vacated in recent years
because um and that the owner has has undertaken a renovation project to kind of increase visibility
to the to the site. And these signs that we're here today for are part of that renovation project.
So here is our application. And so the six, so the application for appeal is based upon a refusal.
There's the refusal. The refusal was for two rooftop signs on their accessory signs.
They would be on the first floor unit, not on the rooftop of the larger multi-story apartment
structure. This would appear on the roof. They're called rooftop signs because they would appear on
the roof of the commercial structure on the bottom. And then the refusal is also related
to two freestanding pylon signs, which would have lighting and show the names of the commercial
tenants who are applying for these spaces.
So a consistent point of discussion with potential tenants has been the concern of
visibility from the roadway and the applicant is seeking a variance to install two roof signs.
These signs will kind of mesh the residential use with the commercial use. They will kind of
indicate, you know, give a name or give a landmark for this property. The two freestanding signs are
where the retail tenants names can be displayed in a manner that's easily to read, visible both
to vehicular traffic and to put traffic, and to gain recognition and support for the new businesses
that would be coming there into the retail spaces. As you can see, the current
so let's go to the aerial photos um here again just to orient yourself to the area
is where we are along cotman um here's the 800 cotman
and here is the street view of the property from google street view i believe this is during
the res during the renovations you can see the one sign um on the corner here
and again here is the the multi-level residential unit here with the commercial space in front
and this is the other entrance and we'll get a little closer look at the sign but
here's the other sign that we're seeking to replace
and again here's another look at that sign
All right so here's a closer look at the front of the building. These are the six commercial spaces.
The space on the end, the right end, let me see if we get a better look up here, I believe is used
as the office building for the Regency Park Apartments and the one roof sign we're looking
to put would be right here on this first floor commercial space.
Here's the existing freestanding sign at the one entranceway that is kind of outdated
and doesn't really fit with the modern look.
Also it's very difficult the way that this sign was placed in order to read the retail
names that are in there.
Same thing with this view, the passing cars cannot read the names of the properties that
are in there.
And then this is the other sign on the other entrance.
It does not display the names of any of the tenants.
So again, our goal is to increase visibility.
We will come back.
these are some of the neighboring properties along Cotman Avenue and the 800 and 900 block
that have similar uses and signs, but we can come back to those. I want to show you the site plan.
So just to blow this up right here, you can see
where we're looking to put the signs. This right here is along that first floor
where we're looking to put the signs. This right here,
the front side one of the two roof signs would be along here. The second roof sign
would be along this side which is also visible from a small street or parking
lot and entrance here. These are the two signs on either side of the parking lot
at either entrance. Okay and here are the plans. So I'm going to keep them blown up
a little. This is currently the way the conditions look here. I don't know how big this is on
your screen if you can see that. Without the sign, this is what's visible right now from the roadway.
We are proposing a roof sign right here that says Regency Park Apartments. This
location here is the office building, I believe, for Regency Park Apartments.
My client can clarify that, but I believe that's where it is located.
And then this is the side of the building. Again, it would also say Regency Park.
Now this was on the far corner. This smaller sign here is what is currently visible
from the roadway. We are proposing a change to the square footage and a modernization of
the sign which would make it more visible from the roadway, gain more attention by
the public and the foot traffic as to the tenants that are located within this strip,
and it would be more modernized and easier to read and include graphics for the retailers
that are applying. Now I'd like to point out, again, that this is zoned RM2, so anything
that we do that's a commercial use, including signs, we have to seek a variance. So for
For each commercial tenant that's going to come in, we will be back to see variants for
these signs because it's zoned RM2.
That's why it was refused.
And then here is the other large sign, which is on the other side of the entrance.
This is what currently exists.
This is what we can expect to see.
And just so that you can get an idea of the size.
This is what we anticipate the signs will look like. It's currently roughly about the same size,
but it increases the area that can be used for graphics and for advertising.
And we did meet with the Bermhold Civic Association, as was noted earlier. We had a
a pretty well attended meeting and it was 14 individuals within the near neighbor
proximity who voted in support of this of the sign project and they were interested in seeing
they were interested that this area was recently remodeled and modernized and they're interested in
having long-term tenants there and we feel that by improving the visibility from the roadway
given the setback of the space from the roadway
that these modern signs would really do well
to bring in and bring recognition
to what would otherwise not be visible retail spaces.
Ms. Young, I think you can summarize
if that would be helpful.
And if you have your client,
we'll have your client adopt your testimony.
Yes, Mr. Waterman, are you there?
Can you raise your hand, please?
yes and he's been allowed to speak good afternoon sir please spell your name and i'll swear you in
we may be having technical difficulties uh you being an officer to court will stipulate that
your client would have adopted your testimony yes correct he would have been adopted that's right
any questions from the board no mr chairman no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand yes chair we have a calling user ending in one three zero zero
calling user you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair please identify yourself by spelling
your name hi there this is david waterman i apologize i'm
hi there this is david waterman i apologize i might have had some technical issues uh chairman
chico so you're absolutely right i uh let me do this if you don't mind uh spell your last name
and i'll swear you in yes sir waterman w-a-t-e-r-m-a-n you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you ms young hi david were you able to hear my
the testimony i presented yes i was i heard it from the very start okay do you agree that it
is correct or do you have anything you need to add no i think you did a good job on the summary
and presentation i have nothing to add and i agree with your testimony okay so you adopt my
testimony i do thank you anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand
no more hands here thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rm2 residential multifamily at this location
we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship for the roof mounted signage
but feel that the other proposed signage is largely in keeping with the regulations for
CMX2 commercial use as the property is used and the proposed variances are de minimis accordingly
the planning commission recommends the board deny the variance for roof signage but has no
opposition to the board granting the variances for building mounting and freestanding signs
thank you MI 2021-003221 800 Cotman Avenue my vote is yes
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes
Thank you, that concludes the two o'clock list
If anyone, Phil, they've not been recognized, please raise your hand
No hands, Chair
Thank you. It is 3.55. We'll come back at 4.05. Does that work for everyone?
Sounds good. Yes. See you all back here at 4.05.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Welcome back everyone, it is now 4.05 p.m., Carol, are you available?
Yes, I am.
Okay, Jim, Tom, and confessor, let's see, I didn't see you, Tom, are you signed on yet?
try it again i don't see confessor is uh is jim snell available uh no chair i'll reach out to
him remember confessor had to leave all right yeah i'm sorry you didn't thank you
yes jim jim's there we got it yes okay jim thank you
Thank you.
And Tom.
Tom Holloman.
I think everybody got confused with last week.
Chair, I couldn't reach him at the moment, but I believe we now have a quorum.
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
Pauline, we're ready to go live.
okay sir you're set to go thank you and uh staff will let us know when you're ready
we're ready chair thank you good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the
chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our
vice chair ms carol tenere and board member mr james snell i anticipate board member mr
holliman will be joining us shortly present mr holliman mr james no present i'm present
all right i got ahead of everybody uh also our board administrator ms lakeisha dandy and our
board attorney ms melissa freeman are also in attendance as is our zoning board administrator
ms tanya sunkett for those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings
i'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect first we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony second we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and also that the recording will be made available to the public by contacting
Ms. Tanya Sunket at tanya.sunket at phila.gov. For anyone participating by phone, if you
wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute
yourself pardon me i'll repeat for anyone participating
pardon me i'll repeat for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance
statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at
issue. I will repeat that. For anyone participating, excuse me, for anyone who would like to make an
appearance statement, call Google number 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and
the address of the property at issue. I would also like to remind everyone, please do not attempt
to testify in the chat. Comments, questions, or concerns should be directed to our board
Administrator, Ms. Dandy. Having said that, there are no requests on the 330 list for continuance
or withdrawals at this time for me, but I will ask that question. Would anyone like to request
a continuance or withdrawal on the 330 list? Please raise your hand. If you're requesting
a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand chair we have natasha bass miss bass you
can unmute yourself and wait for the chair good afternoon ma'am please spell your full name and i'll
where are you in? Ms. Bass? Ms. Bass, are you out there?
She's unmuted. I don't know why. There's no. Yeah, I see that. I see her hand up, not muted.
all right let's move on and she if she has anything she'll come back anyone requesting a
continuance or withdrawal no more hands at this time chair miss bass i see your hand up again
are you miss bass
well miss bass hello yes please miss bass spell your first and last name please
yes n-a-t-a-s-h-a last name b-a-s-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do and you're calling regarding uh my property at 630 north 55th street
philadelphia pennsylvania 19131 i wanted to request a continuous because as i'm listening
you guys are asking about um there was supposed to be a package submitted five days prior
and I submitted documents
during the beginning
of the process, but I
didn't email you guys anything
recently.
Okay, we'll continue their case.
All right?
Right now or
in the future? We're going to continue it.
You'll get a date.
Thank you, Emma.
Pardon me?
In an email?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, thank you so much.
thank you MI 2021-002463 630 north 55th street is continued must be heard
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 330 list
and no more handshare thank you we're going to go to case number five
to the board because we have an interpreter
pardon me case number five is mi 2021 that's zero zero two five three five three six two east
wyoming avenue i'm not going to attempt to to uh pronounce the last the name of the individual
um councilwoman sanchez sent a letter of non-opposition
she refers to the rco letter of support so amparo i don't know how to pronounce your last name if
you're out there please raise your hand or whomever is testifying in this case
and they're coming in now as a panelist thank you
Hi, Chair, this is Tanya, the ZBA administrator. If I could state that Ilana Ponce is the
interpreter now available as a panelist, if she could be sworn in as well. Thank you.
Yes, I had that on my list. Okay. Ms. Ponce, we just spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, I had that on my list. Okay. Ms. Ponce, we just
Sure. I-L-A-N-A. Last name P-O-N-C-E.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Just stand by and you are the interpreter, correct?
Thank you. Is the applicant available?
Si. Estoy aquí.
Amparo, so Ms. Ponce, I'm going to ask him to spell his full name so you can help us
with that.
Que si, por favor, puede letrar su nombre completo?
Es Rafael Cabrera Delgado.
Amparo Echavarría era la antigua dueña.
Ya va, señor.
So my name is Rafael Cabrera Amparo, and Amparo was the last owner.
R-A-F-A-E-L
C-A-B-R-E-R-A
He's where and affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Señor, ¿usted jura decir la verdad y nada más la verdad hoy?
Ms. Ponce, the vice chair will have some questions for Mr. Ponce, not Mr. Ponce, for Rafael.
Señor Rafael, tiene unas preguntas para usted.
Okay, good afternoon.
I'm sorry. I apologize. I keep interrupting. I feel so bad.
But can I just ask, Chair, where were the exhibits sit?
Ms. Potts, if you can ask that question.
Señor, si puede mostrar los exhibits que va a presentar hoy.
Okay, ustedes pueden agregar a la señora Melissa Cadillo para compartir la pantalla.
Could you add
Ms. Melissa Cadillo
so she can share her screen?
Meditza Cadillo?
Meditza Cadillo.
Who was she?
No, she's an
expeditor.
It has to be
Mr. Cabrera or an attorney.
No, Sr. Cabrera.
Tiene que ser usted o un abogado.
No, yo lo voy a
presentar. Yo lo que quiero que
le permitan entrar
para que ella me comparta la pantalla.
O sea, es la pantalla nada más.
I'm going to be the one presenting.
She has the screen that I need you to
have her be able to share.
First, we need to know
where were the exhibits
that are required
were emailed because we do not
have a record.
Necesitan saber
a dónde mandaron el correo electrónico
de los exhibits.
They sent it to RCO and Zuleta.
So, this is Tanya again. We have no record, neither I or Salada or RCO. If we could request the forwarded email sent to us again to review and share, if it's okay with you, we'd like to move on to another case.
que nadie tiene eso
si por favor se lo puede mandar otra vez
que le pueda hacer
un favor
we're going to have to continue
this case Ms. Ponce
van a tener que
seguir este caso en otro momento
yo tengo ya
si me dan dos minutos
ya yo tengo como
seis meses esperando por este
por este meeting
Could I have two minutes, because I've been waiting for this for six months?
Two minutes for what purpose?
To talk to his expediter?
Para hablar con la señora?
No, lo que pasa es que tuve que tener un meeting con la comunidad y todo eso, por eso duró tanto tiempo.
No, it took a long time because I had to wait to meet with the community and all.
We understand that, but either he or he relied on his expediter did not follow through on providing us with the exhibits that are necessary for us to conduct a hearing.
So we must continue this case.
Entonces necesitan seguir este caso en otro momento.
Okay, what date could that be?
Okay, what date could that be?
Well, that'll come forward later, Mr. Sunkit.
Well, that'll come forward later.
Mr. Sunkit will advise him of a date.
So for the purpose of the record, MI 2021, that is 002-535-362 East Wyoming Avenue is continued.
Must be heard.
El señor Sunkit le va a dar la fecha en otro momento después de esto.
Okay, también. Muchísimas gracias.
Thank you very much.
um i'm sure i would just like to say thank you for miss potts for your interpretation we appreciate
you yeah thank you thank you thank you thank you okay uh we'll go back to case number one
mi 2021-001318 1805 east pass yonk avenue and then in parentheses at 18th and pass yonk
Is that a typo?
Councilman Squilla sent a letter of non-opposition.
Mr. Aaron Matzkin, if you're out there, I think this is a typo.
This probably should be 1805 West Pass Yonk, I believe.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
East Pass Yonk Crossing sent a letter of support.
those councilman Squilla and East Pass Yunk Crossing represent the west the east side of
Broad Street is Mr. Matzkin available
and there's no hand up at this time chair
okay thank you MI 2021-001318 1805 West Pass Yunk Avenue
this case is continued must be heard it's number two I just want to put on a record inside of the
eclipse database and on the refusal is 1805 East Passion no but the interest
if yeah but you see on the list it says 18th and Passion that would make it the west side
make it the west side right i understood that's the okay i just want to make sure the record is
correct yeah correct all right thank you thank you for clearing that up so it'll be 1805 east
past young cabinet this case is continued must be heard uh case number two mi 2021-001973
2020 North
18th Street
Rachel Pritzker is the Attorney of
Record
My notes indicate we have
not yet received a letter from the 32nd
Democrat Ward
Ms. Pritzker
please identify yourself
you're still under oath from earlier today
And Chairman
is Brandon
Hello everybody
Oh Brandon, sorry about that
No problem Mr. Chair
Please spell your full name for the record, and I'll swear you in.
B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Ms. Tenere has some questions for you.
Good afternoon. Do you 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, a copy of the 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 of the above and on the letter um i'm i did i was cc'd on the email my paralegal
emailed that into the rco box and um i believe to to sharon but um i can share it on the screen
um we do have it mr savran before you go any further carol uh would you want to hear the
other case 30 20 32 north 18th street also at the same time yeah they are the same uh same
shape property same proposed development same refusal um down the block from one another so
that was let me let me read that in carol as well all right that's uh case number three on our list
MI 2021-001974
North 18th Street.
Again, that's RCO
is the 32nd
Democrat Ward.
Thank you.
And again, you're waiving the reading of the refusal
and stipulating to that accuracy.
And yes or no?
Yes, Madam Chair.
And you've also emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance, a copy of the refusal
order referral photos under plans the property five days in advance of this hearing and have
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes and likewise for both properties we have a letter of non-opposition from the
you may proceed on both cases oh and very briefly i i just um i want to say thank you to the
chairman for his um service over uh years here and decades for the city in case i do not appear here
again soon. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you.
We'd like you, Brendan. Thank you for saying that. Well, it's well-deserved. It's not easy.
Thank you. So the same developer is the applicant for both properties. Their name is Samar Capital
Inc. They are the property owner of both. The two principals are Anand Kumar and Krishan
Saini. They are a father and son duo. So let me share my screen here. All right.
Well, you don't need that. That's the list of cases. Here we go. Okay. So this is the block.
um this is 18th street between norris and fontaine um in north philadelphia so one of the properties
we're speaking about is 2020 north 18th there and the other is 2032 north 18th um and i'm sorry just
here we go okay so here's a rendering um of what we're proposing to build on each property it's a
three-story duplex, no roof deck. This happens to be the refusal for 2020, but it's identical
for 2032. The only refusal is the duplex use. And we have a letter, I can show you both of
those, of non-opposition on each property. This was penned by Judith Robinson, who is the zoning
chair of the 32nd Democratic Board, RCO. You'll see on both forms, she indicates her reason for
non-opposition is change of design. That means that we eliminated the roof deck that was proposed
for each building. We did submit a revised plan sheet for each property and a proviso change form.
it's one sheet per property. She also notes that we offered a sanitation plan. So I'm not sure,
I'll leave it to the board to determine with which if any of these can be written as provisos. But
what I came to an agreement with her on was the following, having an in-sync disposal in each
unit in each building having a trash compactor like a kitchen trash compactor in each unit in
each building and having a ventilated trash closet in each unit in each building and that basically
means that it has a fan um i'm sorry not a fan an air duct like a like a bathroom would that that
you know a vent that that goes into a duct that allows exhaust to get to the outside um so you
know if if the board is open to those three items being provisos i i would do that out of respect
for the ward um but sabrin uh as it relates to that trash room we were talking about is well
that is that reflected in the plan yeah um you know what mr chair let me um let the architect
that'll cover the issue of trash yeah that's that's fair um let's see what um mr dry the
architect has to say there. And with that, let me make sure I have nothing else to add.
You know, to provide a brief statement of hardship here. So if you go back to Atlas and look at the
block, I counted on our side of the block 13 non-vacant lots, 13 lots of buildings on them.
I didn't really look at the other side of the street. There's not a lot of properties that
face the block on that other side. But of those 13 properties, 10 of them per the zoning archive
are permitted for two-family use or multifamily use. So this is really, in short, a duplex block.
That's what this is. And the zoning code doesn't allow us to build new structures that follow
that, we think that's a hardship. We just want to build a building on each property that conforms
to the use pattern of the block. So with that, Logan Dry of KCA Architecture, are you available
to testify? Yep, I'm here. Okay. Hey, Logan.
yep i'm here okay hey logan
mr dry please uh spell your full name and i'll swear you in
sure logan l-o-g-a-n last name dry d-r-y kca design sorry you finish i'm sorry uh kca design
associate 6525 tulip street philadelphia pa do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you mr saverin okay mr dry um let you tell me do you want to
start with uh 2020 or 2032 and i'll pull up the corresponding zoning sheet um either either or i
mean again they're they're identical with with regard to the trash closet that would be um you
know on the schematic sheets but here just so the board can see um you know this is the pilot house
and roof deck that was originally designed and as you can see you know at the request of the
community group we completely removed that from the design um so there's no longer a pilot house
no longer a roof deck and again that had to do a lot with um just concerns the community had in
general so we were you know more than willing to go ahead and remove that from each of these
applications okay um and um logan do you i think we also have floor plans if if would that be
helpful with regard to the trash question or you you can answer without me pulling them up if you
want yeah i mean you know the sk sheet would be the floor plans but i can say again just from
you know experience in designing these each unit um the ground floor has a trash closet right behind
the kitchen they also have access to the rear yard so they could in theory keep their trash in either
of those locations and then the second floor unit again has a ventilated trash closet located right
behind the kitchen as well for again keeping all that trash inside that community groups like to
see until uh trash day in which case it would be taken you know out to the street for collection
okay yeah that that answers the question or the issue of the proviso that i believe the community
wanted so okay um okay i i really um i think that's that's all we have unless the board has
any questions i have none frank you're muted again any questions from the board no mr chairman
would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
and these cases, I should say, plural.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D, and A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ron.
Please proceed.
So these two properties are indicated for residential
on the city plan given if their physical conditions and the surrounding use context we
recommend that the both requested variances for 2020 and 2035 north 18th street be granted
thank you MI 2021 that's 001 973 2020 north 18th street is there one page of revised plan
Mr. Saverin? Yeah, that's correct. My vote is yes with revised plan one page approved today.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman, yes with proviso.
And case number MI 2021-001974, 2032 North 18th Street. My vote is yes with proviso.
Revised plan one page approved today. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Okay, case number four, MI 2021-002493. It's 2350 East Cumberland Street. Robert Cole is the attorney of record. Old Richmond Civics Association sent a letter of support. And Councilman Mark Squillis sent a letter of non-opposition.
Mr. Cole is coming in now as a panelist thank you
Mr. Cole you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Mr. Cole please
Mr. Cole, please identify yourselves by your name and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Chairman and Board Members. My name is Robert, R-O-B-E-R-T. Last name is Cole,
C-O-L-E. I'm attorney for the Applicant East Cumbie Properties, LLC.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Ms. Canary has some questions for you.
Good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the 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?
We do to all of you both.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you again. If I may, I'm here today.
on behalf of 2350 East Cumberland Properties LLC. With me is John Skanga. He is the managing member
of that LLC. We're here today in essence to request what was previously
Zoning at 2350 East Cumberland as an RSA-5 to be a variance to an RM-1.
In 1997, the property was pursuant to a zoning hearing, 97-0543, re-zoned to a three-family dwelling unit with a rear one-family dwelling unit at 2371 East Letterly Street.
My client purchased the property in June of 2017. With that understanding, I understand further that sometime back in 1959, 2350 East Cumberland Street was in fact zoned for a three-family unit.
There have been five tenants, three at 2350 East Cumberland Street and two at 2371 East Letterly Street living at the property since before my clients took ownership of the property.
They have, in essence, since purchase, been attempting to become legal, so to speak, and gain the required five-unit housing license, but have been told repeatedly only one unit was available, and they have been attempting to correct the situation ever since.
If I may, I'm glad to share my screen as the board sees appropriate.
We do have a copy of the deed evidencing my client's ownership of the property as of June of 2017.
The RCO approval that was granted in August of 2021, a letter of support by the RCO tax
clearance as well and again what we are looking to do here today is to continue providing the
residential rental that was in existence at the time my client purchased the property
same tenants stable situation for them without rent increases and to provide the same level
of care regarding the residential rental for this property.
However, my client simply has been unable,
despite the 1997 zoning approval
to change the one-unit classification to four-unit.
In that case, we are seeking to have
a five-unit rental variance established for this property.
If the board would like, I'm glad to show a copy of the RCO support letter, if I may, and of course the tax clearance and whatever other documents that the board may like to see.
we do have photos of the exterior of 2350 East Cumberland, the exterior of 2371 East
as well as photos of each of the individual units.
as well as photos of each of the individual units among those properties.
I believe it's also important to indicate that my client has done no work on the property.
They haven't made any additions.
They purchased the property as it is.
It is now as it was back in 2017 when they purchased.
So we're not seeking to change the structure, make any additions, do any work to these properties.
We're simply trying to get legal in that we're trying to get housing licenses that fit the number of tenants that have been residing in the property.
Mr. Cole, if you could just show us the tax clearance.
And if you could just get some interior photos or plans.
Just briefly.
Is the board able to view my screen?
We only see you at the moment.
Okay, we have the tax clearance now.
And if you can get some interior plans.
Do forgive my slow computer.
No worries.
No worries.
I'll show unit number one of 2350 East Cumberland.
Again, I have each separated by unit number.
Thank you.
Are the board members able to?
Yes, we have that.
Thank you.
I don't know. Does the board have any questions?
No, Mr. Chair.
All right. Mr. Cole, if you have your client, we can get your client to adopt your testimony.
Sure. If I may call John Skanga. John, if you're out there, please identify yourself.
Mr. Skanga, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
yes i'm here mr chairman all right mr stanga please spell your last name and i'll swear you
in john sure uh s g a n g a first name do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth uh yes i do yes sir thank you mr cole thank you john you've heard everything
that I said here this afternoon? Yes. Yes, Robert. Do you adopt the testimony that I've provided
as your own? Yes, I do. Everything I said has been true and correct? Correct. And your point
Correct. And your point regarding that we just want to be compliant with the rental licenses is very important to us that we stay compliant.
regarding that we just want to be compliant with the rental licenses is very important.
That's correct. Did I miss anything, John? No, not at all. Nothing further for you.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no changes to existing residential single family zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code. Therefore, we recommend the request of variance not be granted.
How long, Mr. Cole, has this been used as multi-family?
The original zoning variance was 1959.
There is a 1997 DBA approval for what they termed a rear carriage house to extend from
three to four units.
So at least as of 1997, if not 1959.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2021-002493, 2350 East Cumberland Street.
My vote is yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
I believe this concludes the 3.30 list.
Is there anyone who feels as though they've not been recognized for any cases on the 3.30 list?
If so, please raise your hand.
i see no hands at this time chair thank you having said that thank you again everyone
folks behind the scenes and everyone else for your support today have a great weekend and
we'll see you next week thank you chair well done thank you chair great job thank you have a good
james now uh james now did he leave all right i must have missed stuff have a good night all
thank you everybody thanks pauline thank you mr chairman
goodbye bye all i'm trying
see you carol trying we're gonna get him back i hope so it'll be nice i know