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