I'm here all right. Thank you, Emily.
And Chair, we have 34 attendees, we can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning a hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, Emily Persico from Development Services will serve as our alternate Board Member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Present also is our Attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sumkin.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
a video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of
our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testify.
If you're participating in my phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and
star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question-to-answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed
to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Let's look at our schedule for this morning.
Number one, MI 2023-003-085,
3550 North 6th Street, that case is continued.
Number five, MI 2023-003-142, 3111 West Montgomery Avenue, that case is continued.
Number 14, MI 2023-003-087, 5429 North 2nd Street, that case is continued.
And number 16, MI 2023, 003-036-336 Dickinson Street, that case is continued.
Are there any comments relative to the cases that have been continued?
Good morning, Chair.
This is Nadia, and I will be your co-host today.
I see no hands.
Are there any other additional requests for continuance?
No hands.
We have several cases and we do not have exhibits.
Number six, MI 2022 006702 1003 South 51st Street.
We have no exhibits.
This is the third listing.
um the last listing no one appeared this must is marked must be heard
jared louder back and carrie and lower the listed owners
no hands chair so mi 2022 006 702 1003 south 51st street third listing uh
No exhibits. I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is to dismiss. Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2023-003-136-3134
Willits Road. No exhibits. First listing.
Christina Williams is the applicant. Berardo Salvatore
is the listed owner.
no hands chair okay so mi 2023 003 136 3114 willach road this is the first listing
this case is continued mark must be heard number eight
This case is continued. Mark must be heard.
Number 18, MI 2023, 003-395-5317 Wayne Avenue, listed onerous Kinsman Corporation, no exhibits, first listing.
no hands okay so MI 2023-003-395-5317 Wayne Avenue this is the first listing
no exhibits cases continued mark must be heard and number 19 MI 2022-006-332-6142
Tulip Street. This is the third listing. No exhibits.
The listed applicant is Bezitta
Cadillo of the Frankfurt Business Center.
That's the listed owner.
We have Allison Wise with their hand raised. I will allow them to
speak.
Yes, hello. Good morning. Thank you.
Allison, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court sonographer?
Allison, A-double-L-I-S-O-N, Weiss, W-E-I-S-S, Solo Germantown Civic Association.
We're an affected...
Okay, hold on.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And you're involved in 6142 Tulip Street?
No, I wanted to comment on 5317 Wayne Avenue.
Okay, so that case has been continued.
Yes, we did not have an RCO meeting.
And we don't have exhibits, but it's the first listing.
So we continue.
Thank you.
All right.
Is there anyone for 19?
6142 Tulip Street, Manuel Achevita, Nixda del Karma, Soto Martinez.
We have a price with their hand raised.
I've allowed them to speak.
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
rashida price please unmute yourself
i'm sorry i had my hand raised uh for south 53rd street earlier but i took it down okay thank you
Thank you. Anyone for 6442 Tulip Street, third listing, no exhibits.
No hands.
MI 2022-006-332-6142 Tulip Street, no exhibits, third listing. I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
And number 11, MI 2023, 003089-501-05 Locust Street.
This case is withdrawn.
We're going to go to our regular list.
We're going to go to number four first.
First, MI 2023-002-341-741 South 20th Street, David Orfanides is the attorney.
There's a letter of deferral from South of South Davers.
Good morning, Mr. Orfanides.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
David, you seem to be freezing up.
David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Certainly.
My client is 1711 Carpenter Properties, LLC, and they are the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Certainly.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed to share your screen.
Can everybody see my screen?
We can, sir.
So, again, my name is David Orphanides.
I'm with the law firm of Orphanides & Toner and here representing 1711 Carpenter Properties, LLC.
As you would see from the deed that we have at tab 14 of our exhibit book, my clients
have owned the property since May of 2022.
Let's see right here.
The property has been a rental property dating back at least to 2007.
I've pulled from Atlas the rental licenses showing from 2007 to 2020 and then up to my
current client.
As you can see from the photograph here, which is the cover of our exhibit book, the property is a single-family dwelling, again, that's been utilized as a residential rental property.
It does have a one-car garage, and as you can see from the photograph, there is a bus stop located directly right in front of our property, right on the doorstep.
Um, the, uh, this is an application for visitor accommodations, uh, which is what, uh, LNI,
the city of Philadelphia and LNI has determined that Airbnbs, um, should be designated.
And given that the property is a single, is a CMX one zone property, as you can see here
on the zoning map, um, it requires a variance, uh, even though the property is zoned commercial,
in CMX1 visitor accommodations are not permitted. But as you can see from the zoning map that I
have here, and is also included at tab four of the exhibit book, we are in between two CMX1
properties with two further to the south, and then RM1s extending further to the south of that.
There is a CMX1 property on the opposite corner, the southwest corner of the property.
There are CMX1 properties on the northwest corner, including a bagel shop.
And then there are single-family dwellings with off-street parking on the northeast corner.
There is, as you can see here on the zoning map, and you'll also see in the photographs,
we have an alley behind our property.
and there's walls of existing structures and rear yards that back up to our property.
The property is located, you mentioned earlier, there's a letter deferral similar to the case I
had with the zoning board last week from SOSNA. You can see here the property is located just
south, and you saw that on the zoning map, just south of the intersection of Fitzwater and South
20th Street. Here's a closer up aerial. Again, Philly Bagels here in the far corner,
commercial property across the street. The block consists of largely a lot of
multifamilies given the zoning classification. But again, you can see here, here's the single
family homes with a common drive and other aerial images. We have exterior photographs at tab five.
You can see we have a three-family unit right next to us, a three-family unit to the south of that.
A lot of this was set forth in the appeal that we filed, a copy of which is included at tab 11.
the zoning uses the permitted uses of other properties on the block it is a northwest
street numbered street as again there's a bus stop right in front so there is commercial
or there's public transportation multi-family then next to us at the southeast corner of
south 20th and fence water oops just trying to scroll through there actually have a picture of
the bus, the 17, right in front of the property. So there are often people waiting out front of
this property to get the bus or to when they get off the bus. Actually, I'm going to go back here.
And then here's the rear, the alley that I mentioned, that's to the rear of our property,
the rear yards of the abutting property. I mentioned the wall of the property that's
to the east or northeast of us here at the bottom of page 10.
And you can see the alley heading further down the property to the
south of us. That three family has decks off the back of it. Interior photos.
has decks off the back of it interior photos um similar to the one last week beautifully appointed
interior well maintained again as i mentioned it does have an interior off street parking space
that's been permitted the zoning archives for the property are included at tab eight
but you know well maintained um not not impacting uh causing not impacting traffic on the street
uh or causing congestion causing parking issues um i would have to rotate this but you can see
the floor plans right here um that i just the images which i just scrolled through um and that's
at uh tab seven again the zoning archives for the property um it is a single family dwelling with
one-car accessory off-street parking. I included the exhibits that I used last week that, again,
show the nearest visitor accommodations, places where visitors, people can stay
to the Graduate Hospital neighborhood. You see that they're pretty far away,
not until you get up to Rittenhouse Square or get well onto the other side of Broad Street.
um historically we had mentioned that there have been uh hotels or places for people to stay
at least from the one record that we were able to secure um documentation regarding and we overlaid
those here in blue with the existing the hotels that exist today so you can see um that there
were accommodations in this neighborhood historically those don't exist anymore
and that there is a benefit, there's a hardship for not having these types of accommodations
in the neighborhood and that there's a need for it and this need is being satisfied
with the present use of the property. Copy of our appeal is included at tab 11.
Again, as I mentioned, I made reference to in that appeal in great detail, if you would like
to read it. Just the history of this property before it was a single family with the off-street
parking rental for the last 15 years. It was a four-family dwelling. The commercial use and
multifamily use of other properties on the block. Project information form at 11B. Tab 12 is a copy
the notice for today's hearing which was and you can see at tab 13 was posted at the property
in compliance with the requirements of the zoning code
i had already referenced the deed my client owning the property the rental licenses are tab 14
tax clearance at tab 15 i then is referenced in sasna's letter which was designated by the
Planning Commission as a coordinating RCO for this project. You can see here at tab 16A,
we had three meetings similar to the case last week. Actually, they were presented or heard at
the same meetings or scheduled for the same meetings. There were three, and the 14303 notices
for each of those in the certificates of mailing are included at tab 16CENG. And so for the same
reasons that the variance was granted last week for a similar type of property, actually without
off-street parking for the use of the guests. We feel that there is a reason to grant the variance
here. We understand that the variance last week was granted temporarily, as other ones have been
granted and my clients are willing to accept that. They run a great operation and they have
no problems with their neighbors. Neighbors came out, spoke out in favor, spoke in favor of them
at this location. And I'm not sure if any of those neighbors are on the call today, but with that,
I would at least for now rest, unless there's anybody that has any questions or any objections.
Why don't you bring your, David, why don't you bring your client on and adopt your testimony?
Certainly. So it would be, I don't know if it's Mr. Tigue. Are the Tigue's on?
Should be.
Mr. Tigue, please raise your hand.
Do we see his hand?
no hands chair so mr orphanetes you're an officer of the court we will take your testimony
questions from the board no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair comments from the virtual audience please
Comments from the virtual audience, please.
No hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, S-A-R-A-H-B-A-N-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan, and our adopted district plan recommended no change to the existing 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 conformance with the code.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 002-341-741-South 20th Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Temporary variance expires 12-20-26.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Everybody have a great end of the year and we'll see you in the new year.
All right.
Good luck today, sir.
Thank you.
Right.
Number 15.
MI 2023-003-123-2021 Wilder Street.
Courtney Wright is the owner, pro se.
This application is for a rear three-story addition and for a third floor addition over an existing two-story portion of an existing single-family attached structure.
Size and location is shown in plan.
Whereas 25%, 168 square feet of open air is required in the RSA 5, but 18.75 square feet of open air is proposed.
Whereas a setback of eight feet at the third floor is not provided as required when the abutting lots of both sides of an attached building contain only two stories of enclosed.
We have no RCO letter at this point, but there wasn't meaning to help.
Courtney Wright.
Good morning, Courtney.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Courtney Wright, C-O-U-R-T-N-E-Y, last name Wright, W-R-I-G-H-T.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents five days ahead of this zoning hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Good morning, my name is Courtney Wright, as we stated earlier, and I'm here to present
a response to the city's refusal for my application for the rear three-story, pardon me?
I said okay.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You were okay.
We're okay.
We have a three-story addition.
Oh, okay.
For a third floor over existing two-story portion and a third floor addition.
I just wanted to let you know just a bit of an overview.
The property at 2021 Wallace Street is located on the north side.
The designs were presented at the September 25th community zoning meeting where I received community group support.
The existing property was a two-bedroom, one-bath with a lot depth of 45 feet and 14 feet, where the height was 24 feet.
I'll take you to-
Courtney, can I ask a question?
Do you have a letter from the RCO?
Okay, thank you.
Just show the letter when you're presenting.
Thank you very much.
Do you want me to present the letter now on the screen?
No, just during the course, your presentation is fine.
Oh, okay.
The plan pretty much is to create a three-bedroom, three-bath home, a three-story home with a rooftop deck and pilot house.
The bedroom, there will not be a bedroom installed into the basement, and there will be a pretty much a brick front reside, whereas right now there is just pretty much stucco as listed here.
The presented plans is in conformance with the zoning, within city zoning, and the plans presented is nothing.
within city zoning and the plans presented as nothing extraordinary that we're requesting.
I'd just like to take this opportunity just to address the two refusals. The first is the
area minimum requirements that was not met. The first one is the requirement where it's usually
25%, whereas we're proposing for the open area where we're proposing 18.75%. And for the occupied
area, the minimum allowance is 75%, but we are asking for 81.3%. The second refusal is that of
an eight-foot setback, which is not provided in the design due to the properties on each side
our two-story buildings. We are proposing for a three-story addition with a mansard roof.
Just like to state that during the community zoning meeting, the call to participate,
the participants did note that they were pleased with the offerings of the mansard roof versus a
straight-up design. All of the information that is included in the packet, all the pictures that
were required for this meeting were sent into the binder. Our current
architectural plans that we're proposing have also been included. All the necessary paperwork,
the zoning notices were all placed on the outside available for anyone to read
21 days, actually more than 21 days than the date of this meeting.
Just in conclusion, just asking for
This is my house where she lived, raised her children, which is including my mother as well.
I'm looking to make things structure much larger where my husband and I can start a family and raise kids there.
We're just asking for the zoning board to reconsider our design for the submitted.
Could you show us the letter?
That's the conclusion of my presentation.
Could you show us the letter, please?
Would I mind if I not share my screen so I can go into my emails and get that?
Go ahead.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I did just find the letter.
it was it was submitted separately and not um okay good case so i i had missed it all right
that's fine we have we but but mr charrett is a so while there was a vote in support by the
community the rco ultimately took a position of opposition they stated that they believe the
project a three-story structure abutting in the middle of two two-story family homes is out of
scope with the conformity and safety of those adjoining homes and community. So that was their
position. Ms. Wright, did you hear that? She was breaking up a little bit. I believe I got the gist
of that. Right. And when you attended the meeting, what did they say to you when you were at the
meeting? There were concerns of adjoining homes being affected by any type of construction that
we would conduct on that property. There were concerns, yes. Was there another three-story
home on the property on the block? Did I see a three-story home on the block?
Yes, there are several. There are several. Several actually right across the street. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact addresses of those properties, but there are two pretty much directly across the street that are two three-story homes straight up.
they're not eight foot setbacks and we have seen that we're not a lot of the properties that are
three stories straight up are not um they are in between right okay i did notice that when you
showed your phone each side so we have seen that thank you okay yes questions from questions from
the board no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have two hands raised
Yes, Chair, we have two hands raised.
Reister, I have allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes, good morning, Agatha Reister, Landmark Architectural Design, 1325 Snyder Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19148.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
You want to testify in this case?
Yes, I would like to.
Are you the architect?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
Good morning, board.
I would like to mention that the property is right next to a two-story structure, which is right next to a vacant lot.
That two-story structure right next to a vacant lot can obtain a zoning permit for a full three-story addition without any setbacks required.
Right away, it would give us the right to obtain an addition without the setback and conform with the zoning code.
I would like to point it out.
And also there is a number of properties on the street towards east side and also across the street that are three story and tall three story structures.
and Courtney's proposal incorporates mansard roof and incorporates new brick facade and we
feel that would be a great addition to the block thank you thank you for calling in is there anyone
else in the virtual audience yes here we have one last person calling user one they've been
allowed to speak hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
Hi, Tiffany Green, Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze
Hi, could you
Tiffany, could you state your name please
and spell for the court sonographer
Tiffany Green
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed
I just want to, for the record
in 2012, Point Breeze was
85% two-story community
that was done by a report
it by the Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia Architectural Firm here in Philadelphia.
I can't remember their name.
I say that to say at this particular point, we've been calling up about this, and our
community is mainly a two-story community.
And from a zoning standpoint, our rights as citizens have been removed because it was
in the zoning code that was brought up to 38 feet, 38 feet, and therefore made it a
by right.
so our community residents have not had a say in this so when someone says oh well what happens
on the other side of the blocks other three stories on other side of the blocks well they
those were built without us having a say including the rooftop deck and the parlor house this is
unfair to a community who has no say in the height so i say all that to say at this point
then it was a promise to us that they would do for eight foot setback because one of the problems
was that we talked about was privacy across the street from them.
We're asking the zoning board to, if there's no real hardship here,
to stay with the code and have them build to code.
They have not been able to come up with any type of hardship.
There is no hardship here at all.
And so we ask that you have them continue to build to code,
and that's what I have at this point to say.
I just want to put that on the record because we're coming here constantly,
and our neighborhood is being destroyed.
Our two-story neighborhood is being destroyed, and it's not fair to long-term residents who not had won the – I just want to put on a record that the Planning Commission, although they do sometimes support this move, but the Planning Commission's 2035 plan has not been passed, and at that particular point, our community has not really had a meeting regarding 2035 in our neighborhood.
So, therefore, the 38 feet and rooftop deck is not supported by, I know, long-term residents, so many long-term residents.
I can say that I've had the meetings of hundreds of people.
So, I'm just putting that on the record for now.
So, I appreciate the board would take all that history into consideration going forward.
We would like to preserve our two-story community.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning. The appellant has not shown that dimensional compliance would cause a significant financial burden. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
Thank you. So MI 2023-003-123-2021 Wilder Street, I vote yes with proviso.
I vote yes with proviso.
Mr. Chair Bertman, may I?
Mr. Chair Bertman, I didn't want to interrupt, but I just definitely wanted to just add something before the final vote, if that's okay.
Go ahead.
Pretty much just what I wanted to say is that we did have the community support.
When we do the mansard roof, it would maintain the cornice line by using the mansard roof.
And I just believe that we should be allowed to build as presented.
Thank you. So let me go back. MI 2023-003-123, 2021 Wilder Street. I vote yes with proviso. Third floor setback of eight feet.
James, my vote is yes with proviso.
I hate my vote is yes.
With proviso with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, man.
We're going to number 17.
I had to log out and come back in.
MI 2023-003-127-1033 Cross Street.
Anthony Carey is the owner-applicant pro se.
The application is the direction of a third-floor addition, a roof deck, and roof deck access, all on top of an existing attached structure, size and location for use of single-family household,
Whereas the roof deck access structure must be set five back feet from the extreme rear building, and a setback of four feet is proposed.
Whereas the applicant has requested a vertical extension of an existing nonconforming rear wall that does not meet the rear yard depth of the RSA 5 zoning district, seven feet required, four feet 5.5 inches proposed.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Could you unmute? Unmute?
Yeah, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Anthony Theokary, A-N-T-H-O-N-Y-T-H-E-O-K-A-R-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Our Vice Chair has a few questions. Good morning, sir. Have you emailed in all
the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
i should mention too you have a letter of non-opposition from passion square civic
and a letter of non-opposition from council member squiller yes
can you see my screen uh it's coming up now
we're okay good yeah all right so the property a 1033 crawl i own it with my wife
lauren theo carry and um the property is zoned rsa5 which you can see over here
and the lot area is 468 square feet the width is 13 feet occupied area is 410 feet and the open
area is 58 square feet the rear yard depth is four feet five and a half inches and the property is
20 feet in height and this is the proposed third floor deck that uh i mean the third floor
that we were proposing to put on the existing property and here goes the rear
of the property here goes an above angle and so what we propose is the third floor
addition and a roof deck with a small pile of house sorry my computer is a
And the home will be less than 1,500 square feet with the third floor and without the cellar.
and it does not exceed the allowable height so we got a refusal I'm going to
And it does not exceed the allowable height.
scroll we got a refusal for the rear yard deck which required seven feet we
proposed four feet five and a half inches and for the roof deck access structure
rear setback which we required five feet and we proposed four feet now the house itself is only
36 feet deep so with a very very small yard
they're with me I'm sorry
I'm going to show you photos of the existing
condition
so here goes
my property in the middle there
you can see my neighbor
to the right of me already has three stories up my name this is my neighbor that'll left of me
this is the condition of the home it's fully gutted
and then you're going to see the rear this is my backyard and this two foot
alley is actually there was an easement indeed that two foot section is actually a means of
egress for the neighbor to the left because they have no alleyway so I virtually have no yard
and here goes some floor plans
this is the basement over here which will be a den there will be no
bedrooms in the basement here goes this third first floor little living area dining area in
kitchen as you can see this is the alleyway right here that belongs to my neighbor now
and then here goes an alley that goes out to the street
and the second floor would be two bedrooms or one bedroom in an office with a full bath and a laundry
and this is the proposed third floor that would be a master suite for me and my wife and here
Here goes the roof deck that we propose with the step back only being four feet because
of where the stairs will land in the house.
As you can see the stairs on the third floor, it's pretty tight as is right now.
The roof deck would be just for us to have an outdoor area because we virtually have
zero outdoor area right now.
And here goes some more pictures of the front of the house,
what it would look like with a mansard room.
Over here, this is the back of the house.
And this is the zoning notice that I posted so everybody could see, and the refusal.
Some pictures of the property.
And this is the public meeting where everybody voted, so this is the letters we sent out
the neighborhood. And we met with the
Pashon Square Civic Association on July 11,
2023, and they voted non-opposition.
And I would just like to say that
me and my wife loved the neighborhood. We grew up around
neighborhood we found this house bought it it's a small house it's very small um so we would love
to start a family in that neighborhood we grew up in them you know we grew up right around there
both went to school around there and uh we eventually want to have children pretty soon
and the way the house is now it would be pretty tight um so we would love
you guys reconsider and give us the variance
and give us the variance so we can start a family and have a house in the neighborhood we love and
so we can start a family and have a house in the neighborhood we love.
you know just like i said the house next door to me actually already has three stories
um and we will not be exceeding any height um the height
and um i think that sums up my presentation and uh thank you questions from the board
no chair no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have a agatha reister they have been allowed to speak
good morning could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Good morning again.
Agatha Reister, A-G-A-T-A-R-E-I-S-T-E-R, Landmark Architectural Design.
I would like to just mention that.
Okay, just for a point, you've already been sworn, so please proceed.
Thank you.
I would like to mention, and do a slight correction, the lot actually is 36 feet, not the house itself.
The house itself is about 31 feet in depth.
The lot is 468 square feet, which is pretty much half of current standards for RSA 5.
It is very small.
They truly have a hardship fitting even the stairs to accommodate for legal size bedrooms.
That's basically how the pilot house refusal came about.
And the fact for the lack of rear yard setback, we are following the line of existing condition for first and second floor.
And we would like to ask for the variance as there is truly a dimensional hardship at this property.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning.
The appellant's hardship claim is supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
MI 2023-003-127-1033, Cross Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
We're moving on to number two.
Thank you, by the way.
Thank you.
Okay. MI 2023-003-133, 1941-45, East Letterly Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support unanimous from East Kensington Neighborhood Association
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
There is also an applicant provided 55 form letters of support from the neighbors.
Mr. Nockamson.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name
Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yeah, my client is Jonathan Anthony James II, also known as J. James, and he's the
Okay. And our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refu-
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the-
Do you agree to-
Excuse me.
Do you agree to stipulate to the accuracy or agree to waive the refu-
I'm sorry.
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh yes we have that was a tongue
tie uh please proceed and share your screen thank you all right so again i'm here to present
1941-45 East Leroy Street. This is a proposed four-unit apartment building with four off-street
parking spots by way of an existing curb cut. So here we'll be presenting first our notice of
refusal. Then as the chairman stated, we have a letter of support from East Kensington Neighbors
Association, where as unanimous, 23 members of the community supported this project.
And in addition to that, we just received a letter of non-opposition from District
from district council member squilla which is included in our packet of materials
Council Member Squilla, which is included in our packet of materials.
and then my client made a concerted effort to meet neighbor neighboring property owners
and occupants and we have uh i believe almost 50 letters of support from nearby neighbors
with a corresponding map so you can see that all the properties that are nearby which would
be most directly impacted are in support of this conversion of a one-story garage
into a three-story apartment building with four units and four off-street parking spots.
Then we'll review the zoning map, which will also show that while we're an RSA-5 property,
across the street's RM1, so what we're offering is not out of character. And if this was an RM1
property, which it's not, this 3,000-square-foot lot would easily accommodate four residential
units. Then we'll review photographs of the property in the surrounding area,
our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice, and we had a well-attended meeting of 23 members
of the community all in support of this project. Our application for appeal that we filed on
behalf of Mr. James, his deed to the property showing that he's the owner of the property,
and the certificate of tax clearance showing that he owes no real estate taxes
in connection with his property ownership. Again, at the conclusion of the presentation,
we would ask that Mr. James virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and we'll then have a couple
of questions for him about my presentation. So first things first is notice refusal. Again,
this is a one-story garage, which is more commercial in nature than anything. And what
we're trying to do is do an adaptive reuse of that in this residential neighborhood by adding
two stories repurposing the first story as a garage which will also include a trash room
and we'll have four units of four parking stalls there and then on the upper on the second and
third floors we'll have four residential units so we have a few refusals um more technical in nature
two of the refusals has to deal with the parking which again we're repurposing uh the uh park you
know, this one-story garage. So I think that, again, we're not creating this curb cut from
scratch. So I think that's our hardship there. The second refusal has to do with the rear yard
depth. So we have a non-conforming building in terms of rear yard depth. By building on top of
that, we're expanding that non-conformity, and that's a technical refusal. But again,
And our neighboring properties, so left and right of us and behind us, have no issue with anything in that respect.
And the community doesn't either, so I hope that the board doesn't either.
And then finally is the multifamily use or proposed multifamily use.
We're proposing to have four units.
This building, this lot, excuse me, is almost 3,000 square feet.
So, again, we're R&1 across the street, you know, having this adaptive reuse instead of tearing down some buildings and, you know, a building which is across multiple lots, which have been consolidated over time and instead building up and using that parking that, you know, a lot of the neighboring property owners appreciate that we're using it with one curb cut getting four cars in there.
I think this is a responsible use of this property and building structure.
Sure. Letter of support from ECNA. Again, it's not very often that we get unanimous support with that many members of the community there. So you can tell that, you know, they really appreciated how we responsibly repurposed this building.
And then there's a letter as well that outlines their reasoning behind it. And then Council Member Squilla also just sent us a letter in non-opposition to this project. And I would gather not just because of the, you know, the four corners of our project, but also because of the overwhelming support of the community within the community meeting, as well as the community as a whole.
I task my clients all the time. I said, reach out to your neighbors, right? Not everyone attends a
community meeting for various reasons. And you just never know how that community meeting is
going to end up. So I task my clients that reach out to the properties that are going to be most
directly impacted. And I think that's one of the best ones I've seen yet of like he had 49 properties
other than his and he hit every single one almost. So I think he did a great job. And, you know,
Now, here are the, you know, again, that map is based on the letters we've received from him signed by occupants of these neighboring properties.
I'm just going to go quickly through it.
It's a form letter, but they had each one of them sign and provide information.
Okay, and then maps of the area, as you can see, while we're an RSA 5 property, there is definitely a diversity of zoning in the neighborhood, and most importantly, across the street to RM1, so again, a 3,000 square foot lot, this would be a four units would easily fit within the zoning classification of RM1, plus we're providing off-street parking, which is not typical of multifamily use.
Okay, and then maps of the area.
So we're repurposing a curb cut. So I think this project is a win-win for us and the neighborhood.
And then this is just a map from a Google Maps perspective.
And then photographs of the property. As you can see, this is a one-story structure, existing curb cut with an existing front garage.
This was more of like commercial industrial use.
So, again, in the residential neighborhoods, this was probably not the most appropriate use.
But, again, everything was allowed as a right for years.
So this neighborhood transitioned over.
And, you know, because of that, we feel like it's more appropriate to have residential use of this sort.
And then this is East Larley Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property.
It looks like there's an apartment building right here, too.
And then our plans and drawings.
So, you know, Mass Architecture Studio, who we love, who we always work with, or we work with a lot.
Again, did an adaptive reuse of the property, cleaned up that first story there, repurposed, you know, the front of the garage area, and then added two stories above.
Again, we don't, we have a technical refusal from a dimensional standpoint because this is a non-conforming building from a rear yard setback point of view.
But otherwise, there are no other dimensional refusals.
And then you can see here we have the four parking stalls on the first floor.
We have a trash room right here. We have a mail room right here.
So we're trying to do responsible use of this property. There's no basement use.
And again, you know, the floor plans are pretty basic.
There's two units on the second floor, two units on the third floor, each or two bedroom, two and a half baths.
and then you know we met with the community on September 13th 129 addresses were notified of
the meeting the list of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses our application for
appeal that Mr. James filed along with the notice of refusal and then the deed showing that he owns
the property and then finally uh our uh proof that we he owes no real estate taxes um in connection
with his property ownership again i would ask that mr uh james james uh virtually raise his hand
john james yes hello how are you hi mr james could you state your name please and spell for
court stenographer my name is john james j-o-h-n-j-a-m-e-s do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel uh yes mr james
you heard everything i had to state today about your zoning matter yes and is it true and correct
yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board
no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bomb with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family zoning
Due to the unique physical circumstances and conditions of the property, the appellant has shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity with the zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable its viable economic use.
Regarding the proposal for accessory parking, the appellant has not supported their hardship claim.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance with the following provisos, maximum two dwelling units and no accessory parking.
yes i'll shortly respond to that yeah i'll shortly respond to it again this is a rather
large lot of 3 000 uh square feet um and i think the use of four units is appropriate under
circumstances and you know we should always repurpose you know parking when we can um and
here there this is a you know a great adaptive reuse of this property so we're doing one curb
cut and we're creating four parking spots that's that's a great use of of the property okay thank
you mi 2023 003 133 1941 to 45 east letterly street i vote yes
james snell my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael said
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
We will be seeing you later today, I understand.
A little bit.
Right, okay, thank you.
Number three, MI 2023-003-092-638 Christian Street.
Bern Anastasio is the attorney.
Harry Cook may be filling in.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Bella Vista Neighbors Association.
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Harry Cook has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning, Mr. Cook.
Could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y-C-O-O-K, Law Office of Vernon Anastasio.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify your client in the relationship to this property?
I can, sir. My client is Jackie Starker. She is Gerigato, and they are tenants at the property
and the applicant on this project. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy? I do waive the reading of the refusal. I stipulate to the facial accuracy of the refusal,
But I do reserve the right to argue a definition as it relates to boarding of animals.
I have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Also, please proceed and share your screen.
Sure. Pleasure.
can everyone see my screen we can sir okay so what we have here today is a project
that is at 638 christian street uh the property is already zoned and has a permit for a sit-down
restaurant in front and what we're proposing is a cat cafe these are kind of avant-garde
sort of uh projects um popular in japan getting more so popular here where folk can come have a
cafe have some food from local bakeries and through a glass window view cats uh we've partnered with
the pspca for adoption of these cats and um we're going to go further into that but i just wanted
to start with the referral and refusal. So what we're proposing in terms of the cat cafe that kind
of new avant-garde use generated a referral. So it's a conditional use. It's presumed legal
so long as the use isn't out of the ordinary of what one might imagine or expect from the type of
use. My client has Amelie Bakery Bake Shop in Passion Square. She's ran that for many years.
She's a seasoned business owner and manager. No complaints there. So we believe as we get further
down the line that the referral and the proposed use that generated the referral for the special
exception is not going to impact the community. Now, if you notice on the refusal, proposed
boarding and other services is prohibited in this zoning district. Now, when we contemplate boarding,
I think we have a very specific understanding of it, right? You're going away for Christmas break,
you need to take your animal and you go get it boarded. That's not what's happening here. These
are unhoused cats. Philadelphia has about 400,000 feral cats. It's a public health crisis.
They predate on native bird species. They can spread disease. So it's very important
to find homes for these cats, match people with the cats, so on and so forth. But in order to do
that, they have to remain in the property. Just as a veterinarian might keep animals overnight
for purposes of treatment, just as a pet store may have animals overnight for the purposes of sale,
that is more akin to what we're doing than boarding. No one's coming with their cat
and dropping them off. So that's just a little starter as it relates to
referral and variance. Without the variance, if the board agrees that it is boarding, this condition
If the board agrees that it is boarding, this conditional use that is presumed legal will not be able to go into effect.
This is where what the operation will look like.
So you come inside. You have the cafe in front. You have a hermetically sealed access area right here with HEPA filters, kind of like docking at the space station.
Right. There's an internal little chamber that you go so that there's no cross contamination that's required by the Philadelphia Board of Health.
It's by appointment only unless there's walk in.
We'll get into some of the numbers of how many cats and how many people as we go further down the line.
But essentially, you can come. You can gaze at the cats. You can meet the cats. You can adopt the cats.
here on the plans you'll see this first floor area is going to be cafe
cafe area here chamber through the chamber into the cat area the cats will be there overnight
again we're going to be using state-of-the-art HEPA filtration that was a concern
at the at the RCO meeting there were 26 people in attendance at the RCO meeting
only one vote was in opposition so nearly unanimous support or non-opposition to this project
here is the current condition at the property
here is a copy of the current permit for sit down eating drinking establishment
here is a copy of the lease from my tenant
and about the public policy behind it. So the mission is to save as many cats as possible in
Philadelphia. Again, there are about 400,000 feral cats. We have the largest, one of the largest
ratios of feral cat to people. Oftentimes, Philadelphians have to go outside of Philadelphia
County to go and adopt cats. We believe that this sort of cafe and adoption is important because
most people, 43%, prefer to rescue cats from shelters. So this gives another sort of flavor
to that. So you can visit the cafe for a drink. If there's walk-in available, you can go visit a cat
or you can make a reservation to see a cat.
You can then apply in person or online, again, in partnership with the PSPCA.
Applications are reviewed within 24 hours.
Provides a safe environment for encounters so that bond can be generated
between person and animal, which is so important.
And at any given time, there can be one cat per 18 square feet.
So we're probably looking at 17 cats and at most 22 people max in the cat lounge, which is the area that has the cats.
And children under 10 will be permitted under special kids events.
We also plan to have events, paint your cat, educational events, et cetera.
Awards of operation for the cafe on Monday through Friday or 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
The cat's visitation will begin around 10 a.m. on any given day, and they'll also get a little break period during the day so they aren't overstressed.
We believe it will offer a great community engagement for people to come, for book clubs, speed dating.
All of that is going to be generated in this very inclusive space.
Here again are some photos of the interior.
You have your coffee right here.
You see a kitty cat over here.
um blood pressure lowers uh as many medical studies have have shown uh so it's it's it's
a benefit for both the city in terms of removing feral cats from the street and finding that
partnership so um we met with the rco uh in october it was a well-attended meeting here
is a copy of the notice that was sent out. Again, 26 people were in attendance, including board
members. All board members voted in non-opposition. The council person is not opposed. And 19 members
of, excuse me, all members except one of those in attendance voted in favor. Some of the concerns
of the RCO were odor sequestration.
And, again, the bell chamber provides for odor sequestration between food service area and the cat viewing area and cat participation room.
And again, the bell chamber provides for odor sequestration.
We're using a special filter called Color Fill, which uses HEPA and carbon, which will be integrated into that chamber.
They will also be used standalone in the basement where trash and litter is stored.
There will be trash pickup at least once a week, twice a week, and more as needed if required by the RCO.
So I think we've mitigated against that main concern.
Also, there were questions about when trash pickup would take place, not too early in the morning.
So we're limiting trash pickup between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. as well.
So, you know, the community, the RCO kind of sees this as a public benefit for the neighborhood and are excited for this to just get started.
Here's a proof of posting.
Here's posting on the outside.
And I do have my client here, Jackie Starter.
why don't you bring why don't you bring your client or adopt your testimony thank you miss
starker could you raise your hand they have been allowed to speak good morning could you please
state your name and spell for the court stenographer hi my name is jackie starker j-a-c-k-i-e-s-t-a-r-k-e-r
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed, counsel.
Ms. Starker, good morning.
Did you hear and see my presentation today to the zoning board?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and understanding?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Harry, just one quick thing.
This use is limited to Suite A?
This use is limited exactly to the first floor and to the basement for storage and service.
That's correct.
All right.
Thank you.
Hillary, is that okay?
as long as because the lease said suite a does that include both the basement and the first floor
um yes uh it does it is inclusive of the basement is that correct jackie
jackie is still there uh during my presentation to the rco it did include the basement that's
where trash will be stored uh and where additional hepa filters will be uh will be employed
yes it does include the basement okay thank you thank you um planning commission
thank you chair berkman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission
in 2015 the zoning map was amended from cmx2 with this location in accord with recommendations from
the comprehensive plan the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood
beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the Zoning Board grant the special exception.
Thank you.
MI 2023-003-092-638 Christian Street,
I vote yes with proviso,
use limited to first floor and basement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you so much.
Number eight, MI 2023, 003-083, 3100 Frankfurt Avenue.
David Garcia is the attorney.
At this point, we do not have an RCO letter as of yet,
but there was a meeting held 11-2-23 by Harrogate Civic Association.
Mr. Garcia.
i'm sorry chair um david garcia was promoted to panelists i'm not seeing them now
okay there they go oh there he is all right good morning mr garcia
All right. Good morning, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, as I was being allowed in, my computer was just scrolling and scrolling and scrolling.
I caught your last comment about no letter from the RCA would be Harrogate Civic Association.
We haven't received one either.
Okay, sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's sonar?
Yes, it's David Garcia, ID number 54351, last name G-A-R-C-I-A.
All right, do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
good morning counsel do you agree to with the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes sir
thank you please proceed and share your screen
uh members again the property being located at 3100 frankfort avenue that's on the corner of
Frankfort Avenue in East Clearfield.
The owner is
Levy 3100
LLC. Moore Levy
is the sole principal
for the LLC. This has been zoned
as a commercial mixed one.
The various application
we're seeking is for
the operational convenience store
on the ground levels plus
four apartment units that are above.
Let me just get this.
the refusal
which is on page two it was refused because apparently of the code you're prohibited from
having a full-time family household living adjacent to an rs5 zoning district my client
purchased this building back in May of 2018. And historically, it has been used as a commercially
mixed used building since I believe, February of 1973. At some point, the lower levels was
a variety store, also had a retail use furniture store, but always for the four apartments.
I looked at the BRT or at the Atlas, and there were rental permits issued there back in March of 2004 and September of 2006.
When my client purchased this building, it was basically, well, I don't want to say abandoned, but it was certainly empty.
And it had originally at some point had a laundromat.
Again, what my client wants to be permitted to do here is to have a convenience store down at that first level with the four other apartments above it.
If I can, oh, where's my, oh, excuse me.
I'll go to the drawing at page six.
That will make more sets out of this.
Here are some of the prepared drawings that were filed.
Starting from my left, where I'm scrolling with the hand, this would be the cellar for
the basement.
as you can see there's only uh there's an exit at the end this would be clear field where my
hand is scrolling and in the front where the gate is open oh this is yeah uh this area here that
would be frankfurt um this would be the second i mean the first level this is where the commercial
area would be. Here would be the main entrance. Again, this is Frankfurt. This is Clearfield.
This is an exit, a cellar exit on the side. These darkened areas are the wall separations,
but there's one commercial space. Here's another. These are the steps,
Here's another. These are the steps, and you'll see it in pictures I show you later on, but these are the steps that lead up to the apartments up on the second floor, second and third floor.
and you'll see it in pictures I show.
And again, these are all the commercial space used, and this is the exit door for that first floor, or at least for this area, that office at that area.
this again will be the first floor if I could just scroll down
again this is the stairway
that leads down that would lead down to the exit
well they have it as unit 3
here's unit 2
and here is unit 1
and all the exit areas if you could follow the red lines those are the ones that lead to the
exit and all the other apartments not but they oh here they are all all of them have this um if we
look on the second floor again it is a smaller unit but this is unit four and again here are
stairways for the exit if i could just go to some more of these
i went through the drawings there is why is this not oh
this is just starting at page seven this is just a project info um well you know mr garcia i think
could be why don't you show us what their property looks like now yeah that's easier for us to
understand that's what i was getting at i mean our package didn't include a copy of the deed even
though it really wasn't yeah we have all that and you have the tax clear it also um mr chair but let
me just go straight to the horse's mouth here
Here's a photograph of the front again, this being Clearfield and down here being Frankfurt.
This is looking north on Frankfurt, the building is here.
you know this photograph is the one i have showing of the hearing notice
why don't you turn that again turn that for us yeah that's what i'm going to do
i will um i will confess it's somewhat blurry that's fine but
there's mr garcia what mr garcia you're saying there was always commercial on the first floor
and the four apartments above?
Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
That's historically what's been at this location.
Now, I do have some photos of the interior.
If I could just scroll down.
Again, this just shows, let me see if I can reduce it.
This door here is the exit for these units that were up here,
the apartment units on that second and third floor.
this is a better picture of it this is one of the exit doors for this commercial space obviously
here's the the primary entrance again there's another photograph of that area that's looking
towards the store south on frankfurt i pulled this one actually yesterday this is one of the
the photographs on google but let me see if i can show you the interior i'll just scroll down
that's just a notice whoa i thought i had it oh oh they had added that
just your indulgence mr chairman i thought i had put in the
I'm going to stop sharing this because I think these
photographs of the interior are another location, which obviously I'd like you to see.
So why don't you bring your client on?
Yeah, Mr. Levy should be on. Okay.
Mr. Levy, are you there?
Mr. Levy, could you please, Mr. Levy, could you state your name
and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Hi, good morning. My name is Moore Levy, M-O-R-L-E-V-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do, Your Honor.
Counsel, please proceed.
Yeah, Mr. Levy, good morning. You've heard my presentation before the board today?
Yeah, Mr. Levy, good morning. You've heard my presentation before the board.
Yes, sir.
And is my, the statements I have made, have those been accurate?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. Can you hear me?
Yes. And Mr. Levy, would you adopt my statements as yours?
what mr levy i'm here i'm here i said yes would you adopt the statements of the presentation i
made the board as though it was yours yes sir so it's always business commercial uh
commercial first floor and a four apartment on the top okay thank you questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary embers
not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have a guzman they have been allowed to speak
okay i please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer
okay um my name is tessie on behalf of the owner of the business adjacent to her
um could you do me a favor spell your name for the court stenographer it's t-e-s-s-i-e last
name benitez b-e-n-i-t-e-z right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed i'm just translating for the owner of the business
at 38, I'm sorry, at
388 Frankfurt Ave.
I don't think, am I
right, Hillary? We have to have our own interpreter
once people do that. You're absolutely correct,
Chair. Okay, thank you.
We cannot have you interpret for
someone.
She wants to speak.
If she doesn't speak
English, it would be very hard.
Okay. It's a little rough.
Well, then, if it's
a little rough, I don't know that we can
do it, ma'am.
Hi, good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
So Heidi Guzman.
Could you spell it, please?
S-O-G-A-D-Y.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, was somebody translating or interpreting?
Whoever, the interpreter, we can't have you telling people what to say.
We just can't.
Very sorry.
Mr. Chair, is Ms. Guzman able to just say whether she is in support or opposition on her own?
I'm not sure.
My concern is, is the interpreter will, I think, tell her what to say.
Right. No, I understand, Mr. Chair.
Chair, may I make a suggestion?
You most certainly can.
Thank you. Can we just have her maybe submit something in writing and we'll just hold
that open for her to submit something in writing?
We can do that.
We may have to hold this anyway because we don't have a letter yet from the zoning board.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not the zoning board, the RCO.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
And by the way, the person who was interpreting, we will take a letter from that person who has an adjoining business.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended from CMX1 to CMX2 at this location in accord with recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use for food, beverages, and groceries, as well as the existing multifamily, is consistent with documented prior use of this property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
Hillary, we're going to hold this until, I guess it would be January 10th.
At that time, we will give the RCO a chance to send a letter.
If not, we will vote without the letter.
And the person on the phone, we will close everything except what the RCO has to say.
And that person that said they would want to have some input has to say.
has to say. Everything else will be closed. The attorney will have a chance to respond
Everything else will be closed.
The attorney will have a chance to respond.
to both the RCO and also that comments that if we receive them in mail. Is that okay?
Sounds great, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy holidays to everybody.
All right. Thank you very much. Number nine, MI 2023-003-025-2220 Titan Street,
Olak Sokolov is the attorney.
Letter of support for Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Applicant also provided four form letters from residents of the 2200 block of Titan.
Good morning, Chair, members of the Board.
Good morning, Mr. Sokolov. How are you, sir?
I'm no longer.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Oleg Sokolov on behalf of the applicant and property owner, Ma Empire LLC, O-L-E-G-S-O-K-O-O-V.
Great. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Could you identify your client in the relationship to the property?
yeah my my clients the the client is ma empire lc on the line with me today is envita ferrara
over the entity okay and our vice chair has a few questions good morning council do you agree to
wave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy good morning mr shaheed yes i do
have you emailed have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i i have for the most
part uh mr should be there were a few items that miss emerson asked me to to send um that were
said not within five days so we're saying yesterday okay i believe we received that
please proceed to share your screen thank you very much i'm sorry mr chairman do you mind if
i just step off camera for one second to close a window so you're all right sure that's fine thank
my apologies and thank you very much please proceed
so as stated uh my name is oleg sokolov i'm on here on behalf of ma empire llc which is
the record owner of this property. I'm just confirming that everyone can see my screen here.
Are you able to see my screen, Mr. Chair? Yeah, sure. We're fine. Yep.
Okay. Just by a little background. So despite the fact that this property is owned in an LLC,
it is actually a personal use property. Ms. Carrara and her husband reside in New York.
However, Ms. Carrara works in the pharmaceutical industry and is required to be in Philadelphia
three days a week and at various times. They were a little misadvised that they should purchase the
property in an LLC since it is not their primary residence, so I just wanted to give that as a
as a way of a little bit of background. I'll now take you through our presentation.
We have the refusal here, so we're here seeking your permission to use the property as a visitor
accommodation so that Ms. Carrara can rent the property when she is not in Philadelphia and when
she's residing in New York. The property, you know, it's certainly a financial burden to have
a property and the idea of renting temporarily or even hotel rooms is just unaffordable. So hence
the purchase of this property. It was purchased in February of this year. Here is the deed.
And as I stated, there is the ownership of my empire. However, it is a personal use property.
this isn't a commercial enterprise by any means.
This is a picture of the property.
It's a three-story single family.
You'll see here, and I'll show later,
but those are pictures of the notice posters for today's meeting.
You can see the property here.
It is located in RSA 5, hence the issuance of the refusal for visitor accommodation.
Our application for appeal, our project information form, our RCO notice letter, a meeting was held on September 25th, pretty good turnout, it was a pretty long meeting, we discussed a number of issues related to this property, however, you know, we believe it went really well, here's our certificates of mailings showing proof.
you know we believe it went really well here's our our certificates of mailing showing proof
of mailing to i believe somewhere in the area of 163 residents
and as mentioned by mr bergman uh here's um rco lender of support from the point for
Community Development Coalition, and you can see here's the position of the RCO 7 in support and
no oppositions. And once again, as stated by the chair, Ms. Carrara did speak to her nearby
neighbors explained you know why she's seeking this visitor accommodation and and was able to
to get some letters of support from nearby neighbors on the block here's 2217 titan city
2216 2235 some of these are all 2222 four letters of support from
not only nearby residents but members or residents on the immediate block
Here is a picture of the notice poster on the door, the close-up of the notice posters.
I'll now take you through the interior of the property.
Here we have the kitchen.
You can see that, you know, it's fully stocked.
This is something that Mr. R uses every week.
It's unfortunate that she has to be away from her family while at work, but, you know, hopefully
they're hoping to eventually be in Philadelphia, so hence the children's bedrooms, which they
plan on. You can see it's very well appointed, very well taken care of. This is a, you know,
not exactly a primary residence for Ms. Carrara, but certainly equal to her primary residence in
terms of use, so the care and maintenance of it is of utmost importance. If I may, I'd like to
bring Ms. Carrara on just to
thank you
Ms. Carrara can you raise your virtual hand please
they have been
allowed to speak
good morning could you state your name please and spell
for the court stenographer
sure my name is Anvita Carrara
A-N-V-I-T-A
K-A-R-A-R-A
thank you so much for your time today
and do you swear or affirm
the tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
please proceed counsel
Thank you.
Ms. Carrara, have you listened to my testimony today?
Yes, I did.
And would you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
Is there anything else you'd like to mention to the board to have them consider before
making a decision?
No, that's it.
I mean, I work at a pharma, like my, you know, representative Olive just said, at Merck
Pharmaceutical, where we make cancer medications.
and my job is very important to me
because I really feel it helps me
get medications to the people.
It is tough as a working woman
to split your time between here and New York
where my family resides,
but I am very passionate about it
and I would like to request your approval
because I do have to be at work
three days in a week.
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
the appellant has not shown that the property cannot be used in strict conformity with the
zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable the viable economic use
of the property city planning commission recommends that the zoning board deny the
variance thank you mi2023 00305 2220 titan street i vote yes but proviso temporary variance
expires 12-20-26.
Thank you, counsel.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, members of the board.
Wishing you all a happy break and a happy holiday.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
Thank you.
Number 10, MI 2023, 003-135, 5000 Power Street.
5000 Power Street.
Harry Cook is the attorney.
Harry Cook is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Mill Creek Advisory Council.
An applicant also provided a petition and support signed by approximately 54 neighbors.
am I frozen hello yeah no please proceed Mr. Cook Mr. Cook you've already been sworn just
just state your name for the record good morning Mr. Chairman Harry Cook okay COOK
okay could you identify your client in relationship to this property I sure can sir uh just allow me
to uh bring up my material apologize uh our client is 5000 parish street llc it is the owner
of the property and the applicant okay and our vice chair has a few questions for you sir
good morning counsel do you agree the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i did sir thank you please
proceed and share your screen okay just give me a moment to get that going
having a little technical issue but just a moment
here we go can everyone see my screen we can sir all right super make it a little bit larger that's
all yes will do so we're here for the project at 5000 parish street uh this property is a
non-conforming uh historic structure uh previously approved for hardware store on the first floor
with single-family dwelling above back in 1986. It has been vacant for some time.
We are proposing a daycare center on the first floor along with the prior approved single-family
use above. Just for context purposes, this property is located at the corner of 50th and Parish.
It is in an RSA 5 district. The entirety of this area here is inclusive of the elementary school that is catty-coner to the property, and you'll see on scale where we are.
So you have here Rhodes Elementary School, a non-conforming use in the middle of an RSA district that is geared towards children and education.
Our use that we're proposing directly, Caddy Corner, is a child care center, but not like any other particular child care center.
It is focusing on children that would otherwise qualify under Section 504, special needs children, early intervention children,
so that they can be ready and prepared when time comes to move along over to Rhodes Elementary.
um first floor proposed open area with um kitchen bathroom down to the basement also open area play
area second floor is going to be a two-bedroom we're proposing no changes to the structure
externally front bedroom rear bedroom bathroom kitchen open living kitchen area
With me today is Lamont Dawkins, who is the managing member of the entity that owns it and is planning this project, along with his proposed operator, who is an experienced teacher, experienced with early childhood intervention and all of those things.
and her name is Ms. Naya Terrell. If the board, as we continue through the presentation,
looking at the building, wants to hear from them other than just adoption, let me know.
Here is the structure now. As you can see, it is boarded up. It is dilapidated. It is a
attractive nuisance in its current state. It's been upgraded a little bit, but prior to my
client's involvement, an attractive nuisance essentially for a school that was catty-corner
to it. It is a corner property. Again, it is adjacent to a non-conforming use that is not
dissimilar. It was Cox hardware for many, many, many, many decades.
It was Cox Hardware for many, many, many, many decades.
Has a classic commercial entrance that is conducive for child care, pick up and drop off.
And we had a community meeting back in October.
I believe it was on October 9th, proof of posting.
Where it was very well attended.
and we met with Mill Creek Advisory Council
and it was unanimous support in favor of this project.
The people in the neighborhood saw the need for it,
saw that it was consistent with the use on the block
and fully, the quote unquote,
the final position of the coordinating RCO
is in full support of the above reference zoning proposal.
In addition, we have circulated a petition
to roughly 40 neighbors in the area who are all in support of this project
and ask that this board grant our requested relief.
Proof of mailing.
There is no tax balance for 2023.
This was prior.
That is a 2024 tax balance, and that is not due until the end of the year.
And with that, I'll open to questions, or I'd like to call my client to adopt my testimony.
Why don't we have your client adopt your testimony?
Lamont, can you raise your hand, sir?
Lamont has been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonogram?
Lamont, do we see his hand again?
Lamont is unmuted.
Lamont, could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court's stenographer?
Chair, I believe they may be having technical difficulties.
So, Mr. Cook, you're an officer of the court. We will accept your testimony.
Questions from the board? Thank you.
No, Chair.
Okay. Jim?
Emily?
no Mr. Chair questions or comments from our attorney Hilary Emerson
not at this time chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair berkman sarah bond with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might
normally be expected the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance
thank you mi 2023 003 135 5000 paris street i vote yes
james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you thank you happy holidays
and happy new year same to you um number 12 mi 2023 004 931 146 north 54th street
joseph consul is the attorney a letter of support from achieve a building
joseph consul is coming in as a panelist good morning good morning mr consul could you state
your name please and spell for the court stenographer joseph consul that's j-o-s-e-p-h
c-o-n-s-o-l-e you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do could you identify your client in relationship to the property client is michael enriquez he's
owner of the property okay and our vice chair has just a few questions
good morning council do you agree to weigh the reason of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy
i do have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have
thank you please proceed and share your screen okay
am i packing up yes sir okay uh one four six
yes sir okay uh 146 north 54th street i'm joe consul properties owned by michael n riguez
um this property if you go back in the archives you could see um was there it is approved from
a one family to a two family conversion um in 1946 there's other documents in there
confirming that it was uh approved for a two-family you know whatever 80 some 80 years ago
my client when he originally purchased the property in 2017 was given a rental license for
two units uh but at some point between then and when we applied uh he had sought some other uh
stuff from l and i and they had and somehow they noticed that they had given him this two two unit
rental license without there being an active use permit for two units. So they revoked
the two-unit rental license, as you can see on here under status. So it was issued right after
he bought it and revoked at some point. Then he came to me. We applied for a two-unit use,
But because it's zoned RSA-5 now, it is refused, and we're seeking the approval for that second unit again.
So we've got proof from a long time ago through time.
And even though it was granted the two-unit, it was revoked.
We went in front of Achievability.
It was a pretty straightforward meeting.
We presented the evidence.
some neighbors showed up saying that it was always a two unit as far as they knew and we got their
letter of support proof of mailing photos and plans included in there we included a layout
just showing you the inside was included in our packet
And we should as a little backyard, two meters, you can see that they're, they're quite old.
And then we have our deed tax compliance certificate and project information form.
Pretty straightforward. I'm going to call my client to adapt my testimony.
Mr. Enriquez, could you raise your hand, virtual hand?
mr enriquez could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes michael enriquez first name m-i-c-h-a-e-l last name enriquez e-n-r-i-q-u-e-z right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel good morning michael did you hear my testimony just now
yes sir do you adopt it as your own i'm sorry can you repeat that do you adopt it as your own
as if you had given it yourself absolutely yes all right uh nothing further questions from the board
no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair sarah bond with philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family zoning
However, the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of this property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023-004-931-146-24th Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Captain.
All right.
Number 13, MI 2023.
003-939-1519-27, North 33rd Street. Meredith Ferlegger is the attorney. There's a letter
of support from Strawberry Mansion CDC with provisos. Counsel. Hi, could you state your
name, please, and spell for the court stenographer? Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, Meredith Ferlger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, with Delworth Paxson.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
could you identify your client in relationship to this property uh certainly my client is 1519
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Certainly.
north 33rd street llc represented here today by ron di biasi okay our vice chair has just a few
questions good morning counsel do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to
its accuracy i do have you emailed in on the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
I did.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
I believe you should now be able to see my screen.
The request before the board today represents a substantial and unavoidable hardship to this property,
which my client has been attempting to activate and revitalize for several years.
I will walk the board through the full application that was made to L&I, but to summarize the one source of relief that is needed from this board today, the applicant requires relief to use an existing industrial building for an artisan industrial use.
Allow me to explain what may, on first blush, seem like quite an obvious use.
The board does have my exhibits, which contain 16 sets of documents.
Starting first with the aerials at Exhibit 10, you'll notice that this property is located at
1519 North 33rd Street, which is just south of West Oxford Avenue. The property has frontage
on both North 33rd Street as well as North Neutrona Street. You'll notice that the edge
of Fairmount Park is directly across the street from this property. The property at issue today,
and I'll switch the view so you can see this a little bit better, involves both the large
warehouse building that you can see that's over 13,000 square feet, as well as the small
residential structure that's directly to the right of the property. To give you some better context,
I'll turn to the photographs at Exhibit 16, where you'll see the front of the existing
industrial building that sits along North 33rd Street.
As you can plainly see, this is an industrial space that was first built back in the early
1940s.
I do have some interior photographs.
This is just a view from the back of the building.
And I'll scroll through the existing interior photographs, but you will notice that it is in fairly unremarkable condition at this point, since it is a vacant industrial space.
So there is no active use of the space, which you can see from the photographs.
I do also have an existing conditions floor plan of the warehouse space, but again, at this point, it is largely open and empty.
Again, I will highlight what is abundantly clear from the photographs, which leads to our hardship that this is an industrial building.
As I alluded to previously, the application before L&I also involves the residential structure to the right of the warehouse, but there are no variances that are needed for that portion of the request.
The zoning map will begin to give the board an understanding of the conditions that bring us
in front of you today. The zoning map that I have up on the screen at tab 9 shows that this property
is zoned RM1, meaning that the warehouse building, because of the length of vacancy,
can only be used for multifamily residential purposes. With that context in mind, let me back
up for a moment. As I mentioned, this applicant purchased the property in 2019 and has been
working to identify a viable plan of redevelopment. Given the RM1 zoning limitations, the applicant
obtained a zoning permit in 2021 for a multifamily development that would have required the complete
demolition of the existing building. That dense development was ultimately deemed unviable for
this site due to a variety of factors. As time passed and the owner continued to assess any
reasonable economic course to eliminate the vacancy of this building, the applicant continued
to learn from the community of the local need for an industrial space such as this one for more
community-serving types of industrial uses. Some of those uses were automotive in nature. However,
However, as a result of discussions with the community, the applicant has agreed to eliminate
the request for any automotive use.
So you'll notice that the refusal is for personal vehicle repair and maintenance.
The artisan industrial uses are also prohibited in the RM1 district.
Artisan industrial uses are also prohibited in the RM1 district.
So at this point, the applicant has agreed to eliminate the automotive use, and we are now just left with the request for the artisan industrial uses.
So as a result, the proposal does contemplate the subdivision of the existing lot into two new lots.
I did include the subdivision plan at Exhibit 5.
that will subdivide the warehouse from the existing residence.
The subdivision plan is up on the screen at Exhibit 5.
For the residential component, which again does not require any variances,
the application is for the erection of a rear addition along North Natrona Street,
which you can see hatched here, and for the creation of six dwelling units.
Although no variance requests are generated as a result of that, it did include the plans just for reference and completeness.
There are floor plans as well as a rendering of what is envisioned for the residential component.
For the industrial building, the applicant is now only requesting the use of the building for an artisan industrial use.
Per the Code at Section 1460110A, artisan industrial uses are spaces that people use to produce consumer goods, food, beverages, wearing apparel, or accessories by means such as hand manufacturing, hand tools, and small-scale light manufacturing mechanical equipment.
This has to be done in a completely enclosed building with no outdoor operations or regular commercial vehicle parking or loading.
These are the types of activities that have no discernible external impact in terms of noise, vibration, odor, hours of operation or traffic.
So the area surrounding 1519 North 33rd Street is devoid of an industrial building like this one that is perfectly situated to accommodate this type of low-impact but incredibly valuable community-serving use.
As the board is now aware, the property is currently zoned RM1, which would prohibit any form of commercial or industrial use of this building.
This represents an unmistakable hardship to this property, as it would be costly and undesirable to convert this existing and long-standing industrial building into multifamily residential use.
Although the photographs alone present clear evidence of the building's intended industrial use, I will turn the board's attention to Exhibit 11, where I have presented permits showing the historical use of the building.
I'll just scroll through here.
These permits show uses such as wholesaling of groceries, retail sales of janitor supplies and fire protection equipment, a variety of other building supplies, and in fact, some automotive uses.
Nowhere within the over 70-year history of this building's existence does it show any residential use of the property.
Furthermore, given the proximity to the train tracks, the building likely at one time likely relied and benefited from quick access to the supply chain network that relied heavily on rails in the early 1900s.
This proposed use as an artisan industrial is plainly the least minimum.
If the board were to review each of the possible industrial uses that the owner might consider for this space, such as warehouse, manufacturing, limited industrial, the artisan industrial category is the least impactful in terms of noise, odor, and use.
With the elimination of the automotive uses from the request, the artisan industrial use is the absolute least minimum industrial-based use that is viable for this space.
It would not be the least minimum deviation from the industrial history of this property to convert it to residential use or even a more traditional commercial use.
Furthermore, demolishing the building to accommodate the buy-right use of the property
is certainly not the least minimum variance to afford the property relief.
The proposal will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or harm neighbors' use of their properties.
With the surrounding residential uses, an artisan industrial use is the most appropriate to ensure the building
does not remain perpetually vacant while still ensuring minimum impact.
while still ensuring minimum impact.
The fact that this owner is also improving the adjacent residential building
The fact that this owner has also improved
is evidence of the intent to fill the industrial space with a low-impact user.
Certainly, leaving this building vacant and blighted indefinitely
poses more risk of endangerment to the community
than a limited scope use that represents the least deviation,
albeit a less intense use, from the historical use of the building.
The property owner has and will continue to post and enforce no parking conditions in
front of the building, which has been quite a challenge, but he is continuing to work
through that, as there have been some folks not affiliated with himself that continue
to park in front of this building.
The applicant submits that this proposal and the requested variants comply in full with
the requirements of Code Section 3038E.2.
Full analysis is provided in the Memo of Law at Exhibit 12.
Now, to touch on the community, as I mentioned during the presentation, the focus of the community's concern for the application was relative to the automotive uses, which have now been eliminated.
I do have their letter as well. I can bring that up.
I understand that Strawberry Mansion issued a letter of support with a proviso request for
a temporary approval. We would implore the board not to comply with that proviso request.
First, as you've heard today, this property truly suffers from a considerable hardship,
which will not change with the passage of time. In addition, following the board's hopeful approval
today, it is going to take some time not only to construct the necessary improvements to have the
space meet the building code, but it's also going to take some time to get this space leased and
occupied. A temporary approval could leave this building with tenants ready to move in right when
the temporary approval expires. Unlike the ones proposed, uses like the ones proposed are often
subject to conventional lease terms of a minimum of five years. So it would be extremely detrimental
to have this approval expire either shortly before tenancy or right in the middle of those tenancies.
Finally, I understand that the goal of the proviso is to ensure that there are
no automotive uses that find their way into the building. As I explained to the community and as
I hope the board will appreciate, that is strictly an L&I code enforcement issue and will not be
effectively addressed through a temporary approval. That would be addressed through a call to L&I
who would immediately shut that use down. So a temporary approval in this case would not go
towards achieving that particular goal. I will now bring up my client to adopt my testimony.
Tony, if you could look for Ron DiBiase.
Badman allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Ron DiBiase, that's D as in David,
E as in Edward, capital B as in boy,
I-A-S-S-E, Jr.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Ron, have you heard all the testimony
that I offered before the board today?
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate
and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Any questions?
Questions or comments from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair, just a brief comment.
I believe Ms. Berliger did point out the refusal, only lists a refusal for the personal vehicle at repair and maintenance, but artisan industrial is also prohibited in the RM1 zoning district.
So if the board just approves that particular use and the requested multifamily, a variance is still needed.
So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, even though there's only one one refusal listed, there's actually two.
Thank you. What's what's the second refusal again, Hillary, please?
The artisan industrial would require a variance. Right. And what else?
The personal vehicle repair and maintenance would. But the applicant stated they're no longer seeking that one.
So I just want to be clear for the record that they still need a variance.
yes because other based on what the refusal says it looks like if they don't do personal vehicle
repair and maintenance they would no longer need zoning board relief but that is not the case
zoning board relief but that is not the case that is absolutely correct
that is absolutely correct
what questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have two hands up well three um maj tory has been allowed to speak first
i could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
maj to ray first name maj m-a-j last name to ray t-o-u-r-e do you swear a firm to tell the
truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed um i'm from this community i'm around there very
often i was raised uh in a brewery well now it's called brewery town area uh i was raised around
26 and cecil b more um i love that there's there's something that's going to be here that's kind of
like in relation to um a little bit of small businesses being able to create something there
I've actually tried that. We print T-shirts. I've actually tried to find locations close to this area and I haven't been able to find any.
And a lot of times it's a lot easier for, you know, small businesses such as myself and others to have a spot that we can go to in the community.
I could literally walk to this location and then maybe go across the street.
There's like a driving range right across the street from there. So my point in saying this is I'm in support of it.
I know all of the languaging and stuff that's in here.
I'm not too familiar with all of the languaging,
but I would love to have something like this in my community where I could
print, get some stuff done and walk home.
So thank you for taking the time to call in.
We appreciate that.
Who else in the virtual audience?
Reverend Tyrone Williams has been allowed to speak.
Hi, Reverend.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Reverend Tyrone Williams, Tyrone, T-Y-R-O-N-E, Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. I am the RCO manager for Strawberry Mansion Community Development Corporation.
They came before us on Zoom on November the 30th.
At that time, there was lengthy discussion about the nuisances and the trouble that that location has caused with the auto motor piece, the repair, the cars on the pavement.
As you also notice, it's right next to the John Coltrane house, which there is some plans for that to come in the future.
And so those cars being on the pavement and that reduces to walking pedestrian traffic, it was an issue.
And further discussion, everyone did in the meeting vote yes with the proviso that there'd be no automotive, no car wash, no detailing, none of that type of business at this location.
I can appreciate Mr. Torre's testimony at Strawberry Mansion. It's an upcoming community, and we would like some of our entrepreneur residents have an opportunity to practice their crafts in their community.
Dislocation would be such a great ideal for that.
And as I said, if the provisos are met, we have no problem.
If they're not met, we do have a problem.
Because if they're granted and the provisos aren't in it, then we can very well go back to what we were fighting for, which is parking on the payments, a possible chop shop.
I'm not saying that it was, but it was some things going on at that location that was very suspicious.
So the provisos are very important to stay in place.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much, sir.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Lastly, it's strawberry mansion community.
Good morning.
Good morning.
How are you?
I'm good.
Could you please just state your name for the record?
is bonita cummings that's b-o-n-i-t-a cummings c-u-m-m-i-n-g-s all right do you swear
i am an rco oh i know who you are sure do you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please i just wanted wanted to get some clarity um the artisan
manufacturing um designation is that meaning they have to come back um for that variance or
that being designated today and also just want to because of how this meeting went it was kind of
But just because of how this meeting went, it was kind of difficult to tell exactly what we basically were approving because we did not want a lot of the automotive.
It went from non-support to support. And I wanted to just make sure we're not violating any of our overlays with rooftop decks or access and just understanding the, again, the artisan manufacturing.
Okay. I think the council listed everything that could possibly be done in the artisan industrial.
And Mr. Chairman, just to be very clear, there's no exterior physical changes to the warehouse building itself.
There is a component to the residential building next door.
But as I stated earlier, there were no variances that were generated as a result of that component that fully complies with the provisions of the zoning code.
So that, I mean, that request happens to be a part of this simply because it's on the same application, but it does not generate any form of variances. And as we have been very clear and will continue to be very clear, the request today fully eliminates all of the automotive uses.
So if the board is so inclined to grant the artisan industrial use today, that absolutely unequivocally does not allow for any form of automotive use.
And if there were to be an automotive use on this property, that would be a violation of the zoning code that would subject this owner to enforcement.
So I just want to make that very, very clear.
Is that okay?
Okay, any other comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Baum with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
I think I understand both what Ms. Emerson and Ms. Verliger were explaining regarding use variances.
So if I if this if this testimony doesn't if that if I'm missing anything, of course, I'm sure you will let me know a comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning.
The proposed use of residential family is consistent with documented prior use of the property and the proposed artisan industrial use will not have detrimental impacts beyond what might reasonably be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variances.
MI 2023-003-939-1519-27 North 33rd Street, I vote yes for Artisan Industrial and Proviso,
no personal vehicle repair or maintenance. Mr. Chair, I think we could simplify the
proviso and just say artisan industrial use only on lot two okay artisan industrial use only on lot
two james snell my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shahi my vote is yes with proviso thank you
counsel thank you okay is uh is there anyone in the virtual audience who's the 9 30 case has not
No hands.
Thank you, everyone. See everyone at 2 p.m.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's meeting.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman. And LeBaron Lenard Palmer
from development services will be serving as our board alternate board member board member
okay also president is hillary emerson our attorney and our executive director tanya sunkett
here's our format be advised the proceedings are being recorded the video will be available by
contacting tanya sunkett at phil.gov for the benefit of our course sonographer we ask attorneys
and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying if you're participating by phone
and you wish to testify press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute to enter an
appearance statement call 267-270-5548 leave your email and the address of the property in question
and the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony all comments
should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpkin.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number 11, MI 2023-004-620-308 West Queen Lane, that case is continued.
Number 11.
And number 13, MI 2023-001-967-6614 North 13th Street, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Good afternoon, Chair.
This is Nadia, and I will be your co-host this afternoon.
I see no hands.
Okay, thank you very much.
Let's go to our add-on list.
Hold on a minute.
I'm getting my computer set here.
So number one on our add-on list,
MI-2022-006-892-2204-2202-204 Lehigh Avenue.
This is a request for reconsideration.
Hold on a minute here.
I vote no to request for reconsideration and rehearing.
James Snell, my vote is no to the request of reconsideration and rehearing.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to request of reconsideration and rehearing.
Number two, MI 2022-005-928-4829 Haverford Avenue, I vote no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Number three, MI 2022-006-822-2521 Jefferson Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
We're going to go to our regular list and start with number one, MI2023, 002-921-2018 East Ontario Street.
Almedio Solis is the owner applicant.
We have no RCO letter, but there was a meeting held by the Harrogate Civic Association.
This application is for the use as a two-
Mr. Chair, we have an interpreter for this case.
Yes, I'll bring you in one minute.
Interpreter, please.
They haven't allowed to speak.
I, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello, my name is Stephen, S-T-E-V-E-N, and my last name is Aubain, A-U-B-A-I-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, so Almeida Solis is the owner applicant.
Could you please bring her on?
Or him?
I see no hands.
Interpreter, could you please ask them
to raise their virtual hand?
Asi que Almeida Solis,
si puede levantar la mano virtual.
Presionar el botón de levantar la mano virtual.
no hands chair
all right one more time for me please
chair i've looked through the audience and i don't see anyone with that username
Thank you very much. So, MI 2023-002-921-2818, Ontario Street. Cases continue. Stephen, thank you very much for getting on. We appreciate it.
And this interpreter speaking, would you like me to stay on the line or do you want me to disconnect?
can he just interpret that this case has been continued in case the person was having issues
raising their hand yes of course so in esta reunión del 2818 calle de ontario este caso
Este caso ha sido continuado.
ha sido continuado thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think you're fine to be dismissed.
Yes, thank you.
All right, thank you for using our service, Interpreter Disconnect.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we're going to go to case number 16, MI 2023-005-624-2401,
Pennsylvania Avenue, number 1D-1. Stephanie Boggs of Niagara is the attorney.
We have a letter of support from the Spring Garden Civic Association with a request.
Good afternoon. Stephanie McGonig from Claire Harrison, 1835 Margaret Street,
here on behalf of the applicant. Stephanie, just for the record,
could you spell your name for the court reporter?
Sure, Stephanie, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E, last name's Magania, M-A-G-A-G-N-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Just identify your client, please, for the record.
My client is the Unit Owners Association of the Philadelphia Condominium, 2401 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
It is a condominium association.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to
its accuracy? Yes, I do. But I want to confirm that that is the refusal dated September 18th,
2023. There was a refusal issued for this project originally on September 8th. It omitted one
refusal item and the examiner later corrected that. So we'll stipulate to the refusal dated
SEPTEMBER 18TH. UNDERSTAND. IN OUR SUBMISSION PACKAGE. NO PROBLEM. HAVE YOU EMALED IN ALL THE
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS THAT IS NEEDED AND REQUIRED TO PROCEED WITH THIS CASE FIVE DAYS IN
ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING? YES, I HAVE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. PLEASE PROCEED AND SHARE YOUR SCREEN.
can you see this um and again as i mentioned we're here today on behalf of the unit owners
association of the philadelphian condominium this application is proposing new signage for
the property uh primarily to replace historic signage that had been located along pennsylvania
avenue their primary building id sign um as well as tenant accessory signage for the commercial
tenants located in Fairmount Plaza along Fairmount Avenue. There's also one new freestanding sign
that's proposed with this application. On the screen is our corrective refusal that was
issued on September 18th to confirm and as I mentioned we'll be stipulating to the refusals
that were listed on this refusal letter. This is the refusal that was circulated to the neighbors
in conjunction with our meeting with them included in our mailing that we've moved forward with. So
The Philadelphia condominium located along Pennsylvania Avenue, we have four frontages to this building that's existing, but the primary one we're talking about is Pennsylvania Avenue, which is the main entrance to the building, as well as the Fairmont Avenue side of the building includes commercial tenant spaces, Fairmont Plaza, as well.
This is a picture of the prior building ID sign, for lack of a better term here to describe it, but the main freestanding sign that was located along Pennsylvania Avenue historically as part of this project.
And here are some historic pictures of the prior canopy signage that was in place for the commercial tenants in Fairmount Plaza along Fairmount Ave.
at this location. Recently, the Philadelphian has undertaken some building improvements
to enhance the facade of the building, and that includes removing all of the canopy signage that
was at Fairmount Plaza. So in part, this application is seeking approval to replace
the prior canopy signs with a new freestanding signage. So specifically, there is one replacement
freestanding monument sign proposed along Pennsylvania Avenue that you can see in these
images here, as well as new wall signage, 10 new wall signs that will replace the canopy signs that
were here along Fermont Avenue, in addition to one freestanding sign. This signage package was
presented to the Art Commission or the Sign Committee of the Art Commission on a preliminary
basis. They have recommended approval pending the outcome of the ZBA hearing. We've also met
and presented this package to the Spring Garden Civic Association, who shared their letter of
support. There was one comment included in this letter that I'll note and that the chairman
referenced. There was a recommendation to, there is one tenant, Little Pete's restaurant currently,
whose tenant space spans several different elevation frontages of the building that our
project architect will go through. And there are three accessory signs that are in connection with
that particular tenant space. I'll note that this signage is intended strictly to replace what was
I'll note that this signage is intended strictly to replace what was there existing, the total maximum area.
their existing.
That's part of our refusal for the wall signs here.
Doesn't change the maximum area from what was previously existing.
So we are looking to make sure that the commercial tenants that are set back from the street and have limited visibility based on the current conditions anyway,
maintain at least the existing signage that has always historically been at this location.
But to speak more to that, I'll ask Nora Bergstein to identify herself and raise her hand.
She can walk through in more detail some of the signage plans that we have for the project.
And we also have Mark Levinson here on behalf of the Condo Association if there are other questions as well.
So, Nora, could you raise your hand and identify yourself for the board?
Nora has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Nora Bergsten. That's spelled Nora, N-O-R-A, last name Bergsten, B-E-R-G-S-T-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Hey, Nora. Have you heard the statements I made to the board previously?
Do you believe them to be true and correct?
Would you adopt them as your own?
Okay, great. With that, I'll stop sharing my screen, Nora. I know you wanted to pull up the
presentation yourself. Could you just briefly walk us through the plans and some of the other
renderings that are part of our package for the signage? Sure. I'm not seeing an option to share
the screen. Oh, here we go. It says host from panelists. So now I'm a panelist.
Yep. Yes, that is correct. You're a panelist and you're able to share your screen now.
Okay. Great Nora, thank you. Excellent. Okay, push pushy, thank you. Go ahead, Nora, thank you.
Sure. So as Stephanie mentioned, we as the architects have been hired to help with some
renovations on this building, most of the common spaces, and so what prompted the consideration
of the signage was in part some of these renovations. So you'll just see here that
the existing sign is on a fountain and as part of the renovations we are renovating the fountain
and so we'll be removing that existing signage as part of the beautification effort of the
fountain. I'll just go through the slides some of them you saw before so just kind of reiterate
what Stephanie mentioned. Again, these are some other views of that existing fountain where the
sign is currently located at the front of the building along Pennsylvania Avenue.
And as you move into Fairmont, our scope of work also included the replacing the existing
awnings and as such, removing the identification for the tenants that are along this facade.
So, as you can see, it was mentioned before, this facade is not flat to the street, but has multiple angles, and the existing awnings followed the existing building shape, essentially.
Nora, is that the side they want to go from three to two?
Yes, in one particular location. So, I will show you that a little bit more.
Thank you very much.
Yep. And again, this is just some context photos of where, you know, what is adjacent to the Philadelphian property.
So here is an image of our proposed sign.
As you can see, we are making some renovations to the existing fountain where the prior sign was located.
And as such, we wanted to think about if that was the best location for where the sign for this building should be.
And so we have relocated it to an existing planter.
And it is a freestanding sign that will actually be backlit and say the name, the Philadelphian, as well as the address 2401.
But it has been removed from the fountain and relocated to this existing planter.
I know Stephanie has the details on the, but it is essentially a smaller sign than was currently on the fountain itself.
was currently on on the fountain itself but this was our proposed sign sorry yeah i think we you
But this was our proposed sign.
nor you can talk to the zoning plan um but the prior signage i believe was 123 square feet and
this is 44 square feet if that's correct based on your zoning plan yes that's it yes um so the
both the in conversations with the building and the board has approved the relocation as well as
having conversation with the RCO and the signage committee, so everyone seems to be on board with
the relocation of the new sign. Here are some other images of, again, what the existing view was
and the proposed location for the new sign. Moving along to Fairmont, as mentioned before,
the proposed plan is to replace those blue awnings, which had linear signage identifying
each of the tenants. And so instead of having the awnings, there's going to be a metal fin,
I'll call it, that has signage within and attached to the existing curtain wall. And that
follows the existing building shape. So for example, the wall signage that was identifying
Little Pete's restaurant, his tenant space actually spans both of these bays. So Little
Pete's restaurant sort of spans this entire bay here. It also spans this bay, which we've
identified just calling out restaurant. And then it actually goes into this, you know, on the third
elevation here that's all part of little pete's restaurant um behind the and and no this this
signage with the three signs because of it's spanning the two kind of projections off the
building this is the signage that was being referenced by spring garden okay yeah exactly
and in other instances we do have signage on these shorter elevations identifying other tenants such
as NovaCare or a pharmacy and a bank. I'll also note in this rendering that we'll see a new
freestanding sign. In speaking with the board of the condominium, there was an effort to draw
people into this renovated plaza and also identify the tenants that are located
in in this plaza and part of that is because the plaza is sort of set back a little bit they
wanted to have more of a sidewalk and street presence so this is a new monumental sign
which lists tenants in the plaza as well as within the building
and you mentioned this but I just wanted to highlight more that this design was
reviewed and confirmed by the board of the condo association yes it was there were
meetings with which all of these signs were reviewed and approved and approved you know
many details considered and making sure everyone was on board with this approach so
see so I don't know if it's okay to switch to the next view here again this is just walking
along the sidewalk of Fairmont Avenue, locating where that monumental sign is, and then also
seeing in the background where the new wall signage would be along the existing building.
These are some more details on the monumental sign itself. At the front of the building,
again the dimensions 11 feet by 4 feet, it's located on an existing planter.
um as much it's made out of metal but it'll have cutouts and be lit from the interior
and just essentially the a fin
and likewise the monumental sign along fairmont avenue is a similar construction
it will have tenant signage uh indicated and it will also be the only difference is um it will
have it will be double-sided so that you can see the tenants whether you're walking up or down
Fairmont Avenue but otherwise similarly constructed made out of metal and internally lit with LEDs.
This is a little bit more detail on the wall signage that's attached to the exist to the
curtain wall again just outlining the names of the tenants and just the different dimensions
depending on what the existing curtain wall dimensions are and Nora just to confirm the area
And Nora, just to confirm, the area of the new wall signs in Fairmount Plaza, is that the same as the area of the canopy signs that were removed?
of the new wall signs
Yes, all of the canopies that were there are just being replaced with this new sign.
and this is our zoning drawing again just locating for example on Pennsylvania Avenue
where the new sign would be located the new monumental sign and then along Fairmont Avenue
again the monumental sign listing the tenants and then the locations of all the wall signage
along Fairmont Plaza. And this plan I think is helpful Nora just to take a minute you're
pointing out the different elevation profiles of these tenants they showed up I think in your
rendering so I think this is helpful. Yes exactly so the the geometry of this building is such that
it's it's not flat but has this ziggurat shape and therefore just like the awnings matched that
shape we are just replacing um the wall signage such that it matches um this shape and and again
to the comment about the visibility and whether or not there were two signs or three signs this
is actually the location of uh the little pete's restaurant as indicated as 1d3 so you can see
the area um located behind that storefront and so it's these three elevations that we have
called out as identifying the restaurant. And again, at each of these shorter locations on
for other tenants, for example, like this is the Wells Fargo Bank, and we have an identification
above the door, you know, just to indicate that this is the signage for the Wells Fargo Bank. So
it's sort of in keeping with the other tenants as well. And in keeping with what was removed.
Exactly. Keeping with what was removed. We're just replacing what was previously there, just removing the awnings.
Thank you, Nora. I'll reiterate that we have Mark Levinson as a representative of the Unit Owners Association here as well to answer any questions.
Our project manager, Daniel Graham, is also available if the board has questions.
Why don't you have somebody just adopt your testimony? Is that okay?
Adopt my testimony?
I believe Nora
You're going to use Nora
She adapted your testimony
No, that's fine
Questions from the board
No, Chair
Questions or comments from Hillary Emerson
Our attorney
Not at this time, Mr. Chair
Questions or comments from the virtual audience
Yes, Chair
We still have Mark Levinson
available and we have a question a comment from justino navarro why don't we have justino navarro
they've been allowed to speak i could you state your name please and spell for the course
stenographer justino navarro j-u-s-t-i-n-o-n-a-v-a-r-r-o a representation of the spring
Garden Civic Association and a zoning committee. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,
members of the board. We met with the applicant and the zoning committee and members of the
community and the condo association. We're represented as well. And we support the project.
You have a letter sent to you by me approving the project, and we believe that it is an enhancement to the Ferryman Avenue Commercial Corridor and actually a necessity that's being proposed because these properties, while they've been there and these businesses, while they've been there for a very long time, the fact is that they are set back from the street side of Ferryman Avenue.
And the very tasteful policy signs that are being proposed will bring attention to them, to those very same businesses, which I believe are absolutely essential to continue to have these businesses on the corridor as thriving and prosperous.
So we fully support the application as applied for.
Thank you, Mr. Navarro, for taking the time to call us. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no hands planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
peter could you dispel your name for the court stenographer yes
Peter, could you just spell your name for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Peter, P-E-T-E-R, Barnard, B as in boy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RM3 multifamily residential at this location.
The design was reviewed by the ARC Commission, where it received positive review.
We feel the applicant has to demonstrate sufficient hardship, and the proposal is the minimum necessary variance.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
Number 16, MI-2023-005-624-2401, Pennsylvania Avenue, number 1D-1, I vote yes with proviso.
Her amended refusal dated 9-18-23.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Let's see, number 17.
MI 2023
Copman Avenue
Copman Avenue
Eileen Quigley is the attorney
Recommendation of support
unanimous from the
Ron Hurst Civic Association
I counsel, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenography?
Yes. Eileen, E-I-L-E-E-N, Quigley, Q-U-I-G-L-E-Y, from Ballard Spar, B-A-L-L-A-R-D, S-P-A-H-R-L-L-P, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, 19103, Council for Applicant, Bricksmore Roosevelt Mall Owner, LLC.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
could you uh our wife chair has just a few questions good afternoon counsel do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing yes we have please proceed counsel thank you uh i'm going to share
the screen now? Please. And can everybody see the exhibits? We can. So thank you everyone for your
time this afternoon. My name is Eileen Quigley. I'm here on behalf of Bricksmore Roosevelt Mall
Owner LLC. We're counsel to the applicant. With me are William Grimel, who is the Vice President
of Real Estate Development at Bricksmore. We also have Curtis Taylor, who is at In-Place Design,
and he is the Principal and Director of Graphics at In-Place Design. And we also have Brian Conlon,
who is Associate Principal and Vice President at Langan Engineering. And with that, I'd like to
move forward. As we said, we did submit our packet, which is on the screen right now. We
have our deed, the change of entity name from Centro NP to Brixmore, Certificate of Tax
Clearance, photos of the posted zoning notices, and the refusal. And we also have a letter of
support, as you know, from the Roanhurst Civic Association. We appeared before them on November
30th we sent out our notice letters to the registered community organizations and the
neighbors with certificates of mailing we have attached those letters and also the mailing list
and with that i would like to let you know why we are here today we are here seeking zoning
relief a variance for signage that is going to replace freestanding signs that were already at
this site let me go to the plan so there were two digital pylon or freestanding
signs along Cotman Avenue and this is Cotman Avenue to the south Roosevelt
Boulevard to the east Bly Avenue to the north and Busselton Avenue to the west
so just to orient everybody this is the Roosevelt Mall and this has been at this
location for at at least 50 years and for the board's knowledge the
least 50 years and for the board's knowledge the the ownership is going
through millions of dollars of improvements and updates and upgrades at
this site right now and as you can see even though these are not part of this
application there are new pad sites or new tenants that they are building
spaces for right now along Cotman Avenue so there are lots of wonderful things
happening here. There is a whole new signage package that goes along with the upgrades and
the improvements. Most of the signage is by right. We are here today for two freestanding signs
that were refused on the grounds that the sign area exceeded 150 square feet per face.
Also, just for the board's knowledge, there are lots of improvements going on, also
tied in with the streets department in the city along this Cotman Avenue commercial corridor
this site falls in the CA2 which is commercial which is car auto oriented zoning so here are
the signs these are the new freestanding signs so as I said they're going to be two along Cotman
Avenue these are internally illuminated sign boxes and internally illuminated the channel
letters here as I said this square footage required is 150 square feet
obviously they need to have more more sign area because we're talking about a
very large mall here with tenants that go back towards Bly Avenue so there's a
lot of space to cover and also Cotman Avenue being the commercial corridor
these new signs at this size will really aid and facilitate vehicular and pedestrian traffic along
that route. We believe that this signage, if Bricksmore does not get the variance for this
signage, it will present a hardship because of the size of the property and the amount of tenants
that they have on this site, and also it lends itself to, as I said,
vehicular and pedestrian safety because people can see what is within the site
as they travel along Cotman Avenue from far enough away
where they can navigate their entrance or exit from this site.
there aren't i mean unless here's the existing site
where the signage will go this sign will be removed
this sign is coming down so as you can see this really lovely new signage will take the place
the existing signage along here at Cotman Avenue, which really is updated in line with all the
improvements and the money that Bricksmore is spending to update and modernize this mall.
Why don't you have someone adopt your testimony? Yes. So I would like to ask
Curtis Taylor to be elevated to a panelist. Thank you.
Curtis Taylor is coming in as a panelist.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sorry, my name is Curtis Taylor.
Hello.
Hi, how are you, sir?
Great, how are you?
My name is Curtis Taylor, C-U-R-T-I-S-S-T-A-Y-L-O-R,
and I'm Director of Graphics at In-Place Design.
Right. Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Council.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Thank you, Curtis, for coming on.
Curtis, you heard my narrative about this project
and the importance of these two freestanding pylon signs
to the overall improvements and upgrades to this site
and that if the variance is not granted,
it will present a hardship correct yes i have and would you say that my presentation was accurate
absolutely and uh curtis if you were to testify would you adopt my narrative as your testimony
yes i would thank you mr thank you questions from the board
no chair
thank you questions or comments from our attorney
Thank you. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Hillary Emerson
I just wanted to clarify one thing. Ms. Quigley, you mentioned Bricksmore. Are they the ones seeking the signs or are they the sign company?
No, Bricksmore's ownership. So on OPA, it still has Centro NP. That's why we included in with the deed at Exhibit A, the change of entity name.
So, Centro was changed to Bricksmore, just so you know that it's under same ownership.
It was just a name change.
Oh, okay.
So, Bricksmore is the applicant and owner of the property.
Thank you so much for the clarification.
There you go.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
You're welcome.
I'm sorry, Chair.
We just had somebody by the name of Stan Sawinski with their hand out.
I've allowed them to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court's stenographer?
Name is Stan Swinski, S-T-A-N-C-Y-W-I-N-S-K-I.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Sir, are you a neighbor?
No, sir.
I am from the 6th Councilmatic District.
Please proceed.
All right. Currently, the applicant is in the 10th council district, but as of January 1st, it will become part of the 6th council district with council member Mike Driscoll.
The council member wanted to reach out to let the board know that he is absolutely in support of this application and hopefully good things will follow.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking the time to call us. We appreciate it.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CA2 commercial at this location.
We feel the applicant has demonstrated hardship and the proposal is the minimum necessary variance.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023-005-593-2327-83, Copman Avenue, I vote yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Counsel.
Chair Bergman, before I leave, may I move my exhibits into evidence, please?
You absolutely can. Thank you.
Thank you. Have a wonderful holiday, everybody.
You too. Thank you. Thank you. Number 18, MI 2023, 004-606-3593 Primrose Road.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney. There is a letter of opposition from the Northeast Community Civic Association.
There is a petition that has been signed in support by 42 neighbors.
Mr. Nockmson, you've already been sworn once a day. Just for the record, state your name, please.
Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Could you identify your clients and their relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Hena Kabbani, who is the owner of the property.
She's actually in my office in another conference, in another room, but she's here presently.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you, Counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. Thank you. And thank you for accommodating Ms. Cabani and taking her out of order.
All right. I'll try to get into this. All right. So the first matter we're going to be hearing this afternoon from me is 3593 Primrose Road.
This is currently a duplex, and we're looking to increase the unit count by one by making it into a triplex where Ms. Cabani would be living.
Again, not out of character, I believe the property next door has received a zoning permit for three units, at least a public record.
So the first thing we're going to do is review the notice of refusal.
So we did meet with the community at an RCO meeting and not sure what happened there because, you know, the people.
Not sure what happened there because, you know, the people within the community did not support, within that meeting did not support it.
But I would have to say that Ms. Kavani made a concerted effort to meet with as many of her neighboring property owners and occupants, and we have an extensive petition in support of this project.
We also gave, in our presentation material, we have the rental license showing that we are currently two units.
So it's not like we're taking a property that's single family in nature and making it into a triplex.
It already has a multifamily history, right?
Looking to add an additional unit, which is the door for that additional unit has its own entrance and not uncommon, which what we're doing is converting the garage into a living space.
And you'll see pictures of that.
But you also see the use permit as well for this property.
And then the garages that have been converted nearby, we're going to show you pictures of all these houses, which under similar circumstances, they had to the unit.
Then maps of the area, photographs of the property, interior photographs showing, again, that she's living above grade.
She's an elderly lady.
She's owned this property since, I believe, 2016.
And she just needs a place to live.
And you'll see, like, again, she's trying to do everything responsibly, legally, and hopefully this board will agree to grant her this variance.
Then we made some simple plans, like, you know, for her to show you what she's trying to do for this one unit.
And then we had we show proof of the RCO meeting notice.
Again, we had some people show up, not a ton, but I think that the petition outweighs that the people that showed up to the meeting, not always the easiest to show up in person nowadays.
So that's why we made an effort of community outreach ourselves.
The application for appeal that we filed on Ms. Cabani's behalf, her deed showing that she's owned the property since 2016, and a certificate of tax clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Ms. Kamani, who's with my associate, Alex Goldberg, virtually raise her hand.
So I'd probably be Alex, raise the hand for her, and then she'll be sworn in and I'll have a couple of questions for her.
So a notice of refusal, again, two things.
We're looking to extend the use of this property from two units to three units, not out of character.
I believe there's a big apartment building around the corner as well.
So we've got two refusals.
First is the proposed use of the property because this is RTA1.
But again, not out of character to have multifamily use.
The second one we do dispute.
I should have said that from the beginning.
It talks about parking.
You should have one accessory parking space per dwelling unit.
Actually, we do.
We have two parking spaces in the back.
And now we're seeking a third dwelling unit.
The reason why we don't need that third space is because Ms. Cabani doesn't drive. Actually, her daughter drove her here and is with her. But, you know, she's not taking any additional parking away from the neighborhood. The current, you know, occupants, there are two units in there, each have a parking spot in the rear, and they would continue to have a parking spot in the rear. And Ms. Cabani is not going to take an additional parking space.
and then this is the correspondence from the northeast community civic alliance you know we
deal with them a lot they give a fair forum very respectful um i just don't think that this is
that you know this is reflective of what the community has thought as a whole i don't know
how there were 10 people mr chair who showed up um and you know which surprised me about their
comments the reason for the position we received only negative feedback regarding this application
I also received numerous calls and emails in opposition of the proposed zoning in the days and weeks following the meeting.
That's not anything we've heard. Like my client, you'll see she's an elderly lady.
She's maintained the property pretty well. I don't believe there's been any violations against the property to her ownership.
And she really did make a concerted effort to meet as many of her nearby neighbors who know her and she wants to live there.
So this is going to be an owner-occupied unit. I don't know what's going to happen if we don't get this approval because I don't know she's going to be able to afford to live somewhere else. And the income that's generated from this property is not enough. So in a down market, this is not a great situation for my client.
But again, the petition. So again, what we do is we tell our clients this. Focus on the people that are most directly impacted by this proposed change in use or the project in general. I don't consider this a project. I consider this someone who has a property, is multifamily in nature. She's looking to add an additional unit to allow her to live there.
She can't just take someone out of their property. There's a current lease. And even if she was allowed to take someone out of one of the units, she couldn't afford to live there herself. She needs this income to help support her retirement. But she talked to the people who are nearby. They were all supportive of that.
They were all supportive of that.
The letter that the coordinating
The letter that the coordinating RCO gave did not indicate how close by these individuals lived or who lodged the complaints if they're close by either.
Again, a lot of times people, you know, attend a community meeting, they just attend community meetings, but they don't know the neighborhood or the particular circumstances that we are facing in a particular appeal.
So here, nearby neighbors were all supportive.
And then this is the petition, you know, supporting three, you know, family dwellings.
And then here's the rental license showing that, again, she does everything the right way.
You don't have someone who, like, doesn't do the correct filings, like even just the legalist, you know, to add that third unit.
We're doing everything the right way from a zoning perspective.
She's had a rental license forever, and she wants to increase that use by one unit for herself.
And then if you look at here, too, this shows the zoning permit to allow for three units next door to us that was issued in 2016.
So, again, this same zoning board granted a variance under calendar number 26206 on January 13th of 2016.
So, again, not out of character to ask for three units and for this board to grant that under those circumstances as well.
And then, again, just want to show you 3595 primrose, the side of the property, and then the rear of the property.
And then, you know, because she'll be converting that garage, like she gets this, you know, just to clarify, she has a separate entrance to, you know, for herself, or she's hoping to have a separate entrance for herself.
So none of the building structure on the ground, you know, that she's using will be below grade.
But again, it's not uncommon to convert these garages
into livable space.
And we have many instances here on Lansford
that's nearby time and time again.
So we really try to do our homework, Kirkwood.
So, I mean, I don't know how many,
Primrose even on the next 100 block.
So, and now on Fittler Street as well.
And again, we're at the kind of like on the cul-de-sac-ish area, you know, where we are in the northeast.
There is actually a bus route here as well.
So, you know, there's ample public transportation around, all around here.
And then photographs of the property.
This is the front of the property.
and this is our zoning poster to show proof of posting for today's hearing you know and in the
rear as well even though I don't you know I don't know if it's a public street or an alley we just
asked our client to put a poster in the rear as well on that garage she's hoping to convert into
livable space and then this is a wider angle of our property at the rear and you can see it allows
for two cars to park there,
which, you know, they currently do.
They're two separate tenants.
And this is Primo's to the right of the property,
Primo's to the left of the property.
And the interior photos, again,
she hasn't done any work here,
but this is what she wants to do.
You know, she wants to take, you know,
a portion of her building structure,
which is above grade,
and convert it into livable space for herself.
And then we've made some simple floor plans
But, you know, we would close off that garage, add windows, but you would have a living room, a bedroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom.
And then the laundry facilities are going to be shared by all of the occupants, which is currently shared as well.
We met on November 15th at 6 p.m.
This is our proof of email to the community groups as well as the council member zoniate that we do it two weeks beforehand.
But, you know, we sent 126 mailers out.
These are the addresses.
As you can see, a lot of the places we were talking about, like Kirkwood and things like that, Fettler, are on that mailer as well.
But a lot of those addresses, people signed in support of that.
so again i can't speak to who came to the community meeting we don't have those proof
of mailing to those those addresses or application for appeal uh that miss cabani we prepared on her
behalf her deed to the property showing that she's owned it for some time
and the certificate of tax clearance there is a technical balance too but that's for 20
And the certificate of tax clearance. There is a technical balance, too, but that's for 2024 taxes, which are not due until the end of the first quarter of 2024.
With that being said, I would ask that Ms. Cavani virtually raise her hand, I think, through Mr. Goldberg's account.
And I'll have a couple of questions for her after she's sworn in.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
H-E-N-A-A, last name, C-O-B-E-N-I.
Mr. Kelly, did you get that?
Yes, Chair, thank you.
Okay, thank you. Proceed, Counsel.
I'm sorry, Ms. Cabani.
You swear, affirm, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Proceed, Counsel.
Yes, Ms. Cabani, you heard everything.
I HAD TO STATE TODAY ABOUT JURISONI MATTER AND IT'S TRUE AND CORRECT AND DO YOU ADOPT IT AS
YOUR OWN TESTIMONY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU PLAN TO LIVE IN THAT HOPEFULLY THIRD UNIT IN THE
PROPERTY CORRECT THANK YOU OKAY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD NO CHAIR
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Yes, sir.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RTA one, two-family attached
at this location.
We feel the proposal represents an overuse and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate
any hardship.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the variance.
Mr. Nakamason, I really want to take a little time and talk to the other Board members about
I appreciate that.
I think we're back January 10th, and I'll make sure we get that vote done that day,
Thank you. Thank you. I just would like to point out that this lot is almost 3000 square feet. So it's a rather substantially sized lot. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll just note that we can vote it at January 10th. Yep. And everything is closed. Thank you. Thank you.
Number six, MI 2023-005-146-4315 Boone Street.
Alex Goldberg is the attorney.
This is an appeal against L&I.
Leonard Reuter is also involved in this case.
There was also a letter of opposition from the Manioc Neighborhood Council.
there's a jim kelly with their hand raised as well should they be promoted who's that
yes please yes yes please promote jim kelly thank you panelist he is he is with the city
leonard do you want to uh i mean uh alex uh alan are you doing this
okay all right all right just just for the record mention your name please
alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n and and you've already been
sworn um leonard could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
Sure. Thank you. May it please the board, Leonard Freuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
I'm also here with my colleague, Jim Kelly. Jim, if you want to introduce me.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I'm sorry. Yes, I do. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly, please state your name for the record and spell for the court stenographer.
Good afternoon. Jim Kelly on behalf of the city, J-I-M-K-E-L-L-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Nockmson.
Thank you. So, Mr. Chair, I represent VP 304315 Boone LLC.
And we're asking we have to we have two forms of relief here.
We first filed an appeal against L&I regarding the refusal that you'll see soon, but we also, in the alternative, if this board declines to grant our appeal against L&I, we would ask that the board grant a variance given the circumstances.
we would ask that the board grant a variance, given the circumstances.
So I'll do a full presentation, and we would ask that the board first vote on the appeal against L&I.
Okay, please proceed.
I would have to say this is one of the more convoluted zoning matters in my career.
It's very unique factual circumstances, but I'm here to present 4315 Boone Street, a property, a proposed single-family use in the Manionk section of Philadelphia.
And during our presentation, we'll review the notice of refusal.
We do have correspondence from the Manionk Neighborhood Council.
They sent two letters that I will summarize to the best of my ability.
I don't know if a member of many a neighborhood council, like they're a lawyer from the group, it will be here, but I will do my best to summarize their letter.
We do have a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor, the one that was most directly impacted by what happened, and we'll go over that as well.
We also provided an earth disturbance letter.
So, you know, long story short, we're on a steep slope.
originally we were under 1400 square feet of earth disturbance because of of a collapse of
this neighbor's uh patio we had to exceed that amount um and you know you'll see it from the
building permit this was a by right project because of that collapse we went over 1400
square feet of earth disturbance which you know again gave this technical refusal but in order to
rectify this situation. We worked with L&I diligently and we've been dealing with L&I
and the planning commission and such. We got to make safe. And at the time, we had a zoning permit
and a building permit for this as a freight project to build a single family house on this
property, which is on the steep slope. But we were allowed to because the earth disturbance
was under 1,400 square feet.
When we went above that amount
because we had to deal with the,
you know, dealing with the collapse
of someone's patio,
we went above the 1,400.
We didn't know,
L&I didn't really pay attention.
My client didn't pay attention to this.
We went above the 1,400.
We completed the work
that was approved by L&I.
I just want to object
to that characterization
that L&I wasn't paying attention
or didn't care about that but i apologize how about this i didn't i didn't mean that i think
he's already apologized yeah yeah thanks yeah i i don't i didn't mean it negatively it just wasn't
in the thought process of everyone i i we worked i respect all and i it just wasn't the thought
process the work was done no one really identified it until after the work was done and then the
planning commission pointed out the fact wait guys you're over 1400 square feet that's now we
have a situation where technically you have to go back and get a variance, which we'll have
legal arguments as to why not. But that's how we got here. So we got the refusal. We filed an
appeal against O&I. We separately filed for a variance, an application for appeal. And we met
with Manny Young, a community council. And I would have to say that the meeting didn't go very well.
And I don't understand why we have simply a single family home on a steep slope.
And, you know, one of the issues, I think, was because we have a front loading garage, which is as of right, like because we're not, you know, attached, like we don't need to get any approval for the front loading garage, you know, under the Philadelphia zoning code.
There was some indication at the community meeting that, and we'll go through that as well, but that we're attached.
We're not.
At the time, I was like, I talked to my client.
I was like, we're not attached, right?
He's like, no, we're not.
So we took pictures to show that there shouldn't be this other refusal as well.
And then we'll have maps of the area, photographs of the property, or plans and drawings, which will show the before and after the earth disturbance.
Our RCO meeting knows their application for a PLRD to the property showing that VP 4315 Boone LLC is the owner of the property and the Certificate of Tax Clarence.
And again, the virtual audience is my client's representative, Roy Aronovich, who is a member of the LLC, as well as Paul Looney, who is the engineer who provides the earth disturbance plan because that was one of the refusals.
The Earth Disturbance Plan, because that was one of the refusals and we provided that, so that should eliminate one of the refusals.
and we provided
And then I also have Zemir Garcia, who's the architect on this project.
So if there's any technical questions, you know, I have these professionals who are duly licensed and experienced who can answer those questions for the board.
So the notice of refusal is this. Again, all we're trying to do is a single family home, front loading garage.
We're on a steep slope. We know that.
You know, we're above 25 percent slope. Right.
And we get that because our earth disturbance was originally less than 1400 square feet.
We didn't need to do our earth moving plan. We didn't, you know, we didn't need board permission to build this single family home.
We got the zoning permit, got a building permit, which requires all these engineering reports and such.
Everything was blessed.
Unfortunately, like I said, because of this collapse of the patio area, we had to stabilize it, which requires some earth disturbance on our property, which made it above 1,400 square feet.
We made the property owner where there was an issue with the patio, we made them whole.
We spent almost 80, my client spent almost $80,000 redoing the patio, redoing his deck.
And there's a letter of support.
The one who was most directly impacted by this, to say the very least, inconvenience, he's in support of this project.
He's in support of us continuing the project.
And you'll see that from the pictures, we're almost done.
So anyway, we have an earth movie plan that City Planning reviewed.
I believe it was last week.
It was stamped. So one of the refusals should go away. The other one about the steep slope,
you know, we can talk about that as well. So we met with the Manionk Neighborhood Council and
they were 100 percent against it. I mean, we've been in front of them a few times with regarding
the same issue. There are some members of that community who don't want anything built on this
steep slope, even though it's a separately deeded property. They're like, no, I like the open space.
I don't want anything built there, even though they're probably the ones who are also on steep slopes.
And if they had to, you know, you know, justify their property's existence, they would probably have to go through the same process we're going through today.
So anyway, but, you know, they're completely, you know, and in their letter, which they gave twice, they said, you know, first, you know, originally we did not like meet the minimum.
At first, they said we exceeded the amount of 1,400 square feet of earth disturbance.
That's not correct.
We didn't exceed the 1,400 of earth disturbance until after we had to deal with the make-safe permit and deal with the neighboring property owner.
So that's incorrect.
The next thing that's incorrect, they say that we're attached to one of our adjacent building structures.
Thus, there should be an additional refusal for the front loony garage.
We took additional photographs recently so the board can see that we're not attached.
So that shouldn't be correct.
They took exception to the fact they think there should be another refusal for the height.
And, you know, we're allowed 38 feet.
We're on a steep slope.
You go by the average grade.
Based on those calculations, our height is 35 feet.
and i think it's either i can't read my notes five inches or 35 and a half feet but we you know if
if i could just interject at this at this point i mean the city again this is the case that is
the appeal against lni that is an appeal from the refusal the city agrees that there is currently
no other challenge to the refusal there's no intervention by mnc so you know i mean if mr
knockamson wants to go through that that's fine but it seems like we're we're talking more about
the variance case right now than than the appeal against l and i and i understand that it it's
going to be difficult to separate those two things for all kinds of reasons but yeah yeah i agree but
i i it's not because i agree just to keep things straight i think we should concentrate on l and i
i mean i know you're talking about let's let's talk about l and i and the permit issue i think
That's OK. And then so we're going to get to later. We'll get to the other case later.
OK, so so our argument is this. First of all, I think that the the notice or refusal should be deemed moved.
Right. We're only we only get a refusal if we have more than fourteen hundred square feet of earth disturbance.
Well, as this earth disturbance letter states, that was signed by Andrew Menno, in which I shared with Mr. Reuter before.
signed by Andrew Menno, in which I shared with Mr. Reuter before the hearing,
he states that the earth disturbance that exceeded the 1,400 square feet has been put back and
restored in its original condition. So if you look at it from that point of view, we don't have earth
disturbance now of more than 1,400 square feet because anything that went above and beyond the
1,400 square feet has been restored, and it's an original grading condition. So that's the first
thing. The second thing is there are two legal doctrines. There's the legal doctrine of variance
by estoppel, invested rights. So the doctrine of variance by estoppel is this, and invested
rights as well. We detrimentally relied upon representations or documents which made us
conduct ourselves in a way where we have a technical refusal under the Philadelphia Zoning
Code. We were directed by the city to make this property safe for not just us, but the neighboring
property owner. We have a make safe permit, which again, endorsed the use of the property.
So now the city's like, okay, we required you to go above 1400 square feet to make it safe.
But now we're going to make you now go back in time and get the zoning permit.
As the board knows, the zoning permit is the foundation of any building permit.
You can't get a building permit unless you have the zoning permit, right?
So by giving us the make safe permit, they actually legalized what we were doing from a zoning perspective as well.
So by the doctrines of variance by estoppel and vested rights, we detrimentally relied on assurances by the city by way of a make safe permit.
We did that work. And no point did the city then tell us, oh, wait a minute, you got to go always back down to L&I for the zoning permit.
And, you know, and, you know, again, from a notice of refusal standpoint, usually you have a vacant lot.
You'll see, and I'll show you from the pictures.
Hold on, I just want to take a picture.
This is an existing building structure.
Like the only thing that's stopping us from completing it is to make sure we just, you know, I guess, dial our I's or cross our T's twice because we already have a zoning permit and we already have a building permit.
Everything has been blessed by the city.
We have a stabilized structure, not just ours, but the neighboring property owner where, again, this is what we did to the neighboring property owner.
We completely changed it, improved it.
And so we're in a situation now that if this board does not grant our appeal against L&I and as well as and or our application for appeal, we have a building structure here.
The situation could be a lot worse. Are we to now demolish that building structure on a steep slope, which is going to create more havoc, not just for my client, but the neighboring property owners?
You know, so for those reasons, if we're just focusing strictly on the appeal against L&I, I think that this board should grant the appeal against L&I based on those legal and factual grounds.
Okay. Leonard?
I'll share my screen now.
Sure. I didn't know if Mr. Nockamson was going to introduce any witnesses or put on any testimony or have them adopt any of that testimony, or are we still just in the argument?
phase i think we're in the argument phase of um the okay sure so um the city's position again i
think on 90 of the relevant facts the city and um mr knockamson are on the same page uh you know
with with respect to the chronology zoning permit uh application was submitted i think at the end
of 2022. The permit was issued, I believe, the beginning of January, which called at that time
for 1,054 square feet of earth disturbance. There were a couple other things that are probably
relevant. I don't think Mr. Knockinson would disagree, but there was a violation that was
issued early on in the project for proceeding without the approval of L&I. That was, you know,
essentially became sort of moot because then they just notified L&I that they were starting the work
and the work commenced. Sometime during the work on the property and doing the grading of the
property, there was also a violation that was issued because the bracing that had been called
uh because the bracing that had been called for uh for the sidewalls of what they were excavating
had not had not been installed i believe at the time the contractor indicated that they were
unable to install the bracing or there was some issue because there was bedrock and they weren't
able to install the bracing uh and also we i believe the uh excavation uh had also been
uncovered for time uh nevertheless i think it was at the end of january around the 25th or 26th of
january maybe a little couple days here there around there uh the retaining wall in the rear
collapsed which mr knockamson has already addressed um and what came down with the
retaining wall was the patio that was was rebuilt um and you could see from mr knockamson's photos
that you know the property behind them which i believe is on fronts on terrace uh is very high
much much more above them i think probably uh at least 18 feet or so something like that
because this is very steep slope on the on this side so at that moment the city went out and then
issued of course an unsafe violation and it was really an emergency situation because of the
geography of the location and the precariousness of the property that was then on on terrace
uh mr notkinson's client did respond quick uh with in a timely manner they submitted a permit
application uh to get a what a make safe permit basically which is just a permit uh that allows
you to uh address you know dangerous situation i should note and again i think mr notkinson
would not disagree that this entire project, because it was on a steep slope, had required
engineering services throughout from the beginning of the project.
So this had always been under what they call a special inspections
regime, which requires there to be an engineer
monitoring the progress of the work. So at any rate, they
obtained an engineering report, and
in the report was submitted with the permit application
and the make safe permit was issued and they did the work uh i think where we disagree or at least
we think there needs to be some testimony on is whether the additional excavation work itself was
in fact required to make it safe if there you know is was there a choice uh and that's what we we
hadn't heard so the city's position is like the make safe permit is issued and typically because
the nature of a make safe permit and the situation is uh to respond to an imminent threat to public
safety those are often issued without requiring an underlying zoning permit it doesn't mean like
you get a free pass it just means we need you to get that work done we'll worry about the other
issues later uh in order to protect the public so in this instance they did the work it it did
I believe, involved the additional excavation of around 300 and some square feet, which
then put them over, I think about 350 some square, I forget exactly the number, which
put them over the 1,400 square foot limit.
So they received a violation for exceeding the scope of the existing zoning permit, and
they were directed to then file for an amended zoning permit, which again, Mr.
Nockamson's gone over that, and the amended zoning permit then, because the total excavation
was 1,400, was over 1,400 square feet, I think it's 1,486 square feet, that the planner
at City Planning, Mr. Aaron Hawley, who's here today and is able to testify, that could
not be approved by City Planning.
uh that then generated the refusal uh miss mr not uh mr notkinson's firm appealed against l and i
first and then subsequently sought uh sought a variance um and again that's that's totally
their prerogative it's that's to do that uh obviously they could they could have sought
the variance and then challenged the refusal through the variance but uh matter but that's
that's neither here nor there so um again we largely agree with the facts i think what the
city's the city's position here though is that uh the 1400 square foot limit is a is a bright line
there is no uh there is no discretion uh with planning to uh to go ahead and stamp their
approval for that uh and again mr holly could testify that um if for instance like you let's
say you were building a property and at the end of the day you only need to have like a graded
you know an amount of the property that's graded level at say 1200 square feet but in order to do
the 1200 square feet like you need to get your bulldozers back there or excavators and do this
that and the other thing you're actually during the construction going to move more than 1400 square
You're actually, during the construction, going to move more than 1,400 square feet.
The total amount of earth disturbance that is required by the project is what triggers the review and triggers, in this case, the denial by planning and the ultimate refusal.
It doesn't matter if your ultimate construction is only going to have 1,200 feet that's graded.
If the construction process itself requires there to be more than 1,400 square feet moved, you need to go through this process.
You need to go through the steep slopes review.
Again, Mr. Hawley can address that.
And the reason why is because it's built into the zoning code.
The whole steep slopes provisions and the overlay are built into the zoning code because it's an engineering problem and it's a public safety problem, and that has to be addressed.
So it's the earth moving itself that is the trigger.
It's not the use to which that earth moving is put to.
So in this instance, we understand and we appreciate the fact that
the additional earth that was moved has,
and they've submitted an engineering letter attesting that that earth has been put back
and they are now presumably back to the final number of 1,054 square feet
that has been disturbed, quote-unquote, permanently.
But again, it's not permanent earth disturbance that is reviewed.
It's the total earth disturbance that is required by the project.
So again, it's our position that we had no choice but to deny the approval
for the additional earth moving.
With respect to whether it's a vested right,
again, I think the board can take into consideration
all the documents and materials that Mr. Nockmson's presented
in making a determination about whether there's a vested right there.
Again, it's our position that the issuance of the make-safe permit
by itself doesn't vest the right in the zoning permit if the board chooses to you know again
look at the totality of facts and make a determination you know we'll defer to the
to the judgment of the board on that um but again we don't we don't believe this is a case of vested
rights we don't we because the make safe permit you can't have a situation where the issuance of
a make safe permit can give people a free pass i mean obviously we're not saying that somebody
would deliberately try to cause the collapse of a retaining wall just to somehow vest a right in a
permit but by the same token you know there there could be other issues uh you know involved i mean
certainly if the if the 350 if the 300 plus square feet that was removed was not put back
then again they would they would clearly need to uh move forward with the variance the make safe
permit wouldn't give them the ability to change the underlying footprint to the building that
they had originally sought. So at this point, I, again, I don't know if Mr. Knockinson's going to
go back and introduce his engineers and go over some of that, or if you just want me to have Mr.
Hawley adopt my testimony or add any additional information that you may want. I think at this
point, why don't we have Mr. Hawley adopt your testimony? Is that all right, Mr. Knockinson?
i have no objection yeah why don't we do that
sir could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes good afternoon my name is aaron holly and that's spelled a-a-r-o-n-h-o-l-l-y
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel uh mr holly uh first just what's your title for the record
I'm a city planner as part of the development review division under the planning commission.
Okay. And were you the person who did the steep slope review for the permit application that's
before the board right now? Yes. Okay. And did you hear the recitation that I just gave of the facts
from the city's perspective? Yes, I did. And do you believe that that recitation was true
and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Okay. And would you adopt that as your
own testimony i would okay thank you uh if board if you have any other questions for mr holly um
i don't have any questions uh no i do not okay um questions for mr holly from the board
no chairman no sir questions for from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair um mr knockerson are you pretty much you've presented your case
well i mean i still have mr looney and mr garcia in the virtual audience who are fact
Well, I mean, I still have Mr. Looney and Mr. Garcia in the virtual audience who are factual witnesses, but I want to respond from a legal standpoint to Mr. Greiner's argument.
Again, as I started my presentation, the notice of refusal is a moot document because we do not exceed the 1,400 square feet of earth disturbance because we're, you know, again, and we're talking about the difference between 1,400 and 1,486.
That's the 86 square feet of earth disturbance.
It gets us over that hurdle where we now need, technically, if we started from scratch, like ZBA approval.
But we have a letter from the engineer which, again, confirmed that the earth disturbance has been restored to its original condition for that portion, that 300 and so square feet.
So we're not over the 1,400 square feet anymore.
And that earth disturbance and all the work that was done by the Make Safe permit was approved, reviewed and approved by L&I. So in that sense, they agree as well that, again, that the work was necessary to go over there above that certain amount, that at no time did they ever tell us that this would cause a refusal, but they also approved the work.
And there's been no indication from LNI that that work has not been done in accordance with the Make Safe Permit, engineering standards, and that the earth disturbance that exceeded the 1,400 square feet, that there's no indication from LNI objecting to the fact that that earth disturbance has been restored to its original condition.
And for that reason alone, the notice of refusal is inappropriate under the circumstances, especially since we provided the City Planning Commission with an earth moving plan.
So I would ask Mr. Looney to virtually raise his hand because he's the one who prepared the earth moving plan that was reviewed by City Planning.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Paul Loney, P-A-U-L. Hello, N-I-U.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Nockamson.
Yes, Mr. Loney, in our package of materials is an earth moving plan that was prepared by your company, Aqua Economics. Is that correct?
That's correct.
um if i could just interrupt very briefly uh to the extent that um mr knockinson may be
introducing mr loney as an expert witness uh the city is very familiar with mr loney for many
years the city will stipulate to his expertise so you can skip over any of that stuff thank you
thank you and just as a matter of background mr loney i believe also worked for the city at one
point has a significant history with this a so i think he's more than qualified um but um so with
your with your earth moving plan it confirmed that the field conditions matched uh what was
presented to lni uh by way of the building uh permit plans as well as the zoning permit plans
is that correct that's correct i don't think i have any other questions could i ask just one
question? You most certainly can. Mr. Loney, nice to hear from you. Is it your opinion that the
additional earth moving of over 300 square feet was necessary in order to comply the unsafe
violation so i'm going to object to that question because we solely hired mr loney uh to handle
the earth moving plan i we it exceeds the scope of our but i think i'm going to allow the question
i mean that that was necessary out there to remediate the problem that was caused that's
all i can say that's that's fine thank you mr dockman do you have anybody anyone else
um not at this at this time for the lni um uh appeal against lni as long as mr reuter uh uh
stipulates that our press you know that the you know the plans that we submitted are you know
true and that within our presentation materials are true and accurate uh well we would stipulate
We would stipulate that the materials that are presented that are L&I records are indeed authentic copies of L&I records and materials that were submitted to us.
that the materials that are presented that are l and i record
And I can attest, just because I myself received a copy, to the extent that Mr. Notkinson included documents that were submitted or sent to everyone by Manioc Neighborhood Council, I can only stipulate that that's an accurate copy of what they sent.
I can't stipulate to whether those are accurate or any of the assertions that are made.
They're accurate because they're not a party in this case and they haven't testified here.
I don't know. OK, that's fine. OK, so, Hillary, what we're not going to vote on this today.
Do we need anything? Yeah, I just want to jump in quick in terms of talking about the exhibit.
But, Mr. Knoxman, I was going back through the exhibit packets submitted for Boone Street, and all of them were marked for the variance appeal.
So if you could just resubmit the ones that you want for the record for this case, because it appeared to me that nothing was submitted for the appeal against L&I because they were all marked for the variance appeal.
Yeah, I'll clean it up.
You know, we'll streamline those exhibit packets specifically to appeal against L&I.
Yeah, so we have those records. Yes, we could have that by the end of the day tomorrow. That would be great. That was my comment. In terms of, you know, next step, Mr. Chair, we can hold this for discussion, closing the record.
um mr knockamson i think i previously communicated to you that you know the board was not likely to
make a decision today um on this matter um we can certainly proceed with the hearing on the
variance case and hold that for discussion as well um but i don't know if you want to wait
for the decision first before you have the other case heard i think you know you know judicial
economies, I would believe
make sense for us to present
the variance request as well.
And as I stated at the beginning of
my presentation, if the board
grants the appeal against L&I,
the zoning appeal
would be deemed moot as
So, Hillary, why don't we
continue with the list? Let's give
Alan a little bit of a break, and then we'll bring
the other one on shortly, okay?
So, if I could just
so i was a little confused by that you will be hearing the variance case on 43 15 uh we are
boom today my great calorie we're going to hear that today right yes actually i had uh i had that
scheduled next mr chair so that we could okay fine everyone who was here for the these cases
could hear them at the same time um the city is uh beyond the recommendation of the city planning
commission the city's not taking a position on whether or not the board should grant the variance
Again, other than the recommendation from City Planning Commission. However, because I'm not sure what's going to what's going to come up in the context of that hearing, I would ask that I remain as panelist. I promise I won't say anything. But if Mr. Kelly and I can just remain as panelists in case because of things that have been said by Manioc neighborhood council. Thank you.
All right, so number 15, MI-2023-005-346-4315 Boone Street.
Mr. Nockamson, obviously, is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition unanimous from Manioc Neighborhood Council, and there's a letter of opposition received from a neighbor.
Mr. Nockamson.
Thank you.
I share my screen and continue. Do I need to represent everything I just presented?
I think anything that was relevant to this, Hillary, we already have it and we'll accept it.
I think we just need Mr. Nockamson to make a statement for the record incorporating his prior presentation into this one.
I also want to note that we didn't name a date for the vote for the prior case.
That will be January 1st, not January 1st, January 10th, 2024 at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
Yes. So, you know, I move to incorporate the arguments and testimony that I elicited from the previous matter into the previous matter of the appeal against L&I into the zoning appeal argument as well.
All right. So let me continue. I may go backwards a little bit just because I think we skipped over some stuff.
yeah so i i think i ended with the makes
Yeah, so I think I ended with the make safe permit, you know, that we, you know, we did the work responsibly and, you know, collaborated with, you know, L&I in that matter.
and then we had a building permit but again i don't think this is pertains to the variance
request but there's been some indication by uh the manion group that you know we would be required
to seek a variance for a front-loading garage because we're technically attached we're not and
we have photographic evidence to in that respect but even if we were attached which we're not
And we needed to get the board's approval for front-loading garages and off-street parking.
It's not uncommon, even on this block, to have that.
So 4317 Boone Street, 4329 through 33 Boone Street, 4342 Boone Street, all have front-loading garages.
So it's not uncommon.
Maps of the area.
We're an RSA 5 property.
Just trying to create a single-family structure here.
A nice property.
unfortunate circumstances here led us here today. Again, we're in Maniunk. I think we all
understand that. And, you know, we have an existing building structure here that's incomplete,
and we've held off doing any additional work and completing it because we need to go backwards,
you know, because of this notice of refusal, which is the subject of an appeal against L&I,
But from even a variance standpoint, this screams of undue hardship here.
I mean, I don't know what else to do, or my client wouldn't know what else to do.
Like, all we want to do is build a single family structure.
If we're forced to tear this down for what, I don't know.
And then what would be in its place, I don't know.
All the work that's been done to date has been blessed and approved by L&I in terms of inspections and such.
um so and again the person that would be most impacted directly impacted 4319 boone street
they should be against this project if if if conceptually anyone should be against this
project they're in support of this project because we did right by this neighbor you know
trust me my client did not want this to happen but it's how people react to a situation when
And there was an unfortunate situation where there was a collapse of this of this property owner's patio.
What did he do? He fixed it at his cost.
And my my client did at his own cost and put that back together.
Now, there was a question about like whether we're attached to anyone else.
Here you can see from this photograph, we're not attached on that side.
And we're definitely not attached on this side.
So I just wanted the board to see that because, again, I want to go based on facts.
And then the board can decide based on those facts what should happen under those circumstances.
This is Boone Street to the right of the property.
Again, it's not out of character to have single family homes on our side of the property, of Boone Street.
It's all over Maniunk.
Maniunk is a steep slope area.
Boone Street to the left of the property.
And then our plans and drawings.
Like, you know, we, you know, my client hired an architect, he hired engineers, you know, try to do everything right.
Unfortunate circumstances led us here today.
And then this is the original site plan, which shows earth disturbance of 1134 square feet, right, down here.
And based on that, we wouldn't have to be here today.
because of what happened with the make safe permit and dealing with the neighboring property
owner to make sure their property is structurally safe as well we went to 1486 square feet
again just so you understand the average grade is is here for a property with a steep slope
And based on the architect's calculations, which was confirmed by L&I, our height is 35 feet and 8 1⁄2 inches.
And again, we're just building a single-family home with a front-loading garage.
There's nothing dramatic about this, but I gave you floor plans that we hope to complete.
And this is the earth moving plan, which is the subject of one of our two refusals.
This was stamped by City Planning Commission.
So that refusal should be eliminated from the variants.
And then we met with the community on December 6th this month at 7 p.m., 110 addresses were notified of the meeting, list the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, or applications for repeal that we filed on behalf of VP 4315 Boone L.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of VP 4315 Boone, LLC, along with the notice of refusal, which we object to, and the deed to the property showing that my client owns the property, along with the certificate of tax clearance showing that they do not owe any taxes to the city of Philadelphia.
With that being said, I would just ask that Mr. Garcia, my client's architect, virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Garcia, could you please state your name and spell for the court's monography?
hi yes my name is zamir garcia z-a-m-i-r last name garcia g-a-r-c-i-a right do you swear for
him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel
yeah mr garcia um you your your company mercy design was the um is the architect in charge of
this project, right? Yes. Okay. And you're familiar with this project, right? Yes. And you obviously
work for Morrissey Design, right? Yes. Okay. So when your architecture firm submitted the original
site plan, there was less than 1,400 square feet of earth disturbance, right? Yes, that is correct.
And your drawings were truly and accurately depicted, right?
Okay. Now, your architecture firm was involved when there was a make-safe permit too, right?
I do not recall that.
Okay. But you prepared the second site plan where there was earth disturbance of 1,486 square feet, right?
We did, yes.
Okay. All right. And you're not aware of the – and the height of the building is under 38 feet, according to your drawings, right?
That is correct.
Based on the Philadelphia zoning code.
um and um to your understanding the building structure is not connected to
the building structure to the left and right of it right right it's not connected all right
thank you thank you okay um are you ready are you are you i would just have mr mr aronovich
uh virtually raise his hand yeah yeah sure
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Yep. Roy Aronovich, R-O-Y-A-H-A-R-O-N-N-O-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Aronovich, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
yes thank you okay questions from the board mr go ahead mr reuter go ahead sure uh i just wanted
to state for the record um i'm not 100 clear but i assume mr knockinson that you are also
you are challenging the refusal as part of the variance case or did you did you wait i mean to
the extent that there's a challenge that they're still relying on the challenge the refusal in the
variance case the city would move to adopt our prior statements and argument uh in the appeal
against l and i uh again to the extent that you need that for the record that's all i meant
yes we we are challenging we're not waiving our right in terms of the refusal okay yeah so then
we would just move for that that all of all of the previous uh testimony that i gave that was
adopted by Mr. Hawley and so forth.
And the arguments would be adopted here, too. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. That's true. Questions from the board?
No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual
audience? I see no
hands okay planning commission i'm sorry okay we have a person by the name of kevin smith with
your hand up okay i've allowed them to speak hi sir could you state your name please and
spell for the court stenographer hello my name is kevin smith kevin smith
Hello, my name is Kevin Smith, K-E-V-I-N-S-M-I-T-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor, Mr. Smith?
I am the president of Manioc Neighborhood Council.
Thank you. Please proceed.
And we have submitted a letter that points out what we think are several inconsistencies, both in the earth disturbance, primarily within the earth disturbance, while the original claim of earth disturbance was 1,042 square feet.
um as can be seen that was the actual footprint of the building as can be seen
uh that the entire site was cleared and shortly after the building permit was issued
the site was dug out to a disturbance of uh well over 1400 square feet uh i'm gonna object
to um mr smith's testimony well first of all we don't know who took those pictures so from
that's hearsay to begin with and needs to be in those documents those pictures need to be
authenticated and then mr smith is not i don't know if he ever you know went to the property
and what you know when he went to the property and what his aptitude is to understand what earth
disturbance is and mr smith right where i think you should be with this is are you for against
the process the whole program um we are against um the issuance of the variants
but we believe there are there are ways to uh mitigate the current design of the house
um beyond that don't include tearing it down and starting over
but um we believe the the variants uh that they're
yeah okay you're over explain the pictures the pictures we've submitted were by john hunter
who is also on our board and should be in the audience and he can vouch for them and i think
they tell their own very clear picture okay uh mr smith thank you mr not gonna see how many
questions no mr reuter do you have any questions oh oh no no the city city's only participating
with respect to the uh challenge is there anyone else in the virtual audience
yes we have two hands peggy washburn has been allowed to speak okay hi could you state your
name, please, and spell for the court stenographer. Hi, my name is Peggy Washburn, P-E-G-G-Y-W-A-S-H-B-U-R-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Are you a neighbor? I am. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair and board members for
allowing me the time. I live at 4310 Terrace Street, just above and slightly to the south
of the construction site we're talking about. I'm a little bit nervous, so please bear with me.
You don't have to be nervous. You're fine.
I have witnessed the progression of this project from its inception,
and I'm here to testify that what I've witnessed is in direct contradiction to what Mr.
Nakamson and Mr. Goldberg and the developer Mr. Aronovich are presenting you with. My encounter
first with the developer Mr. Aronovich was a year ago in December when his crew showed up to clear
the steep slope at 4315 Boone Street. There had been no postings alerting the neighbors to the
fact that any work would take place on this site. Knowing that this is a very steep slope
with what I believe to be zoning protection and the fact that I live at the top of it,
I ran down to talk to the workers and explain that I believed the developer needed a variance
in order to clear this particular lot. Within a short time, Mr. Aronovich called me.
He was incredibly nice. He validated my concerns and reassured me with promise that they were only
going to take out a few trees toward the front of the lot, and that their earth disturbance
would definitely be less than 1,400 square feet. Again, he seemed so nice. But that very afternoon,
that same afternoon, he clear-cut the entire lot. This lot, I believe, exceeds 2,000 square feet.
His earth disturbance in clearing that lot exceeded 1,800 square feet, and there were
heritage trees on this lot. It seemed painfully clear to me that day that I had been played.
It seemed painfully clear to me that day that I had been played.
Not long after this took place, as you all know, a portion of our neighbor's lot, or their yard, slid into the construction site.
During this time period, a multitude of 311 complaints were called in out of concern for the reckless earth disturbance and removal.
I'm with you.
I'm with you.
I think so, Ms. Washburn, here's what I want you to do. Concentrate on what you did and not what you heard about 311. So just what you did and what you saw. Okay.
There was jackhammering. I live at the top of a 60-foot, very old retaining wall that is to the east of this particular construction site. And there was jackhammering at the base of this 60-foot retaining wall.
At the same time, I wonder, is the stamp that this structural engineer put on this property, was he the same structural engineer that was in charge of this at the time that our neighbor's lot or yard slid into the construction site?
Right. So that's one concern. I do not feel reassured by the stamp of approval from the structural engineer. And in addition to the above concerns, with a note to the height limit and the excess of the height limit.
um i'm gonna object mr chair so so so so why don't we do this we have had testimony
about the height limit you can tell me you object to it but i don't and that's it is that okay
i i object to the height limit i'd also like to make one quick comment with respect
to um whether or not the property is detached or attached it's my understanding that to be a
detached structure there must be five feet
so we've had testimony about that
you can tell me you disagree with it but I don't want you to get into feet
if you disagree with it tell me you disagree with it and I think that's enough is that okay
I disagree and it is okay
I would just yes I'll surrender my time
thank you no no no we appreciate your call and we appreciate your input
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
John Hunter has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Hunter, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. Good afternoon. John Hunter, H-U-N-T-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Hunter, I know you're from the Maniang neighborhood group.
I would appreciate your testimony to be limited to things that we haven't heard.
We've heard from a couple of different people, but we'd prefer you to concentrate on what we haven't heard.
Sure. I come at this and to give testimony from a different perspective from Mr. Natchez and Mr. Reuter,
because I've been involved in the discussions about this project, particularly with the Planning Commission,
since December of 2022, when we were first aware that there was a zoning permit that had been
issued by right during the summer of 2022. And the basis of that permit by right, which means
nobody knew about it, and as Ms. Washburn just said, there was no notice posted on the site when
the zoning permit was issued, and there should have been, was the first knowledge was when the
site was clear cut um in december of 2022 and i would point out for mr notcherson i'm sure it's
familiar with it and also the rest of the board that the steep slope requirement on 14704 to b
says that the site clearing cannot take place um under the steep slopes and by doing so for the
whole site they exceeded the 1400s well i'm going to object we there's no testimony that we exceeded
the whole site so there's the photograph in our package can we which i took mr hunter you you i
guess what i want you to concentrate on it you know you if you're against this project please
tell us that and i we do have your letter but i don't want you going back and we're going to start
argument over number i mean we've done enough that so please go on and tell me what else you
want to know can i just point out that it's the argument has been presented by
Can I just point out that it's the argument has been presented by two people who are not, you know, around at the time of the of the work taking place.
And I would say this, I would say this. They're both attorneys. They represent clients.
And, you know, I think Mr. Reuter testified to about the L&I issue and Alan's representing his client.
So I don't we don't need to get into they don't know and things like that.
I mean, they're lawyers, and they did everything they could to know what they do and to come up with their own conclusions.
So why don't you consider, go on.
Well, could I just refer you, if you're going to look at it, to the diagrams that we submitted for the disturbance, which shows the site plan from the architect,
which doesn't take into account in their calculations the 300 square feet of disturbance
that has to be done from the back of the carway to the front of the lot.
So, Mr. Chair, what I'm hearing from Mr. Hunter is argument for the community having an appeal against L&I,
which they have not filed anything.
These are interpretations of the code, which the planning, which Ellen and I.
Alan, let's concentrate.
Mr. Hunter, we hear you.
What else do you have to present?
You hear me about what?
Sorry, you're talking to me a little more.
You hear me about what I've just said so far.
You just talked about both of them and what 300 and some feed, and I said I heard you about that, but could you please continue on?
All right.
So if further piece of evidence that's already been provided, which I question, which is the letter from the structural engineer about the amount of disturbance, if you look at the ZBA package submitted by the attorney, you'll see four diagrams of the disturbance, and they're all different.
There are two from the architects in the architect's drawings. There's one in a letter, which I've just referred to, stated by the structural engineer. And there's the last one, which is the earth moving plan by Aqua Economics.
And the one by the structural engineer, which people seem to take as being the correct one, only refers to the disturbance on the west side of the proposed house, which is where the collapse was.
But the diagrams provided by the architect also show the disturbance on the east side of the house, which has not been taken into account for the calculation.
and it's on their diagrams hatched in red if you would like to make sure we're going to take this
case under consideration we will make sure that we go over every piece of evidence before we make
a conclusion okay uh are you through mr hunter uh i'm just gathering my thoughts because you're
sort of in a way diverting what i'm not i'm really not diverting i'm well you're you're editing them
you're you're editing well maybe i'm editing but what i'm trying to do is you know get you to tell
me something we get you to say things that we haven't heard and you just said it and i think
i understand it and i'm asking do you have anything else well if i could this this is
hillary can i just ask a question um mr hunter can can you um just explain whether you are in
opposition to assuming the you know assuming the appeal the appeal against lni you know was not
granted if a variance is determined to be needed can you please give your position on the variant
um well as consistent with mnc's vote we uh we um uh support the variance um for
sorry let me get this right the variance for the reason to be granted would be that it was
to be accepted. No, I don't support it. I'm consistent
with the MNC letter that was
submitted.
So, Mr. Hunter, you're not in favor of the variance.
Can you just tell me what the variance is?
The variance is a refusal
against the property of the steep slope.
So, I mean, I'm full against the variance.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, and I will end this.
I just want to make one point.
We're selecting the least modification possible on the Philadelphia zoning code.
We're not asking for any use variances or dimensional variances.
We're on a steep slope.
We can't change that.
I just want to point that out for the record, just in case someone ever has to review that.
Whoever has to review that.
Yep, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Mr. Hunter, do you.
Mr. Hunter, do you have anything else?
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have two hands, Kevin Downey and Kevin Smith.
Kevin Downey has been allowed to speak.
All right, Mr. Downey, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
Of course.
Thank you for hearing me.
My name is Kevin, K-E-V-I-N, and Downey, D-O-W-N-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Downey, besides saying whether you're in favor of this or against it, could you just
concentrate on trying to talk about things that we haven't heard?
Yes, sir.
I am a direct neighbor.
My neighbor adjoins this property from above Ontario Street.
I wanted to second the testimony and back up the testimony of John Hunter and Peggy Washburn.
A couple of things that I wanted to add to their testimony.
As I witnessed from my window this project unfold, the earth disturbance was completed when the retainer wall collapsed.
There was no real earth disturbance or further excavation after that fact when they laid their concrete walls that were for the structure that then shored up the property of the collapse.
So in my testimony under oath, I would like to say that the excess happened before the remediation of the neighbor's property.
secondly i'd also like to say that they were issued two stop work orders at different times
and the construction crew removed the stop work orders from the building on multiple occasions
when they were reposted and continued their work on their building quite aggressively and quickly
there were multiple police calls made to the site to this effect we did not witness much
happening in that regard sometimes they left the site only to come back within an hour
and then continue work again uh i i mr downey i appreciate that testimony but we want to try
to concentrate on the refusals that we have and it's sleeps all right and the earth moving plan
and the steep slope variance.
So I do appreciate your comments,
but we have to concentrate on what we're looking at today.
Is there anything else you'd like to talk about?
Yeah, there is one last topic I'd like to talk about.
There was submitted to me from the neighbor
who wrote the letter of recommendation of the collapse,
a survey that was handed to you regarding the property,
Thank you so much. There was a survey of the property suggesting the grade and what the grade of the property was and the shape of the retooling wall at the back of the property, and it was all grossly inaccurate.
When you look at the initial site drawings of the proposed construction, it shows from one angle at a step that is an inaccurate grade.
So these seem to be several survey drawings that were piecemealed from different surveys that were a gross approximation.
So I figure I request that that's worth looking carefully at while you're reviewing this case.
We will review everything. Thank you very much.
I thank you very much for allowing me to speak and the time.
All right. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Kevin Smith has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Smith, could you state your name, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes, Kevin Smith testified earlier.
I remember.
So just very quickly, it was questioned about the provenance of the photos,
And they were taken by John Hunter, who is who is unavailable at the moment, but is in and has just testified.
And he can assert to. Yeah, I think I think you earlier testified to that.
So just dotting some I's and crossing. OK. And we provide evidence in our letter about the attached, not attached argument.
And for that. And I just point that out. OK, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Is there anyone else in the first audience?
No hands.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Give me a second.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change for the existing RSA 5 single-family residential at this location.
While we do feel the hardship is self-created,
While we do feel the hardship is self-created, we feel the proposal is the minimum necessary variance.
we feel the proposal is the minimum necessary variance.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you very much.
For everyone involved, we're going to take all this that we've heard today under consideration.
Hillary, we're looking for January 10th for this too, right?
Same time?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
January 10th at 2 p.m.
January 10th at 2 p.m.
And I'm going to – Leonard, do you have something?
Sure, and I apologize for this, but just because some of the statements that had been made, which I anticipated might have been made, which is why I asked to stay on for this case, I just want to say for the record, as an attorney for the city of Philadelphia, I don't have a witness here anymore to adopt this, but I will say that I've done my own search of the records for the property.
And while I do understand that there had been complaints that were phoned into the city, and there were a couple violations that had been issued, which I discussed in the previous case, there was no violation issued for violating a stop work order.
I also wanted to address, and again, I'm not saying that we're taking a position on whether any of that happened or not. I'm just saying that we don't have a violation for that. An NOV was not issued for that.
With respect to the additional land earth disturbance that takes place beyond the building line, it is, and again, I'm just stating this as an attorney, a member of the law department, having reviewed this specific question with planning,
saying earth disturbance that typically, not always, but typically earth disturbance that
takes place beyond the building line and into the right-of-way is not included in the overall
earth disturbance that's reviewed by planning. It sort of depends on the situation. Here,
it's a little bit tricky because there seems to be a little bit of a discrepancy about whether
Boone Street is actually open on the city plan at this location, but we do know where the building
line is so whether boone street is open or not um we did the the earth disturbance that would take
place forward of the building line isn't is typically not included in the overall earth
disturbance calculation so i just wanted to address that because i know that there
some people may not understand that and i you should have that information thank you thank you
Thank you very much. We appreciate that. So we'll vote on this one, January 10th at 2 p.m.
And Mr. Nockamson, please stay on the line. Stay on that.
And the record is closed, Mr. Chair.
And that concludes my business may be.
Yes, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you.
All right. We're going to hear number two and number nine together.
MI-2023-004796, 1940 North 22nd Street.
And number nine is...
We're hearing two and nine together.
Am I right, Hillary?
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Okay, so number nine is MI 2023-004-633-2672 Braddock Street.
Mr. Nockamson?
I believe, Mr. Chair, you want to hear 1938 and 1940 North 22nd Street together?
Yeah, we got this wrong here somewhere, Hillary.
what what number is the other one now hold on one second it's okay it's okay it's 10 it should be 10
number 10 okay all right good so the the second one is sorry am i that's okay hillary that's right
the numbers got shuffled am i 2023 004 797 1938 north 22nd street um both had meetings uh with
St. Elizabeth's RCO, but we do not have letters up yet.
Do you have any?
Yeah, so, Mr. Chair, for record-keeping purposes,
my name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, P-C-A-L-A-N,
last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
So we noticed the meeting.
I stood out in the cold for 30 minutes with my client and everyone else.
No one from the community showed up.
None of the community meeting leaders showed, community leaders showed up.
Our office, like just to get the meeting, took like probably a dozen or so communications.
And we finally got something.
Since the meeting date and time, we've reached out to St. Elizabeth's.
Since the meeting date and time, we've reached out to St. Elizabeth's. No one's responded to us. So it's our position that a meeting did take place. We can only do what we can do. And this is a pretty straightforward project.
No one's responded.
so i i think yeah unfortunately i if i had known this ahead of time this would have been handled a
little bit differently um mr knockamson did you reach out to rco notification or for the council
office for assistance we have and you know as you know also i believe this is the fifth
councilmanic district it's been difficult yeah it's it you know it's it's been very difficult
and challenging given the change in administration
within the 5th Council of Meta District.
No one's gone back to us either in that respect.
So, and, you know, this RCO, St. Elizabeth's RCO,
you know, again, you know, they're dutiful
in their volunteer commitment in some ways,
but getting community meetings,
we've never been able to get one.
And I don't know why they keep getting appointed
as a coordinating RCO.
i don't know we had we we had them yesterday as uh witnesses i guess i just have bad luck mr chair
hillary can we go on without a meeting um
like i said i really wish i had this information ahead of time um because then i could have checked
to verify the efforts that had been made
to have the meeting and see if it was an opportunity
if the board, because I don't consider if the presentation
wasn't made to community members, I don't believe that meets the code
for having a meeting, even though the notices went out.
So, Alan, here's what
we're going to do. We're going to continue both these cases. And what we'll do is
you know when we come back for me must be heard please we'll do a must be heard absolutely okay
and then when we get back we'll figure out how we can move this along a little quicker
so mi2023 i'm so sorry to interrupt no you most certainly can may we put a timeline on this i i
i um i would i would like to see this happen within the next 30 days wonderful thank you
very kindly, Chair. Okay. So MI 2023-004-796, 1940 North 22nd Street, and MI 2023-004-797-1938
North 22nd Street. Both cases are continued. Mark must be tried. Looking to have this done within 30 days.
Let me see where I am here now.
So I'll go here.
So number three, MI 2023-005-336-2628 Latona Street.
Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
Letter of support from Grace Ferry Community Council.
Could you identify your client, please, in the relationship to the property?
uh yes uh hold on one second uh 2628 the total ministry uh is owned by helping hands llc and
then the virtual audience should be its member joe ross okay and our vice chair has just a few
questions counselor do you agree with the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do
have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
proceed with this case, Bob is in advance of this hearing.
Yes, I have.
Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
We're here to present 2628 Latona Street.
This is a proposed single-family home on an RM1 lot.
We'll review the notice of refusal.
There are some technical dimensional refusals which are not out of character to the surrounding neighborhood.
We did meet with the Graysbury Community Council, and they support our project.
Again, not very often you take an R-in-one property and put a single-family use there, but that fits within the character of that community.
I have an aerial view of the property showing that what we're offering in terms of some of the dimensional variances are not out of character with the surrounding properties.
We have maps of the area, which again shows that this is an RM1 property, and all we're trying to do is put a single-family structure there.
Photographs of the property in the surrounding area are plants and drawings, are RCO meeting notice, and we met with Gray's very...
Our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice, and we met with Gray's very community council in the pre-community meeting.
They bedded our project.
We, you know, they liked our project.
We met with the community.
They liked our project.
So we have a letter of support from them.
But we have an RCO meeting notice showing that we met with them for the community meeting, our application for appeal, our deeds of property, and a certificate of tax credits.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Ross virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Notice of refusal.
So this is a single-family structure, and we have a few dimensional refusals, which are de minimis in nature.
Our occupied area is proposed 82.8 percent, not the biggest lot in the world.
Our lot area is 651 square feet, so in order to do a functional floor plan, we need a little bit more occupied area than would be allowed as of right.
um we're going up uh three stories uh which you know you know and straight up and that's a
technical refusal because we're uh in between two two story structures but that's not the most
common because our block is a mix between two and three story structures so what we're offering is
not out of character either and in order to have a functional floor plan on the third story we need
to actually go straight up we're not asking for a height variance we're just asking for a setback
variants in the front. Our rear yard, de minimis, we're only, we're asking for an eight foot rear
yard setback. Again, not out of character. And again, given the size of the lot, you know,
this is something that we desperately need to have a functional floor plan for the single family
structure. It goes kind of hand in hand with the rear yard area where we're proposing to have 112
12 square feet of rear yard, again, because of this small size of the lot, and because we want
to have a functional floor plan for this single-family structure, we're asking for that as
well. And the height is a misnomer. Because of where we are, where the pilot house is,
really the height from a roofline perspective is 34 feet. But because the pilot house hugs
in the back, it's counting towards the height. But it really is not an issue in the community
did not see that as an issue either.
So we met with the community and, you know, they support the project.
And then from an aerial view point of view, this is a vacant lot, but you can see that
there are some structures which would run afoul of the Philadelphia zoning code from
a rear yard setback situation, an occupied area, you know, situation as long as well
as a rear yard depth situation.
And then maps of the area. Again, I think because of the size of a lot, it's appropriate to have single family use.
And that's what we're embracing here, even though this is considered a multifamily zoning section of the city.
And then photographs of the property here, as you can see, we're between two two story structures.
It's not the widest lot in the world. That's what's giving us problems in terms of conforming dimensionally.
But this lot has been vacant for well over 15 years, and it's just very difficult to build here because of the size of the lot.
And we want to put a functional single-family house here, and that's why we're asking for these variances, which is a lease modification that's available under the Philadelphia Zoning Code under circumstances.
Here's our proof of posting for today's hearing.
As you can see, there are three survey structures on both sides of this block.
from, you know, both the left and right of Latona.
So you can see that it's not out of character
to have it go straight up three stories.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, we try to mimic, you know,
from an architectural standpoint, a brick facade.
We have lentils.
We have a pronounced cornice line.
Even our windows are like, you know,
a lot of light and air in there.
And then just our floor plans, basic floor plans.
You know, you walk in, open floor concept on the first floor.
You have three bedrooms, two on the second floor with one in the front, one in the back.
And then we have a master suite on the third story.
It was a well-attended meeting.
And, you know, we met on November 28th.
Proof of email of that meeting's notice.
And then 194 addresses were notified of the meeting, listed the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses or application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Helping Hands LLC,
along with the notice of refusal and the project information form or detail property showing that, you know,
Helping Hands LLC is the owner of the property. And finally, the certificate of tax clearance.
So with that being said, I would ask that Mr. Ross.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Ross virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Ross, if you are in the audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Nockamson, your office of the court, will accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Mr. Nockamson, did you show a tax clearance?
Because the page that I saw said you were still working on the tax clearance.
Yeah, so I would ask, so I'll take a look at that.
I thought we had one.
I can, you know, ask Mr. Goldberg, maybe, you know, while I'm presenting, I'll ask him
if he has one in his possession.
Maybe this is an older version of our presentation materials because we submit those five days
beforehand and if there's outstanding items like that.
So I'll find out from Mr. Goldberg.
So from that.
So if you just want to give me one second, I could just ask him.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
all right um well let's let's hold that let's hold this one under advisement and i'll i'll
get a tax when i get the tax clearance certificate then the board can vote okay
fine with me um hillary we won't give this a date right we'll wait to see when it's available
yes that's that's fine Mr. Chair thank you do we want to make sure that
yeah we can go to the public and go to planning yes we'll do everything else
comments from the virtual audience please
I see no hands planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rm1 multi-family zoning at this location
we feel the undersized dimensions of this property represents a hardship that justifies
the dimensional variances accordingly the planning commission recommends the board grant the variance
Thank you. We will hold this until we have the tax clearance straight.
Thank you.
All right, we'll go to now number four.
MI 2023-004-635-1906-12, North 6th Street.
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from APN.
Thank you.
Alan Ockamson, Ockamson, P-C-A-L-A-N, last name Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Can you identify your client and relationship with the property?
Yes, 1900 North 6th Street LP, and in the virtual audience is Jim Maransky, one of its members.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Counselor, do you agree to wait a reason or the refusal or stipulate your agency?
have you emailed then all the required documents that is needed and required to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you anyone let me change the screen please
all right thank you all right so i'm here to present
uh 1906-12 north 6th street uh this is an adaptive reuse of a property which had
had a history of industrial use. This is actually an I-2 property. We're proposing to put a 26-unit
apartment building in here. We're not changing the physical dimensions in any way. This is the
truce of hardships out there because one of the refusals has to do with the use, which we can't
The use, which we can't change, but this is clearly a use for residential purposes.
change, but this is clearly a use for residential purposes.
And then the second refusal has to do with parking, where you can't put parking if there's no ground to park cars on.
So we're going to review the notice of refusal. We have a letter of support from APM.
My client, Jim Maransky, like he loves doing adaptive reuse.
And we've, you know, we've done projects with him before. And it's great that, you know, there are clients out there who just don't want to tear things down. They want to keep the history of a neighborhood and enhance it. And that's what he's doing here. This is actually historic property. And that kind of goes to one of our refusals, which we'll talk about.
But I gave an example of the Gotham, which is another project nearby where he took a warehouse building, added some square footage to create another building.
But like he really just made it beautiful and preserved the history of this neighborhood.
He's trying to do again here in 1906-12 North 6th Street.
We'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings.
We had a well-attended meeting, overwhelming support.
We have proof of that notice going out for the meeting.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of 1900 North 6th Street LP.
DTIP property showing that they own it.
And our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
If collusion my presentation, I would ask that Jim virtually raise his hand.
Notice of refusal.
So, again, this is an I-2 property, and it's a substantial building structure.
And we're looking to put 26 units here.
they're going to be a mix of studios 14 studios 11 one bedrooms and one two bedrooms so what this
community lacks is a lot of these like smaller units right there are people who live in the
community who want to downsize there are people whose family members live in the community they
need a place to be and so there's definitely a need for this type of project here and I think
that's what the community really appreciated. And it also keeps it very affordable, which I know
is not zoning related, but it's a practical consideration of people who live in any community
in Philadelphia. So we have two refusals. First, because we're I-2, like there's, you know,
you know, by providing residential use, we're being refused for that. But again, not out of
character. We are on a residential block and having a building structure, an apartment building like
this make sense from a zoning perspective. And then the second refusal has to do with the fact
because we're I-2, we're required to provide a certain amount of off-street parking spaces.
But we have essentially 100% lot coverage here with the existing building structure,
so we couldn't fulfill that requirement. Regardless, this is a historic property.
Now, it's not a historic property on the Philadelphia Registry, but on the federal
registry. And under section 14-8012D, if we were repurposing this property, or we are repurposing
it, there should be no need for parking here. So under that technical refusal, we would object to
it on those grounds. Now, I think the zoning examiner looked at it from, well, is it on the
historic registry for philadelphia it's not it's an historic registry for the you know on the
federal level and that's why we're here today for that refusal but regardless we the hardship here
is that we can't put parking where there's no ground to put cars and again we met with the
you know with the community uh overwhelming support no one opposed this project
And then, again, the Gotham, which is nearby. This is what Jim truly loves to do. He likes to take these older properties that have a history within the community and repurpose them for residential use.
So this is what the property looked like afterwards. And then this is just the type of apartments that he put in there. He's hoping to do something similar here.
He's calling this project the Pringle factory because this property was originally housed or previously housed by Eaton Electrical Manufacturing Company from 1903 to 1963.
And they created this switch called the Pringle switch.
It's a patented switch and switchboard for high current applications and is still well known.
So he's trying to preserve the history of this property.
um by naming it uh the pringle factory and then this is again what he did at gotham and you can
see he he really tried to preserve the history here specifically of the common areas um of that
um of that building and then as you can see here you know we're close by to multi-family use
building and then as you can see here you know we're
um we're not here um you know for this property that's i2 um but we're near the commercial
corridor of germantown avenue and this project will help increase the density in this part of
town which will help support the commercial corridor as well and photographs of the property
As you can see, we're only half of this. There's another portion that is another building.
But you can see like this property needs some significant TLC.
And Jim has already started doing work in terms of stabilizing the structure because there have been some issues with that.
But we want to preserve this historic property.
Proof of our posting for today's hearing.
And this is North 6th Street to the right of the property, North 6th Street to the left of the property.
You can see we're in a residential neighborhood. Across the street is a shopping center, which includes Cousin Supermarket. Again, this type of multifamily use is going to help support that shopping center and Germantown Avenue as a whole.
So as you saw, the building structure in actuality, this is the rendering. We want, I mean, it's just going to liven up that part of town.
and again you can see here we have full lot coverage here so we really can't do anything
about the parking and I don't even think that refusal should apply given the historic designation
of the property but you can see here there's a trash room in the basement and there's a trash
room on every single floor there will be an elevator service here which is going to help
like the elderly section of town, because we're not stepped up. So, you know, people are,
it's going to be accessible units here. And yeah, there's no, there's no basement like living.
He does plan to have someone dedicated to a degree to this building. His offices are nearby as well.
So it's self-managed, essentially owner-occupied building structure.
And he's putting a green roof on the top as well, which doesn't matter from a zoning perspective, but from an environmental perspective.
We met with the community on November 9th at 530.
105 addresses were notified.
These are the list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal, our detailed property, and our tax clearance certificate.
Again, there is a balance due, but the reason why is because that's for 2024 taxes, which are not due until the first quarter of the year.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Maransky virtually raise his hand.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
James Maransky, J-A-M-E-S-M-A-R-A-N-S-K-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Yeah, Mr. Moransky, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, no, Chair.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change to rsa 5 single family residential at this location
However, we feel the applicant has a demonstrated hardship for both parking and multifamily use, given the adaptive reuse of an existing industrial building.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023, 004635, 1906-12, North 6th Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Number five, MI 2023-004-623. 2022 Glenwood Avenue, Mr. Nockamson is the attorney. We have a letter of opposition from all the family CDC. Applicant has provided a petition and support signed by 16 neighbors, along with six form letters of support.
can you knock again yes
again yes uh good afternoon alan knockamson of knockamson pc i don't even think i need to
say you know everybody just say your name for the record you're on the road today man i think
we all know who you are already could you identify your client please and that relationship to the
property yes uh sjc real estate llc is the owner of the property and then the virtual audience
should be shati cooks who is one of its members our vice chair has just a few questions
do i uh do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards accuracy
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you please
the street. Thank you.
All right, so 2022
West Glenwood Avenue. As you can see, we're on the edge of a, I don't even know
how you would say it. Are we in the edge of a residential neighborhood or the beginning of a residential
neighborhood? Either way across the street is some industrial use and some shopping
centers. And typically from a planning perspective,
you don't go straight to RSA 5. But this is an RSA 5 prop.
So history is this.
We propose to have a two-family structure with an addition on top.
The addition on top, there was no refusal for that.
It was just a use as an RSA-5 property.
We presented to the community, I don't even know, like almost a year ago.
They said, listen, we have no problems with the use.
We just have a problem on the fact that this is mainly a two-story block.
We like to preserve the character of that block.
We don't want you to go up a third story.
We would have no objection if you expanded the building structure in the rear.
We're like, okay, fine.
Unfortunately, given the size of the expansion that we needed to do, we couldn't just rely on the zoning appeal that we had with the first refusal.
We had to now, and we couldn't do an authorization letter and get the opportunity to amend the zoning appeal.
We had to do a whole other filing, which my client did.
You know, he spent the additional time and additional money on, you know, doing that, detrimentally relying on the assurances of the community that they didn't have a problem with the duplex.
They had a problem with how the duplex looked because they didn't want us to add a story.
They wanted us to continue in the rear.
We met with, you know, the all in the family group associates.
We're like, okay, we did exactly like you told us to do.
you know i i hope you you know i hope you support this project now and then we were told oh no we
don't support this project at all we we we don't want any type of use other than single family use
and then we're like well that's not what you told us basically a year ago and we're gonna go through
this whole process and start a whole nother second appeal so that's where we are so you know
know, we solicited neighbors, neighboring properties, and we got a petition in support
of that. But I will say this, like he really detrimentally relied on assurances from the
community, community group. And it sounded like if memory serves me right, a lot of the same
individuals that were in the first meeting were in the second. So, but it's not enough character
to have duplexes. We have pictures of a couple of duplexes nearby. We'll show you maps of the area
Again, across the street is ICMX, so I don't know if you equate this to the beginning of a residential neighborhood or to the end of a residential neighborhood, but it's not like we're in the heart of a residential neighborhood where it's all single families.
It's not. Then we have photographs of the property and surrounding the area.
Architectural plans showing the first filing to see the addition up top.
And then the second filing where we just extend in the rear.
Then our RCO meeting notice or application for appeal.
Our deed to the property showing the SJC real estate LLC is the owner of the property.
And our certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr.
Cook virtually raises hands. So notice of refusal, again, this RSA-5 property,
as you can see, originally it was for the erection of an addition above an existing
attached structure and for two-family dwelling. That was in February of 2023. So the beginning
of this year, we were told, no, we don't have a problem with the duplex, but you got to extend
in the rear. Because of the change in that concept, we had to go through a whole nother process.
And here's our secondary fusel, which we got in the summertime of 2023. And it's for the erection
of a rear addition to an existing attached structure for use as two-family dwelling.
And again, you know, we went in front of the community, you know, they were they were against it and they just want single family use.
Again, you know, we went in front of the community, you know, they were
And from an economic point of view, it's just we can't do it.
And they knew that they made us spend more money and time to get through this process.
So we did meet with members of the community.
My client is, you know, is from, I believe, the North Philly area, and he got, you know, had solicited a petition of individuals who are in support of this project, as well as letters of support.
And then nearby duplexes on this block, 20, the next door, so duplex, 2445 North 20th Street around the corner is a duplex.
And then again, we're across the street, and you'll see this better from a Google Maps perspective.
Where we're on Glenwood right here are, you know, non-residential properties, ICMX properties.
So you got a linen factory, a warehouse district, a couple of auto repair places.
So it makes sense not to have single family here, maybe to have some duplexes, also to help support this commercial use as well.
And then photographs of the property, again, it's in shale condition.
We bought it that way.
you know my client takes properties you know he's you know from north philly he takes properties
um that you know are in desperate need of some tlc and he fixes them up um proof of post of
posting for today's hearing and then west glenwood to the right of the property again
nothing you don't see anything here there's all this commercial behind this west glenwood avenue
to the left of the property. You can see some warehouses here, the ones that I pointed out
on Google Earth. Architectural plans and drawings. First filing, we did propose a three-story
structure. Did not generate a refusal because even though it's a two-story structure to the
right of us, there was nothing to the left of us. And then this is just, again, the drawing,
what we made as a submission. Second filing, all we did was do this two-story addition,
which was asked of us. And again, these are our floor plans, pretty basic. Unit number one is the
first floor on lower level. Unit number two is on the second story. And by the way, we do have a
slight variance for occupied area. We slightly exceeded. We're at 76% of occupied area where
only 75% is allowed. We wanted a functional floor plan. Again, this was asked of us.
And then, you know, we mailed notice to 123 addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, or applications for appeal.
We filed on behalf of SJC, deed to property, showing that they own the property.
And then finally, our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, it does show a balance of $825.88, but that's for 2024 taxes.
I would ask that Mr. Cook virtually raise his hand.
Hi, Mr. Cook, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Shati Cooks, S-H-A-T-E-E, last name Cooks, C-O-O-K-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Cooks, you heard everything I had to say today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, I agree.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
All right, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
i don't know
yeah i most certainly can sir thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions from the virtual audience
yes chair we have a odessa tate they have been allowed to speak
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hello it's odessa tate o-d-e-s-s-a-t-a-t-e do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am the rco okay please proceed thank you
um there are several uh issues when it comes to this development
One, adding a non-conforming structure for a duplex, tearing down the already existing shed
one um adding a non-conforming structure for a duplex tearing down
kitchen and rebuilding the first floor and second floor to accommodate making the second floor an
apartment unit. The neighbors expressed concern for the extension because they have seen failed
attempts with other homes that have become locked spaces. And we are seeing in Philadelphia just how
much construction is causing threats to adjoining properties. Number two, there was confusion
concerning who this property is for. The lawyer stated that the owner agreed to make affordable
housing units and will accept vouchers for subsidized housing, and the cost per unit would
go for $1,100 and $1,250. Later in the meeting, the neighbors asked the owner, who are you renting
to? Is PHA a demographic, Section 8? He said no, and that the units are too small for Section 8
and will be fair market rate, which contradicted the lawyer's initial statement.
Number three, I want to make mention that this home is currently structured for single family
use. I asked the owner why he's choosing to divide the property into a duplex rather than
keep it a single family home. His response was because there are already other duplexes on the
block. The lawyer said in an earlier statement that he wanted to give perspective of nearby
duplexes to make their case. I want to make case that everything seen is not legal. According to
the record, the next door duplex 2024 West Glenwood Avenue has a rental license for one unit and not
two. Four, there is no development hardship. There are no topographic challenges, irregular shaped
lots, no unique site conditions. Making the conversion more financially viable is not a
hardship. When the neighbors were asked are they comfortable with the duplex or would rather have
a single-family home development, the neighbors agreed to a single-family home development.
The lawyer exclaimed that it would be almost impossible for the owner to completely renovate
as a single-family home. He can't afford to do that, saying the problem is that a single-family
home is not feasible to build given the condition of the property. Then the lawyer was asked how is
it feasible for the duplex his response he's getting two sets of rent rent uh for unit one
and rent for unit two he cannot build something where he doesn't get the rental income to pay
back the loan he has to take out we all know that tyranny on the shed kitchen rebuilding it and
adding an addition to the second floor is costly we also know that separating utilities and adding
kitchens and bathrooms etc will drive costs that's the last thing i want to make comment about
the zoning petition. Firstly, all the neighbors are a couple of doors over from the project.
They objected to this project. They do not support it. Neighbors or other blocks do not have priority
over their objection. As noted in the meeting minutes, I have the gays who are the property
owners of 2034 and 2036, West Linwood Avenue as opposed. On the petition provided, we have the
support of Terrell Brown, who is listed at 2036 West Linwood Avenue. So this didn't make sense to
me. I personally went to the gays' home to ask about Terrell Brown. The gays let me know that
Terrell is not 18 or over and does not live at the address. So for future reference, when these
positions are circulated, we need to ensure that the information received is viable. Thank you.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would like to respond because, again, the one thing that was not referenced is the fact that we initially made this presentation to the same community and the same community group, and we made a presentation on adding a third story, having a duplex.
We were told that the community had no objection at that point to doing a two unit, but they wanted us to extend outward rather than upward.
What I'm hearing from Ms. Tate now is all the issues about extending outward.
I feel like it's a very frustrating situation where my client spends a lot of time and money in trying to meet the needs and the requests of the community.
And then we're told, no, we don't want it.
And now we don't want it because of these other reasons.
that were not disclosed to us at the time okay all right is there anyone else in the virtual audience
planning commission
do you have anybody else no chair there's no hand all right thank you i appreciate it go ahead peter
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5 single-family residential at
this location we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship accordingly the planning
we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship accordingly the planning commission
commission recommends the board
recommends the board deny the variance thank you MI 2023-004-623-2022 West Glenwood Avenue
I vote no James Snell my vote is no Ishmael Shahid my vote is no thank you counsel we're
We're going to move on to number 7, MI-2023-004-798-4140, Pennsgrove, letter of opposition from the Belmont Civic Association.
Applicant provided a form letter of support from the neighbor at 4136 Pennsgrove.
Mr. Knobbson.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Do you identify your client and relationship to this property?
yes uh it is ycy 314 llc okay our vice chair has just a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal stipulate to his accuracy
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Hi. So I'm here to present 4140 Pensgrove Street.
This is in the Belmont section of Philadelphia.
It's at the corner of Holly and Pensgrove.
It's a lot that's 1,535 square feet.
It was advertised to us at the time that that was an RM1 property.
It was an RM1 property. When we entered into the agreement and when the deed was originally signed, the zoning changed on us.
So my client's here to ask that the board allow him to build a four unit dwelling.
This is this would be otherwise a by right project.
I had my client do revised plans, which if so, if the board so inclined, you know, I would ask that they grant it with the revised plans.
they repositioned the roof deck access structure. So now this would be a buy right project other
than obviously the use of four units. So first we'll review the notice of refusal. Then we'll
review the correspondence from the Belmont Alliance Civic Association CDC. If you look at
that letter, I don't really think they had an issue with the use of four units. I think the
issue had everything to do with the roof deck. And we changed it up to make it a buy right
situation where the roof deck is allowed by right. So I don't know if there would be any issues now
in that respect. We have the ZBA revised proviso plan form, which repositions the roof deck. So now
that that refusal would go away. We did do a petition of nearby neighbors. I gave the Redfin
listing to show that, you know, it was advertised to be allowed for four units to build four units,
as well as it shows as an R1 property at the time of advertising.
Also did give you Philadelphia Bill 230034-A, which shows that the original zoning was R1.
It changed RSA 5.
And, you know, again, at the time of advertising, at the time the deed was originally signed, that was an R1 property.
It was only after my client closed that he hired his architect that he discovered that the zoning changed on him.
This is in an RM1, essentially zoning district. Otherwise, the history of this property is multifamily use, and there's other multifamily structures, four units at 4132 Penns Grove, 4134 Penns Grove, 4122 Penns Grove, 4124 Penns Grove, and 4126 Penns Grove are all four-unit dwelling structures on that block.
This board granted a four-unit variance nearby at 1910 North 41st Street, which is our Exhibit 8.
There is a letter of support from the nearby neighbor next door.
I will then share maps of the area and then photographs of the property in the surrounding area.
Again, we're a corner property. Trash will be able to be stored outside.
Our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notes, our application for appeal, our deeds of property, and a certificate of tax clearance.
Again, Mr. Katz is in the virtual audience. He is a member of this LLC. I would ask that he
virtually raise his hand and be sworn in. So our notice refusal is this. Yes, we're an RSA 5
property. When my client purchased the property, it was not. So we're asking for the granting of
this variance for that reason alone. My client purchased the property at a price point where
at a price point where it should be RM1. And again, we have two variance requests. First is
it should be R&M 1.
And again, we have two
for the amount of units. This is a 1,535 square foot property. So, you know, that's allowed,
but with four units. And then the other refusal has to do a technical height variance, but really
not because it was a position of the pilot house. We are repositioning that pilot house to make this
as though this would be an azure bright project.
Correspondence from the Belmont group,
you can see it was a close vote.
It was four people in support, 12 people opposed,
six people in non-opposition.
So that's 10 to 12, really.
If you look at the letter itself,
which I can get,
like the explanation of the letter
has to do all with the roof deck.
Really nothing else.
And they said, you know, at the conclusion, you know, the eligible participants before voting asked the applicant if he would consider altering the building plans by removing the roof deck, whereas the plan may have been deemed acceptable.
They mentioned this, the overlay, I believe, in the Brewery Town-Shardswood area that recently passed that eliminated the use of roof decks as well as Strawberry Mansion.
There's no such overlay here.
We are allowed the roof deck as of right. You know, we repositioned the roof deck, you know, after that meeting to make it an as of right project with the roof deck, just where it's positioned on the roof, the pilot house, where the pilot house is.
if this board feels so inclined to eliminate the roof deck from this project, we would ask that
they still grant the four units with a proviso, no roof deck access structure. We think that it's
important to have a roof deck. It provides an opportunity for people to have a place, you know,
to congregate, but we understand if the board does not feel that's appropriate in their circumstances.
this is our revised plan form which says again we removed the second pilot house we
repositioned that second pilot the other pilot house so now it's a conformity to the code
this is our plans you know for that showing how we are repositioning that pilot house before it
was hugging over here which was ran afoul of the philadelphia zoning codes
here's our petition oops you know we you know we try to get property occupants on uh on pence
grove again the people that would be most directly impacted 4109 pence grove 4152 pence grove 4156
Penn Grove, as well as people in close proximity to the project.
And then this is the Redfin listing, specifically right down here. The zoning classification on
the Redfin listing showed that this was an RM1 property. My client detrimentally relied on that.
Again, even in another part of that listing, it says that zoning is RM1, and it was multifamily.
And then here's the bill, which shows that originally this was RM1, and it changed to RSA5.
So it was RM1 right here, changed to RSA5.
they did keep the rm1 zoning classification for a portion of this block but not our section of the
block here's the the bill history um it wasn't in effect until april of 2023 this is a property
history showing that the you know this is a vacant lot the last known history was multifamily
here's a you know this board considered a similar zoning request for variants on october 25th under
calendar number MI-2023-002189 at 910 North 41st Street. Here's the next door neighbor
is in support of this project or not next door 4136 but two doors down. Maps of the area again
as you can see like they did keep the multi-family structure a part of that block just not our part
of the block. Photographs of the property. This is a vacant lot currently. It's been a vacant lot
for some time. Proof of posting of the hearing notice. Then Pence Grove to the right of the
property, to the left of the property. Holly Street to the right of the property, to the left
of the property. Our plans and drawings. As you can see, we're a corner property. We have multiple
forms of egress. One, two, three on the first floor.
And then, again, we're not asking for any dimensional variances here, especially since the reposition in the pilot houses where there was a technical refusal.
This is just a use refusal.
We have, again, multiple forms of egress.
Unit number one and unit number two are bi-levels on the first floor or lower level.
Unit three and four are also bi-levels on the second and third floors.
we met with the community on December 14th
132 addresses were notified of that meeting these are the addresses proof mailing of those addresses
application for appeal that we follow on behalf of the property owner
the deed to the property
and the certificate of tax clearance.
So there is a small balance due,
but that's really because of the 2024 taxes.
I would ask that.
Bring your client on.
Yep, that's right.
Mr. Katz, can you virtually raise your hand?
Hello.
Could you state your name and spell, please,
for the court stenographer?
joseph katz j-o-s-e-p-h katz k-a-t-z do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth is
nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel yeah mr katz you heard everything i had to state
today about your zoning matter yes yes yes and do you adopt as your own testimony yes
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Betty Ferguson.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and board. My name is Betty Ferguson, and it's spelled B-E-T-T-Y-E, last name Ferguson, F-E-R-G-U-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm within 250 feet of the said property.
Okay, please proceed, ma'am.
And I was tasked to be the coordinating RCO under Belmont Alliance Civic Association.
And at the meeting with Mr. Nassimson and Mr. Katz, it was unclear to us of how they were going to go with this building.
We were told that this was going to be a four unit.
Nobody had a problem with that.
Then we looked up to see two mechanical pilot houses or access pilot houses, along with the roof deck.
We were also told in this meeting that the residents would be choice voucher residents.
and I and everyone was thinking why in the world would they build a roof deck on top of a building
and wanting children to have access to this area there was no plan for ADA to put up the building
be ADA compliant because if they were going to rent out to low income they should have made a
plan for that there was no plan for trees we weren't clear about the yard space or and then
later they mr not your man not just some i'm sorry stated that it will be yard usage
i'm sorry ferguson yes i'm here please proceed yeah thank you
uh the 12 that were opposed were homeowners most of those folks that live on uh I believe
Pensco Street are renters I'm not taking that away from them I am the committee person for
this area and so I'm well aware of who lives where but I do know this they wanted Mr. Katz
to come back to them with respect of showing them the new plans, less the dramatics on the roof.
And they're owed that to hear and see the changes that were made.
And they're owed that to hear and see the changes.
I explained to the lawyer that, look, I cannot change my opinion about what the attendees said.
I only collect and summarize what is being said to me.
So with that being said, the neighbors, the homeowners said, look, we want you to come back and be a good neighbor and show us your new plans, explain to us what you're attempting to do.
put in ADA compliant ramp somewhere where if you're going to rent out to low income or have
affordable, most likely you'll get a senior in there, in that household. And there was no plan
for trees. And Mr. Chairman, this is why we actually said no. And thank you for allowing me
to speak. Oh, thank you. Thank you for your input. We appreciate it. Yeah. Is there anyone else in
the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Yeah, Mr. Chair, can I just briefly respond to Ms.
Ferguson? Yeah, and we do respect, you know, the neighbors and the community as a whole,
and that's why I presented this, you know, where we did revise our plans to, you know,
only include one pilot house to get rid of that refusal, but with the understanding that the
board feels so inclined to eliminate the roof deck from the project we understand that as well
what you know a lot of you know community members don't understand is how long we have to wait
for these appeals to be heard and if we continue this matter um you know we wouldn't potentially
get a date until sometime in march my clients already you know the refusal is you know months
old already um so again what i heard from miss ferguson is that the neighborhood does it has
no objection to the four amount of units and that's and my client purchased this property
as an iron one property and it's asking only for four units which would be allowed for as
as our uh be allowed as a right if that would happen okay um planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property was rezoned to RSA 5 earlier this year 2023 as part of a community-led remapping
while there is not a hardship for land we understand the zoning changed recently
however we feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property accordingly the planning
commission recommends the board grant the variances with a proviso for not more than three units
so mi2023 004798 4140 pendergrove um i vote yes uh with proviso revised plan one page
stamped by zba december 20th 23 no more than three units and no rooftop decks
James Snell, my vote is yes, with provisor.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with provisor.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2023-005-594-702 North 18th Street.
Mr. Nockmson is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support unanimous from United Francisville Civic Association.
The applicant also provided a petition in support signed by approximately 12 neighbors, along with 13 form letters.
Mr. Nackamson, could you identify your clients in relationship to the property?
One second.
My clients are Dwayne and Natasha Lassiter, the owners of the property.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Counselor, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed five days in advance of this hearing
i have thank you please proceed
please share your screen oh no i'm sorry i'm just uh trying to get to the right to uh to the right
I'm here to present 702 North 18th Street.
We're proposing a single-family structure on this property.
First, I'll present the notice of refusal, then the correspondence from the...
uh i'll present the notice of refusal then the correspondence from the united francisville
civil association again unanimous support petition uh well regarded petition my clients
live behind the property on shirley street all they're trying to do is build a single family home
on 18th street and live there you know if they've outgrown their residence that they've lived at
uh you know for third you know duane's lived there for 13 years natasha's lived there for
10 years when they got married, they moved in together. Comparable variances in this sense,
like all the refusals, whether it's height or parking or occupied area, have all been dealt
with with previous projects nearby. And I think that was recognized by the community as well.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property or plans and drawings or RCO meeting notice or
application for appeal or deed to property or certificate of tax clearance. And then I would
asked that Dwayne virtually raised his hand at the conclusion of the presentation. So notice of
refusal. Again, all we're trying to do is a single family home with a front loading garage. First
refusal has to do with the front loading garage. Again, not out of character to have front loading
garages in this part of the neighborhood, as you'll see, you know, from our, you know, presentation.
There's a deck. The second refusal has to do with the deck. We have a deck coming out of the rear
on the second floor. That leads to technical refusal in terms of its encroaching in the
required rear yard. Again, the individuals who'd be most directly impacted by that deck
signed a petition in support on Shirley Street. Those are my clients' neighbors. They've lived
in this neighborhood for over, you know, cumulatively, they've lived 13 years, Dwayne
13, Natasha 10. Next refusal has to do with the height. Again, not out of character to ask for a
height variance of this sort. We're next to an apartment building that's 55 feet high. So we're
right off of Fairmont Avenue. So asking for a height variance where the height on the roof line
would be 41 feet and change is not out of character. Then the next refusal has to do with
the open area, or is it de minimis request to have open area of 22.4 rather than 25% open area.
And then the last one has to, and by the way, this is a regular shaped lot. So the open area
issue has to go with the shape of our property. And the same thing goes with the rear yard depth
where nine feet's required, where they took the short, the zoning examiner looked at the shortest
This point from the rear of the property of the building structure to our at the end of our lot line, where there's a portion of our of our lot that goes over 10 feet, which is well within the code.
But they took the shorter portion of our rear yard. So that's a technical refusal.
So we met with the United Francisville. I think that was last week. And we had the unanimous support petition.
everyone nearby supported this project.
You know, I don't live far from here either.
Like it's a family-oriented area.
You know, we want to keep people in Philadelphia.
And if it takes some variances to make that happen,
to encourage people to stay because they need more room,
that's a positive thing for this community.
And I embrace that as well as someone who lives in Fairmont myself.
And then these are some letters of support.
and then nearby comparable variances so 703 north 18th street had an issue with the rear yard area
rear yard depth and it also asked for parking sound is similar to what we're requesting which
the board granted uh for that's and that's the zoning permit for it the refusal for 1802 francis
Street, which is not far from here. Again, open area, rear yard were two of those issues.
And then 1802 Francis is also the zoning permit for it. Notice a refusal for 1801-03 Fairmont
Avenue, height, rear yard setback, parking. Same refusals that we're asking the board to allow us
to undertake with this project.
And then maps of the area.
This is, you know, a single-family area,
and we're embracing that by having a single-family house here.
And we're just right off Fairmont Avenue.
And then photographs of the property.
As you can see, this is the building structure that's 55 feet high.
And we're looking to – and my clients live literally behind right here on
Shirley Street.
So, you know, during the community meeting, Natasha stated that it was
always literally her dream to purchase this property and build one day. So when there was
a for sale sign here, you know, Dwayne and Natasha willingly and gladly, you know, purchased the
You know, Dwayne and Natasha willingly and gladly, you know, purchased the property with the hopes of putting a single family home here.
I believe they have a condo here on Shirley Street that they live in.
Proof of posting.
North 18th Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property, are plans and drawings from Harmon Deutsch.
But, you know, in terms of the curb cuts, here are all examples of curb cuts on North 18th Street.
And then, as you can see, these are just these are single family drawings.
And you can see here of how we're matching the roof line to the property to the left of us.
The other property is set back a little bit on the fifth story.
So our roof line matches the roof line of the apartment building to the left of us.
So we're not taking any light in the air away from the person to the right of us because that light in there is also being affected by this property.
And then you can see all the garages here on North 18th Street as well.
So it's not out of character to have garages here.
We met with the community on December 13th.
83 addresses were notified in the meeting, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal, and then our deed to the property showing that my clients own it.
And then our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, money is due for 2024.
With that being said, I would ask that Dwayne or Natasha virtually raise their hands.
dewayne and natasha please raise your virtual hand
there are two devices so i can select one and allow them to speak share
and one's fine okay so they're going to hang out okay
dewayne lassiter you're free to speak hi sir could you state your name and spell
please for the court stenographer please unmute
Hello?
Lasseter. Yes, fine.
Could you just state your name and spell please for the court stenographer?
Sure. Dwayne Lasseter, D-U-A-N-E-L-A.
Mr. Lasseter, are you still there?
Mr. Lasseter?
yeah spell your last name please l-a-s-s-i-c-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth mr lassiter
he's unmuted here he might be i noticed okay um so mr knockamson i know he's
trying to get in, but, you know, you're an officer
of the court. We will take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from
the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
planning commission good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5 single family residential
at this location we feel this proposal represents an overuse and feel the applicant has failed to
demonstrate a hardship accordingly the planning commission recommends the board denied variance
can i comment real yeah i mean all the variance requests that we have have been approved by the
for properties nearby including the front loading garage the occupied area we are a regular shaped
lot too so some of those refusals have to do with the fact that we're in regular shape
so for those reasons i would ask that the board grant the variance request thank you
Number 8, MI2023-005-594-702-North18th Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Dishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Is our alternate board member on?
Mr. Leonard Brown?
Yes, I'm here.
Yes, I'm here.
Well, Barrett, could you vote, please?
LeBaron, could you vote, please?
Absolutely.
Absolutely. LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Kelly.
Yes, Chair.
How are you holding up?
I'm fine, Chair. Thanks for asking.
Okay, so let's take a couple more then.
Number nine, MI 2023-004-633-2672 Braddock Street.
Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from East Kensington Neighbors and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Mr. Nockmson, can you identify your clients and their relationship to the property?
yeah my client is vj assets llc and then virtual audience is josh kravitz one of its members
our vice chair has just a few questions
counselor do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards aggress
i do have you emailed down on the required documents and exhibits that is needed
five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you please proceed and share your screen
All right, so I'm here to present 2672 Braddock Street.
This is in the East Kensington section of Philadelphia.
We'll first review the notice of refusal, then the correspondence from ECNA, as well
as the District Council member, both in non-opposition to this project.
What we're proposing is to have a three-unit dwelling on 2672 Braddock Street. Not uncommon to have that. There was a similar project down the street, which also received a variance from the ZBA.
We also circulated a petition of nearby neighbors who also signed the petition in support of this project.
Mr. Kravitz, who's the member of this LLC, also lives in the East Kensington area, so he has deep roots within this area.
We'll review the maps of the area, the photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
Our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal, our deeds of property, a certificate of tax clearance, and then I would ask that Josh virtually raise his hand at the conclusion of my presentation and be sworn in.
Notice of refusal, this is an RSA 5 property, and we're looking to put three family dwelling here.
Not that this is zoning related, but Josh is hoping to sell this as a condominium, so three condominium units.
So East Kensington is getting really expensive. And in order to have diversity of housing to allow people to have an entry point in some of these neighborhoods, you're going to you've seen more and more of these condominium structures where, you know, there's three units which can make it affordable for someone to develop roots in a neighborhood like East Kensington.
And then hopefully, you know, find a way to like be able to afford a single family home and maybe raise a family in a section of the city. And that's what Josh is trying to do here.
We met with the community there, you know, again, a well-attended meeting.
They don't oppose the project.
And then the council member, too, because of the letter of non-opposition from the community, the council member, Escuela, also sent a letter of non-opposition.
Again, not out of character, earlier this year at 2644 Braddock Street, this board granted a variance for three-family dwelling petition.
Petition. Again, my client, I tell my clients, here's the list of addresses of effective
properties. Go meet the neighbors. See if you can get support outside of the community meeting,
which he did. As you can see, he got a lot of addresses on Braddock Street and even behind
him on Emerald. Those are the people who will be most directly impacted by this project.
and then if you look at it here there's mixed zoning there's some you know obviously rsa5
there's some rm1 there's cmx two and a half there's icmx there's i2
again we're not that far off of lehigh and frankfurt avenue which is a commercial corridor
help support the commercial order by increasing density photographs of the property as you can
seen that not us but there has been development in this area proof of posting of today for today's
hearing and you can see there's a lot of new construction around here which again development
which includes you know the address on Braddock street where this board allowed for a three unit
allowed for a three-unit family dwelling structure to be used, are plans and drawings.
family dwelling structure to be
What was important to the community is this. Where's the garbage being stored? Well, my client
came up with a solution because the building's set back, because other buildings are set back,
that he has outdoor access for all the unit owners to be. And then another thing that was
really important to the community are, where are the meters being stored? They didn't want them to
be stored in the front. So, again, we have a rendering here where our intention is to have
the meters stored into this inset so people wouldn't see the meters. Again, from a design
standpoint, my client embraced that. And then in terms of the floor plans, they're very basic.
You know, unit number one is on the first floor and lower level. Unit number two is on the second
floor and unit number three is on the third floor we met with the community on december 13th 155
addresses were notified in the meeting proof of uh these are the addresses proof of mailing to
those addresses our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of vj assets our deed to the
property showing that they own the property and then finally our tax clearance again the only
reason why there's a balance due is because 2024 taxes are not due until the conclusion of the
first quarter of 2024. I would ask that Mr. Kravitz virtually raise his hand.
Josh Kravitz, you're able to speak. Sir, could you state your name,
please is spelled for the court stenographer yes it's josh kravitz spelled j-o-s-h-k-r-a-v-e-t-s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel uh yes uh mr kravitz you heard everything i had to state today about
your zoning matter yes and is it true and correct yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony
Yes. Thank you.
Questions or comments from the board?
No, Chair. No, Chair. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see you know i'm sorry we have a maria campos for the hand raised not been allowed to speak
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hi yes my name is maria m-a-r-i-a campos c-a-m-p-o-s right do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do are you a neighbor yes i am please
proceed um i just wanted to express my support for this project like i think it's very important for
young renters like me to have the opportunity to buy a more affordable option especially in
this neighborhood that we can see a lot of expensive properties so i just wanted to express
my support okay thank you so much for taking the time to call for us is there anyone else in the
virtual audience. I see no hands. Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Chair. Peter
Bernard for the Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
RSA 5 single-family residential at this location. We feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate
any hardship and any existing hardship was removed when the pre-existing building was
demolished accordingly the planning commission recommends the board deny the variances
number nine mi 2023 004 633 2672 braddock street i vote yes
james snell my vote is yes
thank you uh number 12 mi 2023 005046 5126 walton avenue
um the coordinating rco cedar park neighbors did not reach a position on this application
there are a majority of the people would support a basement unit if it was brought up to code.
Applicant also provided a petition from 14 neighbors.
And Mr. Nockmson, is there a missing,
um, is there a missing refusal for parking?
It's a remissing refusal of a part game.
Is there a missing refusal for parking? I'm not 100% sure, Mr. Chair. I mean, I haven't evaluated. This is an RSA 3 property. I don't know if it, I would, I would defer to Ms. Emerson.
I think Ms. Emerson is the one
asking the question. Ms. Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I noticed there was no
reference to parking on the refusal
and based on the exhibit packet
it didn't appear that there was any parking at the
property. So even if there
had been variants
previously approved for
the two units, the existing two
units to not have parking additional
variants I believe would be needed
for not having that third parking
space.
well then again we would object to the validity of the refusal and i think it's acknowledged if
parking was required you know it has been acknowledged at this hearing yeah that is fine
and i mainly wanted to make a note for the record and also put on the record clarify whether or not
there was existing parking at uh the property okay mr nackamson could you identify your client
the relationship to the property uh yes my client is uh nawadio go e g o go um we'll make it easy
on me um her name's ogo uh and she's in the virtual audience and she she's an individual
that owns his property okay i mean i share my answer was there i actually i don't remember
if Mr. Shahid asked me questions.
Are you ready to do it now?
It's a long day.
Do you agree the way the reading
of the refusers stipulate to his accuracy?
Well, except for the fact about the parking.
Yep, understood.
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that are required
five days in advance on this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. So I'm here to present 5126 Walton Avenue. As you can see from the photographs,
there is no parking on site and it would be out of character to have parking in this part of town.
We, you know, again, my client purchased this property. It was already set up as like essentially
a unit downstairs and a unit upstairs the only thing that's making this like the only change
we're virtually going to do is to put a wall in between the upstairs and the downstairs and when
we're talking about downstairs it's elevated it's above grade at least the entrances and you know
we'll review the notice of refusal this is an rs3 rsa3 property the lot size is 2137 square feet so
this is a rather large lot. This is in the Cedar Brook section of Philadelphia. And as the
chairman stated, we did receive correspondence from Cedar Park neighbors. How I read the letter
and how it was explained to us is they have no problems with having two units here. They want
to make sure that it's code compliant. And as I explained, as our office explained to the group,
is that, of course, we're going to have to do it code compliant because this is just the first
step of the process. From a zoning perspective, we get a zoning permit if we're so lucky. And if we
are, we still have to get a CO. And, you know, there are some modifications that we are going
to agree to, obviously, which will include window wells as such. So we told them that we would do
that. They wanted us to do it now. And we said, we can't do it now. Spend the money now on doing
all these things to make it code compliant for a duplex without having the permit the zoning
permit approval in hand um so um just you know that's what we explain to the community but they
have no problems in the duplex use my client's well known in the community she you know we had
a petition distributed we had letters to support uh you know from nearby neighbors people are okay
with this um and it's not uncommon there's you know nearby rsa3 properties which are multifamily
in nature we'll go from the maps the photographs including the interior photographs our plans and
drawings or meeting notice or application for appeal or deed to the property showing that
OGO owns the property and the certificate of tax clearance so first things first is that you know
this is an RSA3 property we're proposing two units it's a very literally it's she didn't do this but
it's it's basically that way now the only there's a kitchenette downstairs there's a living room
downstairs there's a bedroom downstairs there's a separate door an entryway you know so this is
you know looks like a duck quacks like a duck you know should be considered a duck uh corresponding
looks like a duck quacks like a duck you know should be considered a duck uh correspondence
from cedar uh park neighbors again i think it speaks volumes everyone was other than i think
one neighbor who was unconditionally opposed everyone's like okay we're great just change
the building and we'll vote for it and we're like we can't do that we need this support
we need the zoning permit before we do the building permit and then there's a long explanation
of that as well in their letter where they deferred, you know, their position.
And then, again, my client did a really good job of getting, you know, people nearby to
sign a petition, including the neighbors to the left and right of the property.
And then it's not uncommon to have properties which are multifamily, have a multifamily
use, even though they're RSA 3.
And if you look at 5116 Walton Avenue and then 5122 Walton Avenue, maps of the area, again, yes, we're RSA3, but there's a lot of RM1 nearby and CMX2.
And then we're not that far off from Baltimore Avenue, which is a commercial corridor.
Also, you know, it's always good to increase density to support a commercial corridor.
Also, there's a ton of public transportation on Baltimore Avenue.
Photographs of the property.
Again, as you can see, there's no parking here.
Proof of posting for today's hearing.
And again, it's really uncommon to have parking onto someone's property.
And this is just our backyard, you know, just showing our backyard.
Most importantly is this.
There's a separate entrance on the side where we have, and again, it's above grade the entrance
of how you know how we get in so it's not like two units are getting in through the same common
entrance this is the side entrance of the property and then the interior of the photograph
interior photographs this is the upper part of the of the unit number one
and then this is unit number two
it's very well done my client didn't do this she purchased it this way
She just wants to create a wall where the unit, where the interior connects.
And that's, you know, basically, I believe it would be right here where this storage is.
It's a staircase.
She's just going to hopefully close that up.
Bedroom, living room, kitchen, flex space.
We met on October 17th.
162 addresses were notified of the meeting.
proof of these are the addresses,
proof of mailing to those addresses,
our application for appeal that we filed on Ogo's behalf,
the deed to her property,
and the certificate of tax clearance.
I would ask that she virtually raise her hand.
What's your client's name?
Oh, she's right there.
Hi, could you state your name, please?
And spell it for the court stenographer.
My name is Nwadiogo Ejogu.
My first name is spelled N as a Nancy, W-A-D-I-O-G-O.
And my last name is spelled E-J-I-O-G-U.
can you hear me
I can't I think the chairman may be frozen
yeah that's what I was about to say
please bear with us
absolutely
Absolutely.
again please bear with us we're trying to get the chair back
Mm-hmm.
Thank you.
back i'm back hillary
excellent thank you i got kicked out for a minute there
we had the board where else are we you are swearing in
okay and we we lost your client mr knockamson is she still there okay hi could you you stated
your name. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes. All right. Please see, Mr.
Nockamson. Yes. Ogo, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning
matter. Yes. Is it true and correct?
Yes. And do you adopt his human testimony? Yes.
Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
I just wanted to clarify my earlier comment. It's been a long day. Cases are getting mixed up in my head. I thought this was a duplex going to a triplex, but it's a change of use to a duplex. So there would only be two parking spaces needed, one of which there may be a prior variance for already, but definitely the second one with adding a dwelling unit would need another parking space. Thank you.
Okay. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa3 single family residential at this
location we feel the applicant has demonstrated hardship and that the proposal is the minimum
necessary variance accordingly the planning commission recommends the board
grant the variance.
MI 2023
005-046-5126
Walton Avenue.
Hillary, do I need to mention parking?
It's okay, Mr. Chair.
We put it on at the record.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Number 14,
MI 2023
004-888-1724
for Arlington Street, letter of support from the Beach Corporation, with proviso for a 12-foot setback on the roof deck railing from the front of the building.
Mr. Knaperson, could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Arlington LLC, and their virtual audience is Malik Khatikia.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Do you agree to waive the re-mail or refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits five days in advance for this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, 1724 Arlington Street.
This is an R-M1 property. We're here because we're in the overlay, which requires a greater
amount of square footage on lot size than the simple base zoning classification of R-M1.
If we were not in the overlay, the amount of units would be allowed as a right. We're only
asking for two units. And we'll review the notice of refusal. There are also de minimis
dimensional variances, which, again, are not out of character to what's surrounding us in terms of
building structures. We have a letter of support from Beach Community Services Incorporated. They
support the use of this property as a two-family dwelling for an all-in-one property. What we did
for an R1 property. What we did do was we addressed their concerns about the roof deck.
do was we addressed their concerns about
So we set it back, I believe, we'll take a look at it, but I believe it was eight feet.
So additional setback. Their concern was safety. So was ours. We set it back a little further. We
couldn't set it back the full amount that they wanted because it would just mess up our floor
plans completely and make it into a dysfunctional floor plan. So we moved it back as much as we
can humanly do. We have a petition of nearby neighbors. Also, it's not out of character.
Obviously, we're RM1, but it's not out of character to have multifamily on the 1700 block of Arlington
Street, maps of the area, photographs of the property. I want to give you an example of my
client's work product. When I can, I try to provide that, but this is a well-known contractor
slash developer who does really good work in this state of Philadelphia.
Our plans and drawings are so many news or application for appeal or deed to the property
and a certificate of tax clearance.
At the conclusion of the presentation, I would ask that Malik virtually raise his hand, be
sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him.
Notice of refusal.
Again, we're not taking an RSA 5 property and asking for multifamily use.
We're taking an RM1 property, and we're asking for the least modification possible
in terms of the amount of units, we're only asking for two. We have multiple dimensional
variances. The occupied area, we're asking for 88.4. The rear yard depth, we're asking for 5.1.
And then just the rear yard area, we're asking for a little over 66 feet. Again, not the biggest
lot in the world. We're trying to make a functional floor plan, and these requirements
are necessary for us to meet the functional nature
of a building structure for two-family use.
We met with the community.
They had no issues with the size of the building or the use.
They just want a greater roof deck setback of 12 feet.
We can't do that to make it a functional floor plan.
So I talked to my client.
We had the original five feet.
We have, and by the way, unanimous support.
We are sending it back from five feet to eight feet.
We really did try our best. We want to keep a functional floor plan. We want to have good units in there, and HP would be the number that we can do.
Again, what we're offering is not out of character to what's nearby, and we have support.
We have a lot of people that support this project that's on this block, and it's not uncommon to have multifamily use nearby.
1725 and 27 Arlington, 1723 and 21 Arlington, 1728 and 26 Arlington, 1705 Arlington, 1706 Arlington, 1701 Arlington.
Maps of the area, this is as orange as orange gets, not that far, you know, from Temple University.
You know, Google Maps perspective, it looks like you have a lot of public transportation nearby.
eye photographs of the property this is a property uh you know that you know is is suffering like
the building structure we're trying to erect a nice two-family dwelling unit this is proof of
of our posting of the property for today's hearing this is the arlington street to right of the
property to left of the property property our samples of our client's work product would be
similar to what you're going to see, you know, in the neighborhood, but also shows that he knows
what he's doing. So I try to do exterior and interior. And then our plans and drawings,
you know, our units, unit A is, you know, first floor and second floor. Unit B is third floor
and fourth floors. RCO meeting notice we met on November 29th. 167 addresses were notified of the
meeting. Proof of mailing to those addresses. Our application for appeal that we filed on
behalf of Arlington Street LLC. Our deed showing that Arlington Street LLC is the owner of the
property. And our tax clearance. And the only reason why we have a balance is because 2024
for taxes or not due yet.
I would ask that Malik virtually raise his hand.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Malik Kadakia.
That is M as in Mary, A as in Apple, U as in Union, L as in Lima, I as in India, K as
in kilo last name k as in kilo a as in alpha d as in delta a as in alpha k as in kilo i as in india
i as in india he has an apple you swear to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
a as an apple you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
truth please proceed counsel uh yes um malik you heard everything i had to state today
yes about your zoning matter uh is it true and correct yes and do you adopt as your own testimony
yes all right and i just want to make i i'm a little it's been a long day for me too so i just
want to make sure that i properly stated what the revised plans were it's a roof deck access
structure we're set back originally five feet as a code and the community asked us to set back the
roof deck access structure 12 feet we're asking where we did revise plans for eight feet i just
want to make sure that was perfectly clear yes all right thank you questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from uh our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
good evening chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rm1 multi-family residential
at this location. However, we feel that the requested variances stem from an overdevelopment
of the property. A single-family use is allowed within the zoning district and is appropriate
for undersized lots. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the variances.
Go ahead. Yeah, I mean, if we weren't in this overlay, this would be allowed as a right. So,
I don't think that this is an overuse of the property. This lot has a lot of square footage
of 741 square feet with the base overlay for RM1s allowed. And there's plenty of examples,
similar examples of multifamily structures there on that block. MI 2023-004-888-1724
Arlington Street. I vote yes. Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, December 20th, 2023.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
James Malzaheem, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mockamson.
Is there anyone in the 2 p.m. hearings whose case has not been called?
I see no hands.
Okay, so we're going to take a five-minute break,
And then we'll come back and go through this as quick as quickly as we can, to be fair to for all the people that are waiting in the audience.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
I'm even back.
I'm sorry.
Good. I see you.
I see you. OK, you can proceed as you wish.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing tonight's ZBA hearing.
With me as our vice chair, Ismail Shahid.
He's here.
Our board member, Thomas Holloman.
He's absent today, Mr. Chair.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Our board member, James Snell.
I'm sorry.
It's been a long day, Chair.
Present.
Present.
And also here is LeBaron Leonard Palmer from Development Services, who will serve as our alternate board member.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkit at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographers, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and address the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executor, Tanya Stumpkin.
Let's look at tonight's schedule.
Thank you.
Number 7, MI-2023-005-272-1525 Spring Garden Street, that case is continued.
Is there anyone here representing the applicant?
it's is there anyone here representing the applicant
i see no hands okay so that that case is continued number two mi 2023-003-159 3942 wild street jessica
Donnelly I see no handshare no MI 2023-003-159-3942 Wall Street cases continued mark must be heard
Mr. Chair this was there was a request for continuance with that case there was that
was not a no exhibits case okay all right so okay i show you a little note on the i'm sorry so so
that case is continued mi-2023-003-159-3942 wall street and also number nine mi-2023-003-139-3713
in Haverford. No exhibits. There has been no RCO meeting. This is the first listing, Mr. Chair.
The listed applicant is T. Amber XL. The listed owner is PG Building Group LP. Okay. Is there
anyone present? No hands. Okay, so MI 2023-003-139-3713, Haverford, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
No hands, Chair. So we're going to start with number 10,
MI 2023-003-341-507 Burgess Street.
Nazar Sultanadovo is the owner.
It's a pro se.
Letter of support from Somerton Civic Association.
The applicant also provided five letters of support from the neighbors on Burgess Street.
This application is for the erection of a storage shed accessory to an existing family dwelling.
The proposed shed exceeds the maximum square footage for an accessory structure.
130 square feet are allowed.
This is 300 square feet.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court stenographer?
Hello, sir.
Yes, my name is Nazar Sultano.
It's N-A-Z-A-R, and the last name S-U-L-T-A-N-O-V.
Right.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir could you turn your video on please
oh yes i'm sorry i'm here that's okay you don't have to be sorry and our vice chair has just a
few questions for you sir yeah hello sir have you emailed in all the required documents that
is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Just a second.
Okay, it's coming up.
So you see my screen?
We see it, sir.
Thank you.
Yeah, I apologize.
It's the first time I do this, so I'm not an attorney.
I don't have any experience.
I apologize again.
Okay, fine.
The exhibit includes refusal, letter, RCO letter of support, letters of support from the neighbors, photos, plans, deed, certificates of mailing, text clearance, and zoning posters.
So, Sarah, why don't we do this? Why don't you take us to the photos first? Because it'll be easier for us to figure out what's going on. Okay?
No problem. No problem.
And we know that Somerton has supported your effort. Okay.
yeah so that's it there correct yes yes okay so it's slightly bigger than normal but as you see
from the pictures my neighbors in the back have about the same size shed um it's even garage not
the shed on the left from him not visible in the picture right behind mine same exact building
right there in the corner after one house same exact thing there's literally 10 exact same
sheds on my street just in my street on my block okay so that's number one number
two is just a storage shed so I purchased the property 2018 it was in a
very bad shape it was sheriff sale I purchased it in a very bad condition I
i purchased it um in a very bad condition i would say i invested a lot of uh funds in the property
would say
installed a six feet privacy fencing of course asked all the neighbors about this i also asked
all the neighbors about the shed if they have if anybody is against this i i did not hear any
nose nothing okay um it's not a live not a living structure it's a two-way four shed
it's a little oversized i guess but there's no communications i did the electrical to it but
there's no plumbing no drain nothing like that it's not a living structure just the storage and
you have five you also have five letters from neighbors on your block correct i can get more
is just the closest i'm saying you have five right yes yes i have five i have all of the printouts
from the posters that i sent it to everyone it's okay and you posted the property in the
way when you had to you got pictures when you posted it correct yes just a second okay
just a second so here it is one here you go right yeah yes right on the street right so
and one on the door also just wanted to mention uh i tried to start the process right away with
the permits but nobody was responding in uh basically in the zoo's uh zoning yeah we're
basically saying you and i uh i even emailed and that's attachment the person who was in charge in
that department in the city hall i was receiving zero responses completely zero responses that
during the corona everything stopped nobody was doing anything and then in 2023 okay everything
came up okay okay okay so go back to the pictures of it okay okay
Okay. So, so questions from the board. Okay.
No chair.
Sorry, chair. No, no chair. No questions or comments from our attorney Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
What's your comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, we have Alex Yudovich. They have been allowed to speak.
good evening chairman member it is a good evening thank you could you say your name for the record
please for alice udovich u-d-o-v-i-c-h on behalf of councilman bro all right do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed the councilman has no
objection to the granting of the variance at this location thank you very much thank you for calling
is there anyone else in the virtual audience
no hands
planning commission
this is uh ron bednar city planning first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed sir the property is indicated for residential use under city plan
The adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location.
I believe the applicant's hardship is self-imposed, not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition 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.
Thank you.
MI-2023-003-341-507-Burgess Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Sir, you have your votes.
Thank you very much.
Can you?
Can you?
Let's see here.
Okay, so we're going to go to, right there.
We're going to go to number one, MI20230032451925North61ststreet.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Overbook West Neighbors Incorporated.
Xen Jin is coming in as a panelist.
Good evening, counsel. Could you state your name for the record, please, and spell for the court's stenographer?
Yes, good evening. My name is Xen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Mr. J. Eric Bronson, who's the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to integrity?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
I require five days ahead of this hearing.
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed as usual.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the documents previously submitted.
Can everyone see my exhibit?
Yes, sir.
Great.
Thank you.
So we submitted the refusal RCO letter and photos, plans, and related documentation.
This application is essentially for the legalization of an existing two-family dwelling.
The property is refused because it is now in an area that's zoned RSA 5.
When we met with the community, part of the reason we received their support from pretty much all the neighbors,
and most were near neighbors, is because my client has owned the property for many years.
His family's been living in the property.
And as far as anybody can remember, including all the neighbors, it was a two-family dwelling.
So it being a corner property and the way that it was structured before, no one understood why he was not allowed to fix up his house, which actually led to this application.
because when he started renovating, he went to get permits.
And one of the reasons he was denied permits and told to stop any renovations
and cease using the property was because it was shown in the city records as zoned as an RSA 5.
Obviously, he's never needed to get multiple rental licenses because his family lived in there,
even though it was structurally a two-family dwelling.
Because the neighbors remember as such as well, and they know him well,
They know that he's an active member of the neighborhood, does clean up the property,
and they were actually more concerned with the fact that he couldn't do any work on the
property for the past few months than the fact that the property is a two-family dwelling.
What I'm showing is the plan of the existing condition of the property.
This is actually how it looks.
Essentially, the structure is once each story is one dwelling, and it's been this way for
some time, and it's a two-story building on a corner. So with that, and with the neighbor's
support, we would ask the board's favorable consideration in legalizing this use,
because again, we believe that the use itself was at one point a non-conforming use that was there,
and therefore I should not have been denied my client
who's actually looking to finish working on fixing up his property
and then moving back into the property.
My client should be here, although it's been a long day.
I don't know if he had to leave for any reason,
but he should be here to verify.
Do you have a photo you could show us?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I kind of jumped through the photos, my apologies.
No, no, no, that's okay.
Yeah, so this is the actual corner property.
Yeah. This is the cease operation that was given when he was trying to fix the property.
OK. All right.
You are an officer of the court. We will take your testimony.
He might still be here if we can.
Mr. Bronson, if you're here, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Chair, we have a Jay Bronson. Is that the person?
Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. They have been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Jay, you're going to have to unmute your...
Yes, there you go.
Jay Bronson, J-A-Y-B-R-U-N-S-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Jay, did you see my presentation and hear my representations to the zoning board?
Can you verify what I have represented and what I have testified to is true and correct
and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Here we have a Gregory Allen.
they have been allowed to speak. Okay. Hi, Mr. Allen, could you state your name and spell for
the court stenographer? Hey, Chair Board. My name is Gregory, G-R-E-G.
Hey, Chair, Board. My name is Gregory, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y, Allen, A-L-L-E-N.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
So as Mr. Jinn has said, nearly all of the neighbors approved it. We mow Mr. Brunson well.
He's lived there.
In fact, he is a part of the district attorney's forfeiture program, and he helped to rescue
that home from some years ago when it was a drug house.
So he's a good neighbor.
We had no objections.
It was, in fact, a multifamily property.
It has two electrical installations.
the only thing we ask is that
there's a garden on the
Clifford Terrace side
and we would like that to be
preserved if that's possible
because the former owner
really kept it up really well
and it would add a lot of
beauty to the neighborhood
thanks for your comments and we appreciate you staying
around and calling us thank you
is there anyone else in the virtual audience
no hands
planning commission
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan,
given its physical condition of the site and its use history.
We have no objection to grounding appearance.
Thank you. MI 2023-003-245-1925, North 61st Street.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2023-003-267, 2015 Rohn Street.
There's a recommendation of opposition from the Rohnhurst Civic Association.
Vote was unanimous.
Applicant provided petition in support signed by approximately 69 neighbors.
Good morning. Good evening, counsel.
Hi, could you say your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. It's Dawn Tancredi, D-A-W-N. My last name is T-A-N-C-R-E-D-I. I'm here on behalf
of Leonard Cid, the property owner.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
our vice chair has just a few questions for you
counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes my office did that and we submitted supplemental information yesterday as well
thank you please proceed and share your screen
Thank you.
So as I mentioned, I represent Leonard Sid, the owner of 2015 Braun Street.
We did submit materials, which I ask be incorporated into the record.
This is an application to legalize a third unit in an existing two-unit building.
The evidence today will show that an increase of the original approval for two units to three units is warranted.
so what we have here is a two-family dwelling located at 2015 ron street
the property is situated very close to the corner of castor avenue and ron street
both have two-way traffic both have bus routes castor avenue is made up of commercial and mixed
uses. In fact, the property adjacent to my client's property is shown here in the photo
before you. It's a strip mall consisting of a pizza hut, a food and meat market, and a
mail and shipping store with lottery sales. So here's a photo of the zoning map of this
area. The area is zoned for single-family use and is immediately adjacent.
The area is zoned for single-family use and is immediately adjacent to a commercially zoned district.
You can see that on the zoning map here, and also my client's property is outlined in blue.
If you take a look at this colored Sanborn map, you can see my client's property is highlighted
in blue.
It's entirely surrounded by properties highlighted in yellow, none of which are used as single
family.
All of the properties highlighted in yellow are either multifamily, commercial, or mixed
And this is supported by the zoning archives that have been submitted to the board as well.
so despite its zoning classification of being single family the block is not made up of many
single family dwellings across the street you've got a daycare and a girl scout's office
there's a portuguese club a couple doors away
there's also another building down the street that's multi-family that's at 2027
Ron, and that's got 32 units. So my client's property is not suitable for a single family
dwelling because of the surrounding uses and heavy traffic. Further, permission has been granted
to a similar application on this same street. With regard to 2027 Ron, the number of units
It's increased from 22 units to 23 units, and today it is used for 32 units.
And here's a picture of that property showing that it's advertised with 32 units.
Also, there's an absence of injury to the public interest here in this case.
My client will testify that the property has been used this way for the past 8 to 10 years.
my client is merely seeking to keep the status quo it's been three units for eight to ten years yes
yes there's um two units above and there's one um unit that is accessed from the side here
And that's in the lower level.
So also, I would point out the financial burden here.
If the variance is not granted, the space, the third unit, will go unused.
It would be costly to make it part of the first floor unit.
And further, the tenant would be kicked out on the street with no place to go.
As for the minimum variance to afford relief, the request is for one unit. The request could
not be for any less. And my client can testify as to how the space was set up this way in the
first place. And further, I would point out that the original two-family dwelling was a permitted
use back in 1951 when it was approved and constructed. Today, it is a non-conforming
use. The application seeks a reasonable expansion of the non-conforming use within the building
footprint and without any expansion of the building footprint. And finally, I would add,
Mr. Chair, that my client has collected five pages of signatures in support of the application.
which have been submitted to this board.
My client is available to testify.
Okay, why don't we bring him on?
Leonard, can you raise your hand?
Leonard has been allowed to speak.
Please unmute.
Sir, could you state your name
and spell please for the court stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Leonard Sid,
L-O-E-N-A-R-D, C-I-D, the last name.
Like, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
And, Leonard, how long have you owned the property at 2015, Braun?
Since 1997.
Can you describe the area, the nearby uses, and also the traffic situation?
Can you describe the area, the nearby uses, and also...
Well, it's very busy on Castro Avenue.
You've got buses, and you've got, it's like a main artery that comes out of 95 from down on 95 over Cotman Avenue.
And then you have Castro Avenue, who starts on buses, and runs down all the way down to the boulevard, which is another main artery.
and it's a lot of traffic
and there's been quite a few accidents
in the corner of Castro
and Ron
and your property
is how close to the corner of Castro
and Ron
I don't know the exact amount
of feet but it's quite
far away from
Castro Avenue yes
the photo on the
screen that i'm sharing does that show how close your property is to the quarter yes to the left
okay and can you describe the nearby uses on ron as well yeah well you have it like you mentioned
earlier you have a uh a social club there it's a portuguese social club all right two doors down
and after that it's the 40 something units of course the street there's a daycare a barbershop
and there's all kinds of businesses as far as offices and things like that.
You get to the end with a couple, there's two or three, if I'm not mistaken,
of multifamilies also at the corner.
And would you say that your property is suitable for a single family home?
No, no.
Okay. Can you explain the use of the third unit, how it came to be?
Well, originally, we had the basement.
My wife and I and my two daughters lived on the first floor.
And we had to use to the basement where we had our washer and dryer.
There was a bathroom downstairs.
So we decided to give the girls a room because there was only two bedrooms on the first floor.
Give the girls a room each.
And we built a, we remodeled a basement.
We made a family room and a bedroom downstairs.
And then after that, you know, my wife and I moved downstairs.
But years later, my wife and I kind of separated for a while.
So I closed up the stairs, not to be inconvenient with her or me.
And, you know, I made it myself an apartment.
So I lived there for quite some time.
So the third unit has a separate access, and you cannot access it from the first floor, is that correct?
No, not anymore.
Okay, and how long has it been a separate unit?
I said about 10 years.
And Leonard, did you speak to your neighbors to seek support for your application?
yeah i i took i took signatures from everybody to make sure they were okay with it and as you
see that got five pages of of signatures from all the neighbors in the neighborhood
okay thank you um just one other question did did you hear just in case anything was missed
did you hear the testimony that um i i stated earlier oh yeah and is it true and correct
what i said 100 and you adopt that as if it were your own yes okay questions from the questions
from the board yeah chairman i have one real quick uh counselor i think i saw or did i see
in those pictures you were showing were there three meters on the side of the house yes okay
all right already three meters okay thank you yes sure questions or comments from our attorney
Hillary Emerson? Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There we have Alex Udovich. They have been allowed to speak.
Good evening, Chairman, members of the board. Alex Udovich, on behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill.
You've already been sworn, Alex. The Councilman is opposed to the granting of the variance at
this location. There isn't actually evidence of hardship for this being used as a duplex as was
built. The Rondhurst neighborhood has been seeing this type of illegal conversion, and the length
of it being illegal doesn't make it evidence of hardship in this case. This is truly a basement
below grade and should not be used as a third unit.
Okay, thank you for calling. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
okay thank you for calling we appreciate it is there anyone else in the virtual
No hands.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Properties indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change the existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is self-imposed, not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property.
It would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request of variance not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2023-003-267, 2015, Ron Street, I vote no.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
LeBarren Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
You have your votes.
Number three. You're on that list here. MI 2023-003-265-2449 North 54th Street. Letter of non-opposition from Winfield Neighbors Residents Association, the coordinating RCO with the City Avenue Special Service District and the Winfield Community Association submitted a letter stating that
An agreement on the application was in reach. No follow-up meeting occurred.
And letter of support from Councilman Jones.
You've already been... Oh, I'm sorry.
You switched up on me.
Can you state your name, please, for the record and spell it?
Of course.
Plumenta Amazon.
That's C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A.
And my last name is spelled A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is the owner of the property.
Please.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Of course.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading or the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
yes I do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is
needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this
hearing yes I have thank you please proceed and show your screen thank you
can everyone see my screen yes perfect
again my name is clemente amazon and i am representing the owner of 2449 north 54th
Street. During my presentation, I will go through the refusal. We actually do have a letter of
non-opposition from the coordinating RCO, as well as a letter of support from Councilman Curtis
Jones. And I'll go through the business that the signage is supporting, which is Larry States,
photos of the property, the posting of the property, a signage plan, maps of the area,
as well as surrounding photos, the notice that we sent out to the community for the community meeting,
are certificates of mailing, application for appeal, project information form D, and the
certificate of tax clearance. So the property zone CMS 2.5 here we are just looking to legalize
a sign that has already been constructed on the property and we do have a few refusals which
directly relate to the height of the sign from the ground, the fact that it is near a residentially
zoned area as well as the fact that a sign was not previously removed as i mentioned we did meet
with the community we had 10 votes in non-opposition and one vote that was in opposition the sign is
currently placed there we met with the community and discussed concerns that they had previously
they decided to take a position of non-opposition as this was a matter of legalizing the sign that
was already constructed on the property and here we have a letter stating the same we also reached
out to the councilman's office and he expressed enthusiastic support for the sign and maintaining
the sign at the property and this sign is support larry stakes which is just through
three structures down um the sign simply says larry stakes as you'll see in the photos
some of the belly filler and here's a menu i would hope that a few people have had the pleasure of
trying larry's days it's great and we're just looking to gain more foot traffic so here we
have a photo along north 54th street the sign is located right here for 2449 north 54th as i mentioned
The sign is located right here for 2449 North 54th.
As I mentioned, Larry Stakes is located just three doors down.
Unfortunately, people do have issues locating the property because there is no signage directing individuals to get there.
So again, we are discussing this sign right here to support Larry Stakes to do just three doors down.
And here we have a zoomed in photo of the front of the property.
Again, we have the sign posted right here.
a photo shown that we did post notice of today's hearing and here we have the signage plan again
we are simply looking to legalize a sign that has been already constructed on the property
we do have support of the councilman and non-opposition from the community and this
property is on CMS 2.5 although we are located among St. Joe's campus so this blue here as you
can see surrounds the property and residential is in the rear. So although we do have a refusal
for the residential properties that are to the rear, the sign does not light up. It does not
have any negative impact on those residential zone properties. And there are other properties
along North 54th Street, which are significantly higher and block the view of the sign as well.
And as I mentioned, there are properties much higher. Here we have a structure from St. Joe's,
this is the left of the property again this is larry steaks the view to the right of the property
and this is a notice that we sent out on july 6th for the community which was held on the 17th of
july a list of the properties that were notified notified excuse me of that meeting our certificate
of mailing showing that we did a cross-end notice of the meeting our application for appeal
our project information form the deed showing that my client doesn't in fact own this property
and here we have our certificate of tax clearance the only balance that is due
is that for the taxes for 2024 which are not due as of yet unfortunately my client
couldn't save for the remainder of the hearing so i would ask that the court adopt
my testimony excuse me stipulates my testimony
So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board may have regarding this application.
Is your client here?
Unfortunately, you can stay for the remainder of the case.
I understand. You're an officer of the court. We'll accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands.
Planning Commission.
So we're on Bednar City Planning.
Property is indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed use on a city plan.
There's no change to the existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of any physical circumstances or condition of the property.
It would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
Therefore, we recommend request for vendors not be granted.
May I respond?
Sure. So we're not looking to change the use of the property or main zone CMS 2.5. The property
is currently vacant. All that we're looking to do here is to legalize the signage that is
above the property currently. So there are no changes or proposed changes to the use of the
property. And this is the property right here. It's currently vacant. And this is a sign that
we're discussing. Okay. Thank you. So number three, MI 2023-003-265-2449 North 54th Street,
I vote yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Number
4. MI 2023-003-181-1516 South Broad Street. Roger Purry is the attorney. There's a letter
of non-opposition from the South Broad Street Neighbor Association.
Mr. Perry. Hi, Mr. Perry. How are you, sir? Could you state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Thank you. Roger Perry, R-O-G-E-R-P-E-R-R-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do could you identify your client the relationship to the property yes I'm here this evening with David Rosenwasser he's the owner and occupant of the property okay our vice chair has a few questions
counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refuser or stipulate to his accuracy yes I do
um have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes we have thank you council
please proceed and share your screen okay can we see that we can sir okay thank you um i'm here
with Mr. Rosenwasser.
This is for 1516 South Broad Street.
Mr. Rosenwasser lives in this property.
He purchased it in 2020,
thinking that it was a duplex.
The property was a duplex from 1966
up until 2003,
and somebody at that point
asked to operate it as a single family,
but it was not converted back to single family.
When Mr. Rosenwasser began
seeking work permits and so forth, it was indicated that it was no longer a legal duplex.
So he's seeking to legalize this property now and continue its operation as a duplex
that he's fitting out.
So I have the refusal was, the application, the refusal was that this is on a South Broad
street corridor it's in a uh i believe it's an rsa5 uh although yes rsa5 and that particular
corridor has many many uh various uses multi-family as well as commercial and neighbors and so forth
and so on um let me get down to some photographs and so forth this is the deed that indicates mr
So Rosenwasser is the present owner and bought it.
This was the tax clearance certificate.
2024 is not covered, not due until March 31st.
And we posted the property.
This is the property itself in the front with the duplicate postings.
Signs of the property.
it's going to have two large units i believe they're 1100 square feet plus uh posting again
this is a block there's a triplex down here this is the request for the duplex you see it was
existing here these are photographs of the interior with a duplicate two entrance ways
uh mr rosenwasser is uh living here uh and pending uh getting a second unit so this shows
that the layout for his home notices were sent out to all the neighbors
and i'm not sure there's anything else at the end here
uh yeah there was a meeting uh 10 people voted nobody was in opposition
this is from the South Street
South Street, South Broad Street
Neighborhood Association as indicated by
Mr. Bergman of non-opposition
see what else I have here
if anything helps the board
we have a copy of the plans
indicate this is a
single unit, first floor
another unit on the
second and third floor
in relatively large units and large open area and so forth and back.
If there's any questions, I'll be glad to
answer them, but because it was used from 1966
as a duplex, Mr. Rosenwasser thought it was
not out of character in the neighborhood with other multifamily
commercial. Mr. Perry, is your client here? Yes, he is. Why don't we
bring him in and adopt your testimony? Can you raise your hand, David?
hello good evening yes sir sir could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes my first name is david last name is rosenwasser spelled so d-a-v-i-d
last name rosenwasser r-o-s-e-n-w-a-s-s-e-r right do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel yeah david have you heard my
presentation uh this evening yes i have and is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge
information and belief and you can adapt it as your own testimony yes i can thank you
from the board no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
ron he's moving
oh there is thank you on bed in our city planning the property is indicated for residential use on
the city plan given the physical condition of the site we have no objection to the granting of the
variance. Thank you. MI 2023-003-181-1516 South Broad Street, I vote yes. James Snell, my vote
is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you very much. Okay, number five,
MI 2023-003-242, 5947 to 57 Lancaster Avenue. Zen Jin is the attorney. Letter of support from
the Ogrebrook West Neighbors Incorporated.
Zhen Jin will be joining as a
panelist.
Good evening. Counselor, could you
just state your name for the record? You've already been
sworn. Yes, my name is Zhen Jin
Z-H-E-N-J-I-N
here on behalf of the app.
Could you identify your client and the
relationship to this property?
Yes, my client's name is
Ken Fei Li
K-I-N-F-E-I
last name L-E-E
he is the owner of the property
and our vice chair has just a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree to
wait in the reading of the refuse to
stipulate to his accuracy
have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing
I have
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the documentation we previously submitted.
Can everyone see my exhibit?
Thank you.
So this is an application to expand an existing business at the location of 5947-57 Lancaster Avenue.
This is an auto repair business.
the proposed addition in the industrial district triggers some additional parking space requirements.
24 total parking spaces are required based on the proposed size of my client's business.
What I'm going to do is go to the plans first because it's easier to see the discussion of
parking on the plans. And then we can go back and look at the property itself. So the existing
property has shop space already built. The blue section you see on this part of the plan is the
additional indoor space that my client would like to have so that he can do longer term repairs
for his clients. Part of the reason he wants indoor space increased is because right now his
operating method is to always make sure his customers take their car away by the end of the
day so that there's no safety concerns with the vehicles. With additional indoor space, he can
now keep cars overnight, working on more troublesome repairs that his customers been
requesting from him. Ken's a well-liked mechanic in the neighborhood. He serves the neighborhood
for many years, and this is partly because of all the customers' requests that he started thinking
into doing this expansion. As the board can see, we have a total of 20 spaces existing,
but even with the addition, most of the spaces can be maintained. The idea is to actually keep
indoor space to store cars overnight, which essentially will still be the parking space.
It can be used during the day to shuffle cars if needed. Generally speaking, his shop never has a
problem with too many cars being on the lot at one time. They do a lot of work. They try to do
it quickly, and they don't keep any cars that is not functional on the lot for long periods unless
it's able to be stored inside. So again, one of the main concerns with most mechanic shops of
this nature is that they leave cars on the street. He has never done that. All his cars have always
been on his lot, and the neighborhood is well aware of that. That is part of the reason why we
obtained support from the neighborhood when he brought the proposal to the neighborhood.
Many of the neighbors are actually his customers. They are very happy to see that he's trying to
expand. If the board wants to see more details, I'll be happy to redirect to them. Ken is here
with us to verify my testimony um with regard to this application sure i just want to show the
board the actual site okay yeah thank you uh ken can you raise your hand virtually to be identified
use the raise hand feature he did okay so sir could you state your name please and spell for
He did. Okay. So, sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the courts that I've heard?
the courts that I'm
Yeah, my first name is K-I-N, Ken, and last name is Lee, L-E-E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Ken, did you see my presentation before the zoning board and hear my testimony?
Thank you.
Can you verify what I represented to the zoning board to be true and correct and adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilliard Emerson?
Just a quick question.
Mr. Jin, were you, I'm just a little confused.
were you issued the refusal because you didn't have enough parking spaces that were outside of
the building well so they don't count the parking availability inside buildings so yes it's it's all
for outdoor parking is what the code requires got you so because you're basically taking part
of the lot to make the addition you don't have the requisite number of parking spaces correct
okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
Yes, Chair, we have Gregory Allen, and they have been allowed to speak.
Don't worry, sir. Could you state your name, please? You've already been sworn. If I remember correctly, you were already sworn today.
I was, just a minute ago. And my name is Gregory Allen, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y-A-L-L-E-N.
And Mr. Allen, please see what your testimony.
we have no objection um in fact ken is my auto mechanic oh and all of the neighbors
in our area um really support him because he's really good to our community so there's no
objection thank you so much for calling in this late we appreciate it sir you're welcome thank
you um anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands planning commission
I'm Ryan Bednar, City Planning. Properties indicated for industrial commercial mixed
use on the city plan. Given the physical circumstances of the site, we have no objection
to the granting of the requested parking variance. Thank you. MI 2023-003-242-5947-57
Lancaster Avenue, I vote yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, and happy holidays, everyone.
Same to you.
So number six, MI 2023-003-188-4313 Westminster Avenue.
Recommendation of support from the West Belmont Civic Association.
Hillary, we still waiting for a tax clearance?
I do not believe I have received one yet.
hi counsel could you state your name please
spell for the court reporter
my name is Cheryl
hold on
let me get you my picture
hold on
I'm sorry
hit your video
yeah I'm trying to
Hold on. There it is. Okay. Thank you. Hi. How are you? There you go. Thank you. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Good evening. Yeah, it's good evening. It's good evening.
Yeah, yeah. It's been a little while. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court
stenography? Okay. My name is Cheryl Gaston. It's C-H-E-R-Y-L Gaston. G as in George, A-S as in Sam,
I'm T.O.N. I'm an attorney. I'm with Spruce Law Group.
I represent the owner of the property, who is Liliana Depplin.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you read away the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
I sent everything except for the tax
clearance information we have problems getting it I do have
the receipt that were paid yesterday
and so I don't I can send the receipts I don't
have understood yes so we'll
So we'll continue with the case, but we will hold the vote until we receive the tax order.
continue with the case, but we will hold the vote until we receive the
Not a problem.
I just thought that since we just got them yesterday, I didn't want to send them necessarily as exhibits at this late day since we were having a hearing already.
All right, no problem.
Please give that over to our council.
All right.
You can continue and share your screen.
All right.
Can we bring forward my paralegal, who is Christine Schlosser?
She helps me with that.
Yes, they have been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Thank you.
request is to use the property for multi-family use. The property was actually purchased in
December of 2022, along with another property on that same block, 4329. My client also owns
one of the other properties on this block. And the property was owned at the time of purchase
And up until April of this year as RM1, when the zoning was changed to RSA 5.
And our refusal is actually dated May the 4th of 2023.
So, barely the change to RSA 5 happened while the application was being considered and rejected, actually, as of May the 4th.
So, we're talking like a two-week period, and that is the only refusal on here.
the plan is. If we could move forward a little bit, Christine.
This is the actual refusal. It's just for the multifamily use. And as you can see,
this bill number 230034 was actually adopted on like April the 13th or April the 16th of this year.
The application for Peel just notes that this property was configured as two units, which was allowed by the former RM1 zoning.
And the proposal to reconfigure it is because, one, it's in a dilapidated condition at this point.
And also because, again, to reconfigure it for three-family use would be, in effect, a continuation of a, or a, not, it was non-conforming, if you will.
Well, actually, it was, yeah, it was non-conforming because it was allowed under the previous zoning.
And now we're talking about doing something which is actually in accord with the prior RM1 zoning, which was just changed as this application was being considered by LNI.
And this could be actually considered as a natural expansion of a non-conforming use since it's not a new use, it's not an excessive expansion, and it's not inconsistent with the public interest.
And can we go to the plans here? We do have the approval of the West Belmont Civic Association and the Belmont Alliance Civic Association.
and this is um the proposed uh look go back please thank you this is the proposed um look
at the property uh when we get done hopefully with uh once it's approved uh next page this is the um
Next page. This is the site plan that was submitted with our application. And again, we're going to expand the back of the property so that they're all consistent in terms of the back walls of the property.
So each unit will have the same approximate square footage as we go up.
Next slide.
This is how the property actually looks, the one with the open windows.
That's it.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is another view of the property.
and uh next slide please um what we and this is the um this is the additions that you see
there's one on the third floor so that it uh the property extends all the way uh to the back wall
of the first floor and again there's a slight addition on the second floor uh there won't be
any balconies. There won't be any, there's little Juliet balconies, but we're not talking about
actual balconies that would be considered maybe something that the neighborhood would not be
happy with. When we met with the RCO, they asked that we include a trashing closure.
But when they sent the meeting summary, they didn't include it. So I did check with them,
and they did ask that we present and ask for the trashing closure, which we're happy to do.
And that, I think, is shown on the, can we move forward a little bit?
I think we should. Where is it? Where do we put it? There we have it. We have the trash storage, which again is something that the community requested that we add to the property.
And these are just basic floor plans for the different units, which will be maybe our living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms per floor.
A little bit forward, please.
Posting of the property.
Next, posting another posting.
And then we have the meeting summary
from the neighborhood.
So we had the approval of the majority of those that were there.
We have next page is the the email from the planning commission that we send out the notices.
Next is our notice.
And then we have the addresses and our certificate of mailing to all of those on the address list.
And in fact, we did this property of 4313, and we also did 4329 at the same time, although that hearing isn't scheduled until January the 10th, and the community groups, the RCOs, approved both.
And we have the same kind of issue.
It's the RSA-5 change that came in while we were doing the application.
Why don't you bring your client here?
Why don't you bring your client on and have your testimony adopted?
Okay. Liliana, can you raise your hand?
Liliana, can you raise your hand?
I see no hands, Chair.
She was here. Listen, you're an officer of the court. We will take your testimony.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from Hillary Emerson, our attorney?
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note that I checked the taxes and they are paid through 2023, so we can vote on this matter.
Oh, thank you very much.
Thank you. Yes.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for residential use on a city plan, given the documented use history and its physical condition.
We recommend the request of variance be ran.
Thank you.
Number six, MI 2023-003-188-4313 Westminster Avenue.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
my vote is yes
counsel you have your votes
thank you Mr. Chairman
and board members and happy
holidays to you all
is there anyone
from the 330 list
whose case has not been called
no hands chair
thank you everyone
I really
appreciate everybody staying late.
I wanted
to make sure Peter Bernard, is he still
on? Peter, you were on a long time. We
appreciate you were here. And Ron, thank
you for being here so late. And
obviously the other board members
and of course Hillary. Hillary
has been going at it since 7.30 this morning.
So we do appreciate
everything everybody did. And let's
all have a great holiday and a
nice long rest because we're not back for a while.
So, and
thank you for long.
Mr. Palmer, thank you for always being there.
And please tell Emily I said the same thing.
Thank you, LeBaron.
Bye, everybody.
Thank you.
Happy holidays, everyone.
Happy holidays.