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And even though it was granted the two-unit, it was revoked.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?