Tanya, let me know when people are in.
Sure, Chair.
Thank you.
We're starting with 36 attendees, Chair. You can start as you wish.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present.
Ismail Shahid, our board secretary.
he's okay thomas hallman our board member president mr chairman james snell our board
member present mr chairman also our executive director tanya sunkett's with us and our board
attorney sherman toppin good morning mr chairman before we start here's our virtual format be
advise these proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and
witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone,
if 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 lastly, the question answer box on the screen is not for
testimony or comments. Any comment should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
So let's look at first continuances that we have this morning.
number two mi 2021 004 526 110 south 20th street number four mi 2021 004 462
150 to 64 West
Burke Street and
number 11
MI 2021
3504 Ainsley Street.
Does anyone have comments
or questions about those continuances
in the virtual audience?
I see no
hand. Just a moment. We have a Lindsay
Bowden with her hand up here.
Ms. Bowden, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
My name is Lindsay Bowden, L-I-N-D-S-A-Y, last name B-O-D-I-N.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Which of the three cases are you involved with?
The final one that you had mentioned, 3504 Ainsley Street.
I am here as a stakeholder filling in for the RCO, whose chair is out of the country right now and was not able to find somebody else to fill his spot.
He had submitted a request yesterday to the CBA formally requesting a continuance because appropriate posting was not done 14 days prior to this.
OK, we're going to continue it, ma'am.
OK, thank you.
Sure. Any other comments about those continuances?
Chair, we have Henry Clinton with his hand up. Mr. Clinton, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Mr. Clinton, unmute, please. Good morning. State your name and spell for the court.
Unmute, please. Good morning. State your name and spell for the court reporter, Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton.
it must be having technical difficulties okay Mr. Clinton if you can may you put a question
in the Q&A and we can assist that way we're unable to hear you
okay so those three cases will be continued number two number four and number 11 are there
any other can we have someone else with their hand up okay we have a mr wade albert with his
hand up mr albert you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair mr albert could you state
your name and spell for the court reporter sure uh my name is uh wade albert uh w-a-d-e last name
is a-l-b-e-r-t right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. Which case do you want to talk about, sir? I want to talk about 110 South 20th
Street, number 2021-0081. Yeah, we're continuing that case, sir. Yes, so I'm counsel for the RCO,
the Center City Residents Association, and I just wanted to clarify, I wrote an email to the ZBA
yesterday, and there might have been some confusion. I don't know if that continuance
request was technically on my behalf or whether it was not it's on the applicant's behalf sir
okay i appreciate that thank you very much sure yep anyone having any other cases they wish to
continue chair we have someone with their hand up with the phone number ending in 5532
whoever has the phone number ending in 5532 please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
You have to unmute, sir, or ma'am.
5532, you have to unmute.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
This is Henry Clinton, CLIN.
Oh, good morning, Henry.
Right.
Yeah, I'm having a...
audio difficulties my video is working but my audio is not for whatever all right henry henry
let me swear you first you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do which case do you want to talk about i just want to talk about 440 queen lane uh i am
not asking for a continuance or anything i just wanted to alert the board and miss sunk it that
but I'm on telephone by audio and visually I can present.
Thank you.
Sounds good.
If you have any issues, you can put it in the Q&A, and that would be helpful to us.
Any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have Vern Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Anastasio. State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N. Last name is A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 317, Philadelphia, 19107. And I'm here to...
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
What case, Vern?
Thank you. The address is 2035 West Toronto. I've advised Mr. Richardson from the council person's office that we'd like to go back to the RCO. We had a wonderful meeting, as their letter states, but then subsequent to that meeting, they secured information that we were unable to address.
so we'd like to go back
and just clarify the record for the community.
That case will be continued.
Thank you.
Any other cases for continuance?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Case number nine is a withdrawal.
MI 2021-004522-2314 East Albert Street.
That's a withdrawal.
Are there any other withdrawals?
I see no hands at the side, Chair.
Thank you. We're going to go to our add-ons for today. MI 2021-003-960-40 East Silver Street
Thank you.
We're going to go to our add-ons for today.
Am I...
is an add-on. Request for reconsideration. I vote no to the reconsideration.
Carol Tenere, no to the reconsideration. Thomas Holloman, no to the reconsideration.
James Snell, no to reconsideration.
Ishmael Saheed, no to reconsideration.
Thank you.
MI 2021-003952, 6237-45 Germantown Avenue, request for reconsideration and rehearing.
I vote no to the request for reconsideration.
Carol Tenere, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no to reconsideration.
James Snell, my vote is no to reconsideration.
Ishmael Shaheed, no to the reconsideration.
We're going to start our regular list.
MI 2021-004547-1030 Winter Street.
Councilman Squilla in non-opposition.
Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, letter of support.
Douglas and Peggy Jung.
Mr. or Ms. Jung, if you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Chair, I see no one by that name at this time.
No one with their hands up.
There's someone with their hands up. There's a Jerry Gutierrez with his hands up.
okay case one is continued
case number three am i i'm sorry chair um i just would i'd like to make sure if it's okay with you
to check and see if mr gutierrez may be sure an attorney or something if he has his hand up
You can allow him to speak, Ms. Yvette.
Mr. Gutierrez, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
My name is Jerry Gutierrez, Jerry, G-E-R-R-Y, G-U-T-I-E-R-R-E-Z.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you involved in case one?
Yes, sir.
I am the architect for the project.
I represent Ms. Jung.
I just spoke to her via phone a few minutes ago.
I believe she might be having some difficulty connecting to the computer.
So, Mr. Gutierrez, we'll have her try to correct it, but we're going to move on and we'll come
back when she's available, okay? Okay, thank you. Anya, could you figure out how we get a hold of
her and when we'll know she's available? I can wait for her to resolve her technical issues
and see if we can promote her. If not, we would have to continue it. Okay, if we don't hear from
her, then we're going to wind up continuing. Let's move forward. MI 2021-004519-1145 Tasker
Street. Paschung Civic Association, letter of non-opposition. Councilman Squala, letter of
non-opposition. Rich DeMarco, attorney. Chair, Mr. DeMarco is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco.
State your name and please spell for the court reporter.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Richard DeMarco for the applicant.
Last name D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. DeMarco.
Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. It appears that you've submitted all the required documents. Is that correct?
Yes, we needed an extra day or two to obtain the tact clearance. I have it today for you.
Okay, great. You may proceed. Everything else was submitted timely, though. Thank you.
Thank you. Madam Chair, excuse me, Mr. Chair and Madam Vice Chair. Good morning.
So this case is kind of a companion case. And I'll share my screen and show you there are two twin homes that were in the process of being constructed.
So this case is kind of a companion case.
What happened was while the builder did build pursuant to a valid zoning permit, the footprint of the building was deeper than what was shown on the plans.
I'm going to share my screen. I'll show you a couple things. And I just clicked off, of course. Anyway, this board voted the companion case, 1143 Tasker, in 2020 and voted yes. So it's the exact same footprint. I'll get to that in a minute. I accidentally clicked out of the zoning board's notice of decision. I was going to show it to you.
Anyway, so this is the refusal. We are asking for only two-dimensional variances today.
They're not insignificant, but they're also not unreasonable. It's basically because of the rear
yard. It's slightly non-compliant. You see it here. These are two-dimensional variances,
But the use is permitted use, single family, no height variances, no other variances at all.
And again, it matches the property next door.
Let me show you that to understand why it's necessary.
And look, we agree.
The neighbors, while they were not in opposition, you know, there was frustration with the builder prior to this moment.
And we understand that.
There was an L&I enforcement matter that was involved.
Now, the prior owner paid, was subject to significant fines.
He paid the price for these mistakes.
But there's a new owner who is John Chang.
Let me show you the tax clearance so you can see it.
Gosh, I'm with you.
There's our tax clearance, which we obtained yesterday.
Here's the floor plan and site plan.
You see here, here's the companion case here.
this the board this case here the board voted um in 2002 and this is our case here same backyard
we match identically the neighboring property and it is a corner property so if we were to not get
the variances today we would have to demolish a structure that's existing and again i do agree
that there were problems in the past but there is a new owner who has pulled the make safe permit
and has complied those violations and all that's left is this final piece of getting the zoning
straightened out so the house can be completed. Again, if we do not get the variances, we would
have an issue. We would have to actually demolish an existing structure. So that is why we are
claiming hardship. You can see over here, let me move my view. This is an older photo, but these
are the two twin houses. They're exactly identical. And again, the board voted this one favorably
last year. We met with the RCO. There was a significant vote to not oppose. There's our
elevations. And so my client, Mario Tropea, there's our proof of mailing. My client, Mario Tropea,
is having trouble logging in today. I wonder if Mr. Mattia can raise his hand virtually and just
adopt my testimony as his own. We have a letter from the councilman, and that would be basically
my presentation. So, Mr. Mattia, can you virtually raise your hand? Or Mr. Tropea, whoever's here.
Mr. DeMarco, what is Mr. Mattia's first name?
Anthony.
Okay, that's him. Mr. Mattia, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Anthony, M-A-T-T-I-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Matia, did you hear my factual testimony? Is it true and accurate, and you adopted it as your own testimony today?
Correct.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. I don't believe we have opposition, so I believe I can be brief.
but you know obviously the hardship would be that if we were not to get these variances the existing
structure would be non-compliant would have to do significant demolition and it would not match the
existing structure next door which this approved this board approved identical variances to use
thank you that's all i have mr demarco this is a single family home yes okay questions from the
board no mr chairman no no mr jim questions from the virtual audience or statements
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Morning, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Last name H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX1 zoning of this site.
um or the proposed dimensional variances are consistent with the lot coverage and rear yard
depths of um corner properties in the surrounding neighborhood city planning commission recommends
that the board grant these variances thank you mi 2021 004519 1145 tasker street i vote yes
harold tenary my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you for your time mr chair members of the board have a good afternoon and
welcome to my friend sherman toppin welcome to the zoning board thank you thank you hey buddy thank
you number five mi 2021 004 512 1713 south 18th street no rco letter as of yet
Attorney Michael McElhenney.
Chair, Mr. McElhenney is coming back in as a panelist now.
Morning, Mr. McElhenney.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning. Michael McElhenney, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. McElhenney, M-C, capital I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. McElhenney, do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
We do.
It appears that you've submitted all the required documents. Is that correct?
That is correct. I would add that we did have trouble getting a tax clearance, but I did provide a proof of all tax compliance with taxes.
Thank you. You may proceed.
And may I share my screen?
Absolutely.
Again, Michael McElhenney here on behalf of the owner of 1713 South 18th Street, Miss Cecilia Lindler, L-I-N-D-L-E-R.
The application is for the, an addition to an existing three-story structure, and for use as the property as a three, for three dwelling units.
The property itself is zoned RSA 5, and that has generated one refusal, which is the use refusal, as multifamily is not permitted by right.
The. Looking at exhibit three of the pre marked exhibits, and I shouldn't should mention, we did notice meet with the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
We did have I noted that the board did not receive a letter, neither did I.
I have requested it again this morning. It was a overwhelming in support.
there was only one person that voiced concerns at the meeting, so I do expect a letter of support
to be submitted shortly. The property was posted with the zoning notices in advance of today's
meeting and the community meeting. To orient the board, I do have at Exhibit 3 the zoning map for
the property. The property at issue is on the southeast corner of South 18th Street at Watkins
Street. The property is zoned RSA 5. The property to the south of us is a commercial mixed-use
property, CMX 1. The property at the other end of the block at the northeast corner at
Morris Street is also a CMX 1 property. And further to the north is a large RM1 property,
which is a school. At Exhibit 5 is the current photograph of the current condition of the
property. This property is a three-story structure. It does need extensive renovation and structural
repairs. Looking at the property on page two of the same exhibit, it is a three-story building,
and this is the view from Watkin Street. Our request, and I'll show on the zoning plan,
is to extend the third floor back to the rear of the property. That's a buy-write addition,
to the rear of the property that's a buy right addition and then to use the property for three
and then to use the property for three families.
family dwelling turning the page four to give context to the other properties on the block
looking to the north on the east side of the block are other three-story residential buildings
the property next to us 1711 is a used for two dwelling units as evidenced by the
the two um doorbells and there's also zoning records at exhibit nine documenting the two
family use the other properties to the north are all three-story structures and in that school i
referenced is farther to the north the property on the same side of the block at 1705 is also a
duplex to two dwelling units and the property on the corner was approved for three units and
has also been used for commercial uses. The properties on the west side of the block are
other three-story structures that have been used for single-family and multifamily uses.
If you go to the corner of Morris Street, that's to the north, the corner property there is used
for a four-family dwelling units. Properties across the street are single-family and multifamily.
looking at 1726 is a triplex, which is across the street from the subject property,
which is the use that we're requesting here. And other properties going to the south are
other three-story structures. I will note at page 11 and 12, I just included photos of
a deck at a property across the street because the community had asked about
other decks on the block. And at page 12 is another deck at the corner of Morris and South
18th Street. The subject property itself at Exhibit 6 are interior photos. This property
is in need of substantial rehabilitation and structural repairs. Ms. Lindler, the owner,
she purchased this property in 1980. And that's at exhibit 13. She and her family have lived there
up until 2019. And in 2019, the family suffered a devastating fire at the third floor level.
And looking at page four, this is the current condition of the third floor. The roof
is partially missing. It has to be taken down, replaced along with all the joists on the roof
level and the third floor level, and structural repairs to the walls itself. And her goal is to
keep this property in her family, to renovate it, and to keep it as a three-family dwelling.
The family had no insurance, so this property has sat since 2019 as the family developed a plan
to try to save this property and keep it in the family for their generational wealth
and to pass it down to their Miss Cecilia's heirs.
The zoning plan, let me shrink this, is at Exhibit 7.
And as you see, it's an existing structure.
It shows that it's an 18-foot wide property by 66 feet deep,
which is quite sizable for the Point Breast section of Philadelphia
and a lot of Philadelphia.
you. The addition is not going to be 100% addition at the rear. There is a recessed roof deck balcony
approximately nine feet by nine feet that will be an open air balcony. And if I can go to
page two of exhibit seven, the plan is to extend that third floor. And what we'll be left with is
a interior recessed balcony to create light and air and open space for that third floor unit
that'll be at the third floor level the property will have all the units will have access to the
rear yard through a rear stair tower which will be on the this the back of the property the rear
of the property and i'll go through the floor plans next let me see if i can drag this over
and one of the things that the neighborhood did request and mention and we did add is to make
sure we have lighting on the front of the building and on the sides of the building
on walk-in street and to put some security cameras in as part of the redevelopment which
that is part of the plan not a zoning issue but that is what the community requested and
we will be doing that
the floor plans are at exhibit eight and the plan calls for basically three dwelling units
one on each for the floor the first floor second floor and third floor the basement will really
just be used for storage for the units. The first floor floor plan, all the units will be able to enter from
So the first floor floor plan, all the units will be able to enter from South 18th Street. And they'll also have a separate entrance from the side on Watkin Street. So the first floor unit ends up as a one bedroom, one bath unit, a full living room, kitchen, dining room, in unit washer dryer, and a bedroom at the rear.
Again, there's access to the rear stair tower that will serve all three floors and access to the rear of the property where we'll accommodate trash storage for all of the units that it doesn't have to be in the units to store the trash.
It does exit into Watkins Street and also has access to a rear alley to allow for the trash to be taken out when and if necessary on trash day.
The second floor unit is a two-bedroom, one-bath unit. Again, the same entry, stairs from the front, and also accessible from the rear stair tower. We end up with a full two-bedroom, one-bath, full living room, dining room, kitchen, and in-unit washer dryer.
And the third floor unit is similar, but with that outdoor roof deck space at the third floor level on top of the second floor.
So we have two bedrooms, full living room, kitchen, dining room, bath, and that outdoor nine foot by nine foot open air section at the rear.
the as i previously mentioned going through the block photos there are numerous other multi-families
family properties on this block of south 17th street on the 1700 block i went through those
photos but i did do a summary and include the zoning records for the neighboring properties
that have multi-family uses on this block and this property itself can and should be used for
multifamily, it's a hardship to use it as a single family in light of the tragic fire,
no insurance, and other multifamilies that we abut and on the same side of the block
of South 17th Street. My client and her family did canvas the neighborhood prior to the zoning
meetings and prior even starting this process to get feedback from the neighbors. And we did
submit a petition just of neighbors that were in support of the request. And that's a four-page
document five page document that we submitted as part of the RCO meeting.
And we included exhibit 10 to today's package.
And with that, members of the board, it is our request that the board approve the request
for the multifamily use at the subject property in light of the condition of the property
in light of the multifamilies on this block.
the extensive renovation that Miss Lindler and her family uh have in front of them to try to
keep this property in their in their family for another another 40 years. So would you want to
have your testimony adopted by the owner? I would if Miss Cecilia Lindler could raise her hand
she is there with family members to assist her. Miss Lindler please unmute yourself and wait for
the chair.
Would you
state your name and spell it for the court reporter
please?
Say your name.
Your name. My name
Cecilia Lillard.
Would you spell
that for the court reporter please?
C-E-C-E-L-I-A.
Right.
Do you swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes council miss Lindler did you hear the statements
that I presented to the board this morning yes were they true and correct to the best of your
knowledge yes and would you adopt those statements as if they were your own yes
mr chairman i have no further questions for miss uh lindler i'm sorry this is tanya
could we have the last name spelling please last name l-i-n-d-l-e-r lindler thank you kindly
could could we uh questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience
Chair, we have Pietra Gamble with her hand up.
Ms. Gamble, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Pietra Gamble, first name P-I-E-T-R-A, last name G-A-M-B-L-E.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I'm a member of Point Breeze Community Development Coalition, the coordinating RCO for this property.
I'm a member of Point Breeze Community Development Coalition, the coordinating RCO for
I just wanted to go on record saying that I will be sending a letter of support for this property.
I haven't had a chance to write it yet.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate you calling in.
You're welcome.
Any other questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is Tanya again.
mm-hmm so only if the case remains open will we be able to um have a letter set if this case is
voted and i know i'm not i'm not going to vote on it okay sounds good yep any other comments from
the virtual audience i see no other hands at this time chair so so council what we're going to do
is we're going to hold the vote and i'll also for the sake of the planning commission i'll hold until
we have a letter fair enough mr chairman and i believe uh the councilman was possibly sending
a letter as well so i'll so when we get the letter we'll vote and also have the planning
commission take a position understood thank you thank you for your time so chair if we could just
state on the record that it's closed only for those items thank you chair record is closed
EXCEPT FOR A LETTER FROM POSSIBLY COUNSEL, PERSON, AND THE RCO.
Chair Bergman, and for the Planning Commission's recommendation.
I'm sorry.
Yep, absolutely.
MI 2021-004518, 1930 Hoffman Street.
It doesn't appear to be an RCO letter from Point Breeze Community Development.
Matthew Monroe, attorney.
Mr. Monroe, if you're in the audience, could you please raise your hand?
Thank you.
He should be coming back in as a panelist now, chair.
Mr. Monroe, state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Boy, it looks like we're having a problem today.
do we see him
i see him chair i tried to promote him
mr monroe can you raise your hand again
he's coming back as a panel thank you
thank you mr monroe could you i'm good morning sorry could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter please uh yes uh good morning uh chairman bergman uh matthew monroe law
2030 pemberton street philadelphia 19146 right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do the vice chair has a few questions
Ms. Monroe, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading of the refusal, Vice Chair Tenere, but we don't stipulate to the accuracy because, as we noted at the RCO meeting and previously, we believe that there was an open area refusal that should have been included and was not included on the refusal.
So that was an additional refusal that we just wanted to note for the board.
Okay. It appears that you submitted all the required documents. Is that correct?
Yes, we did.
Okay, you may proceed.
And thank you, Vice Chair Tenere and Chairman Bergen.
In the event that the ZBA votes in favor of this application, which we hope you will,
we did submit proviso plans with a form last night to be adopted.
um chairman bergman this is a uh um i'm pleased to be here on behalf of my client uh uh joe dean
and uh who's this uh 1930 hoffman was a family home uh it's been in uh in the missoula family and
joe missoula's family uh for decades uh he's been working in uh los angeles with plans to
return to Philadelphia where he attended high school, grew up, and his grandmother was very
active in the neighborhood and part of the block. Joe and his husband, Vince, are planning to move
Joe and his husband Vince are planning to move back with Joe's mother and they're planning to
back with Joe's.
come back to the family home in 1930 Hoffman Street which has been in the family as I said
for decades and in order to make a livable home for three adults in what is a pretty small two
story home row home in Philly with just a very small 644 square foot lot they're seeking to add
a third story edition. Of course, as the board knows, a third story edition is available as of
right. But in this instance, some dimensional variances are required in order to make a livable
space for three adults. So what we have is essentially just taking the two-story row home,
adding a third story uh with a with a roof deck and uh this is in an arm one zoning district i
think that the the refusal that we have that's an issue uh primarily is the um uh is the front
setback requirement which we received a refusal for and um uh and that's i think what we'll be
discussing primarily but just to kind of go through some of the preliminaries i've attached
in my exhibit packet, the deed at Exhibit 1, the refusal, which we've gone over, the application
for the petition for appeal, and the, I'm sorry, the petition for appeal with the
notice to the community. We have a certificate of bulk mailing as required under the regulations,
and uh the house was properly posted as you can see here and um here we have some of the plans
and just i'll scroll to the bottom uh for the board's edification we do have a tax cert um and
we did have a placeholder we did not receive a letter from the point breeze develop community
development coalition but we did attend the a well-attended meeting um there um so as you can
see here at 1930 Hoffman Street, we have the photograph of the existing home and the proposed
home. The project has been designed by S2 architects, S2 design, Christopher Stromberg and
Emily Stromberg. They've been, they're South Philadelphia architects. They've done a ton
of residential properties. Both Christopher and Emily have been involved in the community
boards and are familiar with the process here. And it was really important both to Joe,
the primary client, and to Christopher to maintain that what is traditionally a South
Philadelphia looking home. As you can see, the brick facade that they proposed is they want to
bring that back. So as you can see, there's been sort of appears to be Baltimore stone on the
bottom. They want to clear that out, either restore the brick or bring back the brick facade
and to maintain the stoop there. I think that the one issue, and it's just something that
Christopher Stromberg has been successful in this board, has seen as a fit and reasonable
design fixed whenever somebody's coming in and does, as we believe, have a hardship in order to
eliminate that eight-foot setback at the front, and that is to create a mansard roof.
So you can maintain that cornice line. As you can see right here, it draws up the eye,
eye, but you have a slope on the mansard roof with a traditional slate looking tile, or sorry,
it's not tile, but the slate roofing, it's actually a rubber material that they'll be using, but it
looks exactly like slate when you see it. But we have a very small row home, and they're looking
to expand it, as I mentioned. If you go down to the floor plans, you can see that they're
looking to make some changes uh on the on the ground floor just to open up make more livable
space uh to have a bedroom on the second floor uh and a bedroom slash home office on the second
floor as well um presumably that's where joe's mother would be uh living and then on the third
floor is the um as the primary bedroom and uh in the bath and then a pilot house going up to the
roof deck. As I mentioned, we do have some refusals for the rear yard. We do not have
what we anticipated to be an open area refusal, but we do have a rear yard.
a open area refusal but we do have a rear yard refusal and as you can see here from the site
plan and elevation and this is the one that was submitted with the proviso plans and was presented
to the community is that the this is not a case where they're trying to go any bigger
than what's already there the existing footprint of the two-story structure is the existing footprint
that they're building over. The reason why we have a refusal here at the third story is because
if you just go straight up, there's the existing rear yard. We're not asking to make it any smaller.
We're just going straight up. And when you have a pre-existing legally non-conforming structure
as this one is, and then you extend above that, that extension of the pre-existing legally
non-conforming structure is deemed to be a refusal. And so that's why we have that. But
just to be clear, the rear yard is going to stay the exact same depth and area that it currently
exists in. And just to draw the board's attention to the front here, you can see how that mansard
roof slopes back to the rear and at the top of the cornice line, at the top of the cornice right
here, which Christopher Stromberg is seeking to develop. We met with the community and there were
a handful of folks who came out from the block in support of the project. I think some of the
comments that we heard were from some people in the neighborhood who were concerned about a third
story without the setback as a precedential issue. I would just submit to the board that
from what we heard, the comments were not coming from near neighbors. They were coming from some
community members who do have experience in the RCO and community process, but I would just
submit that these were more, they were founded in understandable concerns, I think, but at
the same time, some were just related to a general concern about eliminating a setback
rather than the particulars of this particular proposal, which really seeks to just make
this home a livable home. And it is based on the small lot size, as I mentioned, is about just over
600, I think 644 square feet, which is less than half of the minimum RSA 5 and minimum RM 1
lot size under the existing code, which is 1,440 square feet. So it's based on that. And the fact
that we do have the right to build up to a third story, but because of this very small lot size and
very small footprint for the home in order to make it livable. The hardship is that we need to
have that extension just to make use of the full third floor. There's also some cost considerations
when you're building up the cost differential between adding the roof or the third story
without the setback versus with, it's negligible, but you just lose such a substantial amount of
the space. And then on top of that, we're just seeking to maintain the block. As I mentioned,
Joe is from the, he grew up in South Philly, went to high school in South Philly, he's been working
in LA and just looking to come home. And I believe architect Christopher Stromberg is here
And if Joe is on the call, I think you might be calling if he could raise his virtual hand.
Right. Why don't we do that? Why don't you have him adopt your testimony, please?
Sure. Joe, are you on the call? Mr. Mazzulla?
Mr. Mazzulla, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
I believe he may be calling in, so I'm not sure if that's possible.
And I can tell you what his phone number is.
He is on.
I have a text message from him.
Do you know what the last four digits of his number is?
Okay, I see the phone number, but he needs to raise his hand.
Okay, I see the phone number, but he needs to raise his hand, even though he's on the phone.
Okay, Joe, can you hear that? Can you raise your hand from your phone?
Counsel, you're an officer of the court. We'll take your testimony.
As an officer of the court, I will say that I will represent to you that my client has texted me and said he has got my testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Pietra Gamble with her hand up.
Ms. Gamble, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
scramble yes i think you i swore you before right yes the previous one could you do me a favor just
state your name peter gamble right and could you give us your comments again this is another
project i just received the votes yesterday i will be sending a support letter for this project
thank you very much
so we're going to close the record
we will not vote
or the planning commission will not take
position
until we've received the letter
Tanya is that okay
thank you very much council
thank you very much chairman
MI 2021
421-0044652 McPherson Street, RCO East Mount Airy, Neighbors, Letter of Support, Vern Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now.
mr anastasio just state your name you've already been sworn
good morning verne anastasio v-e-r-n last name a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o
our vice chair has a few questions for you hi mr anastasio do you agree to wait through
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do it appears that you've sent all the required
documents in, is that correct? Correct. Great, you may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen.
It says my screen sharing is paused.
I'm going to try again.
I think I got it this time.
Do you see it, Mr. Chair?
We do.
Make it just a little larger.
Of course.
How's that?
all right great may i proceed yep thank you this is uh an application for the use
excuse me as a three-family dwelling in an existing structure um this property
is zoned rsa5 but as you'll see and here's the uh the uh drawn to scale at the
first level, the first floor, and then the second level, all in excess of 600 square feet.
It's a very unusual property. As you can see, it's over 8,000 square feet. The home sits here
on the corner. There's a common driveway and then another large lot in the back.
The house is a corner property. It already has multiple electric meters. It has two entrances, one here, one here, and then a front entrance as well.
additional shots of the corner we have interior photos again this has been
multi-family for quite some time there's a long history of it here's the electric it is hardwired
for fire also has three separate furnaces these are not new they've been there for just about
also has three separate furnaces these are not new they've been there for just about ever
and then the history of the property has always been three units either a three family dwelling
right here 1947 or later on a two family dwelling with some sort of commercial space
but it's always been three units and that hasn't changed and we have a documented evidence of that
from the 40s from the 50s all the way to the 80s um and that's you know obviously with the
separate utility accounts the three separate entrances it's pretty apparent that this
that's what this property is and with that we did in fact meet with the RCO
East Mountain Area Neighbors Association at a public meeting on the 23rd of February
and we have a letter of non-opposition actually a letter of support I stand corrected a letter of
support that the variance be granted given the history of the property given the layout of the
property and given the hardship it would cause to get this property into compliance
after 70 some odd years there's proof of mailing to 83 individual households
and with that we respectfully request that the variance be granted it is on a corner property
where multi-families or mixed use seem to be more acceptable to the planning commission we do hope
given the history that they feel the same way with that I'd like Mr. Amanati to raise his hand
so that Bob if you could raise your hand so that you could be acknowledged
Mr. Amanetti, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Robert Amanetti, R-O-B-E-R-T-A-M-O-N-I-T-T-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Amaniti, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it's true.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing else.
I'm open for questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, C-H-A-R-L-E-S-R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N.
Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 312 City Hall.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
The Councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance.
Thank you very much.
any other comments from the virtual audience
there are no other hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chair bergman
ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5 single family zoning at this location however
as we've seen this property has a documented prior use of three residential units the proposed use
is consistent with this and with the physical configuration of the building and so the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance thank you very much MI 2021
004465 to McPherson Street I vote yes Harold Tenere my vote is yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you verne thank you okay and number 10 mi 2021 002194 2621 west
allegheny avenue rco community action group letter of opposition mr mobahills the attorney
Mr. Mulville, can you please raise your hand?
Any hands?
No, not as of yet, Chair.
Where are you going there?
Chair, this is Tanya.
I do have some information about the case that we held over, if you wish to discuss that with the...
Let's hold this one here to see if Melvihill comes on in a little bit, and let's talk about the case we held.
Tanya, the case we held, withheld, we held?
Tanya?
sorry yes the applicant is jung i believe miss jung
if they could raise their hand
do you want me to promote her tanya or just a muter just unmute please
yep miss jung please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Hi, Ms. Jung.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
It's Peggy Jung, J-U-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you have the information relative to your case this morning?
Are you ready to go on?
Mr. Gutierrez has it.
So, Chair, the updated information is the individual, Ms. Jung, is unprepared to present today. They were under the impression that Mr. Gutierrez could present, and he cannot. Therefore, they would have to request continuance.
Okay, that case is continued.
Thank you.
Okay, Ms. Jung, we will send you notification of the new date of the hearing, okay?
Thank you.
Tanya, thank you.
Call Mr. Movahill one more time, please.
Mr. Movahill, are you there?
Are you having technical problems?
If you need to, you can always reach out to us in the Q&A.
Okay, maybe there's an issue.
If we don't mind, can we wait for this one?
Sure, let's continue on.
Thank you.
MI 2021-004-525-468 Paoli Street, Pro Se, Nicole Chesky, no RCO letter.
Ms. Chukoski is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
good morning could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
nicole chakoski n-i-c-o-l-l-e c-h-a-c-o-s-k-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 for you
hi miss chakoski can you email the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
a copy of the refusal and or and or referral photos and or plans of the property five days
in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes i sent all
those things um in an email like over like two or three weeks ago and i met with the rco marlene
back in mid-january i was hoping she was supposed to send the letter there was no opposition
i don't know if we have a letter but you may proceed okay um yeah bear with me i'm not an
attorney um and tech so um this is the proposed i have it on my ipad here hopefully you guys can see
um it's basically just a bathroom addition um to the back of my property
um the issue is with the fence line um my house is built back in the 50s about five feet from the
fence line um in the 70s they put an addition off the back um which was 10 feet from the fence line
and there leaves maybe it's easier just a picture there leaves a gap basically um you know six feet
you know, six feet by 18 feet. And I'm just looking to fill in the gap more or less. So
by 18 feet. And I'm just looking to fill in the gap.
it's extending the same edge of the house line out and just making a, um, filling in the corner
there. Um, pretty simple. I've, uh, you know, sent all the letters. Um, the most important
person is my fence line neighbor, lawyer, um, Laura, Nikki, I included in the emails I sent
you guys um a scant copy of the email that they sent marlene um granting their you know approval
of the project and things those the ones that share the fence line with me um over the fence
line over there um i don't know if you guys can see or not or if that's enough but it did
um and i can pull up the email like i sent you with all the information
it was like over two weeks ago
um i had the mi number in the subject line and stuff
okay so i think there's enough information that i understand it
questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman
no Mr. Chair
questions or
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time
what's the name of the RCO
Marlene
oh god no
look at her last name
well I see her name but I mean what's the RCO
So, is it the area RCO or?
Marlene Scheifler.
Sorry, I'm on my computer now.
What is the RCO name?
What's the name of the RCO?
I know that's the woman that's there.
Oh, my God.
Let me go back to the first things you guys sent me.
I mean, I'm near Ridge Avenue.
I think it's.
marlene the rco will contact you and you went to the rco meeting
mid-january we had you went you went to that meeting yeah okay so why don't we do this let's
close the record get a letter from the rco i'll have the planning commission take a position
after the letter comes in and we'll take the vote then is that okay okay so i'll just reach
out to marlene to try and get her you need a letter you need a letter yeah i'll confirm with
her okay thank you very much i'm sorry is it okay um could we have planning commission's position
uh because they won't um be viewing it okay thank you thank you thank you tanya thank you
chair bergman um uh thank you mr koski ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA one single family zoning at this
location we believe the proposed dimensions are consistent with structures on this block
in the same zoning district generally and specific to this property there's an existing
non-conforming distance from the side lot line which would be increased only minimally
and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant this variance
thank you very much we'll close it as soon as we hear from the rco or you send the letter in
we'll take a vote and we'll get back to you okay okay is there any way to confirm you guys got
the packet of information i emailed i just want to make sure i did everything yes if we didn't
receive the package you would okay you did everything i've been crossing my t's and dumb
eyes on this so when you get the letter then you can send it to the same rco zba email box
the board will vote and then you'll be notified through mail okay thank you so much you're welcome
okay mi 2021 004516 5707 ashland avenue rco southwest philadelphia district services letter
of support, pro se, Nico Pruitt. Mr. Pruitt is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Okay. Good morning. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
unmute yourself
good morning could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Good morning. My name is Nico Clark Pruitt, spelled N-I-C-H-O-C-L-A-R-K-P-R-U-E-T-T.
good morning my name is nico clark pruitt
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Ms. Pruitt. Did you email the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property, five days in advance of
this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, I have mailed the
documents. I had some issues converting them to the PDF as required, so it was not five days in
advance, but I think you all have them now. I have met with the RCO, and they have provided
a letter of support. We met. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair,
Madam Vice Chair, and board members. Thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. Again,
My name is Nico Clark Pruitt. I'm the current owner of the property at 5707 Ashland Avenue.
This building has been in our family for the last 50 years or so. The project that I'm requesting be
approved is for a multi-family dwelling with four units, two of which are being developed to support
disabled residents. Currently, the building has fallen into a bit of disrepair. However,
However, if approved, this project will put the building back in good use, improve the community aesthetics and increase property values for current homeowners, homeowners.
It will offer quality and affordable housing to the community.
Additionally, as the owner, one unit will serve as my primary residence.
Ms. Pruitt, could you share your screen with us?
Yes, sir.
Let me know when you can see it.
Thank you. We see it.
You see it? Okay.
Today I'm requesting the variance be approved to, as I said, convert this single family unit into a four unit.
um this is the um project can you see this picture is it large enough we can we can this
is the existing property as it sits now um and this is the property um proposed one of the things
that we're doing is adding on this this back here uh addition to the building and converting it to
make it handicap accessible. I'll go through and show you the notice of right to the notice of
refusal. We're requesting that the variance be approved based on the fact that on the use and
allowance, there are existing properties on the same street and within the immediate community
with the residential zoning that I'm requesting, specifically 5710 and 5714 Ashland Avenue
are both four-unit multifamilies. And many of the three of the four surrounding streets,
57th and 58th Street and Thomas Avenue all have approved multi-unit properties.
The dimensional standards, the plans are non-compliant for about three feet in width and approximately 20 feet in length.
I will show you here. We meet the side yard standards except for this section right here.
So it's about this three feet here that we're losing and about 20 feet in length at the back of the property.
We do have parking here.
We only have one of the four required parking spaces.
It isn't quite large enough to meet the requirements for the disability requirements, but we do have that one unit.
We believe that the parking will have a negative impact on the area as many of the current properties on the street have driveways also.
and what is the other yeah and those are the only two uh the only four uh requirements that
And what is the other?
we were not meeting for zoning um i do have my architect online um and i can we can bring him
on Mr. Kirk Raymond I think he's online. Can we see if Mr. Raymond is online?
I'm sorry that's a call. Mr. Raymond if you're available please raise your hand.
Chair if you need him we can provide his audio. Please.
actually miss prude i think we understand what you're doing i don't i don't know the architect
i mean i i think the drawing is for enough to make us understand exactly what you're doing
so you don't really need your architect okay i mean if anybody on the board has a question we
can bring him in but i i think what you've provided makes us understand what you're doing
okay no no mr chairman any other questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience chair we have someone by the name of mary holland
miss holland you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
i'm sorry this is kurt raymond the architect i i uh i don't know why it's signed in as my partner
okay that's okay we're we're we're i don't think we need you right now but thank you
for calling in sir sure any other comments from the virtual audience
planning commission
thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
chair um if it's okay it would be okay to ask a clarifying question of the applicant
you most certainly can thank you very much um miss pruitt is you mentioned that um two of the
units i believe would be um designed to accommodate people with physical disabilities is that um
Is the proposed use for to include care given to people living in this home or is this are these just general dwelling units, just general dwelling units.
Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA three single family zoning at this location.
typically for use variances as you know we're looking for evidence of some kind of unique
physical circumstances of the property while nearby conforming buildings are a factor the
predominant use we believe on this block remains single family as required by the existing zoning
and so the city planning commission's recommendation is to deny the variance
thank you mi 2021 004516 5707 ashton avenue i vote yes harold tenary my vote is yes
thomas halliman my vote is no james snell my vote is yes
ishmael shahid my vote is yes thank you ma'am
thank you all good luck thank you good luck
MI 2021-004-513-6414 Rising Sun Avenue, Long Crest Community Association, letter of non-opposition, Justin Crick, attorney.
Mr. Crick is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
good morning Mr. Crick could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
yes Justin Crick j-u-s-t-i-n-k-r-i-k right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes uh our vice chair has a few questions
hi Mr. Crick do you read away the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
I do. Have you submitted all the required documents? Yes. Okay, you may proceed and share
your screen. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the board, the property in question is 6414
Rising Sun Avenue. The applicant is seeking, hold on, I don't, can you see the presentation?
we can okay thank you uh the property is located in the longcrest section of philadelphia
the applicant is the tenant of the property kgks doing
The applicant is the tenant of the property, KGKS, doing business as Crush Lounge.
They are seeking the ability to have assembly and entertainment in the form of a DJ in the bar and restaurant.
It is an existing sit-down restaurant, and the only refusal that we've received is that that use for assembly and entertainment is prohibited in CMX1.
Copy of the refusal for your reference.
The property is situated between Levick Street and Passmore on a very heavily populated commercial corridor of Rising Sun Avenue, where the entire corridor for several blocks is of a commercial nature with several restaurants and so forth.
The restaurant currently does have a liquor license. And again, this is solely for the approval of the music and entertainment. The property has been utilized as a bar and restaurant for approximately 20 years plus.
the current operator has been there for seven years and has had very little to no issue with
the neighborhood and has worked in coordination with the neighborhood. Just for a little bit more
of geographic information, here's a satellite view. Again, commercial establishments all along
at the very least, this block of Rising Sun Avenue. This is the location. We occupy the first
floor of the building. Do not occupy as tenants of any sort the upstairs. Current layouts.
This is the existing layout. It's the same on each of these diagrams. Just one is the emergency
exit plan, an occupancy plan, and a floor plan. But as you can see, the intent is to have and
keep the DJ in this area of the music, which is scheduled only on approximately three nights a
week, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings. The hours of operation will continue to be roughly
5 p.m. to 2 a.m. daily, seven days a week. So at the moment, there is no lunch crowd or intent for
the music at that time. Just some photographs of the interior of the property so that the board
can, let me back up a little bit, can understand what we're talking about. This is where the DJ
is to be situated and continue. So what we see is your front page. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Let me do
that. Is this better? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. So let me go back to the geographic just to show
you a little bit. The commercial corridor between Passmore and Levick, the entire street of Rising
Sun Avenue is a commercial corridor, but at the very least, this block is heavily populated with
commercial establishments. And again, this bar has been in its existence as the first floor
for over 20 years, this applicant operating for at least the last seven.
um floor plans indicate again these are all the same plan just different purposes of the
of each drawing but this is the the best indication of what we have going on um for sit-down
restaurant primary use with the bar and the music to be located in this section of the of the
establishment the photos that I'm showing you just for can indicate to you where we're looking
to maintain the music. And as you can see, the property is well kept. We did have a meeting with
the Long Crest Community Association, which was very well attended, approximately 50 people. And
I will say this is a very involved community. And one of the first times that I have received
such a large motion carried 45 to zero in non-opposition of the project.
We believe we answered all their questions very, very truthfully and addressed any concerns they may have.
The only provisor that they have is that this be a temporary two-year granting so that they can revisit it.
And again, I believe that that is for the purposes of making sure that they can address any issues if some arise in the future.
Again, no changes to anything else in the building or in the operations of the business just to allow and permit the DJ on those three evenings at this time.
There is on-site security with cameras, commercial trash pickup, and we don't believe that this granting would cause any detriment to the neighbors.
We have not had any complaints from neighbors in the past when there had been music in the building.
we've communicated with them about the noise levels that are intended and um uh are participating
this applicant participates regularly with the community and is available to them we don't
We don't believe that this would increase any congestion in the public corridor because the hours of operations are after regular business hours.
believe that this would increase any congestion in the public uh corridor because the hours of
And again, this is a commercial corridor, so we anticipate no congestion.
And since there's no change to the use of the business itself, we don't anticipate any additional congestion to the public utilities or burden on that.
At this time, if and I do have the applicant as a tenant, I have the initial page of the lease.
for for the board's view and we also have tax clearance certificate for the entity operating the crush lounge, as well as photos of the posting of the premises.
And at this time, I'd like to bring call upon Alfred Fields, Jr. to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Fields you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Mr. Fields could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
yes my name is Alfred Fields a l f r e d f i e l d s right do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do proceed thank you Mr. Fields have you
had an opportunity to hear my testimony to the board today? Yes. And were the statements that
I made to the board true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes, they were. And if you had
the opportunity to participate further, would you adopt my testimony as if it was your own?
Yes, I would. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the board. Questions from the board? No,
mr chairman no mr chairman chairman can we do two years um yes the use can be temporary
um it seems that that is the provisor requested there the if the only the only question i would
ask is during that time period is there anything is is is there anything that would cause this to
come back into review before the board um so well i guess mr quick will have to bring his client
back to extend this use at the end of that two years at the end of two years you're saying yes
yes mr top and that is my understanding um i have in the past seen um uses uh on a temporary basis
typically for economic purposes for the applicant to be extended something along the lines of a
a little bit longer of a period so that the applicant is not considered consistently burdened
with the expense of counsel and so forth. Um, we do though, however, recognize the intent
of the temporary proviso, but we leave it to the board's discretion.
And Mr. Craig, there's no construction needed for the, I guess, the DJ music area that would
require additional time for permits. Is that correct? That's correct.
yeah mr chair it would seem that a two-year temporary proviso
would be enforceable and appropriate thank you questions from the virtual audience
we have hillary emerson miss emerson you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good morning good morning miss emerson could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman parker hillary is h-i-l-a-r-y emerson is e-m-e-r-s-o-n
all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed thank you mr chair um the councilwoman is not opposed um to the requested assembly and
entertainment use at this establishment um she does support the committee's request for a two-year
proviso for a temporary variance. This business is located in a commercial corridor, but it is
surrounded by residential properties. And so there was concern certainly about, you know, noise,
congestion, that sort of thing with the assembly entertainment use, but the community,
you know, wanted to be supportive of the business. So they are supportive of the use,
but wanted to have it on a trial basis initially for the two years.
thank you thank you very much any other comments from the virtual audience
chair there are no other hands at this time planning commission thank you chair bergman
ian hegarty for the philadelphia study planning commission members of the board the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing cmx1 zoning at this location this proposed use is
accessory to the existing conforming eating and drinking establishment and we don't feel
and we don't feel that it significantly changes the effect of the principal use on the surrounding
that it significantly changes the effect of the principal use on the surrounding properties.
properties. So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance
with the condition that the use permit be subject to expiration after an appropriate
amount of time at the discretion of the board. Thank you, Ann. MI 2021-004513-6414-Rising Sun
add to I vote yes with a temporary two-year variance as a proviso. My vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso. Chair, this is Tanya. Sorry to interrupt. Could
Could you put a date of the end of the temporary plea?
We can.
So today is the 9th, March 10th of 24.
Is that right?
That is perfect here.
Thank you kindly.
I don't know if it's perfect, but thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Tanya, I'm going to go back to number 10.
Yes, he's ready for you.
Thank you. MI 2021-002194-2621 West Allegheny Avenue, Leo Mulvihill. Letter of Opposition from the Community Action Group.
Mr. Mulvihill is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
morning Mr. Mulvihill please state your name and spell for the court reporter please
certainly good morning members of the board Leo Mulvihill L-E-O last name M as in Michael U-L
D as in Victor I-H-I-L-L right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth I do okay our vice chair has a few questions yes I'm Mr. Mulvihill do you
agree to wave the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy I do it appears that you've
submitted all the required documents is that correct yes okay you may proceed all right so
good morning members of the board leo mulvihill today for community construction partners for
the property of 2621 west allegheny avenue i have now on the screen being shared my presentation
packet including the refusal and project information form at page one area zoning maps at five my
client's lease at seven commercial activity license at 13 tax clearance at 14 zoning notification
letter at 15, RCO letter at 18, photos of the property at 18, and then plans at 26.
So members of the board going now to our refusal. Essentially what we're seeking is to have a two
family dwelling in this zoning district. This particular property is zoned RSA 5, but it is
along Allegheny Avenue, which the members of the board know is a relatively commercial corridor
spanning basically the entire city. This is directly across the street from Acepta
Depot and there's a number of other businesses on the street as well, as
well as several mixed-use properties that have commercial dwelling units or
pardon me, residential dwelling units in them. More or less what we're looking to
do is rather than have this be treated as a CMX2 property, which we argue it ought
to be, just not have any commercial space and keep the residential aspects of
that property intact. By doing so, what we're going to do is allow for greater affordability
in this specific neighborhood. The community letter itself does notice that it's their
belief that this is a strictly single family neighborhood, but I think you'll see members
of the board that the evidence simply doesn't bear that out.
Here's the project information form. Here's the property in question. As I noticed, it
is zoned, RSA5, we are indicated in the blue. We have CMX properties directly to the west
of us. And although RSA5 continuing eastbound as well, when we get to the next map, which
I pulled from Google, we'll see that there's a significant number of commercial properties
with residential units above that are apartments, and there's a significant number of residential
multifamily buildings on this block already. You can see directly across the street as
well that this is the SEPTA Depot outlined in red, as that is a commercial mixed-use
property. Here we go. Now getting into this map itself, I'm just going to zoom in a little bit.
We can see that despite the community's suggestion that this is strictly residential,
that's just not the case. We have a mosque, supermarket, pharmacy, additional corner store,
another corner store down the block. We have a church, we have a UPS store, we have a hair salon,
We have a hair salon, another grocery store down the block as well as rather the Allegheny
another grocery store down the block as well as rather the Allegheny Depot.
Depot as I mentioned earlier in my presentation.
This is a copy of the lease that my client has.
Essentially the client is leasing the property from another company and is seeking to do
so to have two family dwelling in the property as well.
I'll note that we originally were going for a three family dwelling but after further consideration
we believe that that's simply an overuse of the property which is why we rethought this
down to a two-unit dwelling. At page 13, this is our commercial activity license. 15 is our tax
certificate. At page 15, here we go, is a property, is the, pardon me, the letter that went out
to members of the community from my client. 16 is this meeting summary form. Ultimately,
as I said, there was a number of folks that opposed this project. Seven were in support,
18 were in opposition. And the reasons, again, being were several.
More or less parking is one. However, Allegheny Avenue, as a relatively large commercial corridor,
or is relatively well-serviced by public transit, and frankly, most of the new folks that are
moving in, irrespective per-city planning data, don't tend to have vehicles, so we're hoping
that these folks will be relying on public transit.
The other issue would be that the neighborhood would prefer to add invested homeowners as
opposed to apartment renters. That's not really a zoning issue, members of the board. And frankly,
as a longtime renter myself, before I was finally able to purchase a property, there are a lot of
people who can rent in a neighborhood and still be very invested in the neighborhood itself.
Frankly, I ran the Old Richmond Civic Association zoning committee when I rented in that neighborhood
for many years. So I understand the neighbor's concerns, but frankly, I don't think they
necessarily relate to the zoning here in this instance, rather ancillary concerns of zoning
matter itself.
So at page 18, we have a photograph of the property.
It's indicated with a yellow arrow, does have a built-in porch.
Another picture of the property, page 19, and another at 20.
This is directly across the street, that is at Septa Depot.
A number of other properties down the block, and you can see that there's commercial uses
on the ground floor of those properties, along with multifamily above.
Same thing down the block, again, more commercial properties, ground floor, residential above.
This is a picture of the posting of the zoning sign on the property.
Another picture of the posting.
And I'll zoom out on this. This is just the floor plans that are proposed for the property as well.
Go to the next page.
so we're looking to have in the entry area itself we have living room in the middle kitchen to the
rear two bedrooms to the back along with a well-sized bath is that entryway porch living
room kitchen bedroom bedroom and bath on the first floor and then getting into the other unit we have
living room in the first kitchen to the middle nice bathroom and then two bedrooms to the rear
These are just additional parts of the drawings that aren't necessary for the zoning property
itself, but we can see we're not making any changes to the existing footprint of the property.
The sidewalk itself is relatively wide, as you were all able to see, and the lot itself
is fairly large.
There's a significant size rear yard where trash can be stored up until trash day.
And I'll get right back to page one.
And that's essentially my presentation in this matter, members of the board.
Just to be clear with respect to other properties that do have multifamily uses, I won't put
those on the record.
Just pulling up my notes, members of the board.
So I believe 2615 received the variance for multifamily, 2603 West Allegheny received
the variance for multifamily 2633 and 2617 with respect to the properties in the mixed-use area
of the neighborhood. So ultimately we face a hardship in renovating this property and selling
it as a house by right, especially due to the financial constraints of doing so at the moment
by having two units rather than one single-family home. Not only will we be keeping within the
character of the neighborhood, but we'll be offering the property with a more affordable
price point for folks right now uh which is always essential when we're doing renovations
in a property and ensuring that there's long-term interest in a property and the people can actually
afford to live there who already live in the neighborhood all those things taking all those
into consideration members of the board despite the community's letter regarding parking i would
respectfully request that this board grant the variance and allow us to put two units in this
grant the variants that allow us to put two units in this existing dwelling on the 2600 block of
existing dwelling on.
west allegheny avenue we're happy to take any questions you may have at this time members of
the port you want your testimony adopted mr mobile hill oh yes of course jordan are you on the line
if you are please raise your hand and unmute yourself miss anderson you can unmute yourself
I'll wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
I'm Jordan Anderson, J-O-R-D-A-N-A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Great.
Now, Mr. Anderson, you've heard the bulk of my testimony today, correct?
Is there anything you'd like to add at this point?
okay and my testimony to the best of your knowledge has been true and accurate
yes with respect to hardship and to the use of the property as well as the surrounding properties
as well correct yes thank you i have no other questions for you sir questions from the board
questions from the virtual audience or comments
planning commission
thank you chair bergman uh ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board uh the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment to rm1
multi-family use on this block face which would recognize the existing non-conforming
multi-family use that cited by council this proposed use is consistent with the recommended
zoning and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance
mi 2021-002-194-2621 west allegheny avenue i vote yes harold tenere my vote is yes
thomas holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
thank you members of the board have a good afternoon thank you you too thank you is there
anyone in the virtual audience whose case hasn't been heard
chair we have someone with the hand up with the phone number ending in 3552
sure whoever with the phone number ending in 3552 can you please unmute yourself and wait for the
chair.
Good morning. Could you state your name and spelled for the court
reporter?
You have done mute, please.
Um, that should probably be Mr. Clinton. What can you hear me
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Hello.
hello oh i'm sorry that's not him i apologize can you hear me now hi could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter um yes um they they're unmuting they're muting me when i'm
unmuting so can you hear me okay now we can okay adrian fernandez a-d-r-i-e-n-n-e-f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z
i was um wait one moment do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yeah what's your case which case with 2621 west allegheny avenue
last case yeah that case is over yeah i raised my hand like five times and they just ignored
my raised hand this happens repeatedly so um chair this is tanya we did not see that hand up
it's like five of us monitoring and we didn't see that hand up it might be an issue with zoom
and you can always um dpz zoom are you there he could confirm as well yes i am here did you can
you confirm that we did we call all the names that are available with their hands up yes at the time
thank you so very kindly so there could be an error miss fernandez with zoom but we
call all hands that are raised thank you chair okay thank you
Is Mr. Clinton ready to go on?
Is that number 12, 440 West Queen Lane?
Is Mr. Clinton ready for that?
Chair, I promoted Mr. Clinton.
He should be coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, try your audio. We still can't hear you.
Is that his audio on? Right, I see it. Unmute, Mr. Clinton. You have to unmute your phone.
Mr. Chairman, can you hear me now?
I hear you now, right?
Yeah, so I'm having some technical difficulties with my audio, so I'm going to go old school
with a hard line rather than a cell phone because i don't want the call to drop but i can present
and use the uh the video so so it's mi 2021 004 524 440 west queen lane correct okay proceed
here on my screen
wow take that a little bit bigger
that visible mr chairman yes yes it is so hold on one minute our vice chair has just a few
questions for you i wasn't going to ask mr clinton do you agree to wave the reading of
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy can you hear me oh he's just shaking his oh you have to unmute
yourself. Oh, wow. Okay. Mr. Tenere, I did hear you. Yes. Okay. So your answer is yes,
about waiving the reading of the refusal and stipulating to its accuracy. Correct. Okay. It
appears that we have all the required documents from you. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. You may
proceed thanks uh thank you mr scenario and chairman members of the board henry clinton
here for the applicant rosman properties uh this is my zoning presentation package the table of
contents concerning exhibits aa through a11 which i asked to be admitted into evidence appearance
statement and the refusal so this is a pretty straightforward um situation that the board has
in front of them today. We're simply asking that a lot in this particular block that is currently
46 feet wide be subdivided into two 23 foot wide lots, which will then be the same size lots
as the other 12 on the block. We basically have a situation where we have 23 feet and the code
calls for 25, but we are conforming with the rest of the block lot sizes. And I'll show you
that as I walk through. Now, unfortunately, we have a letter of opposition from the community
group, and it's very rare that I step before the board without either a letter of support
or a letter of non-opposition from the community group. But if you read the letter, and it
was evident during our presentation, the community group is more concerned about what may come
next. We right now are just asking that the lots be subdivided so that the lot is the
same size the two lots will be the same sizes as the rest of the lots on the block we're not
proposing any structure after the subdivision my client has to make a decision what she wants to
do and my client and that madar is on the call but she's going to put up whatever she can by right
so the issue before the board has nothing to do with what's coming later and i believe that's
what this vote really reflects is the anticipation of what may come, not what is. And that's
what I'm asking the board to focus on. So you can see the letter of opposition is concerning
about what was coming later, not what is coming now. And there was actually reference to a 1962
land map, which shows that 40 and 42, which is currently one lot, was a multifamily building.
but that's really not not the issue before the board and i'll show you why this is a photo of
the block every lot on this side of the street is 23 feet wide my lot or my client's lot rather
is 46 feet wide and we're simply asking to make the lot 23 and 23 which then will match
every other lot on the block again another aerial shot these are all twin houses 23 feet 23 feet
feet all were 23 feet wide another view of our vacant lot the vacant lie these
are twin houses on the other lots and so I asked the architect to do a survey of
the block and Michael Cole's on the call with us so this is my client's current
current lot, which is 46 wide, this is a rendering of every other lot on the street.
lot, which is 46 wide. This is a rendering of everything.
There's 12 lots that are 23 feet wide, and we're simply asking to conform to that.
So I went back into the archives, and I looked, and I found a map from 1910.
This is Queen Lane right here, and here's 440.
So at one time, 440 and 442, which is before the board, were two individual lots.
Then when I continued to look through the old records, I found a site plan from 1942.
This is 440 and 442.
For whatever reason, it was subdivided and was made one big lot.
So what we're simply asking the board to do is to revert this lot to what it was in the 1910s.
and to make it conform to all the other lots on the block.
The rest of the documents are the pro forma documents that the board will usually see in the presentation,
the tax certification, our application, and all the other lots,
I mean, excuse me, all the other documents that are referenced in my table of contents.
So, again, I don't want to belabor the point,
and again the community group is concerned about what comes next but that's not before the board
today what comes next maybe before the board if my client exercises her right to to try to put
something on here which is not by right but her goal is and as we told the community group she
wants to put on these lots what she can by right so when you look at this situation and you look
at all the benchmarks that one would typically look at when you're considering dimensional
variances, I think we've hit all those benchmarks. Basically, we are in harmony with the spirit of
the code. We're in harmony with the block. Our lot sizes will conform and will match to all the
other lots on the block. We're not endangering anyone's light or air, not endangering any
development of any neighboring property, because again, this is simply a subdivision. There's no
proposal to build anything at this time also this is a minimum to afford relief because 23 feet wide
and we'll have a match on the in the entire block so for those reasons i asked the board you know
look at what's before today and consider this variance and grant my client's request my client
is on the line and she can adopt my testimony and i also welcome any comments or questions
from the board or from the virtual audience that we can address.
Have your client raised their hand?
Matt, can you please raise your hand?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Mr. Clinton, we'll take your testimony as an officer of the court.
Mr. Bergman, my client, Annette Madar, M-A-D-A-R, is on the call.
I confirmed that with her, and she will adopt the testimony as I presented it.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Ms. Allison Weiss.
Ms. Weiss, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ms. Weiss, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Allison Weiss.
A-double-L-I-S-O-N-W-E-I-S-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yes, Solo Germantown Civic Association. We were an affected overlapping RCO and we did submit a letter. I just wanted to clarify our concern about dividing the lot. It's our understanding that right now, by right, they are entitled to build a twin.
if the lot is divided they would be permitted to build two twins so that's the difference
and the community is opposed and this same applicant a couple of years ago applied to
build a six-family dwelling unit okay so let's let's but let's not stay a couple let's just
stay with this so you're against this right yes thank you very much and thank you for calling
right yes thank you very much and thank you for calling in is there anyone else that has
comments from the virtual audience here we have a pina nahamo mr or miss nahamo you can unmute
yourself or wait for the chair could could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
please yes pin in a hammer p-i-n-n-i n-a-h-a-m-o right um do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir proceed please um i know that on each lot
you can build one dwelling one building and add a twin when the lots that are like on the atlas
map of the city are two separate lots then it's going to be a twin because they're going to be
attached but it's going to be a 440 and a 442 two twins means four houses that's not it
so you're against it sir
that's the correction
I'm for it
because I think
Ms. Weiss
doesn't understand
need two houses
you're for it
you're saying
she's assuming
that something else
will be built
but she's assuming wrong
from my understanding
and the law
the attorney
can correct me
if I'm wrong
we thank you
for your call
is there anyone else
that would like
to comment on this
i see no other hands at this time chair planning commission
thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change from the existing rta1
zoning district here which for the record allows for two family use on each lot
the proposed dimensional variance here is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit
to the zoning code furthermore um the proposed lot configuration is equivalent both to the other
lots on this block face and with the prior documented configuration of these lots and so
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant this variance thank you mi 2021
0 0 4 5 2 4 4 4 0 west 4 4 0 west queen lane i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes thomas
holloman my vote is yes james now my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you mr
clinton thank you mr chairman thanks for letting me uh do this via video and audio i appreciate it
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been heard?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thanks, everyone.
See everyone at 2 o'clock.
Thank you.
And we are ready to begin, sir.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
With me is Ismael Shahid, our board secretary.
Here, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
And Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, our executive director, Tanya Sunkit, is here, and our board attorney, Sherman Topkin.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Before we begin, here is our virtual format. Be advised these proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting our Executive Director, TanyaSunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, and if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand, and then 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 lastly please note the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments
any comments should be directed to our executive director tanya sunk so let's look at continuances
i have no continuance listed is anyone for the 2 p.m list have a continuance
For the 2 p.m., let's have a continuance.
Chair, we have Neil Sklaroff with his hand up.
Chair, we have Nielsen.
Mr. Sklaroff, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Thank you, Ms. Lanket.
Hi, good afternoon, Mr. Sklaroff.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
It's Neil, N-E-I-L, Sklaroff.
S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth sir yes i do go ahead good afternoon mr chairman members of the board
on behalf of the school district of philadelphia i'm asking for a continuance
in in the matter of excuse me i'm sorry in the matter of 3201 ryan avenue abraham lincoln high
School, CBA calendar number MI2022000931. We have a meeting scheduled with the RCO on the 21st of
March, and they have asked us to ask for this continuance, and we would hope to be listed as
soon after March 21st, as is practicable. We don't think our application, which is
very minor in substance, will take very long. Mr. Clarice, thank you. We will continue it,
and our executive director will look for a date for you. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. Anyone else with a continuance?
chair i see no hands up at this time okay
uh i have one mi 2021 004984 1932 moore street that's withdrawn that's a withdrawal
And I have one add-on today. MI 2021-004832-3135-49 West Montgomery Avenue. That will be continued for one week. The vote on that, as we're working with L and I about an issue relative to that. Thank you.
now we'll go to our regular list
case number one mi 2021 003720 1436 south 12th street
passion square civic association letter of opposition rachel pritzker attorney
Chair, Ms. Pritzker is coming back in
as a panelist now
Good afternoon
Could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter please
Yep, Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L
Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R
1521 Locust Street, Suite 605
philadelphia pa 19102 right you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the
truth yes mr hallman has a few questions for you good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy yes according to our records you have
submitted all of the required documents is that correct yes please proceed i just want to make a
quick correction chairman we have a letter of support um from past young civic association
and we also have a letter of support from councilman squilla so i'm not sure if you have
that's great i don't i don't know how that got on the list but that was on the list but thank you
very much yep so this is the subject property right here this is uh 1436 south 12th street
as you can see it's a very large corner property it's about uh the building is actually about 30
150 square feet, and the lot is about 1206, which is much larger than the 960 required for single
family. This is an existing, longstanding, non-conforming use. The interior of this
building is already built out as multifamily. It has been for probably 40 plus years. My clients
are the current purchasers. We have the property under agreement currently. They're the equitable
owners and so we're working through the legalization of this in order for them to
actually close on the property as i had advised them obviously to make sure that this is legalized
zoning and from a building code perspective before they purchase anything
basically we went through the process given the existing non-conformity
um and just bring up uh we met with uh the past young square civic association who voted nine to
and just bring up we met with
zero and non-opposition um we originally had applied for four units which is what's currently
in the building um and also accessory off-street parking as uh the site has a garage on the
side of it, as I'll just show you, that had been utilized for off-street parking or for storage.
However, when meeting with the Civic Association, they had asked us to remove the accessory parking
space, just use the garage for trash and garbage removal, and also to limit the multifamily from
four units to three units which we would agree via proviso we do have revised plans but given
this is an existing structure we don't have like typical plans as we're not adding on to the
building and so we're willing to do that via proviso with three units with no accessory off
street parking space just to quickly touch on also have councilman mark squilla's letter of
non-opposition as well for this project given the provisos that we agreed to and lastly just to go
over the hardship argument for this project as you can see from this these photos it's a very
large large property 3,150 square feet in order to convert this into a single family per the code
as the base zoning is RSA 5 we've had to demo like demolition and the entire interior reconfigure
the entire interior of this old building and it would probably be one of the largest if not the
largest single family home in this neighborhood. Additionally the multi-family is not out of
character. Not only again are we looking to have this legalized but there are directly adjacent
structures. 1410 South 12th which received a variance from this board for four units. 1430
South 12th which received a variance for duplex from this board. 1434 South 12th also received a
variance from this board for two units. And there's a whole list of others in addition to
some other properties on the corner, similar to this being zoned in the CMXs, making it that
multifamily on corners is not uncommon. Again, we're just looking to legalize the existing use,
three units, no accessory off-street parking, and happy to go through the plans if the board
is interested in seeing them. Why don't you have your client adopt your testimony?
sure is there um an alexia or uh avi
lexi or avi okay you're an officer of the court the testimony is fine thank you questions from
the board no mr chairman no mr chairman question or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission good afternoon chair bergman david vecto f e c t e a u with the city planning
commission you swear from the tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i
do proceed thank you sir mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no
change the residential single family zoning for this parcel however given that this is a
legalization of a long-standing use and the reduction in the proposed number of units from
four to three the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use variance
limited to a maximum of three units mi 2021 003720 1436 south 12th street i rec i vote yes
with proviso three units no off-street parking uh thomas holliman my vote is yes we provide so
yes we provide thank you counselor thank you mi 2021 004976 161 the 71 west allegheny avenue
RCO, HACE, letter of support, Jarrett Klein.
Mr. Klein?
There he is.
The board.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly. It's Jared, J-A-R-E-D, last name is Kline, K-L-E-I-N, with Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia.
Certainly. It's Jared, J-A-R-E-D. Last name is Klein, K-L-E-I-N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Holliman has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Good afternoon, Mr. Holliman.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
according to our records you have submitted all of the required documents is that correct
yes sir it is please proceed thank you I'll share my screen make sure everybody can see that
this is a fairly uncomplicated application and it should be a pretty quick presentation
161 West Allegheny Avenue is is currently the home to Asay's offices and the reason this
application was filed was for some identification signage for the office as the design of the
building mimics a residential uh building and so people who were visiting the site for office use
were experiencing some difficulty knowing that it was uh the location of of assay's offices
so the only refusal that we have uh is because the proposed wall sign doesn't comply with the
height requirements of the I-2 zoning district. Again, the property is zoned industrial, but is
used for office purposes for ASE. Just to contextualize the location for the board,
this is our property here. You can see we're in this cluster of I-2 buildings, but surrounding
us is primarily multifamily residential and some commercial mixed use. Here's the property here.
and a closer shot of the building as the board can see it does mimic a residential apartment
building and there's no exterior signage in the building to let anybody know that this is
an office-based use so the application is fairly straightforward over here is the proposed sign
as you can see it's a it's an acrylic logo sign that will be backlit and the refusal was because
it's located high enough off the ground to generate a refusal on the I-2, but this sign
here is all that we're talking about. It's a logo and identification sign for the ASAI offices.
As the chair mentioned, we did get a letter from the Civic Association, and I have it
here on the screen. The meeting was held February 9th, and everybody who attended was in support of
the application. And you can see in the little summary that they provided the community association
and the members agreed with us that they know people who had challenges identified in the
offices because of the residential style and that the signage was appropriate for that purpose.
I will ask if Maria Gonzalez can raise her virtual hand so she might adopt my testimony.
Then we can answer any follow-up questions that the board may have.
maria gonzalez you can unmute yourself or wait for
hello can you hear me yes could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes maria gonzalez m-a-r-i-a gonzalez g-o-n-z-a-l-e-z i'm the president of base
which is a development corporation in eastern north philadelphia right do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do proceed
Thank you. Maria, did you have a chance to hear my brief presentation this afternoon?
Yes, I did. Thank you so much, Jared.
Sure. And do you adopt my statements as your own testimony as if you've been given the chance to speak yourself?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much. If the board has any questions, we're here.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Chair, we have Sloan Fulks with his hand up. Mr. Fulks, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Fulks. State your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman, TBA Board. My name is Sloan Fulks, S-L-O-A-N-E-F-S,
FIRE, O-L-K-S, representing Councilmember Maria Quinone Sanchez, 7th District, Room 508, City Hall.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Thank you. Sure. The applicant having met with the coordinating RCO and receiving a letter of support, the Councilwoman has no opposition to this various request. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Folks. Anyone else in the virtual audience have a comment? Planning Commission.
good afternoon chair bergman david vecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the
board the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential multi-family zoning
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential multifamily zoning.
although there is
Although there is no documented hardship, planning staff believes that the proposed sign is in keeping with the nature of the signs on the adjacent property, which is the Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the dimensional variance.
Thank you very much.
MI 2021-004976-16171 West Allegheny Avenue.
I vote yes.
Thomas Hollowan.
my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes
thank you counsel
thank you very much have a good afternoon
MI 2021
005013
the 31 North Front Street
RCO Fishtown Neighbors Association
letter of support
Matt Monroe attorney
Mr. Monroe, if you're in the virtual audience, can you raise your hand, please?
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman.
all right you've already been sworn uh we just have several a few questions from mr holliman
for you sure good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy yes sir i do according to our records they've submitted
all of the required documents is that correct yes sir please proceed uh good afternoon uh
Chairman Bergman, members of the board, I'm happy to be here today on behalf of my client, Port Monarch LLC, which is the property owner and operator of the Evil Genius Beer Company at 1727 North Front Street.
We're here today on a very simple application. It's basically just for a dimensional variance
for a rear fence that's designed specifically just to prevent sound traveling from an outdoor
beer garden to the residential area behind them. I'll try to go through this quickly because I
know the board has a long calendar and we do have support from the Fishtown Neighborhood Association
as well as near neighbors. So I'll just go through this quickly. But I have submitted
the deed. And let me just go ahead and I'll share my screen.
Here we have the deed, the refusal, the application for appeal, all the RCO notice
letters went out, we do have a certificate of service in bulk mailing as required. And as you
can see here, the building was properly posted 21 days in advance of the hearing, as you can see
here. And what we have submitted, what you're looking at right now is just an elevation of
the steel fence that's going to go at the rear. Effectively, what they're doing is just putting
up a very solid slab of steel that extends 10 feet above grade under the code in this in this
zoning district you can't have a fence above eight feet but in order to ensure that the sound travel
that travels up like a cone goes up and over the houses and not back it needs to be at this height
And this is something that their architect, Russell Maloney, designed, specifically researched and got approval and support from the near neighbors.
I'm showing right now just a photograph of the beer garden that you can see in the rainbow color fence at the rear is roughly where it will be, though I imagine it will probably be right on the other side of that.
Um, and, uh, just, uh, so you can see here, we have the support letter from the Fishtong
Neighborhood Association.
Um, and, um, we were not able to get the, um, uh, tax certificate.
We were having a problem with, uh, technology, but I did include a, um, zero balance on the,
uh, real estate taxes, which we got.
And, um, so that's where we are, uh, today.
Is your, uh, is your client here?
You would want to adopt your testimony?
Yes, and Trevor, if you're here, if you could just raise your virtual hand on your Zoom so they can let you in.
Mr. Hayward, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. It's Trevor Hayward, T-R-E-V-O-R-H-A-Y-W-A-R-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Okay. Mr. Hayward, did you hear the factual statements that I made on the record?
I did, yes.
and were they accurate yes do you adopt them as your testimony yes thank you and um chairman
bergman uh we did submit uh a um corrected plan uh that just had one correction uh to properly
show the elevation of the um of the fence at 10 feet in the zoning site plan it was that these
are the plans that were shared and so we forwarded a proviso form along with this application today
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr jim
mr monroe one one quick question have you had complaints uh uh in the in the past about the
the noise yeah i i think that there there were some uh initial complaints but my clients have
been in touch with and they keep communication with their close neighbors um and so this was
a solution that they came up with uh in the past to to address those issues all right thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience chair we have mr sloan folks mr folks you can
unmute yourself and wait for the chair mr folks just state your name you've already been sworn
sloan folks office of councilman maria quiona sanchez uh chairman bergman zba board uh the
The applicant has no coordinating RCO and the community has received a letter of support from them.
Therefore, the councilman has no opposition to this various request.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Folks.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair Bergman.
David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
While there is no hardship that would require an eight-foot-tall fence, the proposal would seem to have no impact on the adjacent properties, so the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the height variance.
Thank you, David.
MI 2021-005013, 1727-31 North Front Street.
I vote yes with Proviso 10 feet.
Am I right?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Monroe.
Thank you very much.
mi 2021 0049882008 south third street gussie o'neill pennsport civic association letter of
non-opposition miss o'neill is coming back in as a panelist now chair thank you
Good afternoon.
Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Augusta O'Neill. My last name is spelled O-N-E-I-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holliman has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal as it relates to his accuracy?
according to our records you have submitted all of the required documents is that correct
that's correct please proceed thank you so much i'm gonna share my screen
can everyone see that yes perfect okay thanks so much uh members of the board this afternoon
i'm here representing the owners of the property at 2008 south third street this property is
presently zoned RSA 5. Since 1962, the property has had two separate uses, with a floral shop
that was on the first floor of the building, and an apartment on the second half of the building.
This property is set up for those two different uses. It's got two different utility meters.
The two units inside are totally separate. The property down the street, just for context,
Next, we've got the Furnace High School on South 3rd Street.
This is where our property is.
There are a number of properties in this neighborhood that have.
There are a number of properties in this neighborhood that have, they're zoned RSA 5, but have businesses that are run from them, as you can see from the map that's on my screen.
My client intends to use this property to have its real estate office run out of the first floor where the florist shop used to be.
So as a result of the application, we received refusal for business and professional office because it's prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district, as well as a refusal for having multiple principal uses in the same building.
The change in the florist, or I'm sorry, the change from having the business on the first
floor being a florist to a real estate office would represent a lesser trafficked use.
As we estimate, we would only get about one to two visitors at the location per day,
whereas obviously the floral shop received quite a bit more foot traffic to this location.
The designated RCO for the property is the Pennsport Civic Association.
we did meet with this RCO on February 7th of this year. The members of the community who
came out to that meeting voiced their support of the application, so we have a letter of
non-opposition. They agreed with us that this would have less of a use, I'm sorry, less of an
impact on their neighborhood than the previous uses of florists. So several of the neighbors
who came to the meeting uh expressed their support including the neighbor who is immediately adjacent
to this property a copy of the letter of non-opposition that we received from pensport
is submitted with my exhibit package beginning at page three so with that i would like to call
my client matt samola forward just to adopt my testimony and to make him available for any
questions that the board may have this afternoon. Mr. Samola, you can unmute yourself and please
wait for the chair. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter? Matthew Samola,
M-A-T-T-H-E-W-S-E-M-O-L-A. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth i do proceed mr small did you have a chance to hear my testimony this
afternoon yes and was everything that i represented to the board true and accurate yes and would you
like to adopt my testimony as your own yes um mr chair what questions from the board no mr chairman
No, Mr. Jim.
Questions in the virtual audience or comments?
Here, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair Bergman, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning of this property.
The property has a documented history of commercial use,
and so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variance.
Thank you, David.
it MI 2021 004988 2008 South 3rd Street I vote yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes Ishmael Shahid
my vote is yes thank you thank you so much all right thank you MI 2021 005018 2128 North Percy
street at this point no rco letter alan knockamson
mr knockamson is coming back in as a panelist now chair
good afternoon mr chairman board could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
alan a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n do you swear for him to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do mr knockam said at the same time can we do
21 20 or is that a separate oh i was going to ask uh the board if they can hear both at the same
am i am i 2021 005017 21 20 north percy street and uh mr hallman has questions for both good
afternoon counselor do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do according to our records there are some required documents not submitted such as the
RCO letter please respond yes actually I do have the RCO letter it's a letter in support the
the community unanimously approved this project it was in my presentation materials
unanimously uh approved this project it was in my presentation materials
okay thank you thank you may i share my screen yes
all right so i'm here to present 2120 and 2128 uh north percy street uh in my presentation packet
We will review the notices of refusal, the letter of support from APM, the coordinating RCO for this matter.
And as I indicated, 11 people showed up to this meeting, all in support of this project.
Nearby zoning variances of similarly situated RM1 properties.
These are both RM1 properties.
Essentially, we're here today because of the overlay, which requires per unit 425 square feet of lot size, while if we were under just general RM1, we would be allowed as a right.
We have maps of the area. It's Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5 are photographs of the property surrounding the area.
Exhibit 6 are plans and drawings. Exhibit 7 are meeting notices, showing that the notices went out for our community meeting and proof of mailing.
Exhibit 8 is our deeds of property, showing that Jacob Y. Mott, Inc. is the owner of the property.
and I have their representative, Dmitry Gorodetsky, who will adopt my testimony.
Exhibit 9 are our applications for appeal that we filed with the zoning board of adjustment
and Exhibit 10 are our certificates of tax clearance.
So first things first, again, just to highlight, both of these properties are RM1 properties.
uh we're essentially here because um we are within an overlay which requires 425 square feet
of a lot size per unit and we are 400 and we're just slightly short 2120 according to the city
796 square feet which if you know if this was straight rm1 we'd allow this right 2128 is 739
We have, you know, with both of these properties, we have an issue with the setback in terms of the deck.
Again, because of the shortness of the lot, you know, it would be very difficult to comply with the code.
And we have an open area or maximized occupied area refusal, again, because of the lot size.
And then the same thing is with 2128 North Percy Street as well.
So again, we met with the community, and they overwhelmingly supported this project.
We met with them on February 15th, and again, 10 people in support.
One person had no opinion, and because of that, they supported this project, and we got a lot of support.
Nearby variances, similarly situated.
This board granted one on May 21st of 2021 for 2144 North Darien Street, which is a nearby property.
Same thing for 2128 North Darien Street.
Again, RM1 properties, we're not trying to convert an RSA 5 property for multifamily use.
We're simply trying to use it for a duplex with the least modification that we can possibly do under the circumstances.
Showing maps of the area, again, you can see this entire area is either RM1 across the street.
It's actually I2.
And then we have the sprinkling of CMX2 as well.
Just, again, from a Google Maps perspective, where we are in the neighborhood,
We're between Diamond and West Susquehanna and 9th Street and North Delhi Streets.
Maps of the area.
Again, we are looking to put a three-story structure on 2120 North Percy Street.
And because of the size of the lot, it would be difficult for us to, you know, I think 2120 also has a refusal for the front setback.
and it would be difficult for us to have a functional three-story structure
if we were required to have that sat-back requirement.
2120 North Percy Street from the rear of the property.
2128 North Percy from the front of the property.
Again, we don't have a refusal with regards to the third story,
but we still have it in terms of having that second unit.
And then 2128 to the rear of the property on North Deli Street.
Percy Street to the right of the property.
Percy Street to the left of the property, North Deli to the right of the property,
North Deli to the left of the property. And then our plans and drawings. Again,
in most respects, we comply dimensionally with the code.
Those are our site plans. You know, we try to keep the traditional brick facade to mesh well with the other brick facades in the area. We chose not purposefully to have bay windows, again, to mesh well with what is in the neighborhood as well.
Those are our site plans. You know, we try to keep the traditional brick facade.
And then just our floor plans. The first unit, unit number one, is a bi-level, first floor, lower level. Unit number two is a bi-level, second and third floors.
And then our meeting notice that went out for both of these February 15, 2022 at 6 p.m. As you can see here, 176 addresses were notified as the 2120 North Percy Street. These are the addresses.
proof of mailing and then this is for 2128 north percy street again february 15th 6 p.m same
meeting 195 addresses were notified these are lists of the addresses proof of mailing
and our deed to the property showing that jacob y motts inc is the owner of the property for both of
them, our applications for appeal to the ZBA, along with our notice refusal and project
information form for both properties, and a certificate of tax clearance, and showing
that payment was made of an arrearage that was previously due.
So with that being said, I would ask that my client, Dimitri, virtually raise his hand and to adopt my testimony.
Dimitri, state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Mr. Gordetsky, can you please unmute yourself?
Can you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Dmitry Gordetsky, D-M-I-T-R-Y-G-O-R-O-D-E-T-S-K-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hello?
i do i do okay thank you proceed thank you um mr gordeski uh you heard everything i stated today
yes i did and is it true and correct that is correct everything and do you adopt as your own
testimony yes sir thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr jim questions or
comments from the virtual audience? I see no hands at this time, Chair. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning for 2120
and 2128 North Percy Street. These are 796 and 739 square foot lots, respectively. There is no
unique physical there is no unique physical condition of either lot that would prevent them
from being used in conformance with the zoning code nor is there a hardship that would require
the roof deck variance and rear yard variance so the city planning commission recommends that the
board deny the use in dimensional variances for 2120 and 21 uh 28 north percy street yeah and
mr chair members of the board i would just like to highlight the fact that these that these are
are more in properties. So we're trying to do the lease modification possible by only having a
duplex there. And we do have unanimous community support. MI 2021-005018-2128 North Percy and MI
2021-005017-2120 North Percy. I vote yes to both properties. Thomas Holowin. My vote is yes to both
properties ishmael shaheed my vote is yes to both properties thank you thank you mi 2021
005012 2400 east venango street revised provision proviso plans port richmond on patrol civic
group letter of support councilman school and non-opposition rachel pritzker
Ms. Pritzker is coming back in now as a panelist chair.
good afternoon hi miss pritzker just state your name you've already been sworn
Good afternoon.
Hi, Ms. Pritzker just stayed.
sure rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r mr hallman has a few questions for you
sure good afternoon counselor do you agree do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy yes according to our records you have submitted all of the
the required documents, is that correct?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board.
This is 2400 East Venango.
This is currently zoned ICMX,
industrial commercial mixed use.
It is a large 37,500 square foot parcel.
We are proposing the erection of two semi-detached structures with roof decks and pilot house
and closing for access stairs only and for use as multifamily, although they are actually
single-family townhomes just stacked next to each other on the same lot, which is what
generated the multifamily refusal.
It's going to be 30 single-family homes with 30 accessory parking spaces with accessory
garages, including two EV spots, electrical vehicle parking spaces, and 30 class 1A bike
spaces with access by Cedar Street with a drive aisle. The only variance we are requesting from
this board today is for use of residential, again, technically multifamily because it's
multiple uses on the lot, although it is directly adjacent and attached single-family
homes. This property is, again, extremely large. As you can see, 37,500 square feet. It's this
property here. It has a longstanding use of various industrial vegetable oil mixing uses,
but given the fact that it's not on a main street and it's in an area that has directly
adjacent residential single-family homes, in addition to some other commercial uses not far
from Aramingo Avenue. We're proposing residential adaptive reuse. As far as how this relates to the
city's comprehensive plan, the River Wards plan does a great job of laying out that properties
similar to this, former industrial sites, you know, should be granted some sort of financial
or zoning relief, given the fact that a lot of the industry has sort of shifted to other locations
and especially needs to be closer located to main corridors and highways and things of that nature.
As such, we're kind of in line with the River Ward's plan of doing an adaptive reuse here of
single-family homes, as you can see right further down Venango or other single-family homes. So this
is in character with, you know, directly adjacent properties. And I think that's why both ProPAC
and the councilman's office were in non-opposition. Again, just in your packet,
you'll see the excerpt from the Riverwards plan that lays out nicely. We're in compliance
from a tax perspective. The agreement of sale is this client is also the equitable owner of
the property and utilizing it as an industrial commercial mixed use site would require
some sort of light industrial commercial use that is probably going to be better suited for
directly on Aramingo Ave or a main area or main road, not on the corner of Venango and Cedar.
And again, so we're proposing adaptive reuse to a single family, 30 single family homes and 30
parking spaces. We met with ProPAC on January 5th. As the chairman mentioned, we have a letter
of support from them as you can see on the screen um and as a result we have a letter of non-opposition
from councilman mark squilla um we have our architects here as well that can go through
the plans if the board would like um otherwise um my client uh if it's okay uh chairman as a
officer of the court if i could just uh have my testimony adopted in that regard as an officer
the court will allow that why don't why don't you just let your architect speak real quick
sure okay just a quick absolutely chairman so that would be jimmy hair or scott woodruff
um so if one of them could raise their hand and go through the plans
and either mr hair or mr woodruff raise your hand please
oh i apologize you know it's not either one of them it's actually um i believe from sky
I'm getting mixed up with all these architects that we all work with.
I'm getting mixed up with all these architects that we all work with.
Okay, so let's go back.
So I'll give it to the board, but really what you're building is 30 single homes.
Yeah, I can bring the plans up.
I have them in front of me so the board can see.
Let the board take a quick look at it.
Happy to.
so here yeah here are the plans as you can see yeah there are basically 30 single family
homes directly adjacent the curb cutoff of cedar um for in an in and out drive aisle and
accessory off-street parking of these homes i'm happy to answer any questions questions
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience chair we have al toro hall mr hall you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair please
mr hall state your name and spell for the court reporter please
Yes, Altoro Hall, A-L-T-O-R-O, last name Hall, H-A-L-L.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Dear Chair Bergman, on behalf of the Philadelphia Department of Commerce, I am writing to oppose the request for an appeal at 2400 East Benango Street.
The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation joins in its opposition.
The site in question is located within an industrial area with high potential for intensified industrial or commercial use and development.
The site is currently used for commercial industrial purposes and possesses the characteristics to support the existing or future industrial commercial use at this site.
Redeveloping the site to residential will negatively impact industrial users, particularly those west of Gulf Street and east of Aramingo Ave.
Nearby industrial operations feature sounds, smells, and often vehicle deliveries and pickups,
forcing the cohabitation of industrial operations along residential housing often leads to community
complaints followed by punitive measures, such as heavy fines and fees, against longstanding
industrial businesses that impel businesses to relocate elsewhere. When industrial businesses
leave philadelphia they take their jobs with them the relocation leaves people in the community
without jobs and training to obtain new ones while market rate housing continues to expand
the proposed 30 30 residential units is inconsistent with pidc's industrial land use
and marketing strategy and the city's comprehensive plan philadelphia 2035 and a community supportive
remapping in 2014. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposed use variance be denied.
Thank you, Mr. Hall. Ms. Pritzker, do you want to respond?
Yeah, I just would like Mr. Hall to put his address on the record as I'm not sure that
he is an affected neighbor or this organization is an affected neighbor of this. Additionally,
I just want to ask Mr. Arturo if he attended either of the two community meetings that we
held for this project? So yes, I am the Director of Manufacturing Advanced Industries for the
Department of Commerce. Yes, correct. So what is your address? Work address? Yes. Yes, 1515 Art
Street, 12th floor, Philadelphia PA 19102. Okay, and the reason I'm asking you that is because
typically you have to be within 250 feet of the property or on the block to have standing in the
matter and my other question was just about were you at either of the two community meetings
because we had unanimous support from the community near neighbors and the council office
and I don't believe anybody from your organization reached out to my office the client or attended
either of those meetings to express any concerns or discuss this with us
So my responsibility within the city is for industrial preservation, working with planning and with PIDC. So no, I was not at those meetings, but whenever there is an industrial rezoning, our department is notified.
And we look at it and see if it would possibly impede industrial partners, not necessarily in that area, but in adjacent areas close to the sites.
So just so you're aware, nobody from your organization or any of the adjacent owners.
Yeah, just so you're aware, nobody from your organization or any of the adjacent owners, although were notified twice, came out to speak with any concern.
Most of the near neighbors actually were happy to see this be an adaptive reuse, given the fact that there's actually sinking machinery on this site.
The directly adjacent neighbor doesn't maintain their site in a very respectful manner of the residential uses directly adjacent.
and nobody was asking for us to preserve any of the industrial uses here.
So that's why I had asked if you were at the meeting because you would have heard, you know, all of that.
And while I appreciate the potential impact, do you have any reports or studies that show that this would, in fact, be detrimental
besides just your word for it or the letter that you provided?
Understood. Other than the PIEC's industrial mapping and the comprehensive plan,
none other than that all right thank you thank you okay i i just want to make the point i i i
i hear your points okay is there anyone else in the virtual audience has a comment
chair i see no other hands at this time planning commission good afternoon chair bergman david
facto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends this property for commercial shopping center zoning the current industrial and commercial
mixed-use zoning requires either light industrial or commercial businesses neither zoning district
allows residential use residential encroachment will have the have a possible impact of uh
sorry residential encroachment will have a possible impact to erode the viability of this area to
maintain business activity there is no hardship that necessitates residential use of this property
the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the use variants thank you thank you
and thank you council we're going to take this to the executive committee next week when we meet
and we'll vote and we'll vote in public next week but we're going to discuss it a little bit further
next week okay that's fine chairman thank you very much thank you so much i appreciate it
yep right and i appreciate that david yours too okay here we go
mi 2021 005015 2546 hope street norris square community alliance support
councilwoman sanchez letter of non-opposition al knocklinson
chair mr knocklinson is coming back in as a panelist now thank you
mr knockamson just state your name yes mr chair uh alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson
n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n mr hallman has a few questions good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do according to our records
you have submitted all of the required documents.
Is that correct?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Can I share my screen?
Yes, sure.
Thank you.
All right, so we're here to present 2546-52 North Hope Street.
This is a variance matter that's somewhat unintended.
My client purchased this property,
and we'll go through the materials as an RM1 property, understood it to allow for the use that we're requesting.
And if we were under the previous version of the zoning code when he purchased the property, we wouldn't be here today.
So with our presentation, we'll show the notices of refusal again, or the notice of refusal,
which will show that the only refusal we're here today essentially for is because of the use.
We have a letter of support from Norris Square Community Alliance. It was a well-attended meeting, overwhelmingly in support. A letter of non-opposition from District Council Member Maria Quinonez Sanchez.
um exhibit three is the office of property assessment my client purchased a property on
july 16th of 2021 on july 11th of 2021 he took a screenshot of these properties and you'll see
from there that these properties to him were noted as rm1 at the time so he understood that he was
purchasing a property where he can build exactly what he's trying to build today maps of the area
photographs of the property plans and drawings uh notice that went out to the community the
affected properties community or application for appeal or deed to the property showing that
framework philly acquisitions llc is the owner of the property and certificates of tax clearance
showing that we're in good standing i also have on the line joseph prince the managing member
of the corporate property owner all right so okay let me uh
of the corporate property owner all right so okay let me uh actually put this in full screen mode
action.
it makes it easier all right notice a refusal again we're here um only because now these
properties are deemed rsa5 we're looking to put a five unit building here we have no dimensional
variances um again well attended meeting we had 21 people who voted for this project
you have a letter of non-opposition from the district council member
and then we have screenshots of each of these properties that my client purchased he's looking
combined 25 46 48 50 and 52 north hope street into one lot but what's most importantly is right here
there is i'm going to just move this out of the way showing that these are rm1 properties
again rm1 property rm1 property up here
rm1 property so when my client purchased this property in july of 2021 he understood that he
can build exactly what he was planning to and he's proposing to it would be financially devastating
if he was not able to and he was forced to build single family homes which by the way each of these
lots are only 12 feet wide. One of the reasons why he purchased this property was he understood
that if he combined the lots, he would have a significant lot size to allow for these five
units. He actually is from the area that's where this is being built in Norris Square
area, not too far up at least. And he has the support of people who are nearby. And
here are the letters of support. You know, we specifically reached out to people who
be most directly impacted specifically the people on north hope street across the street and as you
can see we have letters we have a petition signed by 25 45 25 47 and 25 63 north hope street in
addition to others and then we have letters to support as well from nearby neighbors
in addition to people who showed up to the community meeting and support
and then there's maps of the area showing where we are on in the neighborhood we're between front
streets and howard we're not too far from public transportation there's the three and 39 buses
as well as the huntington station uh train uh line uh stop uh and we're between uh huntington
and cumberland so there's you know there's a lot of public transportation we anticipate that our
clientele or tenants would be using public transportation. And as you can see right here
is the public transportation here. Photographs of the property. Again, this has been a vacant
lot for a significant period of time. Google Earth only goes back as far as 2007. But yes,
you can see in July of 2007, these were vacant lots. And now today, they're still vacant lots.
North Hope to the right of the property. North Hope to the left of the property.
uh so my client you know again is in new construction just sampling interiors of the
work product that he does he takes great pride in his work product stainless steel appliances
beautiful kitchens granite countertops uh you see his bathrooms and this is exactly what he's
going to be putting hopefully into north hope street again what we're trying to do is a brick
facades again no dimensional variances combining four lots each of these lots are only 1200 square
feet so from just allowing it as single family would be really difficult for these 12 foot wide
lots that's why he's looking to combine these lots and then again you know there's five units here
three stories and then meeting of our community meeting we met on February 9th in 2022
22 at 5 30 p.m 161 addresses were notified here are the addresses and we have a separate notice
for each of these properties uh and then um our application for appeal for 2546 along with our
notice of refusal project information form our detailed property showing that framework philly
acquisitions llc is the owner of the property specifically showing that he purchased a property
on July 16th at 2021, which at the time was an RM1 property. So he's not looking to try to,
you know, gain a system where he's taking RSA5 property and trying to convert into multifamily
use. He actually thought it was multifamily use. And this has delayed his, this process
significantly for my client and their certificate of tax clearance. With that being said, I'm going
and their certificate of tax clearance with that being said i'm going to unshare my screen
to unshare my screen.
i would ask that mr prince virtually raise his hand so he can adopt my testimony
sir could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
mr prince please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
yes sorry about that i was muted state your name and spell for the court reporter mr prince
joseph prince j-o-s-e-p-h-p-r-i-n-c-e do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir proceed sir all right thank you um mr prince you heard everything
i stated today yes correct is it true and what i stated is it is that true and correct
Yes, it is true and correct.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I'll say no hands at this time.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Chair Bergman, members of the board, David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for residential multiple-family zoning.
During a community-led map change in 2021, the community asked for a change on this block to residential single-family.
If this block had not been changed under that remapping, the current proposal would be as of right.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variance.
Thank you, David.
mi 2021 005015 2546 hope street i vote yes thomas hollivan my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you thank you mr nackamson
MI 2021-005-031-617 North 10th Street, Attorney Jeffrey Young, 14th Ward Democratic
Executive Committee, Letter of Support with Proviso.
Mr. Young, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Chair, he's coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Young. State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Good afternoon, Jeffrey Young, J-E-F-F-E-R-Y-Y-O-U-N-G, 3900 Ford Road, Suite B, Philadelphia, PA, 19131.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Mr. Holman has several questions for you. Good afternoon, counselor. Do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? I can agree to waive the
reading. However, we can't stipulate to the accuracy as there's an issue with the address
that was pulled up through Illinois system without which I will get to during the presentation.
okay according to our records you have submitted all the required documents is that correct yes sir
please proceed thank you
again good afternoon members of the board jeffrey young here i'm sorry i have the here today to
present on 617, excuse me, 617, uh, Tim Street. Um, we have here, um, today, uh, before you
as a commercial lease for the property, um, with my clients, uh, Ms. Kalila Williams and her
daughter, uh, Celia Davis, um, with, uh, they operate a home healthcare business, um, Benel
home health care agency out of this property. Here is a copy of the refusal.
Again, we are asking for use of the property for a business and professional
office. However, the property is currently zoned RSA 5. The address of the
property that's listed on the L&I's site when this appeal was filed is 617 North 10th Street,
number 17A. However, because this building is a condo building, it gave us the first address
that's on their file. Our correct address, which I will show in a minute, is 617.
Our correct address, which I will show in a minute, is 617 North 10th Street, number C.
And that number C has its own separate OPA address, OPA number as well.
We're located in the West Poplar section of the city.
We are on the corner of North 10th Street and Mount Vernon.
Again, the property is currently zoned RSA 5, as you can see by the yellow.
And 617 North 10th Street is outlined here in blue, which all these structures are considered to be one condominium for the purposes of OPA.
Okay. This is the northeast corner of North 10th Street at Mount Vernon. And here is where our proposed office is located.
As you can see, this property, again, is not featured as an RSC-5 single-family use, which I will get to a little bit more in the presentation.
Again, here's a side view looking north on Mount Vernon Street.
Again, looking north on 10th Street and looking south toward Mount Vernon.
um here's a more up-to-date picture of our um office space
showing the front door um here does not have any type of residential uh features whatsoever um
again the building was designed as a commercial uh building by right under the cmx2 zoning
classification. Here is a picture of our zoning notice that was presented 21 days before our
hearing. Inside, as you can see, is designed as an office space. Again, this building was built,
I believe in 2017. And this floor and space was designed for a commercial office use.
I'm just showing a different view of the interior of the space.
and a little kitchenette area again designed before my client's prior use. My client is also
using the basement. These are steps leading to the basement, and this is a view of the basement
office space. As I mentioned here in 2017, there was a zoning permit for the erection of a three
story structure with two dwelling units and a vacant commercial space. This vacant commercial
space is the space that we are occupying today and as you can see from the separate the address
here is 617 north 10th street unit c with a separate opa account here is a historical zoning
permit stating that the structure was designed as a two-unit building with a vacant commercial
space on the first floor. This is our letter from the RCO, the 14th Ward RCO. We met with them
on two separate occasions and received support from the RCO.
These are copies of our notifications sent out to the community.
These are proof of mailing to the community. And here's our tax clearance from the City
Department of Revenue. Regarding the hardship, again, this building was designed as a multifamily
building. In order for us to use this space as a residential single family, which is currently
zoned, we'll take extensive reconstruction. And as you can see, the property has two separate
units, residential units above. So the building itself is not configured for a single family
residential use. With that, I'll ask my client, Ms. Khalilah Reed-Williams, to get on the call.
Ms. Williams, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Kalila Reed Williams, K-H-A-L-E-E-L-A-H, Reed R-E-E-D-Williams, W-I-L-I-A-M-S.
w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s right do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth?
the truth yes proceed counselor thank you uh miss reed williams have you uh heard my testimony
yes and is do you believe my testimony to be true and accurate
yes and do you adopt my testimony as if it were your own yes thank you thank you questions from
the board? No, Mr. Chairman. Questions from the virtual audience? Chair, we have a Salima Davis
with her hand up. Ms. Davis, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair. I think that
was a mistake. I'm sorry. Okay. Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Chair Bergman,
members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends this
property for residential multifamily use. Given that the space for the proposed business and
professional office appears to have been built to accommodate an office use, the City Planning
Commission recommends that the board grant the use variance. Thank you, David. MI 2021-005031-1617
north 10th condo c i vote yes thomas halliman my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
thank you thank you mi 2021 004970 625 vernon road no rco letter is it at this point dawn tangrady
Chair, Ms. Tancredi is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
It's Dawn Tancredi.
T-A-N-C-R-E-D-I.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holloman has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon.
I agree to waive the reading.
However, the refusal is not accurate.
We are here seeking approval for one dwelling unit.
21 units are already approved and have been since 1955.
According to our records, there are some required documents not submitted, such as the RCO letter.
Can you respond to that? Sure. We did meet with the community group.
They sent a letter maybe after we submitted our packet. I did receive the letter
and um there is a mixed it's a mixed um vote there were people in support and people opposed
to this project um i can forward a copy to you why don't you forward a copy to uh our executive
director and also to sharon okay all right okay please proceed okay sure so today i'm here on
behalf of 625 vernon llc the owner of the property at 625 east vernon road joel wartner is here on
behalf of the llc they acquired the property back in may of 2021 also on this call is agata reister
the architect that prepared the floor plans i would ask that the submission packet be incorporated
it into the record. May I share my screen? Yes.
Whoops.
Okay, so included in the packet are the refusal, the tax clearance, existing basement floor
plans, photos. We have the witness list, the RCO notice letter, a copy of the deed, and
a copy of the deed, and certificates of mailing.
certificates of mailing.
So we're here today seeking approval for one dwelling unit.
There's an existing multifamily building dating as far back as 1955.
The property is zoned for 21 units, when in fact there are 22 units in the building.
And we had spoken to the Department of Licenses and Inspections about this property, about the history of the property, and they believe that one of the units was a caretaker's unit, which explains why there were 22 units in the building.
We're here seeking to legalize that unit so it may be used properly for a rental unit.
And in addition to the unit use, our application does create a refusal for one parking space.
Accessory parking, however, has never been included on this property.
So we're really here seeking to maintain the status quo.
No new tenants will be added to the building and there will be no new construction to the building.
there's already existing gas and electric meters and mailboxes and we have photos
showing here are the mailboxes and all of the meters
so as for the two use of for the as for the two refusals the first refusal is for multi-family
And as I mentioned, this building already has multifamily in it.
There's other multifamily dwellings in the area.
There's two properties nearby that have multifamily.
One is at 615 Vernon Road and another at 740 Vernon Road.
There's no new construction to the site.
And it would actually be a hardship to require the owner to now remove the unit
and everything that's in that unit, the bathroom, the kitchen, and to make use of it in another way.
As for the accessory parking, there has never been accessory parking at this property.
There is street parking on both sides of the street.
There's public transportation nearby.
There are two bus stops across the street, and there is a train station a block away.
So we did meet with the community.
There were no concerns raised at all about adding the additionals unit.
Concerns were related to ongoing maintenance issues that had been going on for years at this property.
um my client only recently purchased the property in may and since that time he is
going out of his way to make sure that the litter is cleaned up he's caring for the property even
by filing this application he's being diligent about this property um he did not receive a
violation he just he wanted to do the right thing and obtain the approval for the additional unit
it. He's addressed other issues, for example, the fence behind the property was damaged
due to a tree falling on the fence. My client had that repaired. He's also provided his
contact information to neighbors so that they can reach him in the event that there are
any issues they can reach him pretty quickly to address those issues so any concerns about
maintenance of the property are being addressed by this relatively new owner and the community
group didn't raise any issues about the additional unit itself is your client here yes can you raise
your hand, please. Ms. Tancredi, what is your client's name? Joel Ortner, O-R-T-N-E-R.
Mr. Ortner, if you're in the virtual audience, can you raise your hand, please?
Thank you. Mr. Ortner, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
You state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Joel Ortner.
J-O-E-L-O-R-T-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Proceed.
Proceed.
Mr. Ortner, did you hear my factual statements today?
Are they true and accurate?
Do you adopt them as your own?
Thank you.
And would you like to add anything about your maintenance of the property?
I think you did say everything what I wanted.
Not really.
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman so counselor so what basically happened
was years ago there was 21 units that were rentable units and that's what it was zoned for
and then there was one unit that the caretaker stayed in we think that's what we believe from
speaking with the department of licenses and inspections the zoning archives which are
included in our packet do show zoning approval for 21 units. Thank you very much. Questions from
the virtual audience? Chair, we have a Nina Curlett. Ms. Curlett, you can unmute yourself
or wait for the chair, please. Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter,
please um yes my name is nina curlett n-i-n-a c-u-r-l-e-t-t right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do yes proceed um good afternoon
um as i said my name is nina curlett i'm the co-chair of the east mount area neighbor zoning
committee, RCO. I did just confirm with our executive director that a letter was sent. She
forwarded it a second time to me. I'm not sure exactly why the board did not receive, but clearly
the applicant did. I just wanted to state that I can confirm that I had been in email contact with
the applicant right after the meeting and they did they did do due diligence to address um some
concerns about the maintenance of the property as far as a car that had been abandoned on the street
and they were able to have that removed um i'm hoping that going forward the rco did take a
position of um um we we we didn't support nor oppose the application i feel as if as long as
um they do address the property maintenance issues the neighbors um will be happy going
forward with this agreement i can't speak for them for certain but that was my sense through
um our email exchange that's all thank you thank you very much for calling we appreciate it
and on that note i was under the impression that the city received the community's letter
otherwise i would have forwarded it right thank you very much thank you um anybody else in the
virtual audience there are no hands at this time planning commission good afternoon chair bergman
members of the board david effecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends this
property for residential multi-family zoning given that this is a legalization of an existing unit in
a 22 unit building the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the use variants
for multiple family dwellings and the variants for not including one required parking space
MI 2021, 004970, 625 Vernon Road, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Counselor. Thank you.
We're going to take a five-minute break. We have one more case from the two o'clock list,
and then we're going to go right into the 3.30 list, but let's take a five-minute break right now, okay?
MI 2021
004993
8410 Prospect Avenue
RCO Chestnut Hill
Community Association
letter of support
Melanie Lacey
rep against the applicant
is there another attorney involved
Josh Harvitz
who represents neighbors who oppose
we'll start with
you. Chair, Ms. Lacey and Mr. Horvitz have been promoted to panelists. Thank you.
Ms. Lacey, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Chair, she should be coming back in now.
Chair, she should be coming back in now. I had some problems.
I had some problems promoting her.
That's fine.
Right.
Mr. Chairman, David Feynman from my office is also here.
Carl Primavera is the attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Primavera should be coming back in as a panelist.
I see him.
Mr. Primavera, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Carl Primavera, C-A-R-L-P-R-I-M-A-V-E-R-A.
And along with my colleague, Melanie Lacey, we represent the owners of 8410 Prospect Avenue,
with your doctor and Mrs. Joseph Pisano. Mr. Rivera, do you, do you swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. You want me to swear on your
partner too? Please feel free to. She's operating the technology because it's dangerous for me to
try. Okay. Ms. Lacey, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon. Melanie Lacey, M-E-L-A-N-I-E, last name L-A-C-E-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I don't expect to testify, but if so, yes.
Okay. Mr. Horvitz, do you want me to swear you?
Sure, Your Honor, and my partner, S. David Kleinman.
We can go to the same time.
All right. Why don't you spell your name for the court reporter first for me, please?
Sure. Joshua Horvitz, J-O-S-H-U-A-H-O-R-V as in Victor, I-T-Z of Feynman, Krexian, and Harris on behalf of the Protestants.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I got you. I got you, Mr. Feynman.
Yeah, I probably will be doing the majority of the work here.
No, that's fine.
Very. I just want to make sure.
Just spell your name for the court reporter for me.
S. David, F-I-N-E-M-A-N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Primavera, start.
Okay, thank you. First of all, we do agree to waive the formal reading of the refusal, and we will stipulate to its accuracy.
This is a single-dimensional variance request with regard to minimum lot size, I'm sorry, minimum lot width in an RSD-1 residential district.
I'm going to outline through my presentation the nature of the case, and then I'm going to present the architect and my client to adopt the testimony and one other member of the community.
We have the exhibits in our package. You'll see the list of both standard exhibits as well as those particular to the presentation.
The most important document is the presentation, which you'll see with Larry McEwen, our architect.
We also do have a letter of support from the Chestnut Hill Community Association, which you'll hear more about later.
Basically, we will go through a series of slides to show you the existing conditions, the proposed new conditions, and how we believe this dimensional variance, which we believe is diminuous, will not only make the project better and overcome some practical hurdles and challenges due to the size of the lot and the impact of the existing home on the property,
as well as to demonstrate there's absolutely no adverse impact to the community.
In fact, any other configuration, we believe, would have an impact that would not be beneficial.
It would disturb some beautiful trees, some view sheds, and some stormwater-related issues.
And you'll hear from Joyce Lenhart, hopefully, who's a member of the Community Association review process,
as well as an architect familiar with the property.
This property was originally a much larger estate going back really far in time.
And you'll see in what's been put up, it's a 58,000 square foot lot.
The minimum lot size in this district, which may be the largest lot size requirement under the code, is 10,000 square feet.
And here we're at 58,000 and the proposed subdivision will result in two lots, each of which will be double the lot size requirement and bigger than any other lot on the block.
So we're dealing with an immense piece of ground. It has a single family, large stone home that was.
piece of ground. It has a single family, large stone home that was part of the original estate
that covered most of this area. And as you'll hear, my clients have been living in the house.
It's much too big for them in their mature part of life. So they want to subdivide and relocate
lot lines to create two lots, one for the stone home that exists and one for a new architecturally
designed home which will be to the rear utilizing a flag configuration now interestingly in the old
days the flag configuration only required two-thirds minimum lot width at the street so
there's a 75 foot lot width if you had two-thirds of that at the street then you could go back to
the building envelope, that was changed. So even though you'll see through Larry's presentation,
the flags are commonplace in this immediate area, as well as other parts of Chestnut Hill,
under today's situation, we do not have the 75-foot frontage at the street, Prospect Avenue.
We are three feet off because of the nature of the way the property works, and you'll see that
in more detail ultimately the flag as you see it there has 50 feet because we want to allocate
more land to the existing stone home but there'll be nothing between the property line and the
existing stone home it's just the allocation of land so it's not like any density issue
or anything like that you wouldn't think something like this would create as much
interest, but it did. So the materials are voluminous because you'll see the sensitivity
and level of detail that Dr. Bozzano and his architect went into, both for the neighbors
and for the community process. They went through the development review committee of the Chestnut
Hill Community Association, the land use and planning committee, back to the development
review committee, and then on to the entire Chestnut Hill Association board. So this thing
has been vetted very carefully over a long period of time. And you'll even see in the proviso form
that Larry will talk about, there were some modifications to the plan, none of which require
additional refusals, but they were all done to improve upon what we believe is a very, very
strong and sensitive plan. If you just look at the lot size, which is density in quite frankly,
context, if you have 58,000 square feet and a blank slate, assuming you would take down the
stone home, which you would never do, obviously, 10 into 58,000, that shows you the kind of yield.
And that would still be on lots of 10,000 square feet or more. So that's why we believe that this
is the minimus. Any other treatment of this, we think becomes, you get less from more, meaning
less sensitivity, less tree protection, and the like. And Larry's going to go through that.
You'll see in the zoning summary in the materials, we looked at the code requirements.
Open area is limited to 65% under the code, and we're going to have 88% under lot one and 92%
under lot two. The height, we're going to stay conforming with the height, two and a half
stories for the existing home, two and a half stories for the pro's new home. We have conforming
parking. So this is really within the spirit and letter of the code, although we do need what we
call dimensional variance, as you'll hear later on in some argument at the end, that the burden
for dimensional variance is really a practicality test. And the level of hardship really is a matter
of reasonable adjustment rather than a use variance, which requires significant hardship
to the property. And then if you believe, as we do, it's the minimus. That's a special type
of dimensional variance. And we have a code section or a citation from a court case that
we provided that says if it's deemed de minimis, you don't even need hardship because it means
it's contextual with the community and it's a very slight deviation. So with that and with the
exhibits in the record, I would ask that you promote, I guess, Larry McHugh and the architect
and I guess Melanie will work the exhibits as he goes through his presentation.
I'll attempt to switch it over to him, actually.
I'm going to stop sharing.
Mr. McKeown, if you're in the virtual audience, can you please raise your hand?
Chair, I see no one by the name of Mr. McKeown with their hand up.
Could it be a different name?
There's someone by the name of Joseph Pisano.
would you like for me to unmute him chair
uh mr primavera you want to have your client on now or you want to try to find the architect here
uh well let's just uh yeah i think i better put larry on first um maybe it's a technical difficulty
try the architect again mr mckeown if you're in the virtual audience can you please raise your hand
Chair, there's no one by that name with their hand up.
Mr. Mavera, would you want to bring your client on and let him testify?
Yes, and I'll have Melanie call, Larry, in case he's disposed elsewhere.
I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where we're going with this, but I suspect that we're going to go well into another 20 minutes or half an hour.
I understand what your list problems are, and I just wanted to be frank with the chairman about it.
Okay, thank you.
We're going to try to move this along.
Mr. Pisano, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Doctor?
I can't believe it.
I can't even.
You know what?
We have Larry on, so I'm sorry for the confusion.
Let's just go right to Larry.
Where's Larry at?
Larry, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Lawrence McEwen.
L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E.
McEwen, M-C-E-W-E-N.
Yes, please.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Primavera, could you have him give us a nice short overview of where we're doing with this?
Yes. So, Larry, let's just focus in on, in particular, the nature of the refusal and why we are not able to comply with the lot with requirement and the efforts that you have gone through to really try to manage the situation in a code compliant way to the extent possible.
I think that's going to be the key. Before you do that, if you want to just briefly go through your credentials, your CV is in the record, and your familiarity with the property in Chestnut Hill, and then go right into what we would call the focus on the refusal and the dimensional relief we seek.
You still want me to go through a very quick overview of the slides here, just in five minutes?
So let's combine it together.
So as you go through it, let's just really focus on, you know, why we are struggling to meet the full lot with requirement and what your proposal seeks to do to accommodate a dimensional variance to alleviate that hardship.
All right. So I'm a practicing architect. I've been licensed in the state of Pennsylvania since 1981, had my own practice for 25 years after working with several other firms.
I've lived in Chestnut Hill since 1990, since 1993.
I've been on the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee since 2006.
I've co-chaired the Development Review Committee.
I'm a member of the Board of Directors of Chestnut Hill Community Association.
I am the 2011 awardee of the Chestnut Hill Award for Volunteer Community Service.
So I've worked in the community.
My office is in Chestnut Hill.
I want to make it clear that for this issue, I am clearly an applicant.
I'm on the other side of the table, but I'm very familiar with the process.
And over the 29 years I've been on Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee, we've reviewed many, many properties.
This property is 58,000 square feet.
The next largest property on that block is 27,600 square feet.
Our attempt is to divide the properties approximately equally using the two-thirds rule strategy that was used to create the property right next door at 8420 Prospect Avenue, one of the protestants of the project.
Now, our property is 183 feet wide by 300.
Our property is 183 feet wide by 365 feet deep. And although we're proposing 50 feet because we believe, as Carl said, that's the best balance, if we were to go to the 75-foot width, there would be only a 24-foot by 3-foot section of the property where we would not have a 15-foot side yard for the existing house.
In other words, there's only one projecting element of that existing house that projects into their side yard if we were fully compliant with our 75-foot-wide frontage.
So that's a 0.12% part of the site for which we are asking this relief.
So we couldn't mind.
Can I mention something here a minute?
Why don't he show that the slides as he's talking? I don't want him to talk about it, then go back and do the slides. Do it all one time.
Absolutely. Can I share my screen?
Shall I join as a panelist then?
Chair, he's been promoted to panelist so he can share his screen now.
That's fine. Thank you.
Okay. Can everyone see this?
We can.
OK, so here is the project bound by the East train line on the back, Prospect Avenue on the front, properties between it and Gravers Lane on the left.
So subdivision, as Carl's mentioned, a garage for the existing house and a garage for the house for the new house.
Here's the existing house. Here's the here's the assessment of property sizes on the block.
You can see that the next largest one is across the street.
Here is an as-of-right scheme that we could do.
This is 75 feet wide on the street.
That would be one way of approaching this.
Here is how that would be.
That would be, we could carry that back even as far as this one element back here.
It obviously places a new building on the street.
this is a three-story sort of outline of what could be built as a bright as a three-story piece
it does affect the trees in the front it affects the views to the historic house here
as an alternate for that our preferred scheme is to do this flag lot which is what Carl showed you
which actually is 50 feet wide this would actually result in no changes at the street
because instead of a new driveway, we actually would reuse the driveway and extend it of the
existing house. This then would be the current and future view of the property. As all the
neighbors would see from the street, there would be no visual change in the property.
Here's the site plan as it was presented to for the zoning review. This has actually been marked
with the number of trees that will be removed. There are 100 trees on this property. Three of
the trees here would be removed for the driveway in either scheme because we would extend a driveway
back to a garage if we did the house in front. Only one tree is removed for this new house in
the back, the central structure here. One tree will be relocated from the garage to be moved
towards the neighbors. This was the original plan. This is the stormwater management, which shows
how we're managing stormwater to protect the neighbors and maintain existing runoff.
The results of the review with the zoning with the L&I are that the stormwater PWD approved the stormwater plan.
Everything about the house, the new house is in both garages is in total compliance dimensionally.
All the easements were approved.
We just have this one refusal.
So here's the slide I want to talk to you about.
This is in green, this is what we propose to do because we feel it's the best balance of property between the two houses.
However, if we wanted to be compliant, this is the 75, the red line here is the 75 foot required frontage width.
And that only, when most people bought their house, the two thirds rule was in effect that only in 2017 was changed.
This is through a conversation I had with the planning commission.
But if we did this, there's only this one little place here on the whole site where we would be three feet shy of having a 15 foot side yard setback for the existing house.
So, again, on a 58,000 square foot property, we have 72 square feet of this property right here where we have that dimensional problem and we need the relief.
We could ask you just for three feet of relief and make a 72 foot wide.
we could ask you just for three feet of relief and make a 72 foot wide flag. We believe again
that the 50 feet is the right thing because it's in the spirit of the code that has existed for a
long time. Larry, let me just point two things out. One is, if you tore down the pink area,
you would then have the setback that would work correct yes but we could do that but that happens
to be one of the nicest features in the house and nobody is nobody is you know so we yeah we went
through that and that's why that's why land use planning and zoning committee supported it because
they realized that was a that was a you know that that's all we're talking about on this and that
would be a hardship and then second of all wait a second it seems to me it seems to me mr chairman
that the witness should testify rather than the lawyer and that's why you have the witness
testifying and i think this is just improper so mr prevera let let i think the witness is testifying
let let him finish okay okay good so just to show you a little context uh along the railroad tracks
This is a standard thing that happens. Here's the way 8420 right next door was spun off from 8430.
In the next block, we have two flag lots on Crittenden. Again, deep properties against the railroad tracks.
Here are another couple of examples here right off of Bethlehem Pike.
There are also on Summit Street a couple of driveways that have easements.
They're not created as flag lots, but there are eased driveways that lead to properties in the rear that don't have street access.
So this kind of flag lot treatment is a strategy that allows property to be developed in reasonable
size lots.
And again, here are the two lots we would have.
Again, these would still be the two largest lots on the block.
So it's not like we're trying to squeeze something through here.
Here's a view from the street of the driveway.
Here's the shared driveway next door.
That's 8420 there, 8430 to the right.
Here's a standing seam roof at the entrance to this house.
This is what we would use for the garage.
That would be where this yellow line, this yellow tape on the ground is.
Larry, why doesn't the existing house have a garage?
Oh, well, the existing house doesn't have a garage because in about 1975, the previous owner of this house subdivided into three additional lots,
one of which has the 8420, the one next door, which was then spun off as a flag lot, that is
that house, the basis of that house is the carriage house from 8410. So this house has
not had a garage for the last 50 years, 45 years. So one of the garages we are providing is to make
up for the fact that the garage was spun off. Correct. When we go on. So here's so that this
garage will pick up on the way the house looks visually. So it's tied into that house. And that's
that's that. So here again, here's the way we started out. And then after we met with neighbors
and took a look and we take the entire house out on the property, we realized that if we would move
this garage closer to the existing house and make this driveway come tight against here we can move
this garage away from the neighbor's property we could actually end up with really 30 to 40 feet
of space in here in which all these are existing trees here these are all new trees this is
existing some new trees that would be replanted here so that is the way the that's the we move
this away so our garage is actually farther away from the property line than the adjacent existing
two-story house. Here's just it gives you a sense of the space between the existing house over here
on the right and our house. Again this is some of the just the extent of landscape screening that
we've gone into here. This is what you'd this is the view of the existing house. This magnolia would
be relocated and moved over so basically there would be quite a bit of screening there. The
entire width of the house here is 20 feet wide, and they're 50 to 65 feet away from that. This
slide shows you from the railroad tracks, again, how far away we are from the existing houses. This
is the reverse view of what you just saw. That's 65 feet from the main portion of that house.
Over here, we're 133 feet from the house at 319 East Gravers, and almost a football field width
away, 145 feet away from the main body of that house. Now are they both protestants? They are
both protestants. Here's the view. This is the corner of our living room right here at this
tape on the ground. These are the trees that you look through. These are some of the trees.
These are the trees that you look through. These are some of the trees. We're going to put a new tree here as well. Here's a bit of that. And then we try to do a rendering to show what the house looks like from the adjacent property. But basically, there is no house there because of the trees. That's the view from the neighboring property.
We're going to put a new tree here.
there are other trees on the property we didn't include in the rendering, but those are where
the trees are. So just in summary, this was supported by the CHCA board by a nine to six
margin, supported by the committees. It fits into the pattern of development along the railroad
tracks cited to minimize visibility from the surrounding properties. It is not a property
that can be seen from any public way.
All views of the historic house and existing landscape
are then preserved by this strategy.
Stormwater has managed to protect neighbors.
And as Carl mentioned,
a lot of these properties have 85% or so open space,
but our new lot will be 92.5% open.
All right, so Larry, in conclusion,
uh you've worked hard or have you worked hard to try to find a plan that would be
as conforming as possible without having any adverse impact on any adjoining property
i just object to what he's doing is leading his witness
so i think i've already i think mr feinman i've already stated that we have
work with the house, you can see from the sight lines that the house is actually that this existing
element on the neighboring house here is as high as this end of our house. So basically,
they're looking over. This house is really not obstructing a lot of their view. And there's all
this tree screen between here. We've asked repeatedly to meet with both neighbors to discuss
landscape kind of treatment um they have not agreed to meet with us on those on those terms
they've they've wanted to offer to buy the property but that doesn't get us that's that's
not that's not what we're after this is our proposal which we believe is in the pattern
of development in chestnut hill on this block and in a reasonable development that doesn't
impact the neighbors so i i think i think he spelled it out pretty well mr thank you yes i
have nothing further than you can i just ask a couple questions if you would if i can absolutely
um may first of all just so the board is perfectly clear your proposal is to build a new house on
this ground plus two garages and i think that just calls for a yes or no answer
excuse me our proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots
lot one has the existing house Mr. Feynman we will have a garage on the existing house
on lot two we have so can I just interrupt you for one second
could you answer his question give it again two garages and one house is that correct
on the two lots yes okay so you're going to build two garages in one house as of now no
garages exist there and there is no house that exists now let me just ask you this
you might not like what could be done but as a matter of right as a matter of right
And this calls for a yes or no answer. You could you could build on this. You could subdivide and build on a lot. Is that correct? You wouldn't have to come before this board.
that's correct that's correct okay now as I understand what's going to happen and since
you've been involved with these people for a long time Mr. Pisano and his what Dr. Pisano and his
wife live in the house that you've shown the stone house maybe you can put that back up so
that the board can see that. They live in this beautiful stone house. Is that correct?
Yes. And what Mr. Pisano's plan is, is that as he's gotten older, he's come to the conclusion
that he doesn't need all of this house to live in isn't that correct yes and what
he wants to do is have you build what you've shown and i'm going to refer to it as a little bit
what you've shown, and I'm going to refer to it as a little bit different, not stone,
different
different.
but somewhat modern home, and the two garages, and he wants to move into the new home. Is that
correct? Yes. And what he wants to do further, just so I'm clear, is that he wants to sell
the big stone what i'm going to refer to as this lovely stone home he wants to sell that
put it on the market and sell it isn't that correct
uh after he's built the new house yes after he builds a new house moves into the new house
he's going to sell the older home the home that he's been living in isn't that correct yes
unless he decides to keep it and rent it i i you know i would have to i think mr bizano would have
to confirm that okay now i'm not sure that the board has all the letters and we're going to try
to give them all you will agree with me that you appear before the conservancy group at the of the
Chesson Hill of Chesson Hill. Isn't that correct? Yes. And you'll agree that they voted 4-0
against building this project. Isn't that correct? Well, they voted, there was one abstention. Yes.
Something zero and one, whatever it was. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, if you do not have that letter,
I believe we can supply it to you from that group.
We did receive that letter today, just to finish what Mr. Feynman was saying.
But it was dated February 8th, so I have a feeling it made it to the board already.
Yeah, I think Sharon has it as well.
Right.
Thank you.
I will say we did not present the as of right scheme to that committee.
We presented just the scheme that we proposed to do.
So they did not see the the impact on the on the historic house that the as of right scheme would have in terms of blocking views of the existing house.
OK. And what you talked about was that one of the people who I represent who live on gravers, that is some the new house will be some distance away.
I can't remember how many feet. It was like over 100 that you testified to.
The near point is 133 feet. From the main body of the house, it's 145 feet.
And how about the other people who I represent, Mrs. Jacobson and her husband, Dr. Golden, who live at 8420, the new house will be, was it 10 feet away or do I have that wrong?
New house is 52 feet away from the nearest non-compliant side extension they made onto their house, and 65 feet from the main body of the house to the near point of our house, which is 20 feet wide.
Right, 50 feet away and 65 feet, right? Is that correct?
I have that right, okay.
Yes, not 10, it's 65.
65, what was the 50 feet?
52 feet from that conservatory structure, which is four feet into the side yard setback requirement of the property.
And by the way, you don't know that you're not familiar with any, because I'm not familiar with any either of any violations that have been issued by the Department of Licenses and Inspection in regard to that particular area. Are you familiar with any?
there are none in the record but if you want to get into it i can tell you that what was
permitted is a building that would be 17 feet from the property line and what was built is a
building that's 11 feet the next year from the 11 feet from the property line and there are not any
documents in the file that indicate that some uh this six foot change on a 15 foot by 15 foot
uh construction which was written on the the zoning plan as being a nine by 15 foot
by the by the the executive director of the planning commission who's personally stamped
the plan so if you want to get into it david i'm not getting into anything but you you asked me you
asked me if i'm aware of any violations wait a minute wait a minute let's get back let's get
focused on what we're trying to do here we're really what one refusal is right yes correct
Yes, correct. So let's go back to talk about the refusal, present cases one way or the other about the refusal, and let's go from there.
So let's go back to talk about the refusal.
I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Feynman.
Mr. Primavera, who's next?
Yes, Joyce Landhart.
if you can allow her to be promoted or participate.
I didn't think she was going to be promoted then.
Right.
Ms. Lenhart, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ms. Lenhart, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Joyce Lenhart, J-O-Y-C-E-L-E-N-H-A-R-D-T. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Proceed.
Ms. Lenhart, you are an architect, correct? Yes, I am. All right. And what's your role
in the Chestnut Hill zoning review process? I'm the current vice president of the physical
Division. And I'm also a member of the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee. I've been on that
committee for over 20 years. And I just go ahead. And you've had the opportunity to see this project
in detail as it was presented. And obviously, you know, the area because this is your neighborhood
or community? Yes, I've lived in Chestnut Hill since 1985. And there's a letter, I believe,
that went from the Community Association in support of this plan. And can you tell me
the basis for that support and the support basis for the Land Use Committee?
I'm sorry, you want to know the basis for the support? I was at the meeting and so were you.
You know, this is her view of why they of why she voted in favor of it, not the six people who voted against it.
This is her view. I think it's an improper question to ask her why they voted for it.
She'd have to tell us why all nine or eight, because I'm not sure, voted in favor of it and why six of them voted against it.
So, Mr. Premier, I think we all read the letter. If you could ask her what she thinks, just her, that's fine. And I think that's where we need to be.
All right. So, were you involved with the recommendation of the Land Use Planning Committee to the association?
Yes, I voted in favor of the...
All right. And why did you do that? Why did you think that the zoning relief was appropriate?
So my position is that this is a subdividable property and that the buy-write option is much more intrusive to the community than the variance option.
I believe that the variance option is sensitively designed. It works well with the landscape, with the shared driveway.
There's less impervious surface needs to be created.
It's a modest house.
It's invisible to the wider community.
The buy-write option would crowd the historic house.
It would be much more intrusive.
And the property owner has the right to subdivide his property.
And I think there's a better way to do it.
All right.
Thank you.
I have no further questions of Ms. Landlord. I only have one question. You were at the meeting,
as I remember, you were at the meeting virtually. Isn't that correct? Correct. And you'll agree with
me, I think, that the vote as recorded at the time of the meeting was eight in favor, six against,
one abstention. Later, am I correct about that? And I'll talk about what happened later.
Is that correct? That was what was recorded at the meeting. Is that correct?
I know that the final result was nine to six.
Finally, they recounted and the vote was nine in favor and six against. Is that correct?
Nine to six was the result.
nine to six was the was the result okay i have nothing further all right thank you and
yeah lastly i'd like to have dr bizano uh promoted so that uh we can at least have him uh sworn and
uh adopt the uh testimony that he's heard you never got out you know you're still in sixth
grade you're going to promote promote that's right dr bizano could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter? Dr. Pizzano? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Dr. Pizzano, could you state
your name and spell for the court reporter? Yes. Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Pizzano, P-I-Z-Z-A-N-O.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
So, Dr. Pizzano, did you hear my presentation as well as the testimony from your architect, Larry McEwen?
Yes, I did.
And is it consistent with what you know to be the facts concerning the proposed development and the plans for your property?
Yes, it is.
all right uh and do you adopt it as your own yes i do all right i have nothing further
of dr pisano can i just um ask dr pisano one i only kept really one question you heard me
ask your architect whether or not after the new house is built you plan on moving into that new
house isn't that correct that is correct and after you move into the new house i believe
of your architects said that you plan on selling the beautiful home that you live in now. Is that
correct? That is correct. I have nothing for you. Mr. Turnover, are you finished? Yes, yes I am. We
have our exhibits in the record and in terms of the direct testimony, we've concluded. Mr. Feynman?
Yes. I'm going to try to summarize the testimony so we spend not a long period of time on this case, and I think it'll be helpful to the board.
We represent a whole host of neighbors, and I think that, Josh, you could put up, we could share the screen at this point and show you what we've submitted previously.
and while he's doing that let me indicate that I know that in the audience right now
is Susan Jacobson, Dr. Michael Golden, Monica and Steve Heymans and I believe Richard Snowden
as well as Carol Otis. There might be others that I haven't identified. So what you'll see here
is basically showing that almost every neighbor that adjoins this property is against the proposal.
almost every neighbor the closest two neighbors which the architect made reference to
is susan jacobson and dr michael golden who i believe live at 84 20 and then the uh the other
people across who are a hundred feet away and they oppose it as well so it's pretty clear that
everybody has the appropriate standing and if they were to testify they would talk about
and and dr and richard snowden would talk at length about this is what chestnut hill has
always been, which is a community in which you are now going to lose, quite frankly,
the historical nature of the community. And that, quite frankly, only is because
Dr. Pisano loves his land, and what he wants to do is sell the property in front and then
move in to the property below. I'm happy when the case is finished.
to the property below.
I'm happy when the case is finished.
We've submitted to you.
We knew that Mr. Primavera would talk about the minimus
portion of this property.
And we knew that and we have submitted a brief on that point.
And when the case is finished and he sums up,
I'm happy to talk to you about the law
because I think that somebody's trying to pull the wool in front of your eyes
and quite and what they would also testify to
is that there's no need to be here
if Dr. Pisano wants to build a new home and sell off his old home he can do it
he could do it as the matter of right and what we're doing is we're taking all your time
what do you have to come before the board to do you have to prove a hardship
there's no hardship his only hardship is that he likes that piece of land and wants to move
into a new house you know you know what i'm going to object i think i was fairly lenient
but let's not have closing argument up front
um the they would testify quite frankly that the historical nature of chestnut hill
is being impacted by this new property and that they don't see
any community benefit to having this new property presented so i'd ask that they be sworn
and they would adopt my testimony.
I'll call them out.
Why don't we do that?
Why don't we have them all once?
I'll swear them all in
and then you can adopt a testimony.
We can do that.
Instead of everybody, testify.
Thank you.
Susan Jacobson, Dr. Michael Golden,
Monica and Steve, are you there?
And I believe Richard Snowden
is in the audience as well.
yes we are here yes this is jacobson and michael richard snowden is here could could we
let's start here uh and i don't know let me just be clear are there any other neighbors
who were in the who were in the uh neighbor who were in the audience steve hammond and monica
hammers um okay if there's anything in addition that you'd like to add to what i've said
please feel free to do it at this point if i'm gonna wait a minute david i'm gonna try to find
a way to swear them all in okay at least get their names at least get their names for the
court reporter so i apologize i dr golden and his wife first yes michael golden m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-o-l-d-e-n
and susan jacobson s-u-s-a-n-j-a-c-o-b-s-o-n right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes uh richard snowden yes uh richard snowden r-i-c-h-a-r-d
s-n-o-w-d-e-n right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth. Yes, sir. And then the Hyman, Hyman. It's Stephen Hyman, S-T-E-P-H-E-N-H-E-I-M-A-N-N.
And Monica Hemmers, M-O-N-I-K-A-H-E-M-M-E-R-S. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. So I think that's it, Mr. Hyman.
so Feynman
is there any
do you adopt my testimony
that I've given as your
testimony today
thank you very much
Mr. Feynman
you want to continue
I have no further witnesses
do you want to summarize your
Why don't you call Mr. Prevere, you ready to end?
David, I think that we did have the councilwoman's representative might be on.
Sorry, is the councilwoman present, councilwoman Bass, or his representative?
Mr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
I'm here, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Mr. Richardson.
you've been sworn several times today to state your name for the court reporter charles richardson
from the office of councilwoman cindy bass from 312 city hall right proceed councilwoman is uh
Councilwoman is opposed to granting the variance. This is one of those situations where the RCO
opposed to granting the variance uh
has voted against the desires of the near neighbors. And traditionally, the near neighbors
are the ones that hold sway in any of these types of situations. It's not very often that an RCO
those against the uh the near neighbors in any any situation but in this case it had it has
occurred and she is uh strongly backing the the position of the near neighbors thank you mr
richardson um and i would ask one one last thing did does mr chairman do you have the letter from
the conservancy i i believe sharon has it in the file we have the large file together and if not
we'll make sure we get a hold of it. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that. Mr. Primavera,
do you want to summarize? Yes. So clearly, in a city where we have a typical lot size of less
than 1000 square feet, and now we have a minimum lot size in this very desirable area of 10,000
square feet. We have Dr. Bazzana with 58,000 square feet. The petitions, as you'll see from
Mr. Feynman's submission, signed by Protestants, say that they are opposed, quote, to squeezing
new high-end housing into space intended to remain natural and undeveloped. Now, remember,
the original estate, and I believe Mr. Snowden, who you just heard from, his family was one of
the original owners of this very large estate. It was subdivided. So we even have Miss Jacobson
and her husband living in our former carriage house and others because they were able to
subdivide. And here they are saying, as are the Protestants, that, well, Dr. Pizzano bought a
58,000 square foot lot. He should not be able to subdivide it. So what they're really trying to say
is, you know, a pox on your house. Because if we tear down three feet of a portion of the stone
house, which they all say is a dramatic part of the fabric of the community, then we could free
up the land. Or if we were to go in, not intentionally, but to try to be heavy-handed
with regard to cutting down trees and stormwater and putting the house up closer, I think ultimately
people will say they've cut off their nose to spite your face. So we go to the law, and I
submitted two cases, which you'll see in the file. But basically, the one case talks about
dimensional variance, how it's different than the use variance. And it says, quote, unquote,
reasonable adjustments when the use is otherwise compliant. So it's a single family home
on a lot that's multiple times the 10,000 minimum. So reasonable adjustment. I think we've presented
reasonable adjustment. Second of all, there's the minimus dimensional, which the court and it's
called Lynch, which is in the file. It says that there's no set criteria for determining the
minimus dimensional relief. It's up to the context of each case. All right. And it says
that where you're otherwise satisfying the spirit of the code and you're creating something which
doesn't adversely impact the community. And here the community association is on record saying
the so-called as a right plan is going to negatively impact everybody. So everybody has
their own sensitivity. I think most people would love to live on a 10,000 square foot lot,
a 20,000 square foot lot. I think that there's a sense here with both the conservancy
and the near neighbors that they want to freeze everything in time. And I get that. I'm sure that
when the subdivision happened and the Jacobson Golden House was created in our carriage house,
people were probably very unhappy they said why are you taking the carriage house and putting a
new family in there um but that's the way it works and a petition that says we're squeezing homes
and taking away the natural condition to me it sounds a little bit over dramatized i think that
this is a lovely plan it's going to be fine there's no adverse impact and i think the hardship
is there as evidenced by the testimony. So thank you for your time and we would rest.
Mr. Feynman, the case that Mr. Primavera gave you talked about four inches, four inches.
talked about four inches, four inches, four inches being what would be de minimis.
Let me read to you what the court says normally.
The de minimis doctrine is a narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof generally placed on a party seeking variance.
The minimum applies only when a minor deviation from the zoning ordinance is sought, and rigid compliance is not necessary to protect the ordinance's public policy concern. Not always the people, but the ordinances.
We've previously held that a five-foot variance from an eight-foot side yard requirement in a Philadelphia, this is from the Commonwealth Court, R-10 residential district was not the minimus.
ultimately in a case that we've cited in our brief the court determined that a 33 percent
deviation for a year for a year a rear yard in requirement and a 60 percent deviation for open
air requirements was not at the minimus numerically the court in Leonard another case
held at a deviation of 6.25% from the required lot size on a percentage basis, as specified by
the ordinance, was not de minimis. Likewise, a 13% deviation from the required wide was not deemed
to be de minimis. The case that he gives you from the Supreme Court dealing with dimensions,
What happened in that case was there was a large property in Pittsburgh that needed to be demolished in order to make it appropriate.
And the court goes on to say, in that case, the owner of a vacant lot in a multiple family residential residential zone saw use in dimensional variances because the owner was precluded.
from developing apartments on the lot similar to some cases that I saw you heard today
due to financial difficulties and was further precluded from selling the property.
He was precluded from even selling the property because of environmental testing showed that the
site was contaminated with petroleum and other carbon. As a result, the potential health risks
and prohibitive remediation costs, the owners sought approval from the Pittsburgh Zoning Board
to use the property as a parking lot. Neither one of these doctrines apply here.
Quite frankly, it's hardship. They have to show you that they have a hardship.
And the only hardship here seems to be that Dr. Pisano,
for all of his reasons, wants not to sell his home and move somewhere else. He wants to sell
his home and build a second home and move into that second home. That isn't what this board
was designated to do. This board was designated to look at cases and determine whether
there was a hardship. We've submitted briefs. I've told you about these cases. And quite frankly,
if he wants to build another home there with maybe one garage, remember, he's not building
just a home. He's building two garages on this property. If he wants to build another house,
we wish him the best he can do it he's told you as a matter of right
that's what his architect testified to let him go do it
thank you Mr. Feynman questions from the board uh yes Mr. Chairman could we that's Mr. Holliman
oh yeah could we uh hold the vote until we okay i want to make sure there's you don't have some
questions you want answered now and i'll get to that in a minute oh no none at this time
ishmael any questions no mr chair not at this time we had a group of people that we took from
the virtual audience is there anyone else in the virtual audience that wants to testify or say
something. Chair, we have Ms. Shoshana Bricklin. Ms. Bricklin, you can unmute yourself and wait for
the chair. Hello, I'm unmuted. Ms. Bricklin, stay-
hello i'm unmuted hi miss brickland uh state your name and spell for the court reporter
shoshana brickland s-h-o-s-h-a-n-a brickland b-r-i-c-k-l-i-n right i'm a near neighbor on
the other side wait wait wait wait one minute wait one minute do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed so i'm a near neighbor
on the other side of uh not on prospect but i'm within the i got a notice to that i am a near
neighbor i'm an 84 23 anderson my husband and i both signed the the petition in opposition to
this project so we just wanted to put that on the record that we also oppose this project thank you
so is there anyone in the virtual audience that has anything different they want to present
chair i see no hands at this time planning commission good afternoon chair bergman david
facto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential detached zoning for this property the applicant is already
deriving value from their land the proposed subdivision into two lots is not strictly
necessary to enable the applicant to continue doing so. So the city planning commission
recommends the board deny them dimensional variance for lock width. Thank you. So what
we're going to do, we're going to take everything that we heard and every petition that was sent
to us, go over to the executive committee next week, and we'll vote next week, probably next
Wednesday morning. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your thanks, everybody for their time.
okay how we're gonna go into the afternoon meeting yes mr kelly okay
i am sure thank you everybody else is okay right here we go my name is bill bergman
chairman you just want to confirm there's no other two o'clock out there
i'll double check but i'm almost sure anyone waiting for the two o'clock
cases there are no hands at this time i i track that pretty well is my name is bill bergman i
will be chairing this afternoon's 330 zba hearing with me is ismail shaheed our board secretary
here mr chairman thomas holliman our board member present mr chairman our executive director
Tanya Sunkett's here, and our attorney, Sherman Compton.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting our board administrator,
our executive board administrator, Tanya Sunkett at phil.gov.
Two, for the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. Three, if you're
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six
to unmute. To enter an appearance date, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and your address
of the property in question. And lastly, please note the question answer box is not for testimony
or comments. Any comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpton. Now let's
look at continuances for this afternoon's cases. I'd write with you.
Number two, MI 2021-004460-1508 West Deidre Avenue.
number three mi 2021 004540 2038 north phillip street
and number five mi 2021 004541 251 rifka street anyone have any comments in the virtual audience
about these continuances?
Chair, we have no hands at this time.
No hands?
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have a hand for Keith Olkowski.
Keith Olkowski.
Mr. Olkowski, you can unmute yourself and wait for the Chair.
Mr. Olkowski, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm Mr. Olkowski.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Keith Olkowski, O-L-K-O-W-S-K-I.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right.
Do you have a continuance?
mr okowski do you want to continue your case i would like to request 30-day continuance
on this matter well here's what we'll do we're going to continue your case i would like to
continue yes all right i'm going to continue your case and then our executive director will be in
touch with you or you'll hear when your case will be continued we'll do the best we can to
get it back on but she'll be in touch okay
thank you that's the case number one mi 2021 004536 1212 south second street
anyone else with a continuance
chair we have a joseph estrada mr estrada you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair
hi Mr. Estrada could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter yes Joseph Estrada
j-o-s-e-p-h-e-s-t-r-a-d-a you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth I do do you have a request for a continuance yes what case
uh my rco guy wasn't able to um give me my letter what tell me what what's the location of the case
oh i'm sorry 3516 north a street okay so so you're you're but you're not the owner right
correct well who who are you sir i'm the tenant and applicant okay are the owners here no
okay so he's the applicant slash tenant so okay okay so so you need a continuance yes okay your
case will be continued it's going to be marked must be tried thank you okay any other continuances
there are no hands at this time chair okay
MI 2021 004528 2333 East Allegheny Avenue no RCO letter as of yet from Harrogate Civic Association
Sean Ward.
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Ward, state your name is spelled for the court reporter, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
sean ward on behalf of the applicant joseph kelly esquire my name is spelled s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d
my address is three three one east street road trevos d-a-1-9-0-5-3 right do you swear for him to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i uh yes i do mr hallman has a few questions
for you good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy yes i do according to our records there are some required documents
not submitted such as the roc letter please respond it is my understanding that the rco
did submit the letter i have a copy of it with me today i will share on my screen in addition
i have a letter from councilman squilla of non-opposition on this matter pursuant to the
meeting with the RCO. Thank you. Please proceed. Do me a favor. Sean, make sure both letters
go to Sharon or also Tanya. Yeah, as a matter of fact, Sharon sent me a copy of Councilman
Squilla's letter and I forwarded the hurry copy of the RCO letter when I got a copy of it. Thank
you. Okay, can everybody see my screen?
Yes. Excellent. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my typical exhibit packet at least five days in
advance of this hearing. I represent Joseph Kelly Esquire. He purchased the property at 2333 East
Allegheny Avenue, and he seeks confirmation of the use of the property as a business and
professional office on the first floor with a one existing apartment on the second.
with a one existing apartment on a second.
So A1 is the notice of refusal.
A2 is the ZBA application.
A3 is the project information form.
A4 is proof of ownership.
A5 is proof of tax clearance.
A6 is a parcel map.
A7 are photographs.
A8 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing.
A9, I would mark as the RCO's letter of support
from Harrogate Civic Association.
A-10 would be Councilman Squill's letter of non-opposition. A-11 is the relevant zoning
history. Back in 1986 a variance was in fact granted for this property for use as a law office
and one apartment. I think possibly the attorney that owned the property may have retired
and therefore the property wasn't used and therefore was deemed discontinued. A-12 is the
zoning map and A13 or as the aerial photograph. So again, there's one refusal for the property.
The business and office use is not permitted in the RSA5. So that's a copy of the refusal.
We filed our notice of appeal. We have the project information form, my transmittal letter
to Tanya Sunkit for the filing of the appeal copy of the deed as you can see attorney Ronald
Cheson sold the property of Joe Kelly and his wife back in June of 2021
not to belabor proof of tax clearance through 2021 March is not due yet here is a parcel map
from the city's atlas website showing the property on Allegheny Avenue between Aramingo Avenue and
memphis street here is a photograph of the property as you can see it has historically
been used since at least 1986 as a law office and so that is a photograph here's an aerial photo
aramingo avenue would be to the right memphis street to the left this property is third door
in from the left from the memphis street side just a view of aramingo avenue facing east
I mean Allegheny Avenue sorry and then Allegheny Avenue facing west a copy of our notice the
address lists that's good of mailing went out to 115 homes in the area on February 1
and then again the board did grant a variance back in 1986 for use as a law office
here's the zoning map it is on rsa5 there's some cmx uses on the corners and some cmx across the
street across memphis street is a larger cmx3 parcel another copy of the parcel map and a direct
overhead aerial view again allegheny avenue running on the angle memphis street to the top
to the bottom. Here is the letter from Harrogate Civic Association, dated March 3rd.
As you can see, 23 members were present at that meeting, voted in support, zero members
in opposition or non-opposition. So they do ask that as long as the applicant complies
with installing security cameras, solar and green energy options, additional lighting,
sidewalk trees and continues cleaning exterior property they support the application i don't
believe any of those are uh enforceable uh conditions of approval but i defer to the board
and the solicitor and then we have councilman school's letter dated march 8th indicating
non-opposition to this application unfortunately mr kelly's in court today and unable to testify
however as an officer of the court i would submit that had he been here he would verify
the truth and veracity of my representations and adopt them as his own testimony and that's all
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission uh ron bednar city planning first
name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. While this property is currently indicated for
residential use on the city plan given the physical conditions of the site and its documented
use history, we have no objection to the granting of this. MI 2021-004528-2333 East
Allegheny Avenue I vote yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
thank you Mr. Ward thank you very much have a great afternoon sure am I
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Thank you very much.
Have a great afternoon.
MI 2021-004840-627 South 10th Street, RCO, Bella Vista Neighbors Association, Letter of Opposition.
Mr. Canuso.
Chair, Mr. Canuso is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Canuso. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
You're clicking the wrong thing.
Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Vito Canuso, V-I-T-O, Canuso, C-A-N-U-S-O,
uh attorney for uh the owners and with me is uh anthony criniti who uh i would ask to be sworn
in at the appropriate time and uh i will waive uh the reading and the uh i agree to the accuracy of
the uh of the board's actions all right mr canuso do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed your honor uh i am uh representing uh
the co-owners of the property uh i have submitted an authorization from mr ionisi
who authorizes mr criniti and myself to represent him uh and we would like to proceed
Tonya, he answered the questions already Tonya. Okay. Right. Mr. Canusa.
Go ahead. Yes, if I may. We are requesting approval for six residential units,
which have existed since 2010 when the current owners obtained and acquired the property.
Could you start sharing your screen with us?
Mr. Canuso, could you share your screen?
I am doing that.
I'm trying to get my sharing properly set up here.
What are you trying to show me?
Yeah, I understand, but what I need to do is get that
because it's set up the screen.
unfortunately mr chairman i'm having problems getting the uh exhibits uh properly placed on
the screen okay i can tanya do we have anybody could give him a little advice wait i know i
know what i have to do i think i just did it yeah you did it just make it a little bigger
A little, a little larger. Thank you.
Okay. I think it may be too, too large, Mr. Chairman.
Oh, that's fine. That's fine. Okay. Uh, as I said, attached is my, um,
showing, uh, the, uh, original application, uh,
that was filed for the appeal in this matter, uh,
And the basis for the appeal, as I indicated, the owners of the property who have purchased the property back in 2010 have used the property for six residential units.
and part of the the documents that have been presented are first of all two of the
licenses that were issued for the six units the first one being back in October
of 2010 by the Department of L&I the second one is a
by the Department of L&I. The second one is a license that was issued in March of 2018 for
the six units. My client did not retain copies of the other permits that were issued for the use
of the property for the six units. The actual code requires the maximum of three units.
My clients have continually operated this property as a multiple family unit, which is very common in this particular area.
We don't believe there has been any negative impact over the past more than 10 years as a result of this property being utilized for the six units that have continually been presented and existing at this site.
Um, I'm, uh, going down showing, uh, the refusal, which also addresses a, um, roof deck, uh, which
was basically the reason why the, uh, application was filed with the department of LNI originally.
We are abandoning the roof deck. Uh, the, the, the roof deck still exists. It's my client's
intention to remove it. We're not asking the board to grant an appeal on that issue. But as a result
of filing the request for approval of that roof deck, that is how my client first learned that he
was not in compliance with the zoning requirements for this particular property. And as a result
of that, we are now here before you seeking approval of the existing six units that have
continually been functioning at this property. We're only legalizing the current use. There's
no change or impact on the neighborhood as a result of what we're asking for today.
No effect on the supply of light or air to the community. No ill effects to the environment.
because this has existed continually during the past 12 years that my clients have owned and
operated this property as a six-unit apartment building. L&I has regularly approved and licensed
this building for six units. There's been no violations issued. There's been very little
questions as to the way that my clients have conducted and or operated this building over
the past 12 years. There's no violations or complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Triniti,
who has been a hands-on managing member ownership of the property, is here to testify or be
question as to any issues that have existed or he has been made aware of. None of the neighbors have
ever questioned Mr. Crenitti about how he operated the building or how his tenants have existed at
that building. And Mr. Crenitti would also testify that most of the tenants have lived there during
the entire period during which he has owned the property. And he can testify that he has not had
any evictions. So his tenants have been longstanding, responsible, good tenants who
have not had any negative impact to the community over the time period that he and his partner have
owned this building. As we said, we're not appealing the roof deck. We're not asking
the court to consider that. And unfortunately, that was how we were made aware of the fact that
the proper zoning did not exist for the existing and licensed six units. Unfortunately, at the
meeting before the Bella Vista Neighborhoods Association, the roof deck became an issue.
And we are representing to the board that we were going to, well, we've abandoned the use,
And we intend to remove that roof deck and we do not seek the board's approval or even consideration of that use of the roof deck for purposes.
for purposes. Now, I believe there are also documents showing the diagram of the six units
Now, I believe there are also...
in the building. If I can just get to that exhibit, Mr. Chairman.
There is the deed for the property, Mr. Chairman, as required.
Also, we have the two tax clearances for both the owners.
But maybe I should start off with these are the pictures of the property in question and the neighboring properties.
As you can see, there's two entrances from the front of the building.
The history of the building was at one time there was a business occupying the first level that had been abandoned many years ago and has always been residential.
This is the diagrams of the four stories, including the roof deck and the basement.
As I said, the roof deck is being abandoned.
But as you can see, there are six individual units.
Some of the units are two bedroom. Most of the units are one bedroom units, each having a bath, kitchen, and four of the units having washer dryer units completely used.
And as I'm pointing to a courtyard here, which is an area which provides for ingress and egress from the rear of the building into the courtyard and an alleyway, which goes into a general alleyway for use as an exit, an alternative exit, in addition to the two street front exits.
And the other documents I intend to show are, there's one tax clearance for one of the owners, and there's another tax clearance that has been submitted for Mr. Trinity. And that's my witness list for this property.
uh i've um i believe that i think mr canusa what you could do is you why don't you have your
testimony adopted by mr kennedy yes anything you said you've already said so why don't you
adopt a testimony yes i i would at this time ask mr kennedy to uh uh indicate or have him sworn in
and then indicate whether he would adopt the testimony state your name and spell for the
court reporter? My name is Anthony Cronetti, A-N-T-H-O-N-Y, last name C-R-I-N-I-T-I. Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed,
Mr. Canuso. Mr. Cronetti, have you heard what I have stated to the board this afternoon in favor
of your appeal from the refusal by the L&I for the use of this property as six residential units?
yes would you adopt that testimony as yours yes i would thank you so questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr and mr canusa what we're what we're what's in front of us right now is
a building that has six units at least for the last 12 years and now you're trying to legalize
it right correct nothing nothing to do with this roof correct we're we're abandoning that use and
we intend to remove the roof. Thank you. Questions from or statements from the virtual audience.
I see no hands at this time, Chair. Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
given the physical conditions of the site and its documented use history. We have no objection to
Thank you. MI 2021 004840 627 South 10th Street. I vote yes.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman?
Thomas?
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
That's it, Mr. Canuso.
Thank you.
You have your votes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Your Honor.
We'll be excused.
Okay, is there anyone in the virtual audience from the 3.30 listing that hasn't had their case heard?
I see no answer this time, Chair.
Thanks, everybody. Good day.
Good night.
Thank you.
Good night, Mr. Chair.
Good night.
Thank you.
What is happening here?
It's strong, having a state.
Oh, it's not.