Mm -hmm.
Well, I think Yvette will let us know in here.
Chair, we have 42 attendees and you can still
start when you're ready good morning everyone my name is frank
to chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment
i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our board secretary mr confessor plaza present and board member
mr thomas holloman present board member mr james snell
Jim, you're muted.
I'm sorry about that, Frank.
How you doing?
Okay, you're present.
That's all.
Thank you.
Present.
Sorry.
Also, our board administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton, and Ms. Sharon Saletta, our board attorney,
are in attendance, as is the zoning board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public by contacting our board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett at tanya .sunkett at phila .gov.
third for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting
star nine and then star six to unmute yourself i'll repeat for anyone participating by phone
if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute
yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. I will repeat that. To enter an
appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of
the property at issue and i would like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the
chat any comments concerns or issues please address them to our board administrator ms yvette benton
having said that i will read off the cases on the add -on list for this morning
MI 2020 -001120
348 Green Lane
My vote is no
Confessor Plaza, my vote is no
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no
James Snell, my vote is no
Number two on our add -on list
MI 2021 -000336
4401 Ridge Avenue. My vote is yes. Confessor Plaza, yes. Thomas Howland. My vote is no.
James Snell. My vote is yes. Number three on our add -on list. MI 2021 -003061 -1130 North
41st Street. My vote is yes. Confessor Plaza, yes. Thomas Holloman, yes. James Snell, yes.
MI 2021 -003 -127. 2413 -15 Tulip Street. My vote is no. Confessor Plaza, no. Thomas Holloman,
No, James Snell. No, you will now go to our regular list and I will read
Thank you. We'll now go to our regular list and I will read.
Excuse me, Chair. This is Sharon.
Chair, this is Sharon. Could you please revote Ridge Avenue?
That is with revised plans. I'm sorry. I believe Mr. Whalen is in attendance.
Could you remind us how many pages that was, Mr. Whalen?
He's allowed to speak now.
The Whalen, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Sean Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N.
We're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Mr. Letta has a question.
You have revised plans?
Yes, we have revised plans and I'm confirming right now if it's one page or two.
i believe it's two pages sorry for the uh no problem we'll have to re -vote that right now
yeah okay mi 2021 -000336 4401 ridge avenue my vote is yes with proviso
revised plan two pages approved today confessor plaza yes with proviso
uh thomas holliman i certify that i read the and viewed the september 08 video and my vote is no
james now my vote is yes or proviso thank you okay anything else on that list sharing
no that's a chair okay thank you that's all i have for today thank you now we'll go to our
regular list. The following cases have requested continuances or withdrawals. Case number five,
MI 2021 -002290. 2755 Maxwell Street is continued. Number seven on our list, MI 2021 -002312.
3963 North 8th Street is withdrawn. Case number 11 on our list, MI 2021 -002420.
929 Ray Street is continued. If anyone objects to the cases that I read off to be continued
or withdrawn, please raise your hand at this time. Only if you object to the continuances
and the withdrawal that I just read into the record.
Raise your hand.
Chair, if I may say something,
the withdrawal that you announced
was submitted by the expediter for the owner in an email.
I just wanted to confirm with Ms. Sunkett
that that's adequate
or will you need them to submit something from the owner?
That would be perfectly fine, Ms. Saleta.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No hands are up.
We have a Mickey's Galaxy.
You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Mickey Galaxy, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
You need to unmute yourself.
There you go.
Nope, you're muted again.
Unmute yourself, please.
hello yes the property at 2755 maxwell street i'm sorry hold on sir hold on uh you need to
spell your full name for the record um george mcdevitt g -e -o -r -g -e -m -c -d -e -v -i -t -t
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The property at 2755 Maxwell Street.
When you say there's a continuance, that means that it's still not determined anything yet?
Correct. We're not hearing that case today at the request of the applicant's attorney.
This case will be continued to another date.
We don't know that date yet. It'll have to be posted.
It'll have to be posted. Okay.
But they are using that.
Any other questions that you have, you can submit to the RCO -ZBA box.
Thank you, Chair.
You can move on.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
At this time, is there anyone who would like to request a continuance or withdrawal?
Please raise your hand.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Again.
Again, hold on, Chair.
We have Jennifer Bezidlo to just put our hand up.
Ms. Bezidlo, please spell your full name.
I'll swear you, Lynn.
Jennifer Bezidlo, B as in boy, A as in apple, Z as in zebra, Y, D as in David, L as in Larry, O as in Oscar, 4500,
We're Street, Suite D202, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19124.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay, please proceed.
I'm the attorney for 2755 Maxwell Street.
We just have been unable to reach the RCO and read a date, so I just wanted to assure that man that we will be posting and everything's fine.
That's it.
Thank you.
Would anyone else like to request a continuance or withdrawal for the 930 list?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself
and wait for the chair. Good morning, Mr. Richardson. Please identify yourself and I'll
swear you in. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman
Cindy Bass from 312 City Hall. We're confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing
about the truth? I do. I am wondering about MI 2021 -002114, which is 2117 Westmoreland Street.
I am in receipt, which I believe you might also be, of a letter from the RCO, Upper North
Neighbors Association, UNNA. They held a virtual meeting on the 14th, but there was no vote
because there was an agreement with the applicant. This is what they're saying, that
they didn't have enough information to make a state make any vote. So they were
going to request a continuance. And I don't know whether the individuals are here to request
the continuance or not but uh unna has indicated they will host another community meeting if the
continuance is granted so i'm just wondering where this is because we don't have a vote on this
just hang in there uh sharon uh miss saletta do we have any exhibits or online notation say no
exhibits uh chair um that would be the current status this is tanya miss saletta um lost power
so she's unavailable at the moment okay all right uh so we don't have any exhibits so that that case
when we get to it mr richardson will most likely will be continuing it okay thank you mr chair
we'll ask at that time if there's anyone who wants to represent the applicant
okay so it's number four on our list we shouldn't be that long before we get there
um anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal 9 30 list
chair i see no hands at this time thank you case number one mi 2021 that's zero zero two
three one seven one four two two east palmer street this case is a per se case rachel callahan
and quinn callahan there's a letter of support from the fishtown neighbors association
are any of the callahans available if so please raise your hand
chair miss callahan is coming back in as a panelist now
callahan please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
hello good morning good morning however which one will be testifying please spell your full
name and i'll swear you in quinn callahan q -u -i -n -n -c -a -l -l -a -h -a -n you swear a firm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you sir please proceed with
your presentation yes have you guys emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
Proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, folders and plans five days prior to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you. Please proceed.
oh sorry how did i do this i think i
there we go uh so
There we go. So good morning. We are Quinn and Rachel Callahan. We are homeowners in Fishtown.
We have this lovely twin row home that we purchased in 2013. I've lived in Fishtown for
over eight years and look forward to staying in the neighborhood, but growing family and looking
to do an addition on the back uh this is our nice front yard and front porch this is the back area
of our home um that we'd like to do uh some addition to and this is the side yard i guess
because we are um a detached home this side yard is three and a half feet and the current zoning
calls for a five foot side yard so we're hoping to continue back at the existing three and a half feet
and here are some renderings of what we'd like to do and touch up the stucco add to the back so we
can help our growing family this is the drawings we have here the red dotted line is the current
um end of our structure and the um blue dotted line oh no that's that's just a thing but we'd
like to maintain the existing um three and a half feet and there's a drawings call for a six
foot eight inch uh setback instead of the nine foot setback due to our large front yard
uh is what we're hoping for there this is our land survey and this is our refusal um
i'm happy to answer any further questions um
did you show the tax uh clearance yes we sent that uh yesterday um there was some
trouble with the website but i did send that to um carol yesterday i could pull it up if you need
to yeah if you can put uh the i the tax clearance website was still down but um
one of the excuse me this is sharon can i confirm we did receive that chair and the carol that he
was referring to as carol fee not carol ternary okay all right thank you sorry all right i think
we uh i think that clears it up mr kelly thank you yeah there was uh some trouble with those
websites but i i think i got to them yesterday no worries uh questions from the board no mr chairman
no no who else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. David Fecto, F -E -C -T -E -A -U with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Sir, please proceed.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location.
The proposal for a smaller rear yard and less open space than required by the code is minor and will not result in any impact to surrounding properties.
The building's existing front setback helps to mitigate the smaller rear yard.
We recommend that the board approve the requested dimensional variances.
Thank you very much. MI 2021 -0023171422 East Palmer Street. My vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Holloman, yes.
James Snell, yes.
Good luck to you.
Case number two on our list, MI 2021 -002425, 1701 Seibert Street.
Alan Knockinson is the attorney of record.
My records indicate that we have not yet received an RCO letter, but Mr. Knockinson, maybe he can clear that up for us.
chair mr knockamson is coming back in as a panelist now mr knockamson please identify
yourself to the record spell your name oh yes uh good morning mr chair members of the board
alan knockamson of knockamson pc a -l -a -n last name knockamson n -o -c -h -u -m -s -o -n
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia
PA, 19109. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Plaza has
some questions for you.
Yes, good morning. You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning. You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to
attack?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we actually have a letter of support. The reason why the board hasn't received it, we literally just received it within a half an hour ago.
please proceed oh yes may i share my screen yes all right uh so the first things first i just
want to share the letter of support i apologize uh for the fuzziness of it um it was literally
texted to me uh this morning um but i'll just read it so the board has the benefit of it um
later you know after the hearing i will send it over uh to miss saletta as well so you you have
a copy of it for your records. But it's a letter of support. It says the participating RCO for this
matter has expressed their support for this application with the understanding that the
variants will include a proviso integrating trash storage to the rear of the property.
So that's the verbiage of the letter of support. I will go to my presentation materials now.
Now, this project is at 1701 Seibert Street. We're proposing to have a two -unit condominium building at the corner of Seibert and 17th in the Kabat section of Philadelphia.
With our presentation materials, you'll see the notice of refusal, variances that have been granted on the 1700 block of Seibert Street. Again, it's not uncommon for this part of Philadelphia to have duplexes approved, not just by this community, but the zoning board of adjustment, maps of the area, photographs of the property, plans and drawings, or deed to the property, and our application for appeal.
So first things first, this is the notice of refusal that we received from L &I.
We have three refusals for this two -unit condominium building, the first of which is to use this as an RSA -5 property.
We are seeking to put a two -unit condominium building.
Second refusal is the rear yard depth.
Nine feet is required.
We're proposing six feet, not out of character.
again, you'll see that all the variances that were granted on the 1700 block of Cyber Street
also had similar refusals. And then the third refusal is the open area. 20 % is required while
12 .7 is proposed. Again, similar to the variances granted by the zoning board.
uh so 1700 block of cyber streets over the course of a few years this this board has granted
uh refusals excuse me variances for 1705 7 9 11 19 21 28 and 42 unlike these other properties we
are actually a corner property so from a planning perspective it's not out of character to have
multi -units on a corner property again we are proposing and agreeing with the community to
have our trash stored in the rear where every single occupant of that this two -story or excuse
me two -unit condominium building will have access to it for trash storage and removal
so a map of the area again we're in the corner of Seibert and 17th street between Master and
Thompson Street in the Kapai area of Philadelphia and then here's just a more extensive map from
Google photographs of the property again we're just a baking lot corner property you know just
seeing the property from the from the side of the property from 17th Street as you can see there
are it's much new construction in this area this is developing part of Philadelphia where there are
many, many multifamily structures.
To the right of the property on Seibert,
to the left of the property on Seibert,
to the right of the property on North 17,
to the left of the property on North 17.
Our plans and drawings.
Again, we're just a three -story structure.
These are brick facades, bay windows,
uh you know basic floor plan as you would see with any uh two -unit condominium uh especially
corner property you walk up a flight of steps you get into a vestibule you walk in you have
an open floor plan of a dining room and the kitchen with one bedroom in the rear and the
bathroom uh in the lower level you have a family room with a powder room you go up a flight
In the lower level, you have a family room with a powder room. You go up a flight of steps. This is a bi -level unit. Unit number two, open floor plan, kitchen, living room, powder room. Then the third floor are two bedrooms and two baths with a roof deck.
again oops sorry just make this a little smaller to be able to maneuver a little better
but again brick facade uh to kind of match the historic nature of this part of town
from a modern with a modern twist here is our deed
uh with you know showing that pcp holdings is the owner of the property
So with that being said, I would ask that my client virtually raise his hand to adopt my testimony.
Your client's name?
Steve Cholesky.
Mr. Cholesky, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Cholesky. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, good morning. Full name is Steve Chlowski.
s -t -e -v -e s -h -k -l -o -v -s -k -y. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Mockinson. Steve, you heard everything I stated
today. I did. And is it true and correct? It is. And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I do. All right. My understanding is that Mary Jones may be on the line too because she
facilitated i'm gonna ask now i'm gonna ask now okay thank you um any questions from the board
no no mr chairman thank you uh anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
ms jones you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good morning ms jones please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
Good morning. Mary Jones from Council President Daryl Clark's office, City Hall, room 494.
You were affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Please proceed.
Yes, just to confirm, I did facilitate this meeting along with the participating RCOs, and they were supportive of the project, and we don't have any opposition.
The office does not. We just ask for a proviso about the trash being stored in the rear.
Anyone else to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
Chair, we have someone with the phone number looks like ending in 684.
Whoever has the phone number ending in 684, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
This is Louise Bundy on Friends 47.
Bundy, please spell your last name.
B -U -N -D -Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
i um has spoken to them and i think that they really have gone through enough of what they
have we feel as though that they deserve um to get this place because they're trying to make a
better place for the neighborhood and they're trying hard to do the correct thing okay i spoke
to them a couple times and came went by it and looked and i think that it would help us to let
them have it. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? I'm the war leader.
I'm the war leader for the war. I got you. Okay, thank you. This is Reverend Nash, CEO of Matt
Polis Community Development, and I concur with Mary from Councilman Clark's office and
Mr. Bundy from the 47th Ward.
Robert, can you please spell your name?
Lewis, L -E -W -I -S, Nash, N -A -S -H, Senior SR.
I should have sworn you in, but I'll just say,
do you swear and affirm that the testimony you gave is accurate and true?
Yes, I do, Chair, everybody, and good morning.
Thank you, Reverend.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
There are no other hands at the sign, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential single -family zoning for this property.
This is a 771 -square -foot lot.
There is no unique condition of the lot that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the requirements of the zoning.
there is no unique condition of the lot that would prevent it from being used in conformance
with the requirements of the zoning code we are aware of at least 10 new single -family homes on
this block all built within the last three years we recommend that the board deny the requested
use and dimensional variances okay thank you mi 2021 -002425 1701 cybert street my vote is yes
with proviso trash to be stored in rear of property. Professor Plaza yes with proviso.
Thomas Holliman yes with proviso. James Snell yes with proviso. Thank you. Case number three MI 2021 -002313
1801 South Ringgold Street. Zen Jin is the attorney of record. Point Breeze Community
development corporation sent a letter of support chair mr jinn is coming back in as a panelist now
you mr jinn please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
good morning
chairman you're muted thank you sorry about that good morning please identify yourself and i'll
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia P .A. 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Klazer has some questions for you.
Morning, Mr. J. You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing yes and have you met with the rco and have a letter yes we did and we do have a letter
thank you thank you please proceed thank you uh good morning this is an application for a new
construction at the location of 1801 south ringo street i am going to share with the board the
information that we have submitted relating to this case, which includes the refusal,
letter from the RCO, photos, plans, and related documentation. I want to point out that this
refusal is based on the fact that this property is located at CMX2 district. It is a corner property
and in CMX2, you're required to have a commercial use on the ground floor.
However, this property is located in a corner of a smaller street, which from the abutting properties are for the most part single family in nature.
And there is really no very active commercial uses on this corner.
So we had proposed to eliminate the commercial unit and apply as a duplex.
However, after meeting with the community, the community feedback is that they would rather see a single family house at the corner because that is what is surrounding the property.
My client has agreed to do that, and we obtained support.
So I would ask that if the board approved this matter to put a proviso that it would be a single family dwelling.
We have revised our plans to show a single family house.
However, the primary changes would be the porch and the single family, which does not trigger new or changed refusals.
It would simply change the overall use from a duplex to a single family if approved.
Again, we are still asking for the variance of not having a commercial on the first floor.
At this point, the design is completely a single -family house with the master bedroom on the upper floor, living room, kitchen, and two bedrooms on the second floor.
No bedrooms in the basement.
However, there is a family room and utility and storage.
I'm happy to answer any questions from the board or redirect to any part of the exhibits.
So I'm clear.
This is the variances.
is? The variance is for not having a commercial ground court. And we originally applied for
duplex, but we would be asking only for single family use. Single family. So limited to single
family use. Okay. Thank you. Do you have a client to adopt? Yes. I believe Maria
Freidel should be here if she can raise her hand.
And or Gil may be here. I'm not sure. Miss Freidel, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Marina, I'm sorry, Marina. Good morning, ma 'am. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Marina Foydel.
Marina Freidel.
you spell it
Can you spell it? Your name?
F -O -Y -D -E -L -M -A -R -I -N -A.
Mr. Foydel or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Ms. Foydel, did you hear my testimony and see the presentation I made to the zoning board?
Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as you own?
yes correct thank you thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no
would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair we have someone with the lap with the name eroy brown
mr brown you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
the brown please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
Yes. Full name is Eroy, E -R -O -Y, last name Brown, B -R -O -W -N.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. I sat in on this meeting before, and I live on the 1800 block of Taylor Street.
The property in question is directly in back to me.
Well, not directly on Angle.
I moved on Taylor Street in 1978, and it's always been commercial property there.
In the meeting that we had with Mr. Jin and his client, it was stated that what stuck with me was that they was going to use it as a rental property.
So now you're changing not only the dynamics of the neighborhood, which is going from two story to three, but you're having different people come in and out.
But the issue at hand is whether or not you would oppose this to be developed as a single family without any commercial space on the first.
I oppose it, sir, because it always had commercial property there.
Okay. In response to Mr. Brown's position, I want to point out the property has not, it's actually a vacant lot. It was taken down some time ago. Had there been a viable commercial use, I'm sure the property would have stayed that way for the foreseeable past time. So I want to point that out to the board. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And anyone else to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
in addition chairman if if i may we were we did receive a petition in support as well
last night but if the board does not need it but if needed i can have that sent to
mr letter i read that into the record that point breeze community development
coalition did send a letter of support thank you mr jinn mrs sharon if you could um send me that
letter for my records. I would appreciate it. The petition? The petition, yes. I apologize.
Sure. Thank you. I will do that. Thank you. Okay. Planning Commission.
Good morning. David Vecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends single -family zoning at this location. We recommend that the
board approve the requested use variants for not including commercial space on the ground floor.
Thank you. MI 2021 -002 -313 -1801 South Ringgold Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. Property to be developed as a single family with no commercial use on the first floor.
Professor Plaza, yes with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Thank you. Now go to case number 6, MI 2021 -001429, 312 North 41st Street. This, I believe, is a pro se case. Carrie Dupree, and there's a notation to promote Ms. Lisa Armstrong, who is the architect.
West Palnton Saunders Park, RCO, sent a letter of support.
Mr. Dupree, if you're in the audience, can you please raise your hand?
Chair, this is Sharon. The applicant, the property owner, will be presenting her architect.
I ask that she be promoted only to share exhibits.
Thank you.
Ms. Dupree is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you. Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Thank you.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Excuse me, you're muted.
Sorry. Sorry. Carrie Dupree, C -A -R -R -I -E, D -U -P -R -E -E.
Quirk or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
The theme of an exhibit packet with the required documents, ownership, proof of compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral, voters and plans five days prior to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
May proceed, ma 'am.
Okay, my name is Carrie Dupree. I am the owner of 312 North 41st Street. I purchased my home in 1987 and for the past 34 years have maintained the property with the hope of creating a space that would provide a home through my senior years.
Now, as I started thinking about how I was going to do that and actively plan for it, I realized I had a garage structure in the back that I wasn't really using effectively and realized that I could possibly put up a two -story single -family home, similar to the ones, actually, just like the ones on that block on Holly Street.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but do we have exhibits for the audience?
Oh, yes.
I'm sorry.
Lisa Armstrong has his
Ms. Armstrong
Ms. Armstrong
please identify yourself with a record
and I'll swear you in
and we're getting feedback
I don't know Mr. P do you have another device on
Ms. Armstrong
please spell your full name and I'll swear you in
Ms. Armstrong
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Ms. Armstrong
Okay, I think they just went away.
Ms. Armstrong, please unmute yourself.
Spell your full name.
Hello, my name is Lisa Armstrong.
That's L -I -S -A -A -R -M -S -T -R -O -N -G from AK Architecture at 2011 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Would you please share your exhibits as Ms. Dupree is going through her presentation?
Share screen.
let me go back up to the front page sorry
okay okay all right thanks for your patience so as i was saying i've been i've lived in a house for
about 34 years, and I thought that a solution for my security in later years in terms of living
spaces was to put a two -story house on Holly Street to replace the garage structure that's
there now. And after doing some research on the city website, I, you know, just was going through
and looking for information and found some information that was inconsistent with what I
thought was true. The lot that I own extends from 41st Street to Holly Street. It consists of
actually two parcels, one zoned RSA5 and the other RM1. That's what I found on the city website.
And I was unable to clarify this with the city, so I contacted Lisa to help me work it out.
And she immediately recognized the open space requirements that I would need in order to build
that second house um and after that we formulated a plan that we thought would fit within zoning
guidelines which is a single family home facing holly street and a two -family household with with
a third floor addition facing 41st street we submitted the plans in march of 2020 right before
the pandemic shut down and the city returned with two refusals one for dimension size the majority
of this block is already divided in the manner that I proposed. There are only four properties
south of 312 that face 41st Street to the east and extend to Holly Street to the west. Denying
Denying this request would mean my lot would be larger than 86 % of the properties on the block.
this request would mean my lot would be larger than 86 percent of the properties on the block.
When the subdivision would create two parcels, that would mean the zoning site.
Denying the request would mean my lot would be larger than 86 % of the properties on the block.
When the subdivision would create two parcels that would meet the zoning lot size and with requirements.
The next is for you.
multifamily versus single -family. Creating the second unit would provide income through my
retirement, which would allow me to continue living in my home. On the south end of the block,
most of the properties are two -family dwelling units with a variance for 312 right next door
that was approved in the year 2000. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your consideration in
this matter. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No. Anyone else would like to testify
in this case? Please raise your hand. There are no hands up at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning
Commission. Good morning. Dave Defecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of
board the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing residential single -family zoning
at this location this is a 1912 square foot lot with an existing structure there is no unique
condition or circumstance of the lot or structure that would require it to be used for anything
other than a single -family home the majority of houses on the block are single -family
we recommend to the board deny the requested use variance
i'm a little confused the addition would not be wouldn't that be a single family
let's see building another structure i think that i missed something here can i
jump in yes please so there would be a single family structure facing holly street right
which would have a new address and then on 41st street that would be um the multi -family
currently a single family is that correct right okay that's why i got confused
so i guess what the planning commission is saying correct me from wrong is that the
the request to create third 312 north 41st as a duplex is what the opposition is correct
that is correct chairman all right thank you all right um mi 2021 -001429 312 north 41st street
um i'm gonna the records close i'm not clear that is there anyone from west palnton saunders park
they sent a letter of support so i'm a little confused about that
i see no hands at this time chair
All right. MI 2021 -001429, 312 North 41st Street. My vote is no.
Professor Plaza, no.
Thomas Holliman, no.
James Snell, no.
Thank you. Case number 8, MI 2021 -000319, 6134 -46 Wayne Avenue.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney, I believe, and Mr. Brandon Savran. Savran are the attorneys
representing the applicant, and Mr. Masters, I believe, is the attorney representing the
appellant. It's a case against LNI. Excuse me, Chair, this is Sharon. I can explain the procedural
history in this one, but could you first, I may have missed this, but number four, was that called
Miss Moreland Street? No, I think I missed that. Because there was someone in the question and
answer. Yeah, my apologies. I think I missed that because I saw no exhibits. All right,
So before we go to Wayne Avenue, let's go back to number four, MI 2021 -002 -114 -2117 West
Moreland Street.
Yeshika Ryan and Shaquan Laurie.
Sharon, did we get any exhibits?
I did not.
Anyone here for 2117 West Moreland?
Chair, we have someone with their hand up.
Last name looks like Kiana.
Kiana, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Kiana, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, good evening.
Kiana Shedrick with Upper North Neighbors Association.
And I was the person who asked the question about the incident.
Hello, hello, hello.
Slow down.
Pardon the interruption.
Would you spell your full name, please?
Q -I -A -N -A, last name Shedrick, S -H -E -D -R -I -C -K.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And please proceed.
No, I was just inquiring about the status because you said it was going to be called fourth, but we had jumped to the sixth case.
The applicant did come to the community meeting.
They stated that they were going to request a continuance, as we wrote in our letter.
However, they did not show up today, so I just didn't know what was taking place with it.
Well, let me find out if they're in the audience.
The applicants for 2117 West Moreland Street in the audience, if so, please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, too.
Thank you.
Okay, so MI 2021 -002114 -2117 West Moreland.
This case is continued, must be heard.
All right, we'll now go to case number eight, MI 2021 -000319 -6134 -46 Wayne Avenue.
Chair, this is Sharon. This is a case that it's actually two cases that are consolidated for purposes of this hearing.
there is a request for a variance there is also an appeal against lni filed by mr masters
challenging the the refusal that was issued saying there should be i believe additional
variance is required the way that we agreed to proceed is that you would continue with the
appeal against lni rule on that and then a second hearing would be scheduled for ms pritzker
to present her case and if the appeal against lni is granted then she might be required to
get a second refusal amended refusal from lni but for today you are going to hear mr masters case
the appeal against lni and mr reuter should be promoted as well thank you so uh mr masters if
you're out there please identify yourself and then i'll get mr reuter
good morning mr chair members of the board steve masters from the law firm of just laws i represent
west central germantown neighbors which is the appellant against lni in this case
we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr reuter if you're out there let me swear you in now
uh thank you uh may please the board leonard f reuter r -e -u -t -e -r senior attorney for the city
of philadelphia we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you um ministers
yes um i would um like to call our first witness um so uh would nancy templeton please
please raise your hand so that you can be sworn in.
Ms. Templeton, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Templeton, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair.
Templeton.
Her hand is raised,
chair, and I did unmute her on my side.
I don't know why.
She's not, we don't hear anything.
Ms. Templeton.
Ms. Templeton.
Do you have any other witnesses, Mr. Masters, beside Ms. Templeton?
She is my expert witness, and so we're going to be presenting her expert report.
Yes. Maybe she can go out and try coming back in.
yes and maybe she can go out and try coming back in okay if not we'll move on to the next case and
come back to this if we have chairman this is rachel pritzker um could you also swear in
myself and brandon just in the event that we want to object anything yep so you proceed rachel and
And then Rachel, R -A -C -H -A -E -L, Pritzker, P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
The whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Brandon?
Good morning, board.
This is Brandon Saverin, B -R -A -N -D -O -N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N, also at 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do I have time to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
I do. Thank you. Is Ms. Templeton on?
and chairman just so you're aware we have our own experts as well but we'll
get them sworn in in the event that their testimony is relevant
uh we're still having a problem with miss templeton chair i don't see her hand at all now
all right what we're going to do we're going to go to case number nine and then come back to
this case okay she may be having some technical difficulties so we'll go to case number nine
mi 2021 -002419 832 judd judson j -u -d -s -o -n street
tiffany and sean hogan
tiffany and sean hogan if you're in the virtual audience can you please raise your hand
I don't see either hand, Chair.
Thank you.
And Tanya and or Sharon, we've not received exhibits for this case?
I have not.
No, Chair.
MI 2021 -002419, 832 Judson Street is continued, must be heard.
Let's go to case number 10. MI 2021 -002310. 8652 Dittman Street. Scott and Suzette Stranix. It's a pro se case. Upper Holmesburg Civic Association took no position, but vote sheet shows majority voted in opposition.
Is Scott and or Suzette Stranix available?
Chair, we have someone with their hand up, but it's neither one of the names that you stated.
Okay, if you're here for this case, Dittman Street, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Mendoza, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Mendoza, please spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Mi nombre es Roberto Mendoza. Vivo en el 43.
I'm sorry, Chair. Could we pause for just a moment?
This is time to be Administrator.
I have an interpreter for this particular case.
I have promoted Ms. Ilana Frantz, I believe the name is.
Could she be in first and then be able to interpret?
Yes, thank you.
Ms. Ponce, please spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
It's I -L -A -N -A, last name P -O -N -C -E.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Are you representing the applicant?
I'm sorry, it's here to tell you again.
This is just the interpreter.
Right.
Well, I meant to ask, she's the interpreter for the applicant.
Is that accurate?
Yes, could we please just determine first who's the Mendoza that is allowed to speak?
If you could ask that question, Ms. Ponce.
Señor Mendoza, señora Mendoza, ¿quién va a ser el que está hablando?
Mi nombre es Roberto Mendoza.
Roberto Mendoza will be speaking.
And could you ask what is his relationship to this application?
¿Y cuál es su relación con esta aplicación, señor?
Soy el propietario de la 8652 Dayman Stream.
Este...
He is the proprietor of 8652 Dittman Street.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. What does he mean by proprietor?
I don't believe that he is shown on the deed. Is he the owner?
yes did he provide us with a deed showing that he is the owner
could he share his screen
to show his application?
Yes, please.
I'm sorry.
He's asking if you guys could promote
Bedita Khadijo, his expediter.
No, she can't speak.
She can share her screen
if she can't present the case.
Right.
Ella puede nada más compartir la pantalla,
pero no puede presentar el caso.
this video has been promoted
ya tiene permiso la señora cabillo
esta bien
her role is only to
share the screen with the exhibits
ella nada mas puede
compartir la pantalla y no hablar
esta bien
lo que me trae aquí hoy es
para cambiar el uso de dos unidades a tres unidades what brings me here today is to
change the use ms pons let mr plaza have some questions and you can ask your
you can ask mr mendoza yes uh was he sworn in mr chan
uh i'm not sure i don't uh let me yeah i don't think he was yeah i don't think he was thank
you so miss pons would you ask uh mr mendoza does he swear and affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth yes okay and mr plaza has questions for you
Thank you. Can you ask him if he submitted his documents?
Can you ask him if he emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
approval of ownership, approval of tax compliance,
copied the refusal or referral photos in the plan?
If I dig fire to this here.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
Mr. Plaza, I can confirm that we did receive those.
As far as the confusion about the ownership, my paralegal mistakenly wrote the grantors as the owner, rather than Mr. Mendoza, who does appear on the deed.
Thank you. And also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
This is a question.
Okay. Could you repeat the question, please?
sure have he met with the rco and have a letter
but they're not in agreement thank you y 'all can proceed okay
so you're uh mr mendoza now needs to walk us through uh the application and what his purpose
What brings me here today is to change the use from two units to three units.
Three units to how many?
Two units to three units.
be here to legalize the three units um if it's already three units why would you need to come
before us for three units this is the interpreter he's stating two to three
oh two to three yes sorry about that no problem
Siga, señor, por favor.
Juntos verán aplicación, apelación, título.
a hundo verán aplicación apelación título no debo taxes
for here you'll see the application pictures title i don't know any taxes
photos planos y el mailing photos plans and the mailing
I bought this property
on March 26, 2020.
At the time of purchase
it was two units
with a basement.
in which I would like to convert
into one unit.
As I started fixing up the basement,
an inspector arrived and told me
that I could not occupy and place a kitchen in the basement.
The basement has two entrances on the side and on the back.
It has a location behind the building to collect the trash.
Pago quinientos dólares en el año por la basura.
I pay $500 a year for trash collection.
Fuimos al RCO, pero ellos no están de acuerdo a legalizar de tres unidades.
We went to the RCO and they're not in agreement in approving for the three units.
Yo quiero hacer un estipulado.
I would like to please, please ask for it to be three units.
Chair, this is John Kelly, the court reporter. May I interrupt, please?
Yes, yes, please.
I am experiencing some intermittent, very short glitches in my feed.
Would I be allowed to leave and come back in?
Let us know when you're back.
Thank you.
Please pardon the interruption.
No worries.
Ms. Ponce, we'll be back to you in a moment.
As soon as the court reporter gets back on.
Thank you.
Ahorita regresan, que el reportero de la corte tiene que regresar.
Está bien, gracias.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, this is John Kelly.
I am back.
Thank you, John.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Ponce,
uh let's see where do we did is your a client i keep saying your client i apologize is mr
menendez has he completed his testimony yes all right uh questions from the board no mr chairman
no thank you uh anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single -family zoning at this location.
This is a 3 ,392 square foot lot with an existing structure.
the existing row home is a long -standing two -unit building there is no unique condition or
The existing row home is a long -standing two -unit building.
There is no unique condition.
circumstance of the lot or structure that would prevent it from continuing to be used as a two -unit
home the majority of the houses on this block are single families we recommend the board deny the
requested use variance my 2021 i'm sorry chair this is tanya if i could i just wanted to make
sure that the interpreter could inform the applicant that the planning commission did
the recommendation was to deny. Thank you.
So you're denying my application?
Well, the board will make that vote right now.
okay so mi 2021 -002 -310 -8652 ditman street my vote is no professor plaza my vote is no
thomas halliman my vote is no gain snell my vote is no
the zoning board voted no
thank you very kindly for your interpretation
thank you very much give us a moment
thank you cheer for your indulgence you can continue
Thank you. Okay, we're back to case number eight, 6134 -46 Wayne Avenue. Mr. Masters, has Ms. Templeton been able to get on?
I believe that she has, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Templeton, if you're out there, please raise your hand, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
okay great uh nancy templeton n -a -n -c -y -t -e -m -p -l -e -t -o -n
do you swear or from the top of truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
ministers i think you're first up am i correct yes um good morning again mr chair members of the board
we represent West Central Germantown Neighbors, which is the coordinating RCO in this matter.
We're here on an appeal against LNI because we believe that a number of variances were missed
that our expert will testify to in a moment. But in addition, this next point is really because
of the change of the design of this plan. Originally, the applicant has two lots and
they were seeking to consolidate them together into one lot. And that would make a very large
flag lot with a very small 17 foot wide portion that would connect to a public street, Wayne Avenue.
They chose to revise their plans to not consolidate the two lots and to have the two lots be joined together as a unity of use, which means that they're separate, but that they are together in terms of the unity of use.
That means that the flag lot is only one portion of this project now, and there's another portion that's a standalone parcel that has no connection to a public street.
So we'll be talking about both of those features in the reason that LNI has mistakenly issued a refusal and missed a lot of the variances that are needed here.
I'm going to just go through the resume briefly of my expert, unless the opposing counsel will agree to stipulate that she is, in fact, an expert.
Any objections, Rachel and Brandon, to stipulating?
The only thing that we would object to is any testimony from Ms. Templeton about traffic or traffic engineering.
Her expertise seems to be just in planning.
So we would just appreciate if she could keep her testimony to what her actual expertise is.
We're going to go through some of her expertise then because that isn't an acceptable stipulation to us.
Let's go through and see, then we'll make it the same.
Okay. Ms. Templeton, can you state your name and your professional affiliation and where you work in the record?
Okay. Ms. Templeton, can you state your name and
Yes, Nancy Templeton. I'm an urban planner with CH Planning in Philadelphia.
And your professional degrees?
I have a Bachelor of Science in Urban Planning and a Master of City Planning.
And your licenses?
I'm certified with the American Institute of Certified Planners and licensed professional
planner in the state of New Jersey. How many years have you been working in this field?
25. And as part of your work, what types of expertise are you asked to weigh in on for
projects? I do guess to weigh in on zoning interpretation. I do a lot of comprehensive
planning, some transportation planning, visualization of impacts of development on
municipalities and communities. For the state of Maryland, did you complete a transportation
project for the Department of Transportation? Chairman, I'm just going to object because this
is not the state of maryland that's not relevant we're asking uh i'm sorry but i thought you were
objecting to the fact that she has no transportation background yeah and it seems from what i'm reading
and what i'm hearing that she does have expertise in that field but not in this state or this city
oh traffic is traffic so we'll override that for the time being okay um so mr chair do we have a
Well, can we proceed with Ms. Templeton as an expert in this?
Thank you.
Ms. Templeton, did you complete a professional planning opinion for this project?
Yes, I did.
Was that the one dated August 25th, 2021 that's in the exhibit binder?
Could you describe the findings in the background section of your report?
Yes. So my findings were that the proposed development, which includes 60 apartment units and 18 two -family dwelling units with, I believe, 24 parking spaces, which is proposed to have access on Station Drive, which is a private road that is owned by SEPTA.
um uh station drive is uh essentially a service driveway for commuter parking and train station
um and it's also my opinion that uh the plan does not comply with all requirements of the
philadelphia zoning code and should have been issued uh refusals well that's um before we get
to that portion I just wanted to ask you a few questions on the the context for the project.
So your testimony is that the primary access to the property is via the private access road owned
by SEPTA. Are there any public streets that provide access for vehicles entering or leaving
the Mosaic property? No. In the previous design of the project was there a public street that
provided access? From what I saw, I believe there was access from Wayne Avenue via a flag lot.
But that is no longer available to the project at this point. Is that your testimony?
From the current project, I have not seen that. Okay. Have you determined, well, so now the only
way that cars can come in and out of the project is on station drive, which is owned by SEPTA.
That's your testimony. Correct. Have you determined whether or not SEPTA has agreed
to provide access on station drive to the vehicles driving in and out of the Mosaic property?
I have determined that SEPTA has not given. I object to that. I object to hearsay. Yes.
we're about to we're about to establish um let's get to that yeah okay sure um on what do you base
your conclusion that septa has not agreed to provide access to its road i have been copied
on two emails from septa officials saying that that an easement uh has not been issued
the easement issue has not been resolved. I'm going to show you Exhibit 7 in the binder.
I'm going to show you Exhibit 7 in the binder. And is the first email that you saw the one that's listed here from Tuesday, August 24th, 2021 from Jay Fox, the Deputy General Counsel of SEPTA?
Can I object? What does this have to do with additional variances or refusals?
Ministers?
um this there this what what this has to do with this has to do with the with the failure of the
of lni to issue or refusal on the basis that there is no authority um for this project to use the
adjacent plan the the plans you submitted require access to station drive in your appeal you stated
that there must be an easement granted in order to effectuate this plan lni reviewed the plan
did not have an easement recorded or any kind of a proof of an easement and they and they didn't
note it and that was improper on the part of LNI so that's one of our bases chairman that's
incorrect LNI I'm going to object it's not it's not your part to testify now I'm sorry
she's object she's making an objection let's hear her objection thank you but don't testify
Okay. Chairman, I'm objecting given his burden is to explain what variances. We do have L &I did in the documentation suggest that any easement or access easement needed to be provided before building permits.
so um there was no uh variance that needs to be requested regarding this we just have to provide
an easement agreement before we submit for building permits which is on the official
lni documentation that might be a better question for mr reuter i think uh mr reuter care to weigh
in uh yeah i thank you i mean again that's that's the the when an application is submitted um
that requires access to various easements or whatever that's that's the standard process is
that um for zoning permit purposes they'll accept the application but ms pritzker is correct and
steve masters is correct that if they don't get the easement then obviously that creates a problem
they're not going to be able to get the certificate of occupancy and they won't be
able to go forward with the construction if they the easement is a prerequisite for moving forward
But it did not have to be provided at the time the application was submitted.
If they do tend to go forward and they don't have the easement, that just creates a zoning violation.
So we would agree with Mr. Masters that they have to have the easement.
So presumably, if they never get the easement, then the project is dead.
But that's not what the board is hearing today.
So, yes, we don't disagree with Mr. Reuter's comments.
We're trying to give you a context to the board that the applicant, the developer, chose to abandon their plans where they had street access to Wayne Avenue through the flag line.
I'm going to object.
And they now are pinning the whole access on a private road that they have absolutely no authority at this moment.
um septa has not granted them any authority to to um to have their vehicles on on that lot so
that's the context um that we have we we'll go on to the um the parts of the of the refusal that are
that are missing um various um variances but i wanted to to establish that i'm not even sure
why we're here mr chair and members of the board because i'm just getting ready to answer quick
is not ready to go.
They don't have the authority
that they need to do this project.
Mr. Masters, that's in the refusal already.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Hello, hello, everyone.
Please, please try to identify yourself
so the court reporter knows who's speaking.
Mr. Savron.
Mr. Chair, I would simply offer
that that is already in the refusal.
There's no point in discussing
whether or not it's missing from the refusal.
That is stated in the refusal
as it currently stands.
I don't see that. If you don't have that permission, why? What are we? Well, is this based on a hypothetical?
Yes, as we are. And we're going to show documentation as to our work with SEPTA to this point.
But to Mr. Reuters point earlier, it's commonplace to not have the easement secured at the zoning board stage that is often wrapped up afterwards and is a condition of later approvals.
It does not have to be a condition of approval for zoning.
And I would follow up.
And again, just by analogy, there's a number, like, say, certain types of mixed income housing bonuses require an agreement with the Planning Commission.
require an agreement with the planning commission, but those agreements themselves
But those agreements.
typically would not be fully executed at the time that the zoning approval is granted that
incorporates the bonuses. Those agreements just have to be recorded by the time you get the
building permit. In fact, in most cases, they're not even required until you get the CO. So you
can do the construction, you just can't occupy the building until the agreements are recorded.
the same. So, you know, again, I think we're kind of getting off track here. I think everybody
agrees that ultimately the easement has to be obtained. It was it was referred to in the
refusal. So on that score, there's no error on the part of L &I. Mr. Masters wants to talk about
the overall environment of the application and the project. That's fine. But I just want the
board to understand that i don't think an error on the part of l and i is um is actually being
alleged with respect to the septa easement so maybe you know i think we are i think all of this
has been you know beat to death at this point so maybe we could just move on yes we um this is kind
of kind of like a um i mean it's a hypothetical obviously and it's like a work in progress
uh in a sense from the apple on the applicant's part and how that may be uh received by the
community yeah it's it's it's a gamble on the applicant's part because they had a
thing and they and they chose to go with a route that they don't have you guys you guys are all
talking over each other can i say something please yes ma 'am the court reporter cannot get an accurate
report if everyone talks over each other please identify yourselves when you speak and only one
at a time so the court reporter can get an accurate report thank you thank you and i hope
they listen to you because they haven't listened to me yet okay i have objections uh i'm sorry mr
reuter you are listening right uh i think i don't know was it rachel or uh brandon that made an
objection just then the objection mr chair is is i i request that we please move on we have a letter
from septa to show you when it is our turn to do so so we are really jumping the gun here that's
all i was to say okay all right uh i'm ready to go on mr chair sure uh miss templeton can you
describe the two opinions in the professional planning opinion section of your report?
Well regarding the code where there's no code compliance from section 14701 to a
general street frontage requirements for all residential districts which requires a minimum
street frontage for all lots in a residential zoning district. The code defines street frontage
as the edge of a lot that is contiguous to any confirmed street. Stationed drive as a privately
owned street is not a confirmed street. So can you describe how you arrived at your opinion
that the plans that were submitted to L &I violate the requirements of 14701 -2A?
Well, again, this requires frontage on a confirmed street as defined by the code.
Station drive is not a public street.
It's a private street.
It is not a confirmed street.
So in your opinion, what should Ellen and I have stated in the refusal that's missing
at this moment?
I would state that the plan does not meet the requirements of Section 147012A.
regarding street frontage on a confirmed street.
Let's go to the next section that you noted
on your report on page two.
Is that table 14 -701 -2?
Yes, dimensional standards
for higher density residential districts
requires a 20 -foot rear yard setback.
proposed development plan includes a retaining wall within the rear yard okay so we're going
to take a look at the plan so that you can show us what we're talking about here excuse me this
is sherry mr masters can i ask a question do all of your arguments regarding additional refusals
are they based on the argument that ellen i erred in treating this as a single lot for zoning
purposes under the unity of use. In other words, if it is treated as a unity of use,
where there's still additional, if it is treated as one zoning lot, are there still
additional refusals that you believe were required?
We are no longer maintaining an argument on the unity of use. We are addressing just straightforward code provisions that L &I fail to note and fail to issue the proper refusals.
We are not, we are no longer maintaining an argument on the unity of use.
Okay. And then so you are making your arguments based on treating this as a single zoning lot?
yes that's that was the plans as submitted no i'm sorry no we're we're making the arguments
based on the unity of use of two separate lots i thought that the unity of use was going to
treat it as a single zoning lot am i mistaken
it's two lots that have a unity of use and therefore it doesn't it's they're not using
this as a flag lot for the entire project there's now a flag lot and a separate um lot down here
Here is the second lot. That's a distinct lot called 6126 Wayne Avenue. And the primary score footage of this project is this large area that is 6134 rear dash 46 Wayne Avenue.
So those are not the two properties that are included within the unity of use?
They are.
Those are the two properties that are.
So isn't the purpose of the unity of use then to treat it as a single parcel for zoning purposes?
So that's what I'm asking you.
If you disregard that, if you treat this as a single lot, are the refusals that you're identifying still required?
I'll put that to Ms. Templeton.
If you treat these two parcels as a unity of use single lot, is your report still valid as to the code provisions that are missing from the L &I refusal?
I believe so.
We are going to go to the second one now, the section 147012.
I'm sorry to belabor this but it's the argument that there was no street frontage if these are
treated as a single lot is there no street frontage that's not one of the properties
that is included in the unity of use front on a public street is that on Wayne Avenue yes
this this um this is the corridor of the property that goes to wayne avenue and under the plans that
they that they've submitted the driveway ends at these trees and there is no vehicular access
from wayne avenue to to the only to the to the northwest corner of of the of the area that's
improved. Excuse me, this is Brandon. I'm not objecting to this testimony. I'm going to let
Mr. Masters continue. I just want to ask that the board allow us to bring on our own expert
and present our plan to rebut this, if that'll be allowed later. Thank you.
so we're talking about the a violation of the 20 foot front yard setback is that correct um
the rear rear yard setback
well they're they labeled it as the front yard setback oh okay well it's 20 feet regardless so
right there is a retaining wall within that so is this where i'm where i'm moving the cursor is this
the um and the arrow points to this is the 20 foot line from the from the property boundary is that
correct yes okay and the retaining wall that you are noting um is in violation of that let me try
to expand this here. Is that this thin black line right above the fence? Yes. Okay. And
is the retaining wall, in your opinion, considered a structure that could violate the 20 -foot setback?
I believe so, yes.
And on what basis do you make that opinion?
Well, I know that the code exempts fences from the rear yard.
Retaining wall is, it's a structure because it has a function of, it's more of a permanent structure that is designed to hold back.
It's more of a permanent structure that is designed to hold back soil for structural purposes.
When a retaining wall is constructed, does it require engineering plans?
And does it require a permit from the city?
I'm going to object. This is Rachel Pritzker. We're talking about zoning, not building.
And I would employ Mrs. Templeton to look at the exemption section of the code where it specifically talks about retaining walls and that they're considered exactly the same as fences, as long as they maintain the same height requirements as fences.
And any testimony about engineering or construction of a retaining wall is irrelevant for an L &I appeal for variances and additional refusal.
Objection sustained.
all right so so miss templeton your testimony is that this retaining wall is within the 20 -foot
setback and it and it should have been it should have been issued a refusal by the
chairman i'm going to again object because uh again the code explicitly states in the
exemptions provision i'm objecting to this this is testimony mr mr mr mr mr mr let's hear her
objection and then you can weigh in please okay my objection is that the retaining wall
as per the code which i'd employ miss templeton to look at is uh treated as the same as a fence
and is allowed to be in a setback as long as it maintains the same characteristics from a height
and dimensional perspective as a fence you concur mr ministers um miss templeton does that does
that statement by opposing counsel change your opinion at all? I guess I would ask to look at
the section in the code that says that. You're not aware of that? I would if I could read the
section. Okay. Mr. Chair, maybe if I could just suggest that we reserve this particular issue
for cross -examination yeah thank you all right so noted okay we're gonna go to uh the um so
can you describe ms templeton how you arrived at your opinion that the plans violate the site
design requirements of section 14 -703 5a .1 that section requires that each principal building
shall have one or more entry doors facing invisible from an adjacent public street
and the entry doors of the proposed multi -family buildings are not visible to a public street.
I'm showing you a drawing that a rendering that appears on page 92 of the developer's exhibit
binder and what are we looking at in this rendering? It looks we're looking at the fronts
of the residential buildings the entry doors appears to be facing the parking lot and driveway
the back building is facing station drive which again is not a public street this building you're
saying is facing station drive where where my cursor is moving and then these two side buildings
where where are they facing the parking lot and the driveway the access drive and in this in this
rendering where is wayne avenue uh behind the uh larger apartment building in the back of the
property so it's not it's not visible and it's all the way on the other side of this large building
yes and under this code provision of 14 -7035 8 .1 where are these doors supposed to be facing
they're supposed to be facing to a public street
which would be wayne avenue would be wayne avenue yes in this case
okay thank you you also issued an opinion that the private access road
was not designed to accommodate the higher intensity of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
that would be generated by this development. Mr. Chair, may I state my objection?
In the letter, it is not clear how really anything beyond what we've just heard relates to any
refusals. Whereas the prior arguments that Ms. Templeton has provided, there were code citations,
there are not for the remainder of the letter. So I would like Mr. Masters to really bear the
uh you know really bear the burden of pointing out what code sections the remainder of the
burden of pointing out what code sections.
arguments including this one relate to because if they don't relate to proposed refusals
this is not the appropriate venue to talk about these things
thank you
um whoops whoa let's get back to hang on a second um yes i i think that part of our expert report
is more applicable to the second um hearing that we'd be having um where we would be opposing
the um that the appeal of mosaic but there is one more section um of the report that i believe
does apply to an error by L &I. Ms. Templeton, in your opinion, did Mosaic Development Partners
correctly complete the Complete Streets Checklist that was submitted as part of their application
to L &I? So I did not see a Complete Streets Checklist for the change in access to Station
drive from Wayne Avenue. I real quickly object again, Mr. Masters, could you just provide the
the potential code section that that would have led to a refusal needing to be issued under?
Because it's very hard to kind of think through where you're going otherwise.
This isn't the argument here, Mr. Saverin, is that the L &I plans examiner would have needed to
either put a hold on the permit for approval by the streets department or would have had to note
in the file that the streets department had approved the correct complete streets
checklist. And in this case, the complete streets checklist that your client submitted
was the prior iteration of this plan with the flag lot and a lot consolidation. And most of the
provisions that are applicable to this version of the plan were completely missing and not filled
out in the checklist. Therefore, L &I should have put a hold on this application for proper streets
department review of a new revised complete streets checklist. That was not done. And we
argue that that's a basis, an independent basis for returning it to L &I. That happens normally
with a project where L &I will allow for something to happen, not having any information from streets
department until such time that they get the good the green light to move forward with the project
i mean that's that's typical i don't know if i'm explaining it right but it's not on i mean that's
the way i since i've been here you don't necessarily need streets apartment approval
until you get the the uh approval from the zoning board to move forward if i could uh mr chair i
again i i now i'll make the objection thank you i'll make the objection that mr masters was making
that it's it's we're kind of getting into factual testimony here uh and with respect to the and
again i think this is something that perhaps we could address through cross -examination of mr
master's witness um but uh in terms of you know right in terms of like what exactly is the complete
streets uh policy and what does what is required to be done at what stage i think we can just get
into that through cross -examination rather than having uh the attorneys uh argue about what's
essentially a factual issue.
A lot of it is, yeah, a lot of it probably goes
to the variance, which the city doesn't have a position on.
But yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Masters.
At this point, I would rest in my direct,
but I would ask for leave to have rebuttal testimony
after cross -examination.
Ms. Pritzker or Mr. Severan?
Brandon go ahead yeah so um I think uh if the board will allow it we'd like to call um
I'm gonna have you swear in Mr. Chair a couple um witnesses and and we may use one we may use both
um their names are um David Horner and Nando McHale oh I'm sorry um a third as well Sarah
a poindexter okay with the three folks who uh mr uh savran just named raise your hand and we will
individually take your names for the record and swear you in i i have an objection mr chair um i
don't believe that all of these individuals were named as witnesses um in their submissions to the
board they were i don't have a copy of that well you sent up we we didn't have a copy until
i don't have a copy of that well you sent up we we didn't have a copy until 10 whatever and they
were included in our lni or sorry our dba appeal that was submitted back in i guess august you'll
forward them over to mr masters please sure here we have david horner to go first mr horner please
spell your name and i'll swear you in my name is david horner h -o -r -n -e -r you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you next witness
nando mccale now please spell your phone name sure um n -a -n -d -o -m -i -c -a -l -e and do you swear
or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and miss poindexter i believe
Ms. Poindexter, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Poindexter, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Chair, her hand has disappeared.
She's got this muted now.
Ms. Poindexter?
I can.
I think she unmuted.
Sarah, are you there?
What I can do, Mr. Chair, is proceed with cross, and when I'm finished with that, we can see.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, please.
Spell your full name, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This is Sarah Poindexter, S -A -R -A -P -O -I -N -D -E -X -P -E -R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Saffron.
okay um so before getting to those witnesses i'm i'm going to cross -examine miss templeton
also would um ask if mr reuter wishes to do the same um does the board have a preference
between my going first or mr reuter going first for cross you can go first mr reuter yeah okay
Thank you. Okay. Um, Ms. Templeton, are you available? Yes. Do you have, um, the site plan
that was presented, um, at the last hearing in front of you? I can share. I do not. Okay. Give
Give me one moment.
Let's see.
Bear with me, this is get to page 73 of this packet.
While that's loading, I'll actually start with a different issue.
going to share my screen to share a portion of the code which would be here okay um miss templeton
can you see my screen at the moment it's uh okay thank you so um i am here uh for the board's
benefit in uh title 14 chapter 7016 of the philadelphia excuse me council excuse me council
can you blow it up some yes sure mr holland let me try my best there um okay well that was a little
too much let's see here mr holliman i'm going to be referring to this table i'm scrolling through
can you see that at all? Yes. Okay, thank you. Ms. Templeton, so this is, as I mentioned,
we're in 147016, and in that section, there's also a table called 147016. The table is called,
well, I'll ask you actually, can you read the title of the table in the gray bar there?
Exceptions to height limits.
Can you also, I'm sorry, read, that's the subtitle, the broader title above that.
The subtitle, permitted encroachment.
No, I'm sorry, above.
It means the top, where it says table, 14 -.
Right here.
Exceptions to dimensional standards, yes.
Thank you.
And would you mind reading the third box that's currently on the screen?
that has the most yellow highlights.
Would you read the contents of that?
I can read it.
I can acknowledge that that's, okay.
Retaining walls are subject to the restriction
of fence heights to the extent that those walls protrude
above the actual ground level at the highest point of wall,
but shall not apply to any retaining wall required
by the provisions of any section
of the Philadelphia Coda related regulations.
okay um so would you agree um that retaining walls based on that section are um not subject
Okay, so would you agree that retention
to any restrictions that do not apply to fences under the philadelphia code regarding dimensional
requirements objection there's no basis for that that's not what this table says it is limited to
height limits. It has nothing to do with all other requirements. I'm going to object to you
testifying, Steve. It's okay. I can resolve that. So Mr. Masters, that's a fair point. That's a
function of the formatting of the table. And I apologize. And I'll walk everyone through that
real quickly. So the title to the table is exceptions to dimensional standards. Then the
table is broken down into subsections. The first one is exceptions to height limits. There's a
defect in the coding, if you will, of the table, that if you scroll through the table, that does
not go away, even when you're looking at sections that do not have to do with height. The actual
subtitle, I think we can all agree, to this part of the table is exceptions to yard setback and
open area requirements. Now, I would pose that Ms. Templeton testified to a setback requirement,
the 20 -foot setback requirement. And the section I just had her read does stand as an exception to
setback requirements. So Mr. Masters, now that I've pointed that out, do you want to withdraw
your objection or do you stand by that? No, I stand by my objection, Mr. Saverin,
because the actual portion that you had Ms. Templeton read is limited to fence heights.
It has nothing to do with setbacks or any other kinds of encroachments. If you can find a section
section that deals with setbacks, then that's a different story. But we're talking about a
section that you had her read that is limited to restrictions on fence heights. So if she could
read, this is Rachel Pritzker, if she could read the section right above it, Brandon, which is what
I think you meant to have her read. Sure, sure. That would be appreciated. And I think that that
would address Mr. Master's concern. Ms. Templeton, do you mind reading that box above the one you
already read? No, fine. Fences are permitted in the required rear yard area and in any portion
of the required side yard area behind the front wall of the principal structure, but may not be
more than six feet tall. The standard shall also apply to any side of a corner lot that does not
face the street. Thank you, Ms. Templeton. Okay, I think that's sufficient. My objection stands
because that section does not relate to retaining walls and does not state that retaining walls
are subject to the same restrictions as fences in that section above. It says it below about
heights, but it doesn't say that retaining walls and fences are the same. And our testimony
that you're uncrossed on was specifically about why retaining walls are distinct and different
from fences because they're engineered, they're structures, and LNI treats them in a completely
different manner under the building code than a fence. Is there anything in the code, in this
area of the code, that addresses what Mr. Maester's concern is? Well, I think Cross may not be the,
Mr. Chair, we have our own planner, we have our own engineer. Why don't we bring them on to give
their interpretation in a minute? I think that will be helpful, thank you. Okay.
um let me uh miss templeton you spoke um is it is it correct that you spoke about um under
mr master's questioning comparing some prior version of the plan to the latest version of
the development plan or a prior application to a more recent application is that fair to say
uh it was mentioned that there were two versions of the plan yes um so taking the um outer boundary
of the property and and and we also heard you testify or or receive questions as to the fact
that there are sort of two parcels which comprise the totality of the development site but taking
the outer boundary of both of them combined, was there a change? Was there a difference in the
outer boundary of the premises compared to those two applications? Or did it remain the same
across those two applications? I'm going to object to that it calls for speculation. If you want to
show her the two plans and ask her to evaluate the actual drawings, that would be a fair question.
But asking her to speculate without showing her what you're talking about would be -
Mr. Masters, this is a follow -up to you reference two different plans.
I'd ask you to show them.
Ms. Templeton, are you able to answer that without having to see?
without having to see I can without seeing the two plans thank you please
I think I can without seeing the two plans.
Thank you.
Please proceed then.
proceed then thank you
okay I think that's all for cross thank you I have no no redirect I just had
just a couple quick questions for Ms. Templeton very briefly.
Mr. Rorder, please.
Ms. Templeton, you made reference, or I think more your counsel for the objectors made reference
to the complete streets policy of the streets department.
Can you point to the code section that requires approval by the streets department under the
complete streets policy as a prerequisite to obtaining a zoning permit?
i i cannot point to a code reference okay thank you and um would you agree that the complete
streets policy uh provision in the code is a provision that um directs the streets department
to develop a policy and ultimately to create the complete streets handbook i'm gonna object that
that's cause for legal a legal opinion that she doesn't have but i was the author of ms templeton
And are you, do you feel comfortable responding?
I don't, I don't think I can answer that.
Well, let me ask you, are you familiar with the Complete Streets Policy Ordinance?
And is there anything in that ordinance that requires approval by the streets department with respect to conformity with the Complete Streets Policy as a prerequisite to obtaining a variance, I mean, to obtaining a zoning permit?
i can't recall okay thank you um now just with getting back to the issue of retaining walls
versus fence walls uh council has suggested that uh the streets i mean that the department
licenses and inspections makes uh distinctions between retaining walls and fence walls for
building code purposes. And you would agree with that, right?
Yes, I would.
Right. But with respect to zoning and with respect to the, any distinctions between fence walls and retaining walls for zoning purposes, are you, is,
Can you point to any section of the code where retaining walls and fence walls are treated differently with respect to, you know, for planning purposes?
I have to say I can't find in the code where it explicitly treats them the same or different.
It's not clear to me.
Now, again, leaving aside engineering questions that Mr. Masters correctly points out are at issue when it comes to retaining walls.
Well, let me back up. You would agree that engineering concerns typically are building code compliance questions, not zoning code compliance questions from a planning perspective.
Would you agree with that?
Yes, I would agree. Yes.
Okay. So would you agree then that from a planning perspective, there isn't any obvious or per se reason why retaining walls would be treated separately from fence walls? I mean, a wall is a wall, right?
Well, no. I mean, I have to look at definitions. You know, I'm looking at a definition that a retaining wall is a structure that retains, holds back any material, usually earth, and prevents from sliding or eroding away.
You know, a fence is not capable of doing that.
I don't believe it's...
No, I think we're in agreement with that.
My interpretation is that a retaining wall is a structure, a permanent structure,
and a fence is not a permanent structure. It's not something that has to be engineered.
understood all right i have no further and the definition of rare yard is
between the property line and uh any structure a structure
except for those that are accepted yes but it still wasn't very it's not really clearly
explicit in the code that they are accepted again i'm referring to what mr master said about it
pertaining to treating them differently pertaining to height now what just just
Since you brought it up, with respect to the extent, let's say for the sake of argument, we agree, or somebody might agree that there's an ambiguity here.
since you since you brought it up um with respect to the to the extent
What does the zoning code say about resolving ambiguities in the code with respect to an application?
I'm going to object that she did not testify that she believes it's an ambiguity.
You're inserting your own opinion that that's an ambiguity.
she said it was clearly that it was clear that the retaining wall is defined as a structure
and a fence is not defined as a structure that's not an ambiguity that that's not i think she just
said it wasn't clear uh how the exception applied but but that's fine we'll leave it at that we'll
we'll address that in argument thank you i have no further questions yeah no redirect redirect
have we have we completed this portion i'm we have completed um the rco's um portion of the
testimony but it appears that um mosaic um development partners has their own witnesses
for rebuttal and that would be a second portion i believe just so it's clear in the record steve
you you don't have any other further witnesses on the appeal against l and i is that right
that's what i'm asking yeah that's correct okay okay thanks so it's up to the where it's correct
me if i'm wrong sharon it's up to the board now to make a decision on the appeal against l and i
i think the city and the developer have to uh present their case on the appeal against l and i
I'm sorry. All right. Mr. Savron or Rachel, do you want to bring on the developer or Mr. Roy, do you want to go first?
Well, just so it's clear, the city's, I think everybody, you know, leaving aside the fact that obviously Mr. Masters and his clients have their objections and their challenges to the validity of the permit that was issued.
I think we all agree materials were submitted, those materials were submitted to L &I, they were reviewed by L &I, and as a result, the permit was issued.
They can disagree whether the permit should have been issued, but there's no real factual dispute about what was submitted to L &I and what the actions taken by L &I were.
No subpoenas have been requested, so we're simply going to just make an offer of proof that were L &I to testify, they would simply say that, that we received these application materials, we received these plans, there was a refusal issued, there was another amended plan submitted, there was amended refusal, et cetera, et cetera, and that's it.
that's basically our case i think everybody can agree to it so we're not presenting any witnesses
we think the uh the facts that have been submitted by all the parties speak for themselves in terms
of what l and i's actions were uh our our um response to the appeal against l and i will
address primarily through uh closing argument since it's a legal question thank you mr master
any objection to what mr reuter just laid out could we well no i i uh he's he's entitled to
to reserve his argument for closing argument and to not call any witnesses um that's all
that's all his prerogative but we'll have we'll have our argument he will have the city's argument
and i believe that the developer will have an argument also um i just haven't i i don't object
uh to mr reuter's testimony there um i i just would ask mr reuter he said the word permit a
few times or i think he intended to say refusal that a yes okay yeah i'm at the permit application
materials and that uh the a a refer uh a refusal was was uh issued on the basically just on the
heritage tree thing i think is the only uh was the only outstanding issue okay that being the
case i i have no objection to that yeah sorry that was just my mistake okay so so noted thank you um
hold on before we go any further
it is 1135
before we move on
is the court reporter would you like to have a break
chair this is the court reporter I would appreciate
a very brief break if you don't mind
see you back here in about five minutes
and Tanya we have a hard number
what time we have to complete this
chair if you wish
we can stop at 1215
thank you thank you all right see everybody back in five minutes
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
all right mr kelly have you returned chair yes i have thank you very much you're ready to go okay
All right, Mr. Kelly, have you returned?
yes i am all right everyone uh mr reuter miss pritzker mr sovereign we're all ready
mr masters yes chair yes uh we left off i believe with
mr masters uh mr uh no reuter and like who's up next so i think if uh unless either of my
uh counterparts disagree that mr reuter uh basically um closed until a closing argument
there so we just have one witness we'd like to bring on and then i think we can proceed the
closing argument okay let's move forward thank you okay that would be sarah poindexter
this point dexter uh just identify yourself you're still on the roof
uh yes this is sarah hi sarah could you spell your name for the board please and state your
address she's already done that she's oh you're right i'm so sorry thank you no worries no worries
Okay. Sarah, I am scrolling through our exhibit packet to get your resume up, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Are you the engineer who designed the site plan for all the iterations of this project that have been submitted to L &I?
yes i'm the engineer of record for the project and oversell the preparation of the zoning site
plan for the different iterations okay thank you and um i will try to try and just to find your
resume so i can uh but while i'm doing that would you just um i'm gonna mr saverin i i'm i'm prepared
to stipulate um i know miss poindexter personally um i've worked with her um in in other contexts
I believe she is a person of great skill and experience, and I have no trouble stipulating that she is an expert for the purposes of testimony today.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Masters. I appreciate it.
So with that being said, Sarah, I'm going to ask you a few questions comparing the last plan that we submitted to L &I, which generated this most recent refusal.
I believe that plan was dated June 2nd versus the prior plan that generated the prior refusal.
Do you happen to have a digital copy of the plan that generated the first refusal that you could share with the board?
Or if not, if you just give me the revision date, I'll share it.
So are you asking for the originally submitted zoning plan or the zoning plan, so the original
submitted zoning plan was submitted November 23rd, 2020?
That's the one.
That's what I'd like to start with.
And do you want me to share my screen?
If you're able to, that'd be helpful.
where is that button sorry no that's okay i've seen that option for me oh um well if you're a
panelist it would be in the bottom center of green button that says share screen she's not a panel
is it possible to promote her no she's on the phone oh okay brandon i did email that plan
just now. Okay. I'm going to pull it up then. Thanks, Sarah.
Okay. Thank you for your patience, everybody.
Okay. Here's this.
Share screen.
Okay. Okay. And I will make this bigger.
so this is for everybody's benefit, the entire zoning site plan sheet. I'm going to zoom in on
the site plan diagram. So Ms. Poindexter, you were the engineer that designed this site plan. Is that
correct? That's correct. And is it the case that in this submission, there are two parcels
that we proposed in this particular application for consolidation and that
particular application for consolidation and that as a consolidated parcel the parcel reaches Wayne
Avenue via a flag if it were on the call it the north side of the lot is that correct
connecting to Wayne Avenue correct okay is it also correct that
the plan did not depict a paved driveway connecting from the buildings through that flag,
but actually made use of a SEPTA -owned driveway for vehicular access to the site that ran
parallel to the flag to Wayne Avenue. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you.
I'm just going to pull up the more recent plan now that was submitted for the more recent refusal.
So bear with me for that.
This one I actually have at my fingertips, I promise.
Here we go.
Okay, Sarah, so now I have on my screen the plan that was submitted that generated the
amended refusal that we received in June.
And you were also the engineer who was responsible for this site plan, correct?
That's correct.
So, under this plan, is it correct that we no longer propose to consolidate the lots,
but instead proposed to leave them that are two parcels as two distinct lots and proposed that
they be treated for zoning purposes as one lot under the unity of use program which means that
we recorded a restrictive covenant of stating that they were you know bound together for zoning
purposes. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Now, looking at the sort of outer boundary of
these two parcels together under the unity of use program versus the outer boundaries of the two
parcels in the prior plan, which were proposed to be consolidated, there is no difference in
the outer boundary of the site or the shape of the site. Is that correct?
That's correct. And is that because essentially the development site still consists of the same
areas? It's just that in plan one, we proposed joining them through consolidation and in plan
two, we proposed treating them for zoning as one through unity of use, but not consolidating them.
Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And for the last time though,
in both plans, we're talking about the same exact lands. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And in the second plan, which I still have on my screen, is it still the case that the manner of vehicular access did not change from plan one?
So while we have this flag piece that goes to Wayne Avenue, and I'll zoom in on that for the board's benefit, we were not planning to have cars drive over that necessarily.
We were going to rely on the adjacent SEPTA driveway for access to Wayne Avenue.
So was that still the case under Plan 2 as it was in Plan 1?
That's correct, for access to the proposed development.
And that access in both plans through the SEPTA driveway, that access would serve all of the buildings on the site, regardless of which current parcel they sat on.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
I just have a few more.
So, Sarah, do you, in your line of work, you know, assist your clients, including your
client on this project, in interpreting the zoning code and attempting to determine how
to design the site to, you know, meet certain code sections or avoid triggering certain
refusals?
Is that common for your work?
Yes, it is.
So, in your experience, I'm sorry, with regard to this proposal, given that you've established
that the outer boundaries of the project site did not change between the first iteration and
the second iteration, and that, again, we're not really changing the lands that comprise the site.
Is it fair to say that the reason, in your opinion,
Is it fair to say that the reason, in your opinion, that we did not receive a refusal
for insufficient street frontage on the Wayne Avenue side is because we are not changing
the shape or size of the site.
And as such, it is legal non -conforming with regard to dimensional code requirements.
I'm going to object.
It calls for a legal opinion and it calls for speculation on the part of what the considerations were for the plans examiner when they made a decision, and both of those would nullify that testimony.
So I'd just like to briefly respond.
Oh, sure. Do you want Mr. Masters to repeat his objection?
No, no, you, Mr. Severn.
Oh, sure.
Essentially, I'm asking Sarah to render an engineering opinion.
Interpreting the zoning code is an engineering matter. The examiners employed by L &I in the zoning group are engineers, at least most of them to my knowledge. And I'm asking Sarah to opine on why she believes we did not obtain one of the refusals that Mr. Masters has argued we should have obtained.
I'm not asking her to try and read the mind of our L &I examiner.
I'm asking her for her own opinion only.
Well, I still would reiterate my objection, Mr. Chair, because that isn't your question, Mr. Saverin, wasn't related to what Ms. Templeton testified to.
you were asking her a different question which is not something that um that uh it's it's relate
it doesn't relate to um you asked her whether the street frontage was was inadequate or sufficient
mr masters maybe could you are you could you pull up miss templeton's letter again so you can just
show us the first of her enumerated additional refusals that's the one i'm attempting to speak
to here i'm not attempting to introduce new matter
or read it or read it
okay uh now that i've read it uh yes you are correct that that's 1470128 does
relate to minimum street frontage. But my objection is that you haven't established
from your witness which street frontage she believes the property is using as its street
frontage. And until you do that, you can't really ask a question as to the code because the question
is is it wayne avenue or is it station drive that is your street frontage mr sovereign could you
clear that up sure yeah i mean there's only one public street frontage here it's it's wayne avenue
i don't i don't think there's any that's my answer the public street frontage for the site is wayne
avenue boy your building doesn't face the front the the public street frontage mr masters that's
I mean, I think I answered your question, so I'd like the chair to have a chance to.
All right, I'll withdraw my objection to Ms. Poindexter's testimony on that.
Thank you.
Okay, so Sarah, I'm just going to reissue my question to you here.
So my question was, in your opinion, is it the case that because in both iterations of the plan, that is it the case that because we are not changing the boundaries of either development parcel, is that why we did not receive a refusal?
or is that why you believe we may not have received a refusal for the code section that
Mr. Masters just read regarding length of street frontage? That's correct. Because we did not
change the parcel limit, it was accepted as non -conforming lot with the limited street
printage that it has as a flag lot. But let me actually just clarify my question a bit. So
is it the case that in our first original refusal under what I called plan one, we did receive a
refusal for that issue when we had proposed consolidating the sites? We did receive a
We did receive a refusal and then we revised the plan to use the unity of use and no longer
refusal, and then we revised the plan.
subdivide the property, or excuse me, consolidate the property.
So is it therefore fair to say that when we were here talking about the second plan and
you could call it the second or amended refusal, is it the case that that refusal from L &I did not
include a line item, a refusal about inadequate street frontage?
that's correct the comment was addressed with the second plan and and is it fair to say that
the reason we no longer have that refusal is because we we moved from proposing consolidation
to proposing to use unity of use and the use of unity of use meant that we are no longer proposing
to change the boundaries of either parcel from the way they currently sit is that correct
that's correct okay so can in summary is it fair to say that um we get the um
the benefit of and i know you're you're not this is not a legal question i'm going to phrase this
in engineering terms the best i can because we're not changing the boundaries of either parcel
um you you would you advised your client here that you get whatever benefits or avoidance of
refusals come from not changing the boundaries of the parcels. Is that correct? That's correct.
Okay. Let me just briefly look through my notes here. Brandon, this is Rachel. I just wanted,
Sarah, I just want to ask you one question as well. Is it true that the address for the property
has an R after it, emphasizing that it's a rear property.
It is not a property that doesn't have an R after it.
I just wanted to see if you would agree
that the address of the property is 6134 -46R,
Wayne Avenue, emphasizing again that it's a rear property.
That's correct.
Thank you.
Okay, Sarah.
So I just had one other issue I wanted to discuss, and that was the retaining wall.
I believe that Mr. Masters' witness had proposed that our retaining wall on what I'll call the top of the site plan here may be within a required setback area.
um in your experience working with the zoning code as an engineer um do you have and and i'll
say there was some dispute amongst the attorneys earlier but do you wish to offer your own um
opinion professional opinion on whether or not a retaining wall of the height that we have proposed
is subject to that 20 foot uh front setback rule
I was unable to find anything in the zoning code that restricted retaining walls from
being included in a setback. This retaining wall in particular is more of a landscape
element. It could have been more clearly shown as being a pretty short retaining wall, but
it's my opinion that there aren't any restrictions for hard scapes or retaining walls within a
setback. And please be honest with me, but do you happen to know maybe the maximum and minimum
height of that retaining wall as you move along it laterally? Within the setback area, it's less
than 30 inches. So the maximum height of the retaining wall as it exists within the setback
area is 30 inches or less. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I have no further questions
for our witness. The ministers? Yes, I have some questions. How are you, Ms. Boyndexter?
Good. Hi, Steve. Good. Hi. So the direct examination questions were a bit confusing,
um but it seems that you're that the attorney um ultimately um had you talk about the difference
between the first refusal and the second refusal dealing with the um the front general street
frontage um minimum street frontage requirement um so it's true right that in the first plan
with the flag lot and the lot consolidation that that it did generate a refusal for
for minimum street frontage.
for minimum street frontage is that is that true is that true
Is that true?
It generated a comment.
We did not have a refusal letter issued,
but it did generate a comment,
which we addressed with the second plan.
Do you have a copy of that refusal?
It was a comment letter.
It was not a refusal.
No, no, there was a refusal issued for the first plan.
i i can see if it's available i i don't mind sharing it if i have it but yeah that would be
helpful sure um i am sorry my memory might not be right mr masters sake of transparency i am
gonna have to stop sharing the site plan in order to grab it is that all right yeah that's okay um
mr chair if i might uh i i believe that there was initially a refusal that was issued on that
which is what led to the initial appeals that never involved L &I, an appeal against L &I in
the first place, because the appeal against L &I, what we're hearing today, was triggered by the
amended refusal. So I think we can just stipulate to that. There was a refusal issued for the
street frontage because, and again, maybe Ms. Poindester can address this, because
uh by consolidating the lots it was now becoming a new lot and therefore it would have to conform
with the code whereas as separate uh parcels um it's considered non -conforming
apologies that was that was my mistake i i didn't remember the refusal letter being
and i can i think we can stipulate to what mr thank you thank you um mr saverett can you
can you scroll it up so i can see the bottom of the that refusal oh sure yeah uh that's it right
there i just want to just object what's the relevance of this refusal if we amended it and
the appeal was taken on the current refusal i don't see the purpose of discussing a prior refusal
that's not even the subject of this appeal uh well the the relevance is um in the direct testimony
there was arguments that were made that because the unity of use is basically essentially the
same as the lot consolidation, that's why there wasn't refusals either time for the items that
our expert had identified. But in this case, we have one use refusal and two zoning refusals.
And I'm Mr. Masters. I just and I become a moot point if we move forward.
Yeah. And I just want to say and I understand the issues are nuanced here and I may have not done the most perfect job walking through them.
But I did not, I actually was attempting to distinguish the fact that whereas we went with the consolidation method in the first application, which generated this refusal, we abandoned the consolidation tactic and it got our refusal amended by using the unity of use program instead of consolidation.
So I really, I was not saying that there was no difference between plan A and plan B beyond the outer boundaries of the site, which did not change.
But there's actually a significant difference between proceeding with consolidation or proceeding with unity of use.
And it's actually that difference I proposed there that is the reason the lot with refusal was eliminated.
So I just don't want my own questioning or testimony to be mischaracterized.
And while we have this up, Chairman, to the question of access parking needed to be recorded prior to building permit issuance, that's on this refusal, that's on the other refusal, as is the streets department approval required prior to permit, as a civic designer view.
oath. So this does help make that clear. This is on the updated refusal, but there's no relevance
to discussing this refusal as it stands, given we have an amended one, which is the subject of
Steve's appeal. Well, I would disagree because here we have the refusal for the 17 -foot three -inch
proposed lot with is basically the flagpole portion of the 6134R -46 property. Would that
be correct, Ms. Poindexter? For the plan where we proposed consolidation, that's correct.
Yes. So you had consolidation, you had two properties, you were consolidating them,
and one of them has this flagpole 17 feet 3 inches across and the code examiner said
that you were required to have 50 feet for the lot width, right?
that you were required to have 50 feet for the lot width right so we withdrew we were we were
required to have 50 feet for any new parcel that's my understanding we were creating a
new parcel by consolidating so we would be required to show the 50 foot width
it does it say new parcel on the refusal in the code does it say it on the refusal
it doesn't need to say it on the refusal um you're being argumentative um isn't it understood
it says lot lot adjustment and that that's really the way the lni examiner they use that
as a synonym for consolidation but that that's where it's featured in the refusal
i'm gonna object to using the old refusal it's not relevant anymore well you're arguing that
our that our experts testimony about 147012a is invalid based on the first refusal and the
second refusal so it's totally completely relevant because we're we're asserting that 147012 should
have been a refusal the second time around and showing it on the first time is relevant to why
it applies on both times mr masters i'm gonna disagree with you just because as you know
from doing this we can address this on reader that's that's really better for your argument
yeah well i i think i lost the script uh here um where where are we right now are we now doing
cross -examination yeah i was trying to do cross -examination yes oh okay because i didn't
i didn't even think brandon mr saverin was done with his direct if he's completed i'd had a couple
questions that i'd like to ask uh i thought mr saverin i thought you were done and i was and i
had begun my cross -examination that's that's that's correct and uh you were you were asking
to i shared this refusal at your request you that's right mr masters all right um let me move
on um excuse me steve before you go mr reuter are you well i mean i mean mr masters can just
finish his cross i would just then i'll just treat my as redirect that's fine okay thank you
mr masters um on um the retaining wall um uh miss point dexter do you do you agree that a
retaining wall is an engineered structure under the under the philadelphia code
I do agree that it's an engineered structure.
And do you agree that structures within 20 feet of a setback are not allowed under the code?
I would have to see the definition again.
so you want to take a look at table 147012 is that what you're asking
related to the question you just asked
Sure, bring up that table.
Mr. Masters, can you share the code provision for her benefit?
Yes, I am trying to get her right now.
I don't think that the one you cited there was not related to your retaining wall argument or her retaining wall comments.
I think that was one of the other sections.
Oh, so you think we have a typo in the expert report?
Or no, I think you just read a different paragraph than the one you intended to read.
Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. That may not be true. Okay. Okay. That's the general
dimensional rules table. I got it. Right. Yeah. Are you able to share that or do you need me to
do that? I'm coming up with it. Here we go. Okay. So this is the table that shows the setback
requirement. Right. I'm asking for the section of the code which dictates what can be included in
that setback. I don't have that site in front of me.
I don't have that site in front of me.
It's my understanding that the setback is measured from the building to the property line,
so that the building structure cannot be within the setback. But I haven't heard that any
engineered structures can't be within a setback. Well, would you agree to this point, Dexter,
that in your in your plan and your site plan you showed the 20 -foot setback and you showed
the retaining wall inside that 20 -foot setback the the retaining wall is shown within the 20 -foot
building setback yeah you agree um i have no further questions uh mr chair i just had a
couple of questions. Thank you. Ms. Poindexter, I guess I'll just follow up with the most recent
question that was asked with respect to retaining walls versus fence walls. You had, had you been
watching the previous portion of this hearing where that issue was raised with Ms. Templeton?
Yes. Okay. So are you familiar with the, I mean, we can pull it up if we have to,
but are you familiar with the section of code
that provides various exemptions
from the setback requirements?
And you would agree that the exemption
allows for fences to be within setbacks
with certain restrictions on height.
Would you agree with that?
So I'm going to very briefly try to show my screen.
If I crash, nice seeing all of you today.
um okay
this should be it
can you see that yes okay uh i would just stay for the board this is the section of the code
zoning code section 201 this is subsection uh 118 this is the definition section could you just read
section 118 can you enlarge that a little bit leonard uh it's not
let me see i don't want to lose you so if you can't leave it alone i'll see what i can do
but in the can are you able to read it in the meantime
it's pretty small but i can also um bring it up on my own screen 118 oh wait here we go
does that help i see it yes yeah perfect thank you there an unroofed barrier including a retaining
wall forming a partially enclosed structure used to limit ingress or egress to a lot or portion of
a lot that is constructed of materials that are designed and intended to be used primarily for
the construction of fences okay but would you agree that the definition that fences and retaining
walls are treated uh the same they're under the same definition in the zoning code i'm going to
object that's calls for a legal conclusion um the fact that they're listed in the same definition
doesn't mean that they're treated the same in the zoning code why would it say that fence or
retaining wall well because there are many we've seen earlier today in the hearing we've seen in
we've seen sections where retaining walls have different are treated differently than fences
in the same section of the code so again with height they're treated one way with setbacks
they're not treated the same way and and they're distinguished a fence and a retaining wall
are clearly different this is argument it's not an objection so again if i could maybe if i could
follow up then with uh with this poindexter uh miss point and we'll just say look the code
the code section the definition of fence and retaining wall speaks for itself um you would
agree, by the way, Ms. Poindexter, that fences are constructed, right? I mean, they don't just
magically appear. I'm going to object to relevance because this case doesn't really involve any
fences or the construction. Well, again, I think the previous discussion had to do with whether
with there being a distinction between fences and retaining walls having to do with one being
constructed and the other somehow not being constructed. I'm not really clear.
uh well we did talk about engineering sure but well okay miss poindexter um does the zoning code
uh well let me let me let me ask this one is this particular project uh in a steep slopes area
yes there are steep slopes that exist on the site okay uh is the retaining wall uh there to
ameliorate some of the circumstances caused by the slopes.
um circumstances caused by the slopes
the retaining wall that's within that setback area um i'm not sure the relevancy of the question
but um we'll just go ahead yeah the retaining wall in that area um was purely for aesthetics
so it's not right i'm sorry mr chair yeah so in other words as i think the chair was about
was about to ask or ask you to clarify that the retaining wall is not there uh for some necessary
structural or engineering purpose is that correct that's correct okay all right all right so um and
And just to follow up just briefly, because I think we can clarify again that other issue
having to do with the street frontage, just so we're clear, when as lots being treated
under unity of use, each lot retains its own partial identification, is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay. And they each retain their own separate tax ID. Is that right?
That's correct.
So they are still separate lots, legally speaking, aren't they?
That's correct.
Or from a zoning perspective.
So, with respect to the 6134R Wayne Avenue, that has a pre -existing flagpole, if you will, that goes up to Wayne Avenue. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And is it your position as a code engineer for this project and a planning engineer for the project, that that is a non -conforming aspect of a lot, and therefore, as long as that lot was being treated as a separate lot for those purposes, it remained a non -conformity and didn't generate a refusal for street frontage?
I'm just going to object. I understand what you're trying to say, Mr. Reuter, and I don't disagree that it could be considered a nonconforming feature, but that calls for a legal conclusion.
Since I'm a lawyer, I can make that. You're a lawyer. You can make that. I don't think this point extra can make that.
Well, and that's fair.
It calls for speculation on her part.
Well, I mean, I understand the objection, but I think both expert witnesses were presented precisely to give their opinions about what the code, a legal document, requires.
But we'll just see.
Otherwise, all the expert testimony has been superfluous.
Well, her opinion on the code, yes, for sure. She's an expert on that. But whether a specific set of facts are properly applied to the code and come to a conclusion is a legal opinion that she's not an expert on.
Okay, so then we can all agree that we spent a lot of time for not being here.
So thank you.
We have now passed the 12 -15 time limit that we put on this.
We'd like to get this portion of the case resolved today as to whether or not the board will deny or approve the appeal against L &I.
so uh because i think a lot of what i've been hearing is basically going to be more about
what whether or not this project should move forward as is or there's a like a variance
case it sounds to me god bless you rachel mr chair i think you have it correct i mean we
already have one refusal so if we want to proceed there will certainly be a variance case under that
one refusal at a minimum so we we do want to wrap this up so we can proceed to the variance case and
maybe the board will decide there should be additional refusals.
Maybe the board feels that the, there should not be additional refusals,
but we'll never get to the variance case if we don't end this. So, you know,
we're with you on that.
And we have, I have no more, more questions of anybody. And of course,
as I said, we had no witnesses to present.
I don't know if Mr. Saverin had any further witnesses.
No. Mr. Terry, we're, we're ready for a closing argument.
Let's proceed as quickly as we can.
Okay. I think I would go first then. Is that correct?
Yes, right. So here's where I see things falling out at this point. The city and the developer have not rebutted at all the third basis for our experts' testimony that L &I missed a critical feature that should have been refused and needs a variance.
And that is section 147035A .1 that.
section 147035A .1, that each principal building has to have one or more entry doors facing and
visible from an adjacent public street. Now, Ms. Poindexter testified that Wayne Avenue is the
public street. There is no public street with station drive. That's a private SEPTA street.
And if you look at her map, when we were talking about that 20 -foot setback, it's labeled front
setback because she believes in her plan that the front of the property should be facing
Wayne Avenue because that's what the code requires.
But if you look at the design of this plan, everything is facing the Topohokin Station
Drive and the Topohokin train tracks.
Now, that's their design choice.
And that doesn't mean that if it comes before the board and they ask for a variance on it, that doesn't mean that the board doesn't give them a variance on it. But you can't hear this case with every single entrance to this project. None of them are facing Wayne Avenue. Literally not even one.
They're all facing the train tracks, the Topofahawken Station Drive, the little driveway that they created, and there's no contest here.
There's been no contradiction in any of the testimony that this should have been a clear refusal on that basis, which it wasn't.
They did try to kind of be a little squirmy on some of the early plans where they listed Station Drive as West Topofahawken Street.
street um and and it was labeled that way and maybe that confused the plans examiner the first
time around but it shouldn't have um because it's everyone agrees that this is a private street
owned by sefta they have no right until they can negotiate some kind of a of an easement with it
and they're so that clearly on that basis alone we need to send it back to lni to do that correct
refusal. The other ones, the 20 -foot setback, again, a retaining wall is a structure. The
evidence is uncontested that there is a retaining wall structure within the 20 feet. They're
arguing that it's really a fence, but that isn't clear from the basis of the plans that were
submitted. There was no plan submitted that said this is a decorative fence that is made out of
rocks it said retaining wall and the code is clear that the examiner should have that should
have triggered a refusal for a for a uh for failing to meet the setback for retaining wall
they wanted to put a decorative fence up they obviously could have done that and it would have
been it would have been exempted from the setback requirements but they chose to put a wall up for
whatever reason and they need to they need to seek a variance for that um so on those on those
um on both of those uh code provisions i think the evidence is clear there really is no there
is no um contest to to both of those and we need to send this back to lni to get a better refusal
um may i may i proceed mr chair would you like to hear from mr reuter first
thank you members of the board just a couple you know quick things again we believe that the
application as submitted was properly approved we agree that and again I believe and Mr. Masters
was very explicit at the beginning of today's hearing that the unity of use
approval is no longer being challenged and therefore it's treated
uh that therefore the the the they can they can use both lots uh as contiguous lots under common
ownership uh for zoning purposes but because they retain their separate identity the uh the
existing flag lot at 6134 r wayne street has an existing non -conforming access to wayne avenue
And therefore, it did not generate a refusal, which the prior application, which created a completely new lot, did generate that refusal.
So I think that's why that whole issue came up.
So it's no longer a refusal because 6134R Wayne Avenue retains its separate identity as a parcel.
With respect to the other issues that were raised by Mr. Masters, you know, again, there's nothing in the code that specifically requires complete streets approval for every aspect.
It did go through complete streets, which is specifically required for CDR, but it did go through complete streets for CDR, and there has been no determination that the change.
and there has been no determination that the change from consolidation to unity of use would
by itself, where there was any reason for that to trigger a new CDR review, therefore there's no
reason why the complete streets program had to be adhered to again. This is not to say that at
the building permit stage there will not be some additional reviews for streets, or for that
matter for the retaining wall or anything like that, but simply that there's nothing in the code
that automatically would trigger a new complete streets review with respect to the setback
requirement. It's our position that with respect to this application, the setback requirement
does specifically provide for exemptions for fences and that we believe that fences and
retaining walls are essentially treated the same in the zoning code. And it's specifically so
basically in that section of the exemptions that was pointed out by Mr. Saverin, it showed
that you could have basically a six foot high retaining wall here it's essentially treated the
same as a fence wall uh and again i think the the under the notion that a retaining wall within a
setback would always trigger a refusal um kind of would given the number of slopes and the number
of places in the city where retaining walls are required it was it would essentially uh require
thousands of additional variances to be granted when it's there's not it's not a real it's not
a planning issue whether there's a retaining wall there's an engineering question for sure
there's building code questions for sure but from a from a planning or land use perspective
uh in a case even here where there are steep slopes but where the retaining wall is not
necessary because of a steep slope issue but as as ms point dexter pointed out was aesthetic
that there doesn't appear to be any particular planning reason why we would treat a retaining
wall separately from a fence wall for zoning purposes strictly for zoning purposes again
notwithstanding whether there may be building code issues down the line the other thing i do
want to mention and again i don't want to i understand the board has allowed this this issue
to go forward but um you know once a once a any refusal is issued for whatever the reason in this
case it's for for a heritage tree uh the removal of a heritage tree uh the board has to go through
the steps required to grant a variance. So that's for any refusal. So it kind of seems like it would
be superfluous here to go through this entire exercise where we go and get additional refusals
when you could have one refusal, you could have 17 refusals. The zoning board's job is essentially
the same in any case, which is to make a determination about whether there's a hardship,
whether the variance will injure adjacent conforming properties, et cetera, et cetera. So
So, you know, notwithstanding whether or not there would be additional refusals, I don't see where there would be any benefits served to any of the parties by sending this back to L &I if the board were to make a determination that additional refusals should have been granted.
We thought all the refusals that were resolved except for the heritage tree, so to us, to the city, it would make no sense to send this back to L &I when you're still going to have to make a determination about whether a variance is warranted in this case, and you still go through all of the seven steps or whatever that are necessary to make a determination of whether the variance is warranted.
So that's, that's all I have to say. And I thank the board and all the witnesses and attorneys for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rorty for your testimony. Rachel, I'm going to just state that this is an appeal with L &I and so we sort of defer to the city and they're, they're closing our argument.
the only comment i would just make is that um around the fence retaining wall uh i do believe
that mr masters was unable to find any code section to make a definitive determination there
so i would just mention that and lastly just for the benefit of the board so that at the zba you're
not voting on a hypothetical matter we will be more than able to provide information uh related
to the access easement in our conversations with septa at that time thank you
Well, the last point is just that, and again, I think this was already made by Len, that
we're, by using the unity of use program, we decided not to change the lot lines of
the two parcels.
So our position is that any, and there should be no refusals that relate to the, you know,
the boundary lines of the parcels, because they're not being changed and are non -conforming
from a legal standpoint.
Thank you to the board for listening to the testimony of myself and the co -counsel today.
Can I just have a final word, Mr. Chair?
Can I just have a final word, Mr. Chair?
A brief final word.
A brief final word.
Again, none of my opposing counsel have addressed the one issue that I told you was clearly proven by us, which is that every single entry door in this project does not face Wayne Avenue.
And the code is clear. It has to face Wayne Avenue. None of them do.
So that was a clear problem on L &I's part.
They need to go back and issue that as a refusal so that when you hear the case, Mr. Reuter says it doesn't really matter how many refusals or how many variances you have.
That's actually not true. When this board rules, you need to grant the variances that are necessary to legally create and operate this project.
And if you don't have the proper issues before you, then the variances that you grant would not legally entitle them to do it.
you're not going to legalize those doors facing the wrong way if you don't have that before you
as part of the variances being granted. So that's why there's no question about this.
The board would not be in a position to ask for those adjustments to the plan.
Mr. Chair, and again, this has come up in several other cases. Yeah, I mean, 17 refusals probably
was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that there have been other cases where you've
heard a case where on one refusal, and I think in a couple of instances where the applicant or
the applicant's attorney themselves suggested that there might have been additional refusals
that were missed, and it's been the city's position and the law department's position
that where warranted, the board does have the authority to recognize, as long as it's in the
record and it's recognized that an additional refusal maybe should have been granted when the
board, if and when the board addresses the variance case, they can grant a variance to all
matters because the zoning board stands in the same shoes as L and I. Obviously, there's certain
things that require plans review, such as changes in parking spaces, changes in height, changes in
GFA, things like that. But if for the sake of argument that Mr. Masters is correct about the
doors issue it doesn't strike me that that whether or not there are doors facing wayne avenue and
whether or not that's the issue that that necessarily requires it to go back to l and i
if you think that's the problem i think the board has the authority to say yeah i guess you're right
there aren't any doors on wayne we'll just add that to the refusals and get full go forward on
the case i don't see the point in sending it back to l and i for that all roads lead back to the
the variance cases as far as i'm concerned but in any way mr reuter are you saying the city will
agree to a stipulation that that this no i'm saying i'm saying no no i don't think i'm saying
it's up to the board to decide if the board of the board has the discretion to determine whether or
not a refusal should have been granted uh for the doors again something that would require plans
an additional plans review i think would require that to go back to to l and i but you know whether
or not there's doors it seems like it's it's it's it's it's a it's a black and white issue and i
think that they can just that's not going to require another plans review um so i don't you
know and chairman we did address that it's a rear parcel yeah we understand that i think this is an
argument that could be made if and when we get to the uh the variance cases thank you all right uh
does the board have any questions as it relates to this case as it relates to the appeal against
no mr chairman thank you so chair this is i'm excuse me mr sharon if you are going to vote
this today there is a separate mi number for the appeal against l and i which you do not have in
front of you so do you have that it's mi 2021 003743 003743 so when i when i read this into
of the record, do I do the original MI and this number as well? No, you would only be voting today
on this. On the numbers you gave me just now, correct? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. MI 2021 -003743,
is that correct? Sharon? It's MI -2021 -003743, correct. 3743, okay.
6134 -46 Rare Wayne Avenue, my vote is to deny the appeal.
Professor Plaza, appeal denied
Thomas Holliman, appeal denied
James Snell, appeal denied
and thank you that concludes the morning list excuse me chair i'm not sure we do have to
Thank you, that concludes the morning list
Excuse me, Chair, I'm not sure we do
schedule a second hearing for the variance part of this miss sunkit do we have a date or is that
something that will be scheduled later my question to rachel is that everything done and you're ready
to proceed um not today but as soon as available yes november the 16th thank you very much at
at 9 30? I'll still be here on the 16th. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Chair. 16th at 9 30. I mean, sorry,
two o 'clock. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have in the record that we have not received
any of the submissions that the applicant has submitted to the board. We don't have a letter
from SEPTA around the easement.
We don't have a list of witnesses.
Mr. Masters, we will get all email.
You'll provide everything?
Yes, we will be ready to do that.
And if you'd like, you can email us requests,
but I think you'll be satisfied with our packet
going into the variance hearing.
We just provide them with a list of the information you need
and they'll provide it.
There's just been a pattern of not providing that to us
until the very last moment.
Well, they're on record now telling us that they will.
We will provide it within five days of the hearing.
If they don't, you'll raise that at the next hearing.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
You're muted.
I'm sorry.
To the board, we'll be back at 1 .45 for an executive session.
All right.
I will send out invitations to that session.
Thank you, Sharon.
Thank you.
And Yvette is still the administrator today?
Yes, Chair.
Okay, let us know when you're ready.
We're ready now, Chair. We have 22 attendees in the room.
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Board Secretary, Mr. Professor Plaza.
Professor?
My apologies. We've been so present.
No problem. Board Member, Mr. Thomas Holloman?
Present.
And board member, Mr. James Snell.
Present.
Our board administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton, and our board attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta,
are also in attendance, as is our zoning board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public by contacting Ms. Tanya Sunkett at tanya .sunkett at phila .gov.
if anyone if you're participating by phone and you wish to testify you must raise your hand by
hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself i'll repeat for anyone participating
by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google number 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. And I'll repeat that.
For anyone participating by phone, excuse me, to make an appearance statement, call Google number
two six seven two seven zero five five four eight and leave your email address and the address of
the property at issue and i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the
chat comments questions and issues of concern should be directed to ms yvette benton or board
administrator this afternoon having said that i will read off the add -ons of the two o 'clock list
MI 2021 -001896. 1221 West Allegheny Avenue. This was a resumption hearing. We were waiting for a letter from the RCO, which we have received.
This was a resumption hearing.
We were waiting for a letter from the RCO, which we have received.
My vote is yes.
With the proviso, revised plan, one page approved today.
Professor Plaza, yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
So number two on our add -on list, MI 2021 -002399, 1241 North 28th Street.
We were holding this for a letter from the RCO, which we have received.
My vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Holloman, yes.
James Snell, yes.
i'm sorry chair this is tanya i hate to interrupt but were we supposed to read the record the the
letter on record sorry was i supposed to read it yes i believe so you're right i apologize yep
thank you kindly
Okay, the letter, I'll read into the letter, has to do with, hold on, where is it?
There you go.
So if I could ask if we can go back to 1221 Wesley High Avenue first and read that email slash letter into the record and then vote.
And then we have a letter for the second one as well.
Okay, as it relates to, correct me if I'm wrong, as it relates to MI 2021, that is 001 -896 -1221 West Lehigh Avenue. I'm reading the letter into the record, Tanya, is that correct?
Yes, the information that's right under your add -on that you received from Ms. Saleta.
email from norman wooten yes 12th and cambria advisory board uh we and this is the part of
this is the body of the letter we did have a second meet community meeting and the owner
agreed not to have the entrance to the two units in back on seltzer street he also agreed to a
community benefits agreement uh the writer says i have a copy of it and if you would like
to have a copy, let me know. I would hope Mr. Clinton has given you a copy. We voted and the
vote was as follows. Nine yes, two no, and one no vote. Everyone likes the fact that they should
be a good neighbor and good for the neighborhood. Signed Norman S. Wooten, 12th and Cambria
advisory board rco so having said that i'll go back and my vote is yes uh with the revised plan
one page approved today professor plaza yes we're providing thomas holliman yes with the visor
james snell yes we're providing okay we're going to go back and do number two on the add -on list
MI 2021 -002 -399 -1241 -North 28th Street.
Get that letter up.
And you should look at page two of the attachment, Chair.
please accept this this is the one the correct uh sharon please accept this letter yes it's a
letter from brewery town shardswood community civic association please accept this letter on
behalf of the brewery town shardswood community civic association zoning committee expressing
our non -opposition to the variants requested for 1241 North 28th Street, permit for use as three
dwellings in an existing structure. The project was presented at a public community meeting on
September the 23rd, 2021. After the presentation and subsequent discussion, the vote was 10 to
support, nine to oppose, eight abstain. The lack of a consensus speaks to a larger division in the attitude about
The lack of a consensus speaks to a larger division in the attitude about the proliferary of multifamily housing units coming into our neighborhood.
We do not oppose the granting of this variance request with the proviso.
The owner will provide lighting and cameras, which is not enforceable by the board.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input.
and it leaves information as to where to contact the board.
Signed by Doris Aldridge.
I believe it's Aldridge, A -L -D -R -I -D -G -E.
My vote is yes.
No, there's no proviso.
My vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
You are now going to number three.
MI 2021 -002064, 1737 North 23rd Street. Planning supports this case was originally heard on October
the 6th and continued for receipt of a tax clearance and a letter from the RCO. The tax
clearance was received, but we have not yet, correct me if I'm wrong, we have not yet received
the letter from the rco i understand that the attorney mr vernon anastasio has requested that
letter on multiple occasions and without any objection my vote is yes confessor plaza my vote
is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes okay thank you uh tanya
and leave anything out no chair all is well okay now go to the two o 'clock list
um there are no requests as of yet for continuances or withdrawals so I'll ask the
question is there anyone who would like to have a case continued or withdrawn from the two o 'clock
list please raise your hand if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal
for the two o 'clock list raise your hand
I see no hands at this time chair
okay thank you we'll go to the first case
MI 2021 -003191
1107 South 6th Street
Zen Jin is the attorney of record
Dickinson Square West Civic Association
sent a letter of support and Councilman Mark
Squilla sent a letter of non -opposition. Mr. Jinn, please identify yourself. You're still
under oath from earlier this morning. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Xen Jinn,
Z -H -E -N -J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf
of the applicant. Mr. Plaza, I have some questions for you. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Jinn. You swear
I'm sorry, do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, to both questions.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
This is an application to use this particular location as a business office.
I am going to first share with the board the information we submitted to the board, which includes refusal, RCO letter, plans, and photos.
The refusal indicates that this is a RSA 5 zoned property.
However, this was previously approved by variants to a commercial use, but as a vacant commercial property.
Therefore, each time a new use comes in, a new application must be made to certify the use itself.
In this case, the refusal specifically says the office use is not permitted in the RSA 5 district.
We do want to point out, however, that first of all, Dickinson Square West Civic Association supports our application and pointed out in their letter that this is a new tenant to occupy the building as a business.
This is not the first tenant and that this use is consistent to what is in the area and what is surrounding this property.
The photos also show that this is a commercial building that is in fact a mixed use with
residential, above, and commercial on the first floor. Again, because it was vacant,
a new zoning certification is required each time a new tenant comes in. This use is going to be
This use is going to be an office for a senator, so that is the potential tenant who wishes to take occupancy of the space.
an office for a senator.
So again, it's a very basic business professional use and certainly will not negatively impact anybody in the area.
Based on the support from the neighborhood and the uses being consistent to what is essentially set up for the property on the first floor, we would ask the board's favorable review of this matter.
I'll be happy to answer any questions or redirect to any exhibits the board would like to see.
That's on the, is that part of the pad that makes the parking area for the mall at 6th and Washington Avenue?
um it's yeah it's it's a six of washington i think it's one of the buildings on the corner
that is right near okay shopping center all right got it thank you thank you thank you
do you have a client to adopt your testimony um either mr kim ing or miss stella wong may be with
us can you raise your hand virtually so that you can be identified
Ms. Wong, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Ms. Wong.
Please spell your first and last name, then I'll swear you in.
Okay, spell it, Wong, S -T -E -L -L -A -W -O -N -G.
Do you swear or affirm the title of the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Hello?
Thank you, Mr. Jin.
Thank you.
Ms. Wang, have you heard my testimony to the board
and saw the presentation I made before the zoning board?
Uh -huh.
Thank you.
Can you verify what I've stated is true and correct
and adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
i see no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good afternoon mr chairman
board members david effecto city planning commission
mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the single family
zoning in this location however this appears to be a pre -existing commercial space we recommend
under the board grant the requested use variance. Thank you. MI 2021 -003191 1107 South 6th Street.
My vote is yes. Professor Plaza. Yes. Thomas Halliman. Yes. James Snell. Yes. Thank you.
Number two on our list, MI 2021 -003141, 1210 -12 North American Street.
Ellen Knokensom is the attorney of record.
South Kensington Community Partners sent a letter of support.
It's either Mr. Knokensom or Ms. Amazon.
Gotcha.
Got you. Ms. Amazon, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Comente Amazon, C -L -E -M -E -N -T -A, last name is A -M -A -Z -A -N -123, South Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Fosin has a few questions.
Yes, Ms. Amazon, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, and we have a letter of support.
Thank you. Please proceed.
can everyone see my screen yes thank you um so again today i'll be presenting 1210 -12 north
american street during my presentation i will go through the notice of refusal the letter of support
that we received from south fencing community partners maps of the area photographs of the
property as well as our proposed plans and drawings the notice that we had for the community meeting
our application for the appeal, as well as the deed and certificate of tax clearance.
So first things first, we have the notice of refusal. When a client purchased the property,
it was zoned as commercial mixed use. Unfortunately, the zoning was changed to single
family. We are requesting to have a triplex here, which isn't out of sorts. We would be
We are requesting to have a triplex here, which isn't out of sorts.
We would be supporting the commercial corridor.
supporting the commercial.
There is an existing structure as is.
We're just looking to demo it and create that triplex.
So we did meet with South Kensington Community Partners, and they did provide us a lot of support.
We really made an effort to take into consideration the comments that they had regarding the design of the project.
They were in support, as you see from this letter.
so here we have a map of the area so we are along north american and west style street we are a
corner lot and we do have two means of egress um so there are separate entrances as well
a zoning map of the area so we are just off of west gerard street we're looking to support this
commercial corridor with this use here we have the front of the property as you can see there
are currently two separate entrances we are going to maintain the two separate entrances although
we are creating a new structure. A view from North American Street, excuse me, a view from
West Dallas Street, a view of North American to the right of the property, North American to the
left of the property, West Dallas Street to the right of the property, West Dallas Street to the
left of the property. And here we have a rendering of the project, our site plans, and the floor
plans. We are looking to have a triplex here. Unit one would be a one -bedroom, two -bath. Unit two
is one bedroom, one bath, and unit three is also one bedroom, one bath.
Ms. Amazon, pardon the interruption. Is that a siren going past or was that?
Unfortunately, it's the beauty of being in the city, so it is a siren going past.
Well, I know my office is not far from yours. I didn't know it was a siren or something in your
office. Okay. No, nothing's on fire over here. Please proceed. Thank you. Of course. So again,
unit one's a one bedroom, two bath, that's going to be a bi -level unit at about 1 ,300 square feet.
unit two is a one bedroom one bath and unit three is also one bedroom one bath both about 650 square
feet and here are just several views from the side rear as you can see there is an egress here
so we do have a door in the rear and door in the front as well and we did send out notice of the
community meeting that was held on september 22nd at 6 30 p .m we included the date time as well as
Zoom information and a copy of the refusal, a list of the properties that were notified of said
meetings, as well as the certificate of mailing, our application for appeal. Again, this property
is currently zoned as single family, although my client purchased it, it was, I believe, a CMX
property. We're just looking to have multifamily use here in the form of a triplex. It has a history
of multifamily use. Our project information form, as well as indeed showing that my client owns the
property and our certificate of tax clearance so with that um if i could have joel rodriguez
raise his hand um that would be great so you can adopt my testimony
your client's name again joel rodriguez he's calling in um
I'm actually assisting him with a call -in, so it should be the last four digits, 6 -3 -2 -3.
Mr. Rodriguez, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Rodriguez?
Ms. Amazon, we'll stipulate you being an attorney that your client would have adopted your testimony.
any questions from the board no mr chairman no would anyone else like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good afternoon
david facto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in the residential single -family zoning at this location.
The property was rezoned in 2017.
This is an 1 ,134 -square -foot lot.
However, the property is around the corner from the Girard Avenue commercial corridor,
and a triplex at this location will support the city's goal
of increasing density near commercial corridors.
We recommend that the board approve the requested use and dimensional variances.
MI 2021 -003141, 1210 -12 North American Street, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
At number three on our list, MI 2021 -003195.
1331 North 2nd Street
one three three one north second street rachel pritzker is the attorney of record
Rachel Pritzker is the
south kensington community partners sent a letter of support miss pritzker uh please identify
yourself with a record you're still under oath from earlier today thank you uh rachel r -a -c -h -a -e -l
pritzker p -r -i -t -z -k -e -r 1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103
Thank you.
Mr. Plaza has questions for you.
First, can you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate so its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and compliance five days
prior to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have a letter of support.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to share my screen.
keep this very brief. So this is 1331 North 2nd Street. The refusal, we're just doing a lot
line relocation. It's one of a few street -to -street properties that has not been subdivided.
We're looking to just create two lots from 1331 North 2nd. One will be facing 2nd Street. There's
an existing single family home there that's going to stay. And then the refusal we got was for the
other lot, which is going to be on Pailthorpe. A lot of the reasons that we generated the refusal
was because of the existing structure and not to create two non -conforming lots. So the lot is
going to be 803 square feet. And as previously mentioned, we do have support. As you can see
in front of me or in front of you all, we have sort of pulled a survey of all the additional
lots on the block. And again, we're providing 803 square feet. So we're a little bit bigger
than most of the lots on Pailthorpe, which is where this lot is going to be. But just to show
that we are in character with what's currently there based on the existing square footage of
the lots that are there i'll just quickly go to there's a tax clearance the zoning map as you can
see most of the other lots are subdivided again ours is this one that's highlighted and again
we're just looking to subdivide like the remainder of this block again aerial view
this is the existing house with the zoning posters the house is going to remain intact
It's just the rear of it that will be subdivided.
The board's well aware of the code provisions.
Again, we met with the South Kensington Community Partners on September 22nd.
And as you can see in front of you, they took a position of support.
Two in support, zero opposed, 16 people attended.
And so they have sent a letter of support for our project, as you can see in bold here.
um i would like to bring and we also the board has in its package just letters of support from
the directly affected near neighbors sorry about that near neighbors as well um with that said i
don't know if my client maria is um on but in order to save time if the board would stipulate
that she would adopt my testimony that would be fine we'll stipulate that you being officer court
your client would have adopted it was that the cat making that noise yes that is the cat there's
boxes any questions from the board no mr chairman no anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand i see no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential single -family zoning at this location.
The undersized parcel proposed for Pailthorpe Street is in keeping with the lot sizes on the block.
Lot sizes range from approximately 600 square feet to just over 900 square feet.
We recommend that the board grant the requested dimensional variance.
Thank you.
mi 2021 -003195 1331 north second street my vote is yes professor plaza yes
thomas holliman yes james snell yes thank you thank you case number four mi 2021 -003
thomas holliman yes james snell yes thank you thank you case number four mi 2021 -003
111. 3001 Tyson Avenue. Mr. Sean Ward is the attorney of record.
111. 3001 Tyson Avenue. Mr. Sean Ward is the attorney of record.
My notes indicate that we have not yet received a re -letter from the Mayfair Civic Association.
My notes indicate that we have not yet received a re -letter from the Mayfair Civic Association.
My notes indicate that we have not yet received a re -letter from the Mayfair Civic Association.
Mr. Ward may be able to clear that up for us.
Mr. Ward, please identify yourself, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA, 19053.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Yes, Mr. Ward, do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you very much.
All right. Just confirming. Everybody can see my screen.
Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my exhibit packet on behalf of G. We call him Mike Chen.
That's J -I -E Chen, C -H -E -N, doing business as M &C Max LLC with regard to 3001 Tyson Avenue.
We filed an application for a permit for a business and professional office, together with two previously approved two -family dwelling in an existing structure.
Two refusals resulted business and professional office is not permitted, and multiple principal uses are not permitted.
Accordingly, we need two use variances today.
A2 is the ZBA application.
A3 is the project information form.
A4, proof of ownership.
A5, tax clearance.
A6 are the photographs. A7, separate from the packet, is Mayfair Civics' RCO letter.
I don't believe Councilman Heenan submitted a letter, so if one was submitted that would be A8.
A9, the relevant zoning history, the property was built in 1947 as part of a 40 -unit duplex
development known as 3000 through 38 and 3001 through 39 tyson avenue 1948 a variance was
granted for a drug store at this property together with the existing two -family dwelling
and then in 1969 a variance was granted for a dog grooming and existing two -family dwelling
the dog grooming business just left recently so that was a heck of a run for that business in
the neighborhood. So A10 is the zoning map. A11 is the aerial photograph. With regard to the proposed
use, it would be a real estate and insurance office for Mr. Chen and his wife. It would be
an owner -occupied business. Days and hours would be regular business hours, Monday through Friday,
nine to five, closed on weekends. Number of employees would be, for now, two would be the
husband and wife. And with regard to parking, there are two off -street parking spaces for
residential tenants. So real quickly we have our notice of refusal, the
application of appeal, project information form, copy of his deed, proof of tax
clearance, showing totals of zero. The property is located at the corner of
Tyson and Battersby in the Mayfair section of the city. As you can see from
side shot of the building the dog grooming business occupied the basement level and had a storefront
type entry again another photo the inside needs some substantial renovation for the business
office but that will occur after approvals are granted the front of the house you'll see 3001 is
the address there's a common entry for the two apartments and then inside there's separate
dedicated entries there is commercial there is trash storage area at the front of the property
in a fenced -in enclosure. Here's the two reference parking spots behind the home in the common
driveway. And just to show, there are three separate meters for the three separate units.
And then we have street views, Tyson facing Roosevelt Boulevard, Tyson facing eastbound,
Battersby facing south, and Battersby facing north. Then we have the zoning permits that I
referenced earlier the zoning map it's rsa5 and just a overhead view mayfair civic and the rec
center are to the north roosevelt boulevard is out here to the left so with regard to the mayfair
letter um excuse me mr ward but if i could just tell the board that we did receive the um letter
it wasn't sent directly to me but mr ward did forward it to me this afternoon i just sent the
board the requested provisos none of which i believe are enforceable right yeah that's what
i was asking we we understand that but
We understand that, but the vote was 8 -0, unanimously not opposed.
This is Mayfair's typical,
they're more or less requests of the applicant.
Understood.
I understand. Okay. I do have Mr. Chen in the room.
I asked him to raise his hand when we started.
So if the chair needs me to have him verify and adopt,
that would be fine if not we can stipulate to that if we're willing to stipulate we will stipulate uh
you being an officer of court that your client would have adopted your testimony
that is correct thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no one else
hearing none there's no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential single family zoning at this location
there is documented use of a single family home with a business dating to at least 1948
at various times commercial activity seems to have been continued then discontinued
we recommend the board grant the requested use variances thank you very much mi 2021 -003
111 3001 tyson avenue my vote is yes professor plaza yes thomas halliman my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes thank you thank you very much thank you number five on our list MI
2021 -003194 814 South Front Street Mr. Steve Bertil is the attorney of record
Queen Village Neighbors Association sent a letter of opposition I don't know if we have received
the letter yet from councilman Squilla's office. Mr. Bertil is coming back in as a panelist now,
Chair. Mr. Bertil, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Steve Bertil, B -E -R -T -I -L, Claire Harrison Harvey in Brandsburg, Philadelphia PA, excuse me,
1835 Market Street, Philadelphia PA 19103 on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.
Mr. Bertil, do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I can't agree to the, I can't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal. We have three refusals.
One of them is incorrectly applied. And so I have to, for the record, bring that to the board's attention.
okay and have you uh emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing uh yes it's all the above okay and have you uh met with the rco and have a letter yes
so both okay um please proceed thank you um i just want to share my screen
okay uh good afternoon again um members of the board mr chair um as i stated my name is steve
bertill i'm here on behalf of the applicants for this 814 south front street um the applicants are
the owners, John and Bernadette Shad. I'm starting with the refusal here just to highlight why I
couldn't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal. There are three written refusals on our notice,
which should be up on the screen now. Just want to verify that you can see that.
Yes, we can. Yes. As you'll see, what we're here seeking is the legalization of existing
roof deck on a property that was on the property years before the applicant acquired and moved
into the property in 2019. The property in question, or the roof deck in question, I should
say, was upon application to legalize it, we were given three refusals, two of which are due to the
Two of which are due to the front, the setback and the height increase that the roof deck creates.
the front, the setback and the height of
And the third one is stated as the total height due to the front setback of a pergola that's on the roof deck.
The problem here is that this third refusal, the dimensional restrictions that created the refusal are for roof deck access structures and roof decks only.
And they don't apply to anything else outside of roof decks and roof decks access structures. And they certainly don't apply to pergolas, which have their own dimensional restrictions, but just not these.
And so therefore, today, what's actually the actual refusals that are legitimate that are before the board are the first two.
Now, as I think the board knows, pergolas do have dimensional restrictions that are assessed at a building permit level, which we're going to have to go through because we're legalizing the entire deck.
But for the purposes of zoning, the only refusals that are actually legitimate are the first two regarding the roof deck.
So I just wanted to clarify that before I got into my principal presentation.
I didn't want the board going through the individual sections, but if need be, I can do that later on if the board thinks it's necessary.
Okay. So as I stated, we are here for 814 South Front Street. This is a single family home zone
that's RSA 5, occupied by John and his wife, Bernadette. They acquired and purchased and
moved into the home in 2019. It's situated here, as you can see highlighted, fronting on Front
Street between Catherine and Queen Street. The property in question shares a common parking lot
with a few other properties in the rear. Here's an aerial so you get a sense of
the sort of block cluster. The property in question is here.
And again, so you can just get to see this blank area here is a rear parking lot that's shared by
all these properties. The application here is fairly simple. There's a deck that's been on the
property since 2009 at the earliest of records that I could find my 10 years prior to the
applicant's purchase of the property. They weren't aware at the time of purchasing that there was any
issues with the legalization of the deck or the deck was done without any zoning um so they
purchased the property and as anyone would do started to enjoy the deck that they have um and
in the attempts to make you know to to make it their own they did add um a pergola for shade
on the top of the deck um about in 2020 about in the spring of 2020 um and the deck and the
pergola has been in existence all this time. Just so you get a sense of what we're talking about
here, let me just jump to, for the sake of time, photos. This is the existing property from the
street level. As you can see, that's the deck in the front pergola. This is the property from the
rear you can see that there's a parking uh like the parking lot on the on the ground level again
you can see the rear deck the deck itself is actually bi -level um the upper deck is about
30 feet excuse me the lower deck is about 30 feet off the ground and upper deck is about 34
feet off the ground here's some shots from on the deck so you can kind of see this is not something
that was shabbily done. As I stated, it's the deck has been there for 10 years. The pergola
has been there for almost two years. But again, the pergola itself is not subject to this zoning
review, but it will be subject just like the entire deck will be to building review.
Here's another shot from, so you get a sense from the upper deck, what it looks like.
and so essentially we're just trying to legalize this deck the refusals um in this area there is
an overlay um that requires an eight foot setback for the uh for the for the roof decks which
obviously is um not the case here this goes all the way to the front end of the roof
um and the roof deck access structure um because it's on the lower deck increases the height of
because it's on the lower deck, increases the height of the building by about one foot and three inches.
the building by about one foot.
And so essentially the hardship here is that this deck was in existence when they acquired it.
They didn't create the zoning issue with the deck.
It was here and they just want to continue using it and to legalize it properly.
They weren't even aware that it was an issue until L &I issued a notice of violation for the existence of the debt.
And that's when they, one, started investigating to confirm whether there was ever building permits or zoning permits for the debt back in 2009.
That took some time because we had to go through right to no request and establishing ownership.
You know, a lot of sort of procedural red tape with LNI, it needs to confirm that there wasn't any record of it actually being approved and violations were legitimate before applying for a new permit and trying to go through this process, because obviously this is something that's costly.
Once they went through that process and wasn't able to confirm one way or another, they just erred on the side of caution and apply for the permit and obtain these variances, excuse me, obtain the refusals.
And just for the record, here are photographs of the deck previous to ownership. Excuse me. That's current. Sorry. Here's photographs of the deck previous to our ownership. That's in 2019, 2017, as you can see from the screen graphs, 2015, 2011.
2009. And it may go back further than that, but that's just as far back as Google would go.
And so we did meet with the community group, the Queen Village Neighbors Association.
We did receive a letter of support in regards to the roof deck. There were concerns from some
board members regarding the structural integrity of the pergola. Now, we did inform them that the
pergola itself actually is not subject to any zoning approval right now. It will be subject
to building approval, but nonetheless, we agreed to a proviso, or we told them we're agreeing to
a proviso that will provide a structural integrity report directly to QVNA. It is something that
we'll have to provide to the city during the building review phase. We're going to have to
do it for the whole deck, frankly. But we're going to have to also do it as part of that,
the pergola is included. But we agreed, we stated that we will provide that report directly to QVNA
as well to reassure them of the structural integrity of the deck and the pergola that's
there, even though it's not actually subject to the zoning approval. In addition to that,
We did, because as I stated earlier, this property shares, is sort of an enclave of properties that share a parking lot in a sort of a common area parking lot.
And as such, we thought it was important to go and speak to the immediate neighbors in the area, let them know, even though they're all aware of the deck and, you know, for years and no one of the immediate neighbors had any issues.
um went to spoke to the neighbors informed them that it wasn't in fact properly approved by the
city um and that we were going through various requests and john and bernadette um was able
um to get uh signatures of support um by you know all the near neighbors but most importantly i
think by everyone who shares that um parking lot um with them so literally the directly affected
properties um when it comes to this deck in terms of like whose roof you can see when you're up
there um and things of that nature um in terms of air light and and quality of life all of those
all of those property owners are in support as you can see um up and down queen lane excuse me
queen street and front street um and some catherine um there's a second page of that
um and just so you can get an idea spatially of where they are you can see again this is the
property our properties in blue and all the adjacent properties that share the property
the parking lot here with us are in support um the properties here in support you may notice
that there's one property here that's not in support she or excuse me that you don't see a
dot on it's not because she's not in support this is an elderly um neighbor that john and
John and Bernadette helps out who's in the 90s she's just having health issues um and so they
Bernadette helps out who's in the 90s.
She's just having health issues.
And so they didn't.
didn't think it was kind of like appropriate to bother her with this um and then there was one
other property owner who's traveling but other than that all the adjacent property owners are
on board and in support um and as you'll see from Queen Village Neighbors Association's letter
they're generally in support um there they had concerns regarding the pergola which again
IS NOT SUBJECT TO ZONING APPROVAL ON ITS OWN, BUT IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO BUILDING APPROVAL,
AND WE ARE AGREEING TO A PROVISO THAT'S SAYING THAT WE 'LL PROVIDE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
REPORT DIRECTLY TO QVMA AT THE TIME OF, ACTUALLY BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL
PROCESS. AND SO WITH THAT, UNLESS THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I HAVE JOHN SHAD
here who can raise his hand and adopt and affirm my testimony um if the uh if the um administration
could recognize him mr shad you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair good afternoon
sir please spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in
john j -o -h -n shad s -c -h -a -d do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do thank you thank you mr chair uh john did you hear the testimony that i provided
to the board this afternoon i did do you uh affirm the truth for that testimony and adopt it as your
And is there anything that you feel like you need to add to that testimony?
I do not, but I am open to questions.
Thank you very much, John.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Would anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission. Good afternoon, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the single family zoning
at this location. This appears to be a request to legalize a roof deck that was built without
benefit of permit. We were going to enter a recommendation against this application today,
but after hearing that the applicant inherited the deck from a previous owner, we believe that
forcing the applicant to remove the roof deck would present a hardship. We are going to instead
enter a recommendation of approval. Thank you. And Sharon, would I need to make a proviso regarding
the request from QVNA as it relates to the integrity report or is Mr. Bertil's testimony
on the oath sufficient? I don't believe that L &I could enforce that if Mr. Bertil could just again
confirm on the record that the report will be provided. Sure, I'm happy to do that.
Should I do that now? Yeah, if you don't mind, please. Okay, so for the record, the applicant
is agreeing to provide the coordinating RCO, QVNA, Queen Village Neighbors Association,
a structural integrity report as it relates to the pergolas. Thank you. Having said that,
MI 2021 -003194
814 South Front Street, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, yes. Thomas Holliman, yes.
James Snell, yes.
We'll go to case number six on our list, MI 2021 -003140
8914 -54
for frankfurt avenue it's either mr knockamson or miss amazon who will be representing the
applicant upper holmesburg civic association sent a letter of support she's coming back in
now as a panelist here you good afternoon again miss amazon just identify yourself for the record
and you're still on their oath.
I'm going to say Amazon, C -L -E -M -E -N -T -A.
Last name is A -M -A -Z -A -N.
One, two, three, South Park Street,
Suite 600, 19109.
Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.
Yes, Ms. Amazon, you agree to waive the reading
of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents,
Prove of ownership, prove of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral,
voters and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Yes, I have.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen?
Perfect.
So today I'll be presenting 8914 -54 Frankfurt Avenue.
This is actually a property that's located within Shelley Plaza Shopping Center.
We are looking to have a Popeyes here, and our refusal is for the signage.
So during my presentation, I will go through the notice of refusal.
We did meet with Upper Homes for Civic Association on September 16th, and they provided us with a letter of support.
The project is supported unanimously.
I have maps of the area, photographs of the property, our proposed plans and drawings.
Notice that was sent out for that September 16th meeting, as well as the application for appeal, lease, and certificate of tax clearance.
So our refusal, as I mentioned before, is purely for the signage for this particular property.
Again, we're located in Shelley Plaza Shopping Center.
There are other tenants within this lot that also have similar signage, so we're just making sure that we can attract customers with the signage that we have presented.
We met with the community on September 16th. We did receive, excuse me, not email and support, but majority support for this project, a total of 33 votes in support, whereas only six were in opposition.
so here's just a map of the area in the particular shopping lot google map view so we are just off
of frankfurt avenue and here's just a map showing exactly where we are located so we are for cool
spot right here we're two away from at &t across from blick fitness and other big box stores which
have similar signage here we have a view of the front of the property a view of the side of the
property and a view of the rear of the property so we are proposing to have this sign along the
front of the property and this would be the louisiana chicken logo along the side of the
property along with love that chicken again we did meet with the community on september 16th
at 7 p .m we sent out notice of said meeting on september 2nd along with a copy of the refusal
41 properties were notified a list of the properties that we sent that notice to
And here we have the certificate of mail -in showing that we did send that notice out on September 2nd.
Our application for appeal. Again, the refusal. We only have the refusal here for signage. Again, other tenants within the shopping center do have similar signage. So what we're asking for, is it out of sorts? Our project information form?
the lease for the property
as well as
as a lengthy lease, our certificate of tax clearance.
So with that, if I can have my client adopt my testimony,
I believe it's Zubier Chaudhry.
What's that name again?
Zubier Chaudhry.
if not as an officer yeah you know what if you don't mind please spell the full name for us
oh this is a pop quiz um z -u -e -a -i -r last name is c -h -a -u -d -h -r -y
we'll stipulate you being an officer of court your client would have adopted your testimony
any questions from the board no mr chairman no
Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing commercial shopping area zoning at this location.
The trigger for this variance appears to be the portion of the shopping center that is zoned residential single family.
This presents a clear hardship to maintaining and upgrading the shopping center.
We are currently working on a zoning bill requested by the council office to change the zoning of this property to commercial shopping center zoning.
We recommend that the board grant the requested dimensional variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -003140.
8 -9 -1 -4 -5 -4
Frankfort Avenue, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote
is yes. Thank you.
I will read off
the next five cases
five cases. Unless Ms. Catherine Misner has any objection, I believe they'll be heard together.
unless Ms.
Catherine Misner has any
So let's do this. Let me get Ms. Misner on first and swear her in.
And then I'll read off the five, just to make sure there's no objection to reading.
Good afternoon.
Hi, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Catherine Missimer, M -I -S -S -I -M -E -R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
Thank you.
And you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you have any objection if we hear these all at the same time?
None at all.
I'll read the five cases into the record.
MI 2021 -003 -118, 907 Emily Street, Parcel D as in David.
MI 2021 -003 -119, 909 Emily Street, Parcel E as in Edward.
MI 2021 -003 -116, 903 Emily Street, Parcel B as in Boy.
MI 2021 -003117, 905 Emily Street, Parcel C, as in Charles, MI 2021 -003115, 901 Emily Street, Parcel number A, as in Albert.
Having said that, Mr. Plaza will have some questions for you.
Yes. Do you agree to make the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack her seat?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have. I would just ask administratively that each individual packet be entered into the record for each case.
Thank you. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yeah, before you begin, for the record, East Pass Young Crossing has sent a letter for each of the five applications, and a letter of non -opposition was sent in by Councilman Mark Squiller.
Great, thank you.
I'll go ahead and share my screen.
As I mentioned, I'm here on behalf of the ownership entity, CCD 107 LLC, owner of 901 through 909, Emily Street.
This is formally 2012 South 9th Street near Billingbach, if you're familiar with that area.
With me today are owner's rep, Austin Coleman, as well as project architect, Brennan Marsh.
We ask that these five cases be heard together today in a single hearing, as it really is a technical variance request with the same single -dimensional variance requested on each lot.
No new construction is proposed. And as you know, East Pass Young Crossing did submit an anonymous letter, a unanimous letter of support.
My clients did purchase this project from another developer who had previously obtained zoning approval to put a single home on each of six lots that they subdivided from the master lot.
This is an aerial showing you 2012 South 9th, which was the original lot.
These are a few site photos showing you just what the lot looks like today.
Posting pictures, surrounding area.
This is the lot subdivision plan that was approved previously by the prior owners.
This is their permit for a single family home on each lot.
And this is the plan that they got approved.
The one issue with this plan is that there is no second means of egress as these are attached row homes. The building code requires a second means of egress through the rear, and that was not accounted for in the original plan.
um so all we're talking about today is the shaded gray area we're proposing a three foot wide rear
easement that would allow the owners of each consecutive home egress out to 9th street in
the event of an emergency if their front doors were blocked by fire or some other issue they
would have egress to 9th street as well as the philadelphia fire department would have egress
through the rear yards in the event they needed to enter through the rear of any of these properties
This is what the homes will look like. Again, these are already approved. It's merely just that rear egress that we're proposing. As I mentioned, this creates a technical variance. These lots are zone CMX2, which requires a nine -foot rear yard.
That three foot wide easement, although it makes no practical input on the rear yard of these homes, it does technically detract three feet from the nine foot rear yards that were previously opposed.
So it leaves a technical rear yard of only six feet, even though each homeowner would have.
so it leaves a technical rear yard of only six feet, even though each homeowner would have the
full nine feet to utilize. It's just on paper that three -foot easement does detract from the
full nine feet. Obviously, this has been well supported by the RCO. They understand what's
driving this request. Again, it's a safety issue from the building code perspective that doesn't
come up too often in zoning, but here again, because it's that technical detraction from the
required nine foot, we are asking for the dimensional variance. This is the minimal relief necessary
and is within the spirit of the code as it doesn't change the utilization of that open space in the
rear of these homes. We would request that the proposed variances be granted and I would just
ask that Austin Coleman be unmuted and allowed to adopt my testimony. Mr. Coleman, you can unmute
yourself away for the chair. Coleman, please spell your first and last name and I swear you in.
Austin Coleman, A -U -S -T -I -N -C -O -L -E -M -A -N. You swear our firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Ms. Mizor. Mr. Coleman, have you heard my testimony today?
I have. Would you agree that it's true and correct? I do. And adopt it as your own? I would.
nothing further unless the board has additional questions questions from the board no mr chairman
no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair you planning commission good afternoon mr chairman members
of the board david effecto city planning commission these properties are currently
approved row homes on a commercial mixed -use lot. The proposed rear egress will rectify a critical
life safety issue. We recommend that the board support the requested dimensional variance for
all five parcels. Thank you. I'll read all five off and then we'll make a unanimous vote for all
MI 2021 -003 -118, 907, Emily Street, Parcel D as in David.
MI 2021 -003 -119, 909, Emily Street, Parcel number E as in Edward.
MI 2021 -003 -116, 903, Emily Street, Parcel B as in Boy.
MI 2021 -003 -117
905 Emily Street
Parcel C as in Charles
And MI 2021 -003 -115
901 Emily Street
Parcel A as in Anthony
My vote is yes to all five
Confessor Plaza
Yes to all
Thomas Holloman
Yes to all five
James Snell
yes to all five thank you and i'm happy to see someone cleaning up that mess at night from
mckean thank you thank you appreciate it all right thank you um any other business as anyone
feels though they've not been recognized for the two o 'clock list please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair thank you and without any further uh delay we will
We'll see everybody back at 3 .30.
Thank you, and we'll let staff, let us know when you're ready.
All ready, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along
with our vice chair let me let me start that again i'll be participating in today's hearing
along with our board secretary mr confessor plaza and board mem president president thomas holliman
and board member mr james snell president thank you also board administrator yvette benton and our
This is so sensitive, this computer, I apologize.
I don't know what part you didn't hear.
Board Administrator is Yvette Benton.
Board Attorney is Ms. Sharon Saleta.
And also in attendance is our Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to your testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded, and that the recording will be made available to the public by contacting Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
at tanya .sunkit at phila .gov. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting
star nine and then star six to unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance statement call
google number 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
and i'll repeat to enter an appearance statement call google number 267 -270 -5548 and leave your
email address and the address of the property at issue. I would also like to advise everyone
that please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments, concerns, or questions should be
directed to Ms. Yvette Benton, our board administrator. Having said that, I will read
off on the 330 list requests for continuances. Case number four, MI 2021 -003524, 3221 -47
117 north 16th street and also mi 2021 -002 429 5012 knox knox street those are the only two
cases i've had so far to be continued if anyone objects to the continuance on those two cases
please raise your hand only if you object to those continuances that i've just read into the
record. Chair, we have someone by the name of Michelle Kleschick. Ms. Kleschick, you can unmute
yourself. Yeah, I realized I clicked the wrong button. I actually have another case to request
a continuance for. I'll get to you one moment, please. Okay, is anyone object to the cases that
I read in to be continued? There are no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. I will now entertain
any requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 330 list okay yeah please spell your full
name ma 'am michelle m -i -c -h -e -l -l -e kleschick k -l -e -s -c -h -i -c -k um sorry with parallel
architecture studio 230 south broad street 17th floor philadelphia pennsylvania 19102
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and you're requesting
a continuance yes for which case man for um mi 2021 002432 1831 north 21st street
thank you uh mi -21 excuse me mi -2021 -002432 1831 north 21st street is continued unless there's
any objection to that if not anyone else requesting continuance or withdrawal
i'm sorry chair the previous continuance that um she state her relationship to the case
i believe she said she was the architect is miss uh michelle still there
she's there chair yeah yes your affiliation with the case
yes i'm design professional from parallel architecture studio
you're making the request on behalf of the applicant
uh yes i'm sorry miss salette are you there
i am miss sunk it because it is only a continuance request
um i think the board can accept it okay thank you the continuance request must be heard for mi 2021
1831 -002432, 1831 North 21st Street. Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 330 list?
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 330 list?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. We'll begin with case number one, MI 2021 -002431, 1624 South 20th Street.
I'm not sure if this is an attorney
H -A -K -I
Q -A -N -U -E
M -A -N -A
Here's a letter of support from the Point Breeze Community Development Corporation
Anyone here for 1624 South 20th Street
Hi Chair
This is Tanya Sankip, the administrator. Just for the record, Ms. Saletta requested I check for the exhibits, and we still have not received exhibits in the RCOZBA email box.
Thank you. One more time, is there anyone here for 1624 South 20th?
Chair, we have someone by the name of Hakeem Mani. Mr. or Ms. Mani, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
you uh miss mr or mrs uh amani please identify yourself spell your full name um yeah uh we
also have an attorney here um named scott sigman well just spell your name first and i'll swear
you in yes so your name bob my name is uh haki h -a -k -i my last name is m -a -n -a mana you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and you have an attorney yes
yes scott sigmund here uh sigmund please spell your full name yes scott last name sigmund that's
like sam i g m a n affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir thank
you um are you prepared to go forward with this case
we are prepared to go forward but i'm just being informed that apparently you don't have our
exhibits we don't we do not and this is sharon i can confirm that neither i nor the rco according
to miss sunkit received them because the rco my understanding is approved was supportive of this
i'm sorry i'm going to say the board itself has an email box that they have to be submitted to
that is RCOZBA.
I'm sorry.
You're saying what's the email address again
and we'll get those exhibits to you based on that chair.
Do we need to request a continuance
and get these over or this can be done today?
Chair, we generally would not hear a case
when the exhibits had not been submitted even.
Understood.
Thank you.
So then I will request a continuance
of this matter to get the exhibit submitted to you.
What is that email address you need to submit it to?
My email address is ssuleta at gmail .com.
And Ms. Sunkett, if you could tell me
if I'm getting this right, rcozba at phila .gov.
Absolutely correct.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr.
All right, so I'll request a continuance then.
Yes, I'm requesting continuance.
Okay, MI 2021 -002431, 1624 South 20th Street is continuance, must be heard.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
I see the other heads at the side, Chair.
Thank you. We'll now go to case number 3, MI 2021 -002427, 325 Green Street,
This is a pro se case.
The owners are Peter and Julie Bernard.
Northern Liberties Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support.
Mr. and or Mrs. Bernard, if you're there, please raise your hand.
Spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Chair, we have Peter Bernard.
Mr. Bernard, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Peter Bernard.
p -e -t -e -r b -e -r -n -a -r -d you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you sir please proceed mr mr plaza has questions for you i'm sorry
chair he's coming in now as a panelist thank you very kindly
i'm sorry should i switch to attendee or join as a panelist
He's being promoted to a panelist now.
He's being promoted to a panellist now.
Chairman, you sworn him in already?
Yep, he's sworn in.
Confessor, I think you can proceed.
Yeah, he's on.
Mr. Bernard is on.
Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral for voters and
plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I have. That was emailed. I don't have the date,
but it was emailed prior to it being required to do so. And have you met with the RCO and have a
letter? I did, sir. Yes. Okay. Are you an attorney or no? I am not. Okay. Please proceed.
mr bernard please proceed with your presentation share any exhibits you may have with us please
uh sure uh um yeah i'm going to share my screen
um so thank you for thank you for uh for hearing my case my name is peter bernard i'm i'm i'm here
on behalf of 325 Green Street, a property that my wife and I currently own. I purchased this
property back in April. It's actually of 2001 and lived in the property as a resident until 2010.
I purchased the property in the condition that it's in now, which is essentially configured as
a three -family property. I bought it. I lived in it. I had a friend of mine renting one of the
apartments. All of the utilities have been in place. You'll notice that there are electric
meters that were in place, gas meters that were in place, all when I purchased the property.
I basically bought it from a friend back in 2001, and it was never zoned as a
three -family house. I only had a second unit in it and was running it essentially as a, you know,
to a friend. The property is very similarly configured. This is just where it's located
in the block. You'll notice that a number of the other households right next door, 323 is a
three -family property, 319 is a two -family property, 317 is a three -family property,
and 313 is also a three -family property, all configured exactly the same as the unit that
I live in. These are just some pictures of the houses that are on the block that are
configured that way. These are some of the documents that I just obtained showing that
the houses were converted and when they were converted. And I'm simply asking, it's my hope
to bring the property into conforming, to conform to the way that it's configured and just have it
legally changed from a single family to a three -family household so that I can have it occupied
legally and be able to rent out the property in the future. It is currently not rented,
The units are vacant. I have a friend that's staying on the first floor, and I'm interested in just getting it classified as a three -family household, the way that it's configured, and being compliant with the requirements.
Do you have any interior photos by any chance?
uh i do not uh the only interior photos i took at the request of um of the rca with the with the
meters
questions from the board no mr chairman
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair you planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning
it's r -o -n last name bednar b -e -d -n -a -r firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you ron please proceed property is indicated for residential on the city plan
given the documented use history
we recommend the request of variance
MI 2021 -002427
0 -0 -2 -4 -2 -7 -3 -2 -5 Green Street.
325 Green
My vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Stell, my vote is yes.
You will now go to case number 6, MI 2021 -003521, 706 Cantrell Street.
Mr. Henry Clinton is the attorney of record.
7th Street Community Civic Association sent a letter of support, and Councilman Mark Swilla
sent a letter of non -opposition. Mr. Clinton is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Clinton, you know the drill. Please identify yourself, spell your name,
and I'll swear you in. Sure. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Henry Clinton,
Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.
Mr. Clinton, you agree to wait to read in a bit of refusal and stipulate to a dead person?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
I have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
can you see that mr chairman yes okay uh so this is the presentation for 706 cantrell
on behalf of my client anthony giacobatti who's on the call with me as well as his son
this table of contents containing exhibits aa through 810 all of which i ask to be admitted
this is my appearance statement this is the refusal this is an rsa5 zoning district
and we're requesting a two -family dwelling with a parking space in the rear even though it's zoned
rsa5 i'll show you from the photographs and the zoning histories that there are a number of duplexes
two -family dwellings with garages and there's at least nine garages already on the street
we have a letter of support from the RCO and basically going into the details of what we
presented at the meeting who was there and indicating that there are garages already at
718 720 and I have documentation that there's also garages at 715 and 717 so there's a letter
of support. And then we also have nine written submissions from neighbors on the block in
support of the project. Every neighbor is on the 700 block of Cantrell Street. These
are photographs. Let me reduce them a little bit. Some aerial photographs indicating garages
and duplexes on the block already this is 706 right here this is looking westbound on cantrell
again just showing you the multiplicity of garages on the street and there's only parking on one side
and frankly there's really not that much room even park you can see everyone has jumped the
curb and and parks on the curb on the south side uh this is looking same direction again showing
you more actually no yeah it's looking the same direction uh again just giving you a feel for
the number of garages new construction and duplexes on the street
some construction it's under undergoing on the block this we're currently a vacant lot right now
and these are some of the other garages on the street typically they're just used for storage
by some of the businesses in the area frankly this is 718 718 again this is 720.
the plans for the project are pretty straightforward brick and a bay on the
second floor with metal or perhaps hardy siding here the rear elevation of the property
the floor this is the site plan ample rear yard nine feet deep
floor plan pretty straightforward again you have foundation there's no basement full garage on the
first floor and it's two one -bedroom units one on the second floor one on the third floor
uh this is just some history to provide the board indicate this is 7 15. i can't dwell
to provide the board indicate this is 715 cantrell two family dwelling this was granted back in 19
excuse me 2018. 717 same thing 2018 two family dwelling with a garage
718 two family dwelling with the garage no basement and same thing with 720.
morning. We have the other pro forma documents that you usually would see in a presentation,
tax certification or application for appeal, a zoning map indicating the RSA zoning district,
the deed, etc. So just in summary, this project is asking for a change in use. The use on
the block had many garages already four duplexes two four two family dwellings already recently
granted there's no parking on one side of the street and the parking is tight on the block
there's no effect on light and air but joining neighbors we have a unique block and unique
circumstance here we believe the project is in harmony with the code and in harmony with the
community, which has provided their letter of support. So with that, I would rest and ask if
the board or the chairman have any questions, and I certainly will have my client adopt the testimony.
Let the client adopt their testimony, and then I'll ask the board.
Okay. Anthony, can you raise your hand so you can be unmuted?
Mr. Gia Gabetti, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, sir. Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
A -N -T -H -O -N -Y -G -I -A -C -O -B -E -T -T -I.
For a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Clinton?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jacquevetti, have you heard my testimony today?
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
yes thank you anthony thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no
what else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission the city planning run bednar
property is indicated for residential on the city plan given to surround the use context
and the physical condition of property we recommend request advance be granted
thank you mi 2021 -003521 706 cantrell street my vote is yes
confessor plaza my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
you case number seven mi 2021 -002434 821 welsh road this is a pro se case guy and heather porter
uh the greater busselton civic lead sent a letter of support
mr and or mrs porter if you're available ms porter is coming back in as a panelist now chair
you ms porter please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
heather porter h -e -a -t -h -e -r p -o -r -t -e -r and my husband's also here
i'm guy i'm sorry please go sir please please continue my name is guy quarter g -u -i -p -o -r -t -e -r
folks just where to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes okay okay uh please proceed with your uh application have you guys uh emailed an exhibit
packet with the required document proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the
refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes. And have you met with
the RCO and have a letter? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure. All right. I'll share my screen.
Okay. So this is a picture of our house here on the right, the stone house. This is our driveway
and you see a small single car garage here. We're asking to build a larger garage next to it.
Here's a little bit of a closer picture. You see where this little silver car is. This is where
we're proposing to build the additional garage. These are just pictures. This is the front of
These are just pictures. This is the front of our house. This is the picture of the zoning notice.
our house. This is the picture of the zoning notice.
Another one of the zoning notice. Close up of the zoning notice. This is our plot plan. So this is
our property. We moved into this home this past January, and we don't have enough storage for all
the things that we need to care for the property, such as a riding lawnmower and a snowblower and
all that kind of stuff. So we are proposing to build a garage that's 28 by 44. Zoning allows
for a garage that's 25 by 35, which means that we're three feet bigger on one side and nine
feet bigger on the other side. As you can see here in the plot plan, this area right here,
proposed garage, and this is where we would like to build that. It'll be next to the existing
stone car garage. We didn't want to knock the stone car garage down because it matches the
house and gives a lot of character to the home. The property is 0 .89 acres. So based on this size,
were allowed to have 13 ,521 square feet of hard surface. And with the new garage,
we would have 2 ,923 square feet of hard surface. So consequently, we're significantly under
the allowable hard surface for about 10 ,000 square feet less. We have a letter from the RCO.
Everyone voted unanimously to support our build.
We are having the garage built by a company called Sheds Unlimited.
And this is our stamped engineered plans.
If we scroll down here a little bit, you'll see it's built to look like a sort of like a barn to sort of go along with the way that the house looks.
and it has a tiny little jut out just on one side just to give it a little bit of character.
There's no second floor in the house. It's just a house, sorry, in the garage. It's not a house.
It's just a full walkthrough garage. And then we were asked to put together the mean height of the
garage that we know that the mean height has to be less than 15 feet and it does fall under that.
And then I just have all the other materials that were requested for us to
be provided. So we have like the application for appeal and the certificate of tax clearance that
shows that we are clear. And then we just have some of the other things that we were asked to
include like the deed and such we also had a letter of support from our neighbors um based
on where the garage is at we are not going to be affecting anyone at all um we're it's basically in
the middle of our yard so um everybody basically uh supports us um so that that's our story okay
thank you thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no anyone else like to testify in
this case please raise your hand chair we have alice you the bitch with her hand up
miss you the bitch you can unmute and wait for the chair good afternoon alice please identify
yourself for the record and i swear you in thank you chairman members of the board alice
judevich from councilman brian o 'neill's office we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed chairman members of the board the
councilman has no objection to the grounding of the variance at this location anyone else to
testify in this case there are no hands at this time chair thank you
MI 2021 -002434.
Excuse me, sir.
Sorry about that. Planning Commission. Sorry.
Thank you. This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential on the city plan.
Given the physical circumstances of the site, we recommend the request to advance be granted.
I apologize for that. I looked at the time and I got a little confused.
MI 2021 -002434.
821 Welsh Road, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
This concludes the 3 .30 list.
Is there anyone who feels that they've not been recognized?
is there anyone who feels that they've not been recognized please raise your hand
Please raise your hand.
i don't see any hands at this time chair thank you and this concludes the 3 30 list we're all
done for the day thank you again everyone uh especially the folks behind the scenes that
make all this happen and we'll see you next week any unfinished business tanya no no chair we all
All set. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Stay safe. Take care.
Have a good evening, everyone.
Good night.
Have a good night.