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