it's joshua j-o-s-h-u-a matthew m-a-t-h-e-w right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel josh um you heard the statements that i
made to the board today yes and are they true and correct for the best of your knowledge yes
would you adopt them as your own yes okay thank you and then i've reserved the ability to call
them as witnesses. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? Chair, we have Doris Aldridge. Ms. Aldridge, please unmute yourself and wait
for the chair. Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter? My name is Doris
Aldridge, D-O-R-I-S-A-L-D-R-I-D-G-E. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Proceed, please. I'm here representing the
Brewery Town-Charleswood Community Civic Center and to affirm our support of this project.
The developers have worked long and hard with our community and demonstrated their commitment to us by agreeing to the CBA, the Community Benefits Agreement that was mentioned earlier.
So I just wanted to reaffirm that we are in support of this project.
Thank you, ma'am, for calling in, and thank you for your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no additional hands at this time.
planning commission good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
proceed peter the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rm1 and rsa5 at this location
this area was re-zoned in 2014 in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan and
with the support of the community we feel the applicant does have a hardship due to the split
zoning however based on the lot size under rm1 zoning the applicant would be permitted
a building to have 16 units by right. The proposed 27 units is overuse and not the minimum necessary
variance needed to grant relief. We feel the dimensional variances result from a self-created
hardship due to overdevelopment of the property and that any other hardships were eliminated when
the previous buildings were demolished. Additionally, we note that the affordable housing units
promised in a benefits agreement cannot be enforced by any city agency accordingly the
planning commission recommends that the zoning board deny the requested variances thank you
um chairman bergman i mean like i can just quickly respond so um again i appreciate the
planning commission and peter recognizing the hardship of the split zoning um i i think again
And while 16 units would be permitted on the RM1 portion, the RSA5 portion, you're looking at something, you know, a couple more units.
in three units or three bedrooms per unit. If you did have 16 units, they would be with no parking
at three bedrooms each of unrelated people, you're looking at 48 bedrooms. If you go to
any of the bonuses, you could end up with 28 units with no parking, three bedrooms each.
You're now looking at 84 bedrooms. So we feel that it is de minimis in what we're looking at
because of the number of bedrooms that we're looking to provide. We feel that that makes
affordable units can come from anywhere in the city or anywhere in the world.
RCBA has the community group having the first crack at offering somebody from the community
that meets the thresholds and meets the criteria to be rented to have people actually in the
community where this building is going to be constructed to actually benefit from the
affordable housing unit. And that's something that my client has taken on to try to ensure
and part of his other actions and endeavors to benefit the community where he's developing.
Thank you, counsel. And thank you, Peter, for your input. MI 2022-000-305-2625-33 Jefferson
street i vote yes revised plans one page stamped on zba three three september three okay yes sir
wood proviso three pages stamped by zba on september 21st 2022
carol tenere my vote is yes proviso
thank you thank you thank you thank you council maybe excuse yes please thank you
number five mi 2021 003 878 60 19 to 35 north 5th street sean ward is the attorney
drew aldinger will be filling in for um hillary emerson for this mr chair this is the one that
be continued. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. It's okay. Okay, good. Number six, MI 2021-004-634-247-48
North 12th Street. Meredith Belanger is the attorney. Letter of non-opposition from the
coordinating RCO, Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. RCO notes the applicant
reserve four spaces in a nearby lot to address the parking issue. Counsel?
Chair, Ms. Ferliger is coming back in as a panelist now. Okay.
Good afternoon. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sure, Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R. Right, do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client in
relationship to the property? I certainly can. My client is Jason Choi, and he is the owner of the
property. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions. Hi, Meredith. Do you agree to
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral, photos, and or plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a
letter? Yes, to all of the above. Okay, great. You may proceed with your screen. Thank you very
much. Again, Meredith Furliver with Delworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
As noted, my client is the property owner, Jason Choi. Before I get started, I will ask the board
to forgive me for the lack of my normal exhibits, as I was just retained at about 430 yesterday
to handle this case. Fortunately, it is quite simple, so I will keep it brief. The applicant
did secure a letter of non-opposition from the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation,
and that was submitted to the board. The property before the board today is 247 through 49 North
12th Street. As you can see on the aerial view that I have up on the screen, this property is
located just south of the intersection of North 12th Street and Vine Street in the city's Chinatown
neighborhood. The property itself is zone CMX4. For additional context, this block is just north
of the convention center. Now this existing two-story structure that you see here has historically been
used as a funeral parlor with accessory offices on the second floor since Mr. Choi purchased the
property in the late 90s. Of some relevance to today's variance request, you will notice that
the existing building covers 100% of the lot and extends all the way through to North Sartain
Street. Now the proposal before the board today, as the plans come up here, is to erect a three-story
is to erect a three-story addition on top of the existing building. The second through fifth
edition on top of the existing building.
floors will contain three dwelling units per floor for a total of 12 new units. The zoning
plans are up on the screen for reference. The floor plans reflect that the basement and the
first floor will continue to be used for the funeral parlor, which will continue in operation.
The 12 units on the second through fifth floors are a mix of one and two bedroom large units.
A trash room is provided on the second floor of the property, and trash will be collected by a private waste management provider.
Now, regarding the refusal, this property only received one refusal.
This proposal received only one refusal for failure to provide the required for accessory on-site spaces.
We submit that this refusal, technically speaking, should not have been issued in the first place.
As the board may know, for properties in the CMX 3, 4, and 5 zoning districts, property owners have the option of meeting accessory parking requirements by providing the spaces off-site.
This is codified at Section 148029 of the Code.
One of the requirements is that those spaces must be within a thousand feet. Now, in this case, the owner does have an arrangement with a Parkway lot at 1127 Ray Street, which just for context so you can see is this large lot here just at the other end of the block and is roughly 275 feet away.
the owner does in fact have an arrangement with parkway to lease four spaces in that lot
which does serve to meet the code minimum parking requirement so as the board can see
the owner is actually complying with the accessory parking requirements of the code
now aside from their compliance with the code requirement the owner would also submit to a
hardship in providing any spaces on site, given the existing building has been in place for
decades, and it would be a very significant hardship to demolish a portion of the building
and the existing funeral operations to provide any parking specifically on this site.
All of the other structural and use aspects of this proposal are fully compliant with the zoning
code. If the board needs further information, I would be very happy to run through a full
variance argument in accordance with 14303.8. But given that the applicant here is actually
complying with the code, I will conclude by bringing up Mr. Choi to adopt my testimony.
So at this time, if the administrator would look for Jason Choi.
Mr. Choi, if you're in the virtual audience, can you raise your hand, please?
Mr. Choy, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Choy.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Jason Choy.
J-A-Y-S-O-N-C-H-O-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Choi, have you heard all of the testimony and information that I presented to the board today?
And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.
We do also have the architect if you have any questions from him.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Choi.
No, Mr. Choi.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
By Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX4 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
We feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant clearances.
Thank you, Peter.
MI 2021-004-634-247-49 North 12th Street.
I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Vishal Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you very much.
Our number seven, MI 2022-002-638-7324 James Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from the coordinating RCO
Holmesburg Civic Association.
Mr. Clinton is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
We have three, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Mr. Clinton, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, please, and the relationship to the property?
My client is Lee Beckles, B-E-C-K-L-E-S.
He is a tenant in the property, and the landlord is James Hammond, H-A-M-O-N.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above, except on the sending the package to Ms. Emerson, it was four days because you were waiting for the lease from the landlord, in all candor to the court.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
can you see that all right it's on its way it's starting to come out
we see we see your uh front screen
that good we're good we're good we're fine all right good afternoon mr chairman members of the
board henry clinton on behalf of the applicant lee beckler as i mentioned at the outset
This is a special exception case for personal use of repair and maintenance of vehicles.
I present to you my evidence binder consisting of table contents AA through A11, appearance
statement, the refusal.
The refusal, we are in an I-2 industrial zone, as indicated on the zoning district above,
And the reason for the refusal is a personal vehicle repair and maintenance requires a special exception from the ZBA.
And as you know, members of the board, a special exception is a lesser standard than a variance.
A variance is basically a deviation from the zoning code, whereas a special exception is allowed when certain criteria are met or not impeded.
And I'll go through those.
this is a letter of non-opposition from holmesburg civic association we also have letters of support
from other auto users on this particular block as you can see from these handwritten notes
this gentleman lives at 7362 james street and he rents a storage area there
and he is in support of the project as is the owner of 7324 in addition to the non-opposition
from the community group.
So this is an aerial view.
This is looking west.
State Road is down here in the foreground.
James Street is right here where my cursor is,
and this is the subject property.
And this is the lease between my client and Mr. Hammond.
It's a handwritten lease, but it is a commercial lease for my client to use the property.
But I think what's most significant are the zoning records, which I was able to call from the public records.
It's 73-24.
There's a used auto parts storage.
73-32, existing storage of used and dismantled autos.
7336 there are some uh offices with material storage 7350 commercial personal vehicle repair
and maintenance that's exactly what we're asking for personal vehicle repair and maintenance
there's already one on the block and there's also a welding shop on the block mr chairman the
following documents are supportive of that summary i won't go through each particular item what i
think is more important is that i stress that in this special exception case uh the use does not
increase the congestion congestion on the street the use is consistent with other uses on the block
there's no detrimental effect to health safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the street
there's no endangerment of public health or safety there's no burden to the water the sewer
or public facilities in the area there's no impairment of light and air to any surrounding
property this building is 100% lack coverage it's one story and it's not overcrowding the
land because it is an existing building with as I said 100% lack coverage so with that I conclude
my presentation and again just mentioning to the board that this is a special exception case