Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Good morning.
Sarah Bainey, S-A-R-A-H, Bainey, B-A-N-E-Y.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, good morning. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with 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?
okay this is an application for the erection of two roof decks above the existing attached
structure for use as a two-family household living space three zoning refusals exist
the front setback for both of the proposed roof decks five feet is required zero is proposed
maximum railing height for the provised roof deck at the second floor level along south 21st street
is three feet six inches, which is permitted, four feet is proposed. This refusal appears to
be eliminated by the revised plans. The third refusal is the maximum railing height for the
proposed roof deck at the second floor level at the rear, three feet six inches are allowed,
six feet opposed. You may present your case. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is
Sarah Beaney. I'm the owner with my husband, Ryan Dutton, of 2053 Christian Street. This is our
primary residence and we are seeking a variance approval for our two rear decks. As you see
uh their pre-existing non-conforming condition that we need to do maintenance of upgrades and
repairs to uh and we bought this home in February of 2020 um with the intention of using the outdoor
space the home was uh the decks we believe were erected prior to um the current um code so they
were existing in their non-conformed way and seeking the variance as stated. So for the setback
we're proposing the zero foot setback and then the railings at the second floor level along 21st
street at four foot and then the maximum railing height of that rear deck at the second floor at
six foot. This is the application for the appeal. Just some of the required documentation, the deed.
attacks clearance with a zero balance and then here i'll just describe these this is 21st
street and this is the second floor rear deck and then at the third floor the rear deck as well
you can see and i'll i have additional pictures after this of just how the decks are deteriorating
And in a dilapidated state, it should also make note that we, our primary residence is the second and third floor.
And then there's a rental unit on the first floor street level and 21st Street with its own entrance.
And we have purchased the lower unit in July and some exterior updates to the entire building have been made.
We've had the building paint stripped.
paint stripped all the brick has been repointed and repainted and then some of the reasons for
All the brick has been repointed and repainted.
seeking the variance and to rebuild the decks along with just having general outdoor space
use is that we've had structural issues caused by the weight of the decks and the way they were
constructed as well as leaks under the both decks into our unit as well as the rental unit
The deck was actually built over a skylight that had then kind of caved in and created
warping and damage again to that lower rental unit.
Let me zoom out a bit so I can drop the tab.
Hopefully that renders appropriately.
but this is the architectural drawing again this is 21st street side and then you can see the first
deck with the what was stucco piers and probably not the best choice of materials for that
to match the rest of the house but the stucco piers and the piers are already at I think it's
at 48, and then the variance for this would be at 42, and then the, and I'll go into the second
drawing here on the east elevation, but the adjacent deck that is to the left of us, and maybe
this is a better picture, this deck, also a non-conforming deck, this house behind us is an
Airbnb. So the privacy wall that we're proposing, that is that six foot wall, the lower portion that
would meet right at this stucco pier would be the same material used along 21st Street side. And then
the excess above would be something more like lattice a bit, just to add some privacy as every
week, as you can imagine, there's different people at this home, being that it's a rental or an Airbnb.
This is the proviso plans from the RCO meeting, where we presented and sought approval from
all those in attendance that voted, they all voted in support and we took their recommendations.
On the 21st side, we'll have a planter to create almost an interior setback, not physically
from the street but within the deck it's about a two point two two foot six inches two and a half
feet um setback internally so that'll be right inside um the 21st stretch 21st street side on
that lower deck um to create a slight barrier um and then the other updates were just keeping some
the materials similar between the decks on both the 21st street side on both decks.
This is a picture that is quite large. This is just the posting of the zoning meeting on our front door.
And again some more pictures of the current state of the decks.
The dilapidated wood rotting and corrosion of the stucco materials.
This is the Sadna letter in support.
And this is, again, architectural view of the proposal.
okay thank you questions from the board
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission um for the record it would be okay if i asked a
question you most certainly can thank you very much um ma'am can you confirm that the uh there's
no change to the existing extent of the roof decks relative to the existing condition
no change to the extent in other words the area that they occupy on the roofs
correct okay thank you very much uh board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change the
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing zoning.
the existing zoning, the.
The dimensional refusals mostly stem from existing conditions here.
With regard to setbacks, as we've heard, there's no change to the existing non-conforming extent of the roof decks.
And with regard to the railing heights, the dimensional variances are de minimis and do not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances.
Thank you.
MI 2022-002-548-2053, Christian Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, September 21st, 2022.
Harold Teneri, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Number 11, MI 2021-004-547-1030 Winter Street.
Zin Jin is the attorney.
Letter of support, Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation.
Letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Chair, Mr. Zin Jin is coming back in now as a panelist.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name for the court reporter and spell it?
Yes. My name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Sir, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Ms. Peggy Yong. She is the owner of the property, and she is here with us today.
Okay, our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all questions.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the exhibit package that was previously submitted. Can the board see the exhibit?
We can.
Yes, we can. Thank you. So we have submitted to the board a copy of the refusal, the support letter from PCDC, photos, plans, and related documentation.
This application is for the demolition of an existing building to put up a new structure for my client as a duplex to use in that particular space.
the property is zoned CMX3. It is in Chinatown. However, there's a refusal because my client
would like to build a building that is a little bit bigger and it doesn't quite meet the maximum
occupied area requirements of 75%. I want to point out that the allow percentage square footage is
only 431.25. Naturally, that is a very small footprint for a new building by today's standards
And that is why my client's asking for a variance for a little more space, allowing the newly built building to be more conforming to what is expected of today's buildings.
PCDC issued a letter in support and pointed out as well that this building has been vacant for a long time.
In fact, since 1983, and that this would be a good use to bring this space back into use.
And the maximum occupied area difference is about 12.1%.
And in this case, I would argue there is a hardship because of the small size of the lock.
Again, this property is located on Winter Street.
The existing building is very old and has been vacant.
The Chinatown branch of the police station is nearby there.
So a duplex use fits the block, fits the nature of the area.
There are no other refusals.
The idea here really is my client and her family would both occupy the two units.
So it is a kind of an investment into a family property to live in, and it will be used as a duplex residential.
Again, there are no opposition from Chinatown because additional living spaces are actually welcome in Chinatown.
PCDC does support this application.
I would be happy to answer any questions from the board, and certainly I can zoom into any part of the exhibit if the board would like a closer look. Thank you.
Mr. Jin, would you want to have your testimony adopted?
Yes. Yes. Ms. Jung, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Ms. Jung, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Y-J-U-N-G.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Ms. Young, did you see the presentation and hear my presentation that was given to the zoning board?
Thank you. Can you verify what I have represented to the board to be true and correct
and adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Members of the board, in 2014, the zoning map was amended in
this area from CMX 4 to CMX 3 in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
We believe the proposed dimensional variance is the minimum necessary to make use of this
unusually small property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the
variance. Thank you. MI 2021-004-547-1030 Winter Street, I vote yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is
yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you. All right. Number 12, MI 2022-002-884, 2527 Westerod Avenue,
Justin Kirk is the attorney. Letter of support from Brewery Town Shardswood Community Civic
Association. Chair, Mr. Crick is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning, members of the board. Good morning, Mr. Crick. Could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter, please? Yes, Justin Crick, K-R-I-K.
My address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 630, Philadelphia PA 19102.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
My client is 2527 West Girard, LLC, represented by its member, Sabash Talon.
They are the record owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Mr. Crick. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCL? And do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. Members of the board, can you see the materials?
We can.
Excellent. Thank you. So we are here today for an application to permit the wholesale and distribution, in this case, a beer distributor in an existing structure at this property.
The property is located in a CMX 2.5 district, and therefore the proposed wholesale distribution has been refused.
That's the only refusal that's here.
And that's the only refusal as shown on the refusal dated March 29th of 22.
The property in question was previously used as a laundromat on its first floor and contains
two residential units that are currently and have been unoccupied for quite some time.
This application does not seek to do anything with the residential units on the floors above
This application does not seek to do anything with the residential units on the floors above the first.
the first.
A little bit of background where this is located.
We are on West Girard Avenue between College and North 25th, and the applicant currently operates a beer distributor about two addresses down on the same block, had presently been leasing the space.
Our subject property is located where the icon is, and my cursor is showing where the existing beer distributor, where this applicant leases the space, has been at the prior space since June of 2019.
But even before his use of the property, which this photograph shows you the laundromat, the property that is subject to this variance, and then Philly Beverage down a few doors is where the applicant currently has his business.
Um, Philly beverage, uh, has again, been operating under, um, this applicant's ownership
or lease, I should say, uh, since 2019, about June of 2019, but had operated my understanding
as a beer distributor for several years prior to that.
Here are some photographs of the front of the property.
It is, again, is currently unused and vacant.
the intent is to basically use the entire first floor of the property for the beer distributor
and nothing with these two stories above in this application
some photographs of the interior this is currently how it looks with the with the demolition of the
laundromat and is really only provided to to give an idea of the size or space that we have here
and the amount of room that is here. The renovations by this applicant are expected
to take about eight to 10 months. And when the lease expires in the other location,
the hope is to be able to move Mr. Talon's business into this location a few doors down.