Thank you.
Chair, we have 31 attendees. You can proceed as you wish.
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this
morning's EBA hearings. With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Our alternate board member, LeBaron Leonard Palmer from the Division of Development Services.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is our attorney, Hilliard Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Selkin.
Let's look at our schedule for this morning.
Okay. Number five, MI 2023-003-159-3942 Wall Street, that case is continued. And number seven, MI 2023-005-273-1525 Spring Garden Street, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
This is Jason Hand.
Good morning, Jason.
Yes, good morning, sir.
I'll be your co-host for the session.
I have a hand up from Ron Alastasio.
I've allowed them to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, counsel.
Just state your name, please, and spell for the court's phonographer.
Sure. It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, representing Mr. Wilkins-Hayton for 5317 Wayne Avenue.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Hillary, what number is that?
I see. Okay. So you're number six, MI-2023-003-395, 5317 Wayne Avenue.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
And Mr. Alastasia, who did you say you represent?
Because we have the Kinsman Corporation as the listed owner.
Yeah, and Mr. Hatton is the sole member of that company.
Okay, thank you.
It's my understanding that an application was, an appeal was submitted.
We'd like to withdraw that appeal.
We're going to be resubmitting with a lower number of units.
Thank you.
So MI-2023-003-395-5317, Wayne Avenue, that case has been withdrawn.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else relative to a continuance?
Mr. Chair, I do not see any hands at this time.
Okay, thank you.
So we have several cases that do not have exhibits.
It's number four, MI 2023-003-139, 3713 Haverford Avenue.
PG Building Group LP is the listed owner.
This is the second listing.
We have no exhibits.
There's no record of an RCO meeting.
We last had this case on 12-20-23, and no one appeared.
And we also have T-Amber XL as the listed applicant.
Okay, Tiamber, Excel.
Jason, do we see any hands?
I was getting ready to say, I do not see any hands raised for the matter, and I do not see the person in question in the virtual audience this morning.
So this is the second listing. No one appeared the first time. So MI 2023-003-139-3713 Haberford Avenue, I vote to dismiss.
So this is the second listing.
No one appeared the first time.
So MI 2023.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
10. MI 2023-007-273-2126 West Erie Avenue. The listed applicant is David Lackner. The listed owners are Lavie Properties, LLC, and Pennsylvania Star Properties. First listing.
Mr. Chair, I do not see any hands raised for the matter in question.
Thank you. So MI-2023-007-273-2126 West Erie. Cases continued, Mark, must be heard.
Number 11, MI-2023-007-280-1384 Narragansett Street.
Han Dipp and Earl Ross are the listed owner.
Freeman Kemper, Sturdy Builders Incorporated.
we see anything jace mr chair i do not see any hands raised for the matter and i do not seem to
see the people wait a minute mi20 mi 2023 0072 hold on one second oh uh charles richardson had
his hand up. I believe it was for this case.
I'll let
them speak.
Morning, Mr. Chair and Board.
Good morning. Just state your name. It's spelled
for the court stenographer. Charles
Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N,
Office of
Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 508.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do.
So, number 11,
1384 Narragansett Street.
There's been no
RCO meeting that has taken place
as yet. The applicants does seem a bit confused with what they need to do. And so we're asking
for a continuance for them to be able to meet with the community and, you know, see if we can
get things straightened out with them. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. So MI 2023-007-280-1384
Narragansi Street, that case has continued. Number 12, MI 2024, 000055, 1329 Levick Street.
The listed owners are Fred Asia and Zarin Shoray. No exhibits, first listing.
and mr chair the uh mi number on that one was zero zero zero zero five six just to clarify for
the record okay i have a hand up sir from bedita cadillo i've allowed them to speak
the owner i have hold on hold on hold on hold on state your name and spell for the stenographer
I'm trying to get the camera. Hold on. Can you see me?
Can you see?
This case is not ready. Am I correct?
Yeah, continue. Yes, he's here in case you need to see him.
I don't think you've been promoted to a panelist, Ms. Cadillo. If you could just have him request the continuance, that would be appreciated. Thank you.
We send the email already, too. Thank you.
All right. So MI 2024, 00056, 1329 Levick Street. The case is continued. Mark must be heard.
And number 15, MI 2024, 000059, 1933 North 24th Street. The applicant, Leroy Wichett, Keystone Property Group is the listed owner. No exhibits, first listing.
I do not see any hands raised for that matter. So, MI 2024, 0000, 59, 1933, North 24th Street. Cases continued. Marked. Must be heard.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
MI 2022, 004, 40.
MI-2022-004-440-204 North 52nd Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, May 29th at 9 a.m.
Number two, MI-2023-
Sorry, Mr. Chair, that was 9.30 a.m.
Just wanted to clarify for the record.
9.30 a.m.
Number two, MI 2023-007-025-7001 Tulip Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, May 29th at 9.30 a.m.
We're going to go to our regular list.
We're going to start with number eight.
MI 2023-007-038-228 West Tioga Street.
There's a Spanish interpreter, please.
Identify yourself.
The DTO has been allowed to speak, sir.
Mr. Hand, I don't believe she's our Spanish interpreter.
That's the owner.
That's you.
Okay, yeah.
She just put her hand on the left.
Interpreter?
As of now, I do not see any hands raised from the interpreter for the matter, Mr. Chair.
Can our Spanish interpreter please raise their hand?
They were confirmed.
Again, good morning.
Please, Spanish interpreter, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
Hillary, we have two cases for this.
You want to hold it a minute to say maybe they're coming a little later and we can make a call or something?
No, go ahead, Fatina.
Go ahead.
No, I'll go ahead and get in contact and see what's going on.
because I did receive confirmation share.
Okay, so let me go to the next case here
so we can keep it moving.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair,
I have a hand raised for my Joseph Patton.
Mr. Patton is for one of the cases on the add-on list.
Mr. Patton, please email your question
that the vote on the case is not occurring today.
Thank you.
Okay, let's do number one while we're waiting to see. MI 2023-002-227-7923 Charles Street. Mikkel and Maretta Jargo are the owners pro se.
Mikkel will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mikkel.
Mikkel, are you going to do the testifying?
I'm his nephew.
I will be helping him out as his English is not 100%, but he perfectly, you know, he understands and speaks English.
Hillary, we can't do that, can we?
The property owner has to testify.
If he's in need of interpretation services, we needed that request in advance.
we can provide that no you can testify yes i can okay okay he needs to give the testimony you can
sir you can assist him with the technology but you cannot testify i understand okay all right
good morning good morning sir could you please morning could you guess m-i-k-e-l the last name
g-j-o-g-u right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth
All right.
So this application is for use as a multifamily household living, three dwelling units in
an existing detached structure.
The proposed unit multifamily household living is prohibited in the RSA zoning district.
The Holmesburg Civic Association is opposed to this project.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed?
Yes, everything. I emailed. Everything is over there.
And I did last week.
Again.
Share your screen.
Yeah, share the screen. One second.
you see a green button at the bottom says share screen oh i do see it okay yes sir i do see it
okay perfect uh share screen yes all right so hold on we we got zoom but we don't see your
documents yes so the documents are here so i can start with okay all right all right go ahead
proceed sir all right so this is the refusal notice uh yes no no he's got it yes the owner
the property owner needs to testify yeah okay this is an excuse yeah all right we see that go
to the next document we see that this is application for appeal very good thank you go on
write a project
information form
this is a deed
yep the deed
this is a zoning notice
the May 3
I did again
there are a picture of
the house, my house from outside.
This is here.
First floor
and second floor
are stuck to each other.
So hold on a minute.
So right now that's a single family home?
No, it's
two family dwelling.
So right now you've got two properties,
two dwellings. You want to take it to three?
Yeah, his basement
is finished. That's why.
let's let's let's see some photos okay yeah this is from outside again
yeah okay yeah it's here this is uh behind
yeah go ahead this yeah go ahead this is uh the door of basement
yeah it's here from behind
oh hey yeah yeah okay go ahead okay this is on the side
is this one second is the second floor entrance
yeah from outside go ahead
this is a basement
inside this is a kitchen
yes kitchen
dining room
this is a laundry
of a basement
this is a
shower
this is a bathroom
the bedroom
yeah this bedroom inside
go ahead
yeah there are different
room over there
it's good
good basement
I see it
I see it
yes again
I'm sorry
go ahead
questions from the board
questions from our board
no chair
No, Chair.
Hillary, this is not, at this point, the two-family household living went away too, right?
Am I correct?
I'm not.
Sorry, the Chair is asking from a legal perspective.
You know, I'm not clear on that, Mr. Chair.
Because I see where they let the license go, right?
Right.
Right. That doesn't necessarily mean their zoning approval lapsed.
So I that would be a question for L&I, but they were previously approved for for a duplex and they did have a license up until 2022 for a duplex, a rental license.
Questions from the virtual audience.
Mr. Sure. Actually, I did have a couple of a couple of questions.
on my end um so this property is zoned rsa 3 which requires parking or is there any parking
spaces on the property i know it's only okay okay all right so i just wanted to there is a refusal
missing for that so i just wanted to note that um for the record i did apply but uh and later on i
a withdrawal
got you
got you
Got you. And there are separate and there are separate. And is there a separate entrance for each unit? Like the front is for the first floor, the side for the second floor and the back of the basement?
and there are separate
and there are separate
and is there a separate
entrance for each unit
like the
Yes, I can. I can show again if you want to or both of you don't have to. I just was clarifying as because you're going through the pictures. You mentioned it. I just want to clarify. There were different entrances.
OK, that's all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So, so, so, Mikkel, Mikkel, the rest of the block, are there multiple units on the other rest of the block?
They are different over there. They are different, multiple house. And in one of my documents, they say it's two to four family here. I don't know.
Do you know what I did this? Because I am sick. I have terminal illness. And I wanted to do the last week for my son to do later on to do for business. I wanted to give everything. That's why I'm tired. I don't need anything.
Only to do or leave to him with something.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I don't see any further answer, Mr. Chair.
All right.
Question.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair, members of the board.
My name is Michael Gall with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-l-l you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do chair please proceed sir thank you sir the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single family zoning at this location this property has a documented history
as a two-family residential property the city planning commission therefore recommends that
the board grant the proposed multifamily use variance, but at a maximum of the existing two
permitted dwelling units. So, MI 2023, 002, 227, 7923 Charles Street, I vote yes, proviso.
Maximum two units.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
laver and linda palmer my vote is yes but proviso
thank you
okay um let's go to number three mi20
mi 2023 003 036 336 dickinson street
Mr. Chair, Sergio Handel has been promoted to panelists.
They will be hearing short.
Can you set your hand up?
Good morning. Could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Sergio Hendo. I spell S-E-R-G-I-O-H-N-D-A-L. Hendo.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you please turn your video on?
Thank you.
So this is for the erection of a four-story attached structure with a roof deck accessed by a spiral staircase for use as a single-family household living.
In the RSA 5 zoning district, the minimum rear yard depth for lots equal to or less than 45 feet in depth shall be 7 feet, whereas the rear yard depth of zero is here.
But there is a letter of non-opposition from your Penn Sports Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you.
Please share your screen.
It's a small green button at the bottom of the screen.
Um, okay, proceed, sir.
We see your, we see your, uh, refusal.
Um, go to the next page, please, for us.
We see your application.
we see your project information form go ahead
We see your project information form, go ahead, your deed, yep, proceed, tax clearance,
and there's your drawings.
You want to explain what you're trying to do here?
I just want to do
I'm going to use
the whole lot
the length
36 and
because the lot is small
so I would like to have the whole thing
I talk to the planning commission
and they agree with me
they say it's small so you can
do the whole lot
when I look at the photos
other people also are zero for yards, too.
Am I correct?
What I'm saying, the other houses in the area
don't have big yards either. Am I correct?
No, they don't have yards either.
All right.
Continue one.
You're posting, yep.
Right now, this is a vacant lot. Yes. Okay. Yep. Yep. Okay.
that's Penn Port Civic Association
they voted in your favor am I correct
yes sir
and you also have a letter from the council person
and that's the lot size there
that's why i have it yeah yep i see it yep
has a planning commission yeah
that is three department approved too that is them
that's the spider design on the second and the third floor to to a deck
the I got I think they're my licensing building contractor okay all right okay
that's a the ocean right i'm i guess the that's for the ocean
osha okay thank you and this is my insurance okay all right all right so questions from the board
no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hilly emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
don't see any hands mr chair okay planning commission good morning again chair michael
Gall of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing residential single-family zoning at this location. There are no unique physical
conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning
code. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested
rear yard dimensional variance. Thank you. MI 2023-003-036-336 Dickinson Street. I vote yes.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Sherry, you have your vote.
How are we doing with the interpreter?
Sherry, I haven't received a response as of yet.
So, Hillary, I'm going to leave those two open and go on with the rest of the list, okay?
That is fine. And just to check, is our Spanish interpreter here?
Spanish interpreter, can you please raise your hand if you are in the audience?
I don't see anybody. We can keep going, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thank you. So number nine, MI 2023-007-272-2204-2204-2204.
007-272-2204-2207 North 4th Street.
Meredith Fowler is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Norris Square Alliance
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
There's also three form letters of support
of neighbors and nearby properties.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
But you identify your client, the relationship to this property.
I can.
My client is SV Design Inc., which is the owner of the property.
And Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind repeating what you said about Councilwoman Lozada, I was coming back in.
I didn't hear that.
I said, letter of non-opposition from Councilmember Lozada.
Thank you.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I sure did.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed.
You've already shared your screen.
Great.
Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
My name is Meredith Verlager with Delworth Paxson.
As I mentioned, my client this morning is SV Design Inc., which is the owner of the property, and I'll just bring up the deed real quick so you can see that.
And that entity is represented here today by Serge Meslenikov.
The proposal before the board today concerns a new three-unit multifamily dwelling in the NARS Square section of North Philadelphia.
In your packet at tab 14, you'll note a letter of support from the RCO, NARS Square Community
Alliance, as well as several individual letters of support from area neighbors.
The board has my exhibits, which contain 15 sets of documents.
The zoning map at Exhibit 7 shows that the property at 2207 North 4th Street is roughly
mid-block between West Susquehanna Avenue to the south and West Nevada Street to the
north.
The property is currently zoned RSA-5. As I will touch on a bit more later, the property was
previously zoned RM-1. The board has seen several cases on this same block in the last year given
that the zoning classification does not match the comprehensive plan nor the character of the block,
so this block might seem quite familiar to you after this presentation.
In the aerials at Exhibit 8, the board will develop an understanding of the unique character of this block, which is largely comprised of a mix of multifamily residential structures with some commercial and automotive uses.
If I flip to the east-looking view, zoom in just a little bit, you'll see that the opposing side of this street has some fairly intrusive automotive and commercial uses.
The remapping I referenced a moment ago will be particularly relevant to this unique character of the block.
At the west view, you'll see that this property sits at the end of this block, which is currently amongst a vacant swath of land.
This parcel is only a small piece of that empty area.
As you can probably surmise, most of these vacant lots are currently city or land bank owned.
In Exhibit 15, I'll briefly walk you through some photos to provide additional context.
The property in front of you today is currently vacant lot, which has been vacant for many
decades.
The property has any permits or history to suggest when it last had a structure or any
form of an active use.
As I walk through the photographs, you'll see that this side of the street is predominantly
residential structures with quite a few vacant lots interspersed. Looking across the street,
this photo shows one of the several commercial and auto-based uses which exist on this block.
And again, this is looking the other direction towards West Nevada Street.
Directly across the street here where you can see the trees, the board just approved a significant
multifamily proposal, which I'll address momentarily. If we look up farther towards
West Nevada Street, you'll see that there are additional automotive facilities as well as some
dilapidated residential structures. You'll note how these commercial uses still occupy a significant
portion of this block, including into the street, which is shown in some detail in these next couple
which is shown in some detail in these next couple of photographs.
of photographs.
In addition to vacant lots, there are still some dilapidated structures on this block with no active use.
Looking at the site plan at Exhibit 5,
my client is proposing to erect a new three-story building to contain three dwelling units.
originally the zoning application requested four units but that has been reduced based on
discussions with the community accordingly if the board is inclined to grant today's request
we would request a proviso for a maximum of three units from a zoning compliance standpoint the board
should note that this building is not only fully compliant with the dimensional restrictions of the
code, but is in fact underbuilt. Specifically, the building is only three stories and 33 feet
three inches high, where 38 feet would be allowed. In terms of open space for residents,
each unit has its own exterior area. The first floor has use of the rear yard. Let me bring up
the floor plans because I think it shows it a little bit better. The first floor has use of
the rear yard area, the second floor has use of an exterior deck, and the third floor has
the exclusive use of the roof deck. Unit one is a bi-level unit of 1,040 square feet.
The second floor contains another unit of 525 square feet, and the third floor unit is 615
square feet. Each unit has an independent ventilated trash storage area, which you can
see here. An artistic rendering is also included to show what the owner expects this new structure
to look like. Regarding the refusal, because the property is currently zoned RSA 5, the applicant
is required to seek a variance for the multifamily use. The applicant submits to several hardships
in erecting a new single-family home on this lot for several reasons.
As I mentioned earlier, this property was previously zoned RM1.
Although the rezoning alone might not support a hardship,
absent other compelling evidence,
the rezoning of this block is unique as it relates to the hardship.
At Exhibit 10, I have included a copy of the remapping ordinance,
Bill No. 170-516, from 2017.
What the board should take note of is the map of the then-existing zoning that existed prior to the remapping.
You may notice that this block of 4th Street, just between Susquehanna and Nevada, at one time had three different zoning classifications, including RM1, I2, and CMX2.
Upon the rezoning, everything on this block was rezoned to RSA 5.
However, despite the rezoning, as I'll show, this block still has considerable mixed uses stemming from this remapping.
At Exhibit 9, I've included zoning permit history and a map for most of the immediately adjacent structures surrounding this property.
Marked in orange and black are the current industrial or commercial uses.
Marked in blue are the multifamily uses.
As the board can see, nearly every single property surrounding this one is either multifamily or some form of commercial.
Many of these uses were granted by variants, either because of the previous industrial classification or because of the more recent RSA 5 classification.
Most recently, just about a month or two ago, at the property directly across the street where I pointed to in the photos earlier, this is 2214 North 4th Street, the board approved the erection of a new development that will add 36 residential units to that lot.
Roughly one year ago, the board granted a variance to permit the erection of a seven-unit development at 2219 North 4th Street.
Further up the street, the board granted a variance at 2231 North 4th Street for an industrial use, which we understand is some form of a brewery.
A previous board granted a variance for one of the commercial operations within the prior residentially zoned area.
Based on just these few examples, the board can see that this block has become
quite a melting pot of variance-based uses. The memo of law included at Exhibit 11 includes a
list of all the uses per property, which is consistent with the few examples that I provided.
Of all the uses contained on this one block, the only new residential uses have been multifamily structures, similar to the one proposed today, and in fact have been significantly more dense to the one that's before you today.
Of all the uses contained on this one block, the only new residential use
This combination of factors establishes it would be a hardship to use this property in compliance with its single-family use.
In addition to this evidence, the board can also consider that despite the rezoning, the comprehensive plan actually recommends this block for RM1 zoning, which we've pointed to in the exhibit shown at Exhibit 10.
And you can see the arrow pointing to that RM1 zoning.
If zoned RM1, this lot would have been just a few square feet short of a by-right three-unit density, which would have been a de minimis request before the board.
We submit that the requested variance is the least minimum.
There are no dimensional refusals associated with this request, and the proposed density is largely consistent with the allowances of the former and recommended RM1 zoning.
It's also consistent with the density of the multifamily uses of surrounding structures.
Given the diverse uses on this block that resulted from the prior mixed zoning, it is the least deviation from the code to propose a use that is most consistent with the existing character of the block.
New single-family development of this street that contains significant automotive and industrial uses is simply not viable or realistic.
This proposal will not increase congestion, and in fact, it's the existing automotive uses on the block causing any congestion, and encouraging future residential development will help to mitigate those conditions.
Although parking is not a requirement, the applicant submits it would not be feasible to provide parking for this development as a result of the property's location mid-block with no other access point other than North 4th Street.
The proposal will not impair light and air, as it is designed to be three stories and underbuilt from a height perspective, much like the other residential structures on this block.
The board saw that this design includes individualized open space for residents.
The applicant submits this proposal and the requested variance complies in full with the requirements of Code Section 3038E.2.
Full analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 11.
As you saw from the RCO letter, this proposal did ultimately receive support from the community,
given the developer's willingness to work with the community on several of their concerns.
We did also supplement that with a couple additional letters of support from community members.
At this time, if the administrator could look for Serge Maslenikov.
They've been about to speak.
Good morning.
Good morning, Borg.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
My name is Serge Moslenkov, S-E-R-G-E-M-A-S-L-E-N-N-I-K-O-V.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Serge, you are authorized to speak on behalf of SV Design, Inc., is that right?
And have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
Yes, I did.
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Absolutely.
Thank you. Happy to take any questions.
So, Council, this project started with four units and after meeting with the RCO it went to three?
Exactly.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Sorry about that. No questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have a Josh Kravitz with their hand raised. I've allowed them to speak.
Sure. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name is Josh Kravitz. That's spelled J-O-S-H-K-R-A-V-E-T-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor, sir?
Please proceed.
So I own a property at 438 West Susquehanna Avenue. That's right around the corner from
this project that's being proposed yep so i'm i'm very familiar with the area and that block as well
and it does have a lot of distress it's a messy block there's land there's that car shop or repair
There's land, there's that car shop or repair shop.
shop um
I think the project proposed is going to, it's going to revitalize that block in particular.
It's going to help start the revitalization at least.
And it's just from watching the presentation, it's a very practical project in my view.
And there's, you know, there's multifamilies all around that area.
I just want to voice my support for this project.
I think it's going to do good for that block and the area.
Thank you very much for taking the time to close.
We appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no further hands at this time, sir.
Planning Commission.
Good morning again, Chair.
Michael Gall, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change to the residential single-family zoning at this location to RM1,
a residential multi-family zoning designation this is a block with a history of diverse uses
and some vacancies and the parcel in question is small due to the unique physical conditions
of the property and the recommendations in the lower north district plan the planning commission
recommends that the board grant the requested variance for multi-family residential use
but at a maximum of two units as would be allowed in rm1 given the parcel size thank you
counsel do you want to comment yeah mr chairman as i mentioned uh if this lot were zoned rm1
if this lot would only be a few square feet away from by right three three units so if if a
comprehensive plan were fulfilled the applicant could have come back before the board and at that
point it would have been a de minimis variance request for three units uh and again this start
started at four and based on the recommendations of the community, the applicant did agree to
reduce it to three. So based on the floor plans and the layout, you know, we believe that three
units is the appropriate density for this particular proposal. Thank you. So MI 2023-007-272-2207
North 4th Street. I vote yes with a proviso. Maximum three dwelling units.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
baron leonard palmer my vote is yes with proviso thank you council okay number 13
mi 2024 000057 1715 south 18 street sean whale is the attorney um these point breeze neighbors
did not reach an agreement. It was a 6-5 vote.
I'm sorry, Chair. This is Tanya. May I humbly request that I ask Mr. Jason Hand
to raise his volume? We have a little bit of a challenge hearing you, and we want to make sure
we can. So please raise your volume. Thank you very kindly, Chair. Sorry to interrupt.
No, that's fine. Mr. Whalen, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly, Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client is the owner of the property at 1715 South 18th Street, Hasbi, H-A-Z-B-I, Daku, D-A-K-U.
Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
thank you council please proceed and share your screen thank you very much good morning chair and
good morning board members sean whalen here from vintage law on behalf of hasbi daku for 1715 south
18th street i have a very pretty simple and straightforward request for you today first
you're just seeing an atlas map to give you kind of a sense of where this is the major cross streets
here would be uh excuse me my allergies went nuts yesterday so i apologize in advance uh the major
cross streets would be 18th and morris and moore streets and you can see we're right here this is
a vacant lot right at the corner of south 18th street and walk-in street uh here's the condition
here you can see this vacant lot here generally built out with a few vacant lots especially in
these CMX1 zoning districts, which is what we have, large church and Catholic school at the
corner. As I said, generally you have RSA5 immediately surrounding the property with RM1
with RM1 kind of in a loop, kind of in a donut around this RSA 5,
kind of in a loop, kind of in a donut around this.
with a lot of CMX1 corner commercial properties.
We have one refusal today.
We are seeking to put commercial on the first floor with two apartments above.
And at this time, one apartment above the CMX1 use is allowed.
And that's simply because the RSA 5 Zoning District single-family use applies above the CMX 1 that's adjacent to it.
This project did proceed in front of East Point Breeze neighbors.
The vote was 6-5, and so the RCO took no position.
They did not reach agreement on how to proceed with this issue.
So this is a smaller, just about 1,100 square foot vacant lot. It's been vacant for some time. CMX1 project. And again, we're seeking to put two apartments over the commercial.
And what you'll see is this is a standard three-story building that has no height restrictions or refusals, rather, has no open space or any other refusals.
And the units are going to be quite large, about 1,000 square feet each.
So, you know, the first level of hardship would be putting a three-story, a standard three-story unit building here that would meet the code and what's allowed would have a 2,000 square foot plus apartment, which would simply be too large and would really be about a five-bedroom apartment the way it lays out and simply would be too large for any real rental in this neighborhood.
The second piece of the hardship is, as this board well knows, a change in the neighborhood
has been found by the courts to constitute and substantiate a hardship in and of itself.
What you're seeing right now is that same Atlas map.
I took it with me and documented both a search of all the zoning archives where you see no
number listed on this block uh there was no zoning archive and and i couldn't tell from the front of
the building if it was single family or double family um or two family rather uh every other
unit on the or um property on this block you can see the number of two family going straight down
two units above commercial that's two plus c two units two units i couldn't tell for these three
two units right across the street from watkins um tellingly this exact block of south 18th
between watkins and pierce you have we're a vacant lot i in full disclosure i believe 17 17 next to
us is a single family i believe 17 15 is a two family although i couldn't confirm it
and then uh 21 is a two family and then you actually have at 23 a single room occupancy for
six rooms so you have an extremely dense project and then again right at the other corner you have
a large build out with two units above commercial you have it's zoned for three units but actually
has four mailboxes on the front right across the street from this another two unit and two units
up and down the block so again we are seeking a fully buy right build as far as all dimensional
requirements, and we are seeking to keep the commercial use as required by the CMX1 zoning
for a corner property here. The issue, as everybody knows, and certainly an economic
hardship cannot solely substantiate a hardship. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled
that economic hardship can be a considered factor by the zoning board in and among other factors.
So firstly, you have the overall build out of the project would simply result in too large of a single unit above to be able to be rentable.
Second, you have an overall change in the neighborhood where you do not have a single family condition up along this block.
There are certainly single family houses on this block.
Probably about half the block is and half the block is multifamily, either two, three or more units.
and additionally economically the two units are necessary in order to support the first
floor commercial. We all know what's happened over the last four or five years with commercial spaces.
We all know what's happened over the last four or five years with commercial spaces,
and they've been really struggling.
In order to keep a commercial space here, that needs to be supported and offset by the
rental rates for the two units, because that first floor commercial really, and even by
the lenders, is considered a non-unit and gives no basis for any lending.
We believe that there's no detriment to the neighborhood, the public health, safety, or
welfare, again, because this is right in line with everything that's been here.
You have first floor commercial up and down the block and at the corners, and you have
at least two units, if not more, in multiple properties up and down the block.
And lastly, this is the least minimum variance because, again, one unit and commercial is
allowed. And for all the reasons I've already stated, all we're asking for is one additional
unit. Both will be very large, two-bedroom units, nice neighborhood units at 1,000-plus square feet
each. And there was no real opposition from the RCO. They kind of came to a push, and we're not
sure what final position to take. And so they left with no position at all. So with that, I'm happy
to take any questions or i would call my client hasby daku why don't you bring your client one
sure uh mr hand can you see if uh hasby daku has their hand raised
i apologize for speeding through that but i was worried i wasn't going to be able to make
it with my allergies going the way they are
yes sorry i interrupted you again sir but i do not see any hands raised for the matter in question
um so counsel you're you're an officer of the court um we gladly accept your testimony
and just for a point of information the block that that's the one it's all three-story am i
correct yes everything is three-story up and down all right thank you questions from the board
no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
none at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
once again sir i do not see any further hands hi planning commission
good morning again chair my name is michael gall philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location to
rsa 5 a residential single family attached zoning designation the zoning code states that if
If the household living use is in an attached building in a CMX-1 district, the household living use regulations of the residential district to which it is attached shall apply.
The proposed attached house in this CMX-1 property is attached to a property in the RSA-5 residential single-family attached zoning district, where the two-family household living is not allowed.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would warrant such a variance.
Therefore, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for multifamily residential use.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 000057, 1715 South 18th Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Use registration for vacant commercial space on the first floor required prior to occupancy.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.
Number 14, MI 2024, 000058, 2655 South Juniper Street.
Joseph Vicarro is the attorney.
There is a recommendation of support unanimous from the Lower Moy Mencing Civic Association
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
Joseph Vaccaro will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
I can. Good morning, Mr. Vaccaro.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Good morning. May it please the board,
Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, attorney for the applicant. Somewhere here, I also have Christian
Palamone on behalf of Avenue Steaks Pizza. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did that last Thursday, except for the letter of support from Lovermoyer Menzing.
I just never got that letter, so I forwarded that this morning.
But I see that the board already has it independently of me.
That is true. Thank you.
Okay, I'm looking for the window that has the exhibits. One moment.
I'm just looking for the screen that has my exhibits. One moment.
here we go um can you see the letter of non-position from we do we do yeah okay so i'll
move on then here we have working let me start from the beginning
This is an application to basically use the property as a pizza parlor, cheesesteaks, hot foods, cold foods, sandwiches, etc.
There was already a pizza parlor in this location before, but the zoning variance had lapsed when my client took it over, so he's been operating ever since.
I'll show you some photographs of the property and the establishment.
Can you see the zoning notice on the door?
We do, sir.
Just want to make sure that you could see it.
The posters were put up in a timely fashion.
The property is located on the northeast corner of South Juniper and Oregon Avenue.
and outside seating no inside seating is available that's where the food is being
prepared I'll show you here the pizza ovens other food prep area
going further down ample parking on oregon avenue
and the property my client has the property by way of a lease uh the property would be operating
seven days a week. The hours would be from Sundays to Thursday, from 10 a.m. to 3 a.m.,
and on Fridays and Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 4 a.m. Six people would be working on any given shift,
ample lighting to try to keep the neighborhood even safer. That's the extent of my presentation.
Any questions from the board, or I could call Mr. Palamon. Why don't you bring Mr. Palamon on to
adopt your testimony.
Christian?
They've been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Board. My name is Christian Palamone.
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Palamone. P-A-L-A-M-O-N-E.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
i do please proceed council uh christian did you hear my presentation to the board
yes do you agree with it i do anything to add or take away from it
no i think we showed everything accurately okay would you adopt it as your own testimony
if you were testifying yes i would okay any questions from the board or from council
questions from the board
no chair
no questions chair
questions or comments from our attorney Hillary Ambers
not at this time
Mr. Chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I do not see any further
answer Mr. Chair
good morning again
chair members of the board Michael Gall
Philadelphia City Planning Commission
the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location. The property has a documented
history as a takeout restaurant as early as 2004. Therefore, the Philadelphia City Planning
Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance for takeout restaurant use.
Thank you. MI 2024-000058-2655-South Juniper.
0-0-0-0-5-8-26-55 South Juniper Street.
I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Number 16.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vaccaro.
Number 16, MI 2024, 0-0-0-0-6-1, 1119 State Street,
Henry Clinton is the attorney. There's a letter of support for the Centennial Parkside CDC based on revised plans.
Mr. Clinton should be rejoining as a panelist soon.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure, my name is Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth of nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to this property?
Sure, my client is A and P, A is in Albert, P is in Philip, Construction, LLC,
principal of which is Divis, D is in Dennis, E, V is in Victor, I, S,
jesu g j u z as in zebra i and he is on the call our vice chair has just a few questions sir
good morning council do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy i do we emailed in all the required paperwork and documents and exhibits that is
needed five days in advance of this hearing yes we have except the letter of support came in
within that five-day period.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Shaheen.
Mr. Chairman, is that visible?
It is, sir.
All right.
Good morning again, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board.
Henry Clinton, on behalf of AMP Construction, LLC.
We're here today concerning 1119 State Street,
table of contents A1 through A10,
which I ask to be admitted.
This is a straightforward matter of
a single family home in a single family district where the refusal is, the front setback is
supposed to be eight feet. We are requesting and have support from the neighborhood for a
four foot setback because the lots are extremely small. The lot is less than 40 feet and it's only
13 and a half feet wide. And if we're unable to have this particular proposal, it would really
make the house unfeasible to construct, but I'll walk through the program. This is the refusal,
as I said, RSA 5 zoning district. The refusal concerns one issue. We have no issues with rear
yard, height, open space. It's basically if abutting lots on either side of a hatch building
have two stories on either side, then the project in the middle would have to have the third floor
set back eight feet. And as I indicated, we're setting our project back four feet.
You have a letter of support from Centennial Parkside CDC.
We met with them a couple of weeks ago, and basically they asked us how could we make the property fit more within this historical block.
So we moved the third floor back four feet.
We carried the cornice lines across because there are a lot of nice decorative cornices on that block.
We removed the bays on the second and third floor.
We made the front elevation all brick.
We basically mimicked the double-hung windows of the properties that are existing on the block on our project.
So all of the conditions that Centennial Parkside requested, we were able to meet.
This is the block.
You can see there's a number of vacant homes.
There's a number of lots across the street, and there's a few vacant slots on the opposite side of State Street.
Looking at the historical records, 1119, that was demolished by the city in 2018 as imminently dangerous, and it has remained unoccupied and vacant since that time.
This is a view looking down the street.
You can just see it's a really nice, tight block, really nice cornice work.
You've got a large double-hung window on the first floor, two double-hungs on the second floor, and there's no third floors at all on the block.
So this was the first time someone came to the neighbors on this block and said that new construction is warranted, but not a typical two-story.
Posting of the zoning notices.
And these are the proviso plans if the board looks favorably.
And these are the proviso plans if the board looks favorably upon this application.
And here's the plan.
So I think best to start here.
Here's the side view.
Again, this is a very narrow lot, 39 feet and change.
And because of that, you have a very shallow structure.
And also because of the width of the lot, 13-6, by the time you put a staircase in there, which is three feet wide, your whole downstairs is really, really tight.
Thus the need for additional square footage on the third floor.
So we do have the third floor setback.
It's setback four feet, not to where our red line is.
That's a required eight foot setback.
And then to the left where my cursor is, is the new elevation.
A little bit deceiving.
You know, the third floor is setback.
That's why I showed you the cross section first.
First and second floor basically are exact replicas of the other homes on the street.
two double hungs on the second floor one large window on the first floor and then turn steps i
just want to go back to some of the photographs you can see on the block some of the steps are
turned some are straight down from the front door but again two double hung single hung on the first
floor and a door uh the layout again straightforward in the sense the basement is going to house
mechanicals. First floor, you can see how the stairs come out about three feet. You have a
really narrow area here on the first floor, but the living and dining room are going to be toward
the front. The kitchen is in the rear, basically a galley kitchen along the one wall. Second floor,
two bedrooms, a bath. Third floor, one bedroom, one bath with access to the rooftop deck. So you
You have open space in the rear and also access to the rooftop deck.
The remaining documents are application for appeal, tax clearance, zoning map, again,
the RSA 5 residential district, the deed indicating my client purchased it in 2021.
Notice, mailed out 164 letters to all the neighbors within 250 feet as per the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
So, in summary, we basically have a duplication of the use of what this property once was, was residential, albeit two-story.
We're moving up to the third story, not being able to do the second.
I mean, the third floor with an eight-foot sackback, because it's just not feasible with the small nature of this house, the shallow lot, and the minimum width.
So, the extra four feet on the second floor really make a difference with this property.
and we're basically in harmony with the code.
We're in harmony with what the neighbors want
and we ask that the board look kindly upon this application.
Let me bring your client on, Henry.
Davis, can you unmute yourself for the board?
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Davis Juzzi.
D-E-V-I-S, last name Juzy, G-J-U-Z-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Juzy, were you on the Zoom call when I presented your project at 1119 State Street?
Yes, I was.
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Juzy.
Mr. Clinton, was the four-foot setback suggested by the neighbors?
I think it was mutual. They wanted eight. We explained to them the depth of the rear yard, and so it was really a compromise worked out between the parties.
Questions or comments from the board?
No, Chair.
No questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
questions or comments from the virtual audience. I do not see any further hands. Planning Commission.
Good morning again, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Michael Gall, Philadelphia City
Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single
family attached zoning at this location. There is no unique physical condition or hardship
preventing conformance with the dimensional standards of the zoning code in this district.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested dimensional
variance for third floor setback. Want me to address that Mr. Chairman? Sure. Yeah so we had
the option of moving the first floor and second floor back what we would have eaten into the rear
yard. It's only a seven foot rear yard right now. You have a lot that's under 40 feet in depth so
rather than shrinking the rear yard and the open space it was decided again via compromise to give
It was decided, again, via compromise, to give a little bit more square footage on the third floor, and that's really the hardship.
a little bit more square footage.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000061, 1119 State Street. I vote yes, but proviso, revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, May 22, 2024.
LeVarren Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Bish, no, shaheed, yes.
You broke up, Bish.
Can you hear me, sir?
We hear you now, sir.
Yes, it's no, shaheed, my vote is yes.
With proviso, right?
With proviso.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. You have your votes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Number 17, MI 2024-000075-1615 North Del Rapp.
Vernon Alastasio is the attorney.
I don't have an RCO letter or summary.
Yeah, an update on that, Mr. Chair.
We did receive a copy of the letter of support from Fishy Town Neighbors Association.
They did ask for a proviso so that there would to not have the nightclubs and public entertainment use under the Assembly of Entertainment.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Anastasio.
Morning, Mr. Chair.
You've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
I represent Ms. Bella Strassnick and Mr. Chris Bella.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading or refuse or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
in addition to fna mr chair i believe the council office was to send a letter of non-opposition as
well they did they did thank you we uh right here it's it's an industrial site 1615 um north
delaware avenue we're going to uh i'm submitting a 76 page exhibit binder today
and let me show you the interior layout um this is going to be a performance space
uh interactive community space a place where there's workshopping where there are dress
dressmaking uh seminars where there are community meetings where artists can put on
art studios and exhibits and shows very much interactive theater so all of those things
would be this creative collaborative uh sort of um uh collective uh for uh this particular spot
just uh on the uh you know on the riverfront just east of the fishtown neighbors very few people
live in the area we were able to scrounge up 14 individual addresses to mail uh but you know
surprisingly the community meeting was very well attended and we have 25 folks who voted in full
support of the so it's an overwhelming majority of that so that's the interior i wanted to show you
some exterior traffic plans we have so that both options here for light and moderate traffic we
do have a plan in place that will easily bring folks off of Delaware Avenue and out of East
Susquehanna, both ample. East Susquehanna already has lots of off-street parking here as well,
so it is auto-oriented in that regard. I'm going to move up here to the refusal itself.
By the way, just for the sake of discussion, we're moving into evidence, the zoning refusal,
the photos of the property, the floor plan, and the site plan. We do have the business plan and
the mission plan of this organization, which is to foster collaborative, creative uses within
the community. The RCO letter and the proof of the mailing, the poster and the proof of the
posting. I've already shown you our traffic plan. We have the tax clearance, the commercial lease,
We have the tax clearance, the commercial lease, overhead views, and, of course, the support letter.
overhead views, and of course the support.
So with that, I want to show you.
And because of the overwhelming support, I don't want to have to beat a dead horse.
And we'll move on very quickly.
But the refusal is because this is a formal, formerly industrial commercial mixed use.
As you know, those uses are hard to come by these days, especially on the waterfront, which is slowly but surely turning to more alternative reuses such as residential, artistic, and the like.
This plan will be very much like Pier 3, Pier 5 that are embracing the arts and bringing it to the Delaware River waterfront.
So because we have our substantial support from the immediate neighbors and the RCO, as well as the First District Council, and because as zoned, the use would render the space still inhabitable.
And for all those reasons, we respectfully request the granting of the variants.
I would have Bella Strasnick please raise her virtual hand.
Okay. Baron, do my favor. Could you address the letter from Fishtown neighbors where Hillary talked about no nightclub, et cetera? Could you address that?
Oh, yeah. No problem. We are, this will never be a nightclub based on, you know, and we're asking that that condition and proviso be attached to that permit.
There will be no nightclub activities, nothing of the sort, no bouncers, no sorts of third-party promoters, and no cover charge.
This is not just an open-to-the-public, come-on-and-dance sort of place.
So if we need to put a proviso on the permit, that there'll be zero nightclub activity, and I think that's the private club activity, and I believe they're the words pursuant to the code, attorney Emerson could weigh in.
hillary where hillary where is that no nightclub yeah so yeah so so the the language now because
because as you know um mr anastasia they just they recently changed the code so it would be um
nightclubs and public entertainment venues use is prohibited so that's that's the new category
nightclubs and public entertainment venues okay but this this uh space this creative collective
collaborative space will be open to the public just for the record yes yes no i i understand
that and it's under the broader assembly and entertainment category understood thank you
all right bring your client on please thank you mr chair miss bella strasnick could please raise
her virtual hand. They've been allowed to speak. Can you hear me? We can. Could you please state
your name and spell it for the court stenographer? Starbella Strasnick, S-T-R-A-Z, like zebra, N-I-K.
Please proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Strasnick, did you hear my presentation to
the board this morning? Yes. Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes.
You adopt it as your own testimony.
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the board?
No, Chair.
No questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from Hillary Emerson, our attorney?
Just to note for the Chair, in addition to the proviso requested by the RCO, there's an amended refusal in this matter.
Could you go one more time?
nightclub and public venue yeah so nightclubs and public entertainment venues and then that's
a particular use is prohibited okay thank you pursuant to the revised refusal dated 318 mr
chair yeah thank you um uh questions or comments um from the virtual audience anyone in the virtual
audience? Mr. Chair, I have a Robert Everett with the hand raised.
I have allowed him to speak. Good morning, sir. Could you
please state your name and spell for the court's stenographer? Yes. Good morning,
everyone. First name is Robert. Last name Everett.
E-V-E-R-E-T-T. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, Mr. Everett?
I do. Please proceed. Yes, I'm
here on behalf of FNA, and we agree with everything that was just discussed.
fna and we agree with everything that was just discussed especially the
the wording of the proviso that was very good for our clarification
thank you very much um anyone else in the first audience
chair i do not see any further hands for this matter planning commission
good morning again chair michael gall philadelphia city planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the industrial commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
None of the specified grand floor uses occupy at least 40% of the length of the ground floor of the building frontage,
as is required under the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay District.
There are no unique physical conditions of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
Therefore, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variances
for fraternal organization, arts, and social club with assembly and entertainment use,
and for the ground floor area use restrictions uh mr chair just a just a note uh if you look at
section 145074.7 um we do offer public open space uh enclosed public space and um and uh so and
throughout you know the pedestrian connection so uh it it does adhere to the spirit of the code
if not the specific black letter law of the code.
Thank you.
So number MI 2024, 00075, 1615 North Del Ravna.
I vote yes, with proviso.
Nightclub, public venue, entertainment are prohibited
and per amended refusal dated 3-18-24.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
lebaron leonard palma everybody's yes with proviso thank you counsel thank you
how how's our spanish interpreter
okay hold on a second jason did we see the interpreter yet i'm about to call from right
now, sir. Okay. May the Spanish
interpreter from earlier today
please raise your virtual hand
and wait to be sworn in.
Spanish interpreter, once again, please raise
your virtual hand and wait to be sworn
Ms. L, did we receive any further confirmation
regarding the interpreter?
No, Ms. Emerson.
unfortunately not and no further answers please sir okay so let me so okay let's see here um
mi 2023 002 921 2018 east ontario street um almeido soli is the listed owner are they in the audience
I do not see anyone under that name, but Benita Cadillo has their hand raised again.
I can allow them to speak if you wish.
He's here, sir.
They're here.
the owner is here
but he needs an interpreter
explain to the owner
that the case is being continued
because we do not have an interpreter
would that be for both
of the Hispanic ones
we're going to take them one at a time
Mr. Chair
this first case
there's no exhibits on Ontario
Street and there's no record
of an RCO meeting occurring
Yes, it's sent
Yes, it is
I have an email, we sent it
Last week
Okay, but you need an interpreter
It's going to get continued anyway
Listen to me
MI 2023-002-921-2018
East Ontario Street
The case has been continued
We're going to go to number
7 was it?
Maria Mahaja
or Epifanso
and Elise
we see anybody for
Let me see anybody for 228 West Tioga Street, MI 2023-007-038.
No hands except Padilla, Padilla, sir.
Is your clients, do you represent these people or do you help these people?
Padilla, please unmute.
so this case we're very sorry
one second
we do not have an interpreter we're very sorry we have to continue this case
So MI 2023-007-038-228 West Tioga Street, the case has been continued.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record, when an interpreter is needed for a case, we really need at least a week, if not two, to be able to request and secure that interpreter.
We do our best on the short-term notice that we've been given recently by many applicants.
but even you know even if they're confirmed we can't always ensure that interpreter is here so
just for everyone listening just please note that we need at least a week if not to um advance
notice that there is an interpreter needed for a case thank you very much thank you just to jump
in and go along with with hillary it is two weeks not one it's absolutely necessary or we will have
a continuance like today. Thank you very kindly, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Tanya. Is there
anyone in the virtual audience who their 9.30 a.m. case has not been called?
Do not see any hands. Wait a minute, Mr. Chair. I have a Sean Wright with their hand raised. I can
allow them to speak if you wish. Sure. Mr. Wright, could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer. Wait, I'm sorry. They just put their hand down, and now I have a Charlene
Brawner with her hand raised. Okay. I'll allow them to speak.
Hi, Charlene. Yes, hello. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Charlene Brawner, S-H-A-R-L-E-A-N, last name Brawner, B-R-A-W-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
What case are you interested in, Charlene?
I'm interested in the case for Tenna Tires, 7715 Ogons Avenue.
um i believe that case is on the afternoon list yeah i think that's a two o'clock yes
yeah that case is going to be we're going to hear that it's sometime right after two o'clock okay
and actually mr chair to clarify we received a request for continuance for that case so
we don't anticipate it moving forward this afternoon so we're going to wind up continuing
that case this afternoon we'll make sure you know that when the next case is coming up okay
Oh, it's not going to be today.
It's not going to be heard today.
Well, thank you very much.
And thank you for contacting us.
We appreciate it.
How will I know?
The same way you were notified this time, you'll be notified.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
Yes, we have Sean Wright with her hand raised.
I haven't got him to speak, sir.
Good morning.
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer uh good morning my name is sean
c-h-a-w-n my last name is right w-r-i-g-h-t um hold on hold on hold on hold on sure do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do what case are you
interested in um it it's the same um case for uh it's zp2023013817 with the zoning of uh cmx2
but we we had to reach out to anthony phillips office so like well what's the location it's the
same location the it's 10 of tires yes for the 77 15 oguns avenue that case is going to be
continue this afternoon and so now i'm two yeah and two two things if i if i can interject one
the property will be posted for the next hearing or it is required to be otherwise it cannot be
heard second if you entered your appearance today to get into the zoom and indicated you were in
Second, if you entered your appearance today to get into the Zoom and indicated you were interested in that particular property, you will receive a copy of the hearing notice for the next hearing date.
Thank you.
Great. Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else?
No, no further hints, Mr. Chair.
See everyone at 2 o'clock.
Thank you.
All right, Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's
meeting. With me is our Vice Chair, President, Mr. Chairman, our Alternative Board Member,
LeBaron Leonard Palmer from the Division of Development Services.
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunken. Here's our virtual format. Proceedings are being recorded. With your
participation, you agree to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting
tanyasunken at phil.gov. For our course on offer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify
themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, press star nine to
raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpkin.
Let's take a look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number four, MI 2023-007-281-8014 Castravena, the case is continued, attorney moving party.
Number eight, MI 2024-001-332-5301 Montgomery Avenue. That case is continued.
Number 12, MI 2024-001-649-7715 Ogons Avenue. That case is continued.
And number 15, hold on one minute, right with you, case number 15, MI 2024-002-013-1709
Federal Street, that case is continued. Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. Once again, I will be the co-host for the day.
At present, there are no hands raised. Thank you. And number three, MI 2023-006-847-2644
North 22nd Street, that case has been withdrawn. We're going to go to our add-on list.
MI 2023-007-211, 2812 Snodder Avenue. The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday,
May 29th at 9.30 a.m. We're going to go to our regular list, and we're going to start with-
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, there was there was an error there. That vote will be at 2 p.m. next week.
Thank you. So the vote in that matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, May 29th at 2 p.m.
Thank you. And we're going to go to number seven.
MI 2024-001-188-4220
Holmesburg Avenue
Franklin Castillo is the applicant
tenant.
It's pro se.
You had the original information on that.
Where do we stand with this?
Yes, so we have everything complete on this one. We have a letter of non-opposition from the Holmesburg Civic Association. Mr. Castillo, are you in the audience?
Hold on. Franklin Castillo, please raise the hold on.
Okay, Mr. Chair, they have been promoted to panelists. They will be rejoining shortly.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, sir.
Mr. Castillo, please unmute.
Franco Castillo, please unmute.
they may be having a technical wait a minute
mr castillo
yes he appeared he's unmuted however he's not responding mr castillo
he looks like he's unmuted yes sir wait a minute i have a problem with the computer
mr castillo
yes mr castillo could you please first of all turn on your video please
so we can see you
okay i'm gonna go okay
start the video okay
start my video
I sent you a message to start your video I got started they say this whenever I begin recording
here we go thank you so mr. right so you're going to be testified we'll get you through
this testimony do me a favor state your name and spell it for the court stenographer okay
state your name
Franklin Castillo
F-R-A-N-K-L-Y-N
C-A-S-T-I-L-L-O
do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth
the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
did you swear to tell the truth okay our uh our vice chair um excuse me mr miss sanchez is that
is that you are you miss sanchez i'm his wife oh you're his wife okay sorry i was emailing with
miss sanchez okay it seems like he's having a little bit of difficulty understanding what
we're communicating to him um would it be better for us to continue this and for us to get an
interpreter for him no i want to continue or we try we want to try okay um but you he's got to
speak on his own he's got to speak on his own you can't be interpreting for him so if he needs
interpretation services we need to be able to have an interpreter here so we can't you can't
act as an interpreter for him because he needed neutral third party okay mr castillo are you okay
to go on yeah okay um uh our vice chair has just a few questions for you
good afternoon sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is
needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this area
did you answer yes i'm sorry chair this is tanya i know yes i do believe that i could reschedule
this as soon as possible yeah we'll do that time demand that an interpreter handle this case and
not the person's spouse thank you very kindly totally totally agree so mr castillo we're going
continue this we will bring you back in as soon as we can and when we bring you back we'll have
an interpreter and then we'll get through this okay okay thank you very much we'll get we'll get
okay so let's now go to
Okay, so let's now go to case number one. MI 2023-003-954-3753 North 18th Street. This is a resumptive hearing. Mr. Nockamson.
They'll be coming back in as a panel, sir.
Mr. Nockamson, is this your first time today?
It is my first time today.
Okay, so could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer?
A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So, Mr. Nockamson, this is a resumptive hearing.
We're going to have an update from the RCO, additional public testimony, planning commission recommendation, and then a response from you at the end.
But I believe yesterday you had a case similar to this.
So why don't you start with just a couple general issues relative to the case?
All right.
So we're looking to put a three-family dwelling in this property, and we have two refusals.
and this is an RSA-5 property, and we have two refusals, the first of which is the use for three
units, not out of character for the neighborhood, and we gave an example on that block of another
three-unit dwelling. The second refusal is a de minimis refusal for rear yards setback, where nine
feet is required under the code, and we're at eight feet, one inches. So what the community was
concerned with was not the use of the property or the setback. They were more concerned about
how if the rear of our property mimicked the properties to left and right of it.
I'm going to share my screen and just so you can see what we did.
Let's get to that portion.
So we have revised plans where we now have an 18-foot rear setback on the third floor,
third story, 10-foot setback on the second story,
And we reduced the building depth by six more inches to go more in compliance, but not completely with the rear yard setback within the Philadelphia zoning code.
So just the easiest just to illustrate it.
So these are revised plans.
So basically what they wanted us to do was to step it down, you know, so, you know, further, you know, on the first floor, then a little more setback on the second floor.
and then further set back on the third floor this would mimic the properties to left and right of us
ultimately we did get a letter of support based on that that was their only
complaint about this project so we got a letter of support which is dated march 1st of 2024
with you know with the understanding that we would be submitting this with revised plans which we did
submit all right and that's where we are thank you is there anyone from the rco present
once again is there anyone from the rco present in the virtual audience today
okay all right questions or comments from the virtual audience
I have a hand up from Charles Richardson.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Richardson, you were sworn earlier today.
Just state your name and begin your testimony.
Charles Richardson, Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Having examined the letter that came from the RCO, they were in support, so the Councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon.
Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission.
A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family zoning at this location.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim for multifamily with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
The requested year-yard depth variance is de minimis.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance for year-yard depth and deny the variance for multifamily household living.
Grant the variance for a rear yard gap and deny the variance for multifamily household living.
Mr. Nockman, would you want to respond to the testimony that we've had so far?
Yeah, so the lot is 1,392 square feet, which is rather large for an RSA 5 property.
And it's not out of character to have triplexes, especially on this block.
And during my original presentation, we provided an example of one property on that block, which is similarly a triplex.
And again, we did work with the community on this, and they have no objection to the actual use of the property.
It had to do with non-zoney related matters.
Thank you.
Mr. Nackamson, I don't know if Hillary has spoken to you or not, but we're going to hold the vote on this to May 29th at 2 p.m.
The record is closed.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
And just to clarify, because Mr. Nockmson, I didn't get to reach out to you about this one.
And that is just so we need to have a couple members watch the video of this hearing that we just had in order to vote.
And we should have those members present and have them watch the video next week.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nockmson.
Number two, MI 2023-006-343-9901 Frankfurt Avenue.
David Chandler is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the East Tarsdale Civic Association.
20 in favor, 8 opposed.
Mr. Chandler.
I'll be coming back in as a panelist, Mr. Chandler.
Sure, thank you.
Hi, Mr. Chandler.
Could you state your name, please?
yes and spelled for the courts and wait a minute and spelled for the court stenographer sure david
chandler c-h-a-n-d-l-e-r along with co-counsel hayan beck b-a-i-k and a-j willis w-i-l-l-i-s
we're co-counsel they're co-counsel and i'm here for 9901 uh frankfurt avenue okay all right hold
on hold on hold on hold on hold on do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. And Mr. Chandler, you'll be handling the hearing, right? Yes, I will.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Okay. The owners are Jonathan Trinidad, like the country, and Natalie Ramos, R-A-M-O-S,
and they are the owners of the business and the property at 9901 Frankfurt.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Sure. Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you, Counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay. Well, now we will upload the presentation.
Yep, sure.
Here, AJ Trinidad LLC.
And, okay.
This is the resume of Mr. Trinidad.
And this is the resume of Ms. Ramos.
This is going to be a tire store, fixing tires, selling tires.
And right now, the property is abandoned.
So, at least it'll add something to the neighborhood.
And this is the property itself.
H.A. Trinidad Tires LLC is the company.
This is notice of refusal.
And this is the application for appeal.
And confirmation page.
Now, the East Torres Stale Civic Association voted in favor of this application.
So it has community support, as you can see.
We sent a letter to the councilman's office letting him know of this hearing.
Now, this is detailed information about the project.
As you can see, this is the site plan, and that's a view of the outside.
Right now, it's abandoned, but once, assuming that we are approved, then it'll be, basically, it'll be a vibrant business.
And that's another, more of the current outside views.
And that's another, more of the current outside.
And this is the interior.
This is the zoning notice, mortgage.
The deed, we did email the entire deed yesterday.
and tax and the this this is the um uh tax clearance certificate
uh issue date may 7th so they're okay with the taxes so that's that's it basically so so mr
chandler i noticed you showed the uh the notice of the hearing did you post it uh yes we did
of this this hearing we did do you have a photo for that yes we did um
no yeah no no no no is it not Hillary do you have a photo of it Hillary
um yes I believe there are some supplemental exhibits that separately um from this PowerPoint
um we did we did we do have a complete exhibit packet for this thank thank you thank you very
much. Mr. Chandler, could you bring on your client? Sure. Mr. Trinidad.
Hi, hello. Hi, Mr. Trinidad. Mr. Trinidad, you're going to do this, the speaking, right?
Me and my wife. Well, why don't we make it easier just one of you do it? Is that whoever wants to
be? It's just easier. Who wants to do it? I can do it. Okay, good. So could you please state your
name and spell for the court stenographer. My name is Natalie Ramos, N-A-T-A-L-Y Ramos, R-A-M-O-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Please proceed, counsel. Yes, Ms. Ramos, did you hear what I told the chairman
before? Yes. And do you agree with what I said? Yes, I agree.
and um do you have anything else to say or um we just want to ask um the opportunity to be able
to serve that community and uh we have a lot of experience on the business that it's not that
we're going to start something new my husband he been working um in a tire shop with his dad son
he was like probably 16 years old and i've been working with him since 2013 so i have a lot of
experience and i'm going to be more than happy to serve that community we just want to serve
and provide services to anyone who needs um tire services or any repair for the vehicles
so thank you very much questions from the board
no questions chair
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions
Is there comments from the virtual audience?
Do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Hi, Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
The property has a documented history of consumer retail.
There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission staff are also concerned about the environmental impacts of vehicle repair and maintenance on the adjacent Pennypack Park and Creek.
Oil and other toxic fluids are routinely used in these facilities.
While bus efforts are made, these fluids routinely escape down to nearby storing drains.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the repairs use variance for vehicle repair and maintenance.
So, Mr. Chandler, I'm going to I'm going to take some time and go to the executive session next Wednesday.
We will vote on this at 2 p.m. next Wednesday.
OK. OK. So and we're going to I just want to sit, talk with the other members of the board.
OK, let's see where we're going to be with this.
OK, and thank you for your presentation. And thank you. Thank you both for coming in.
OK, may we be excused? You most certainly can, sir. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.
OK. Number five, MI 2024-000915-3114 North Broad Street. Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
There's a letter of unanimous support from the Allegheny West Civic Association and RCO.
There was also a petition of support signed by six neighbors, along with two form letters.
There was also a petition of support signed by six neighbors, along with two form letters.
Counsel, you've already been sworn once. Could you just state your name for the record?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Queenonia Investments, LLC, which is the owner of this property.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing i sure did and they should be up on the
screen now they are thank you so much please proceed thank you good afternoon mr chairman
members of the board again my name is meredith ferliger with delworth paxton my client this
afternoon is Koinonia Investments LLC, the owner of the property at 3114 North Broad Street,
which is represented here today by the member of that LLC, Reggie Bullock. This is a fairly
minor variance request before the board today concerning a property in Allegheny West located
at 3114 North Broad Street. As you mentioned, this proposal received unanimous support from
Allegheny West Civic Association, which is evidenced by the letter of supporting your
packet at tab 14. Let me first orient you to the location of this property. As always, the deed and
tax clearance are included at Exhibits 2 and 3. As you can see on the aerials at Exhibit 8,
this property sits on North Broad Street between West Allegheny Avenue and Clearfield Street.
West Allegheny is to the screen right, Clearfield is to the screen left. This property is a 1,658
square foot vacant piece of ground that extends all the way from North Broad Street back to North
Rosewood Street. The adjoining structures on North Broad Street include some new and some
existing three-story structures. Flipping to a view from Rosewood Street, you will notice the
rear yards of the Broad Street facing structures are largely comprised of either structure or some
exterior fence areas. There are only a few structures with rear parking, two of which
benefit from wide, double, or triple-sized lots. A historical photo from 2004 is shown for reference
as well, showing that this lot has not been improved in quite some time. Turning to the
photographs at Exhibit 15, this first view shows the board the property from North Rosewood Street,
which is that rear street. In the next photograph, the board may take note of the residential
character of North Rosewood Street and the extraordinarily narrow condition of the street
that has led to many vehicles being parked on the sidewalk. Of course, the vehicles being on
the sidewalk serve to further narrow the drive aisle in this street. This section of Rosewood
Street is a maximum of 14 feet wide based on city plans. These conditions are shown in even
more detail on this current photograph I have up on the screen, which is facing towards Clearfield
Street. From the frontage along North Broad Street, the board will note the fairly characteristic
condition of this section of North Broad Street with a mix of commercial and residential structures.
This block of Broad Street is exclusively comprised of three-story structures.
And just a view, again, towards Clearfield Street, this to the left of the property really are predominantly residential uses.
And then this is looking to the right, where it's a little bit more mixed, where you start to see some of the ground floor commercial uses.
And then this, of course, is looking across the street.
We did also include photos of the zoning posters, which are posted on both frontages at Exhibit 15 as well.
Referring to the zoning map at Exhibit 7, you'll see that this property is zoned CMX 3, which does permit this proposed development by right with one minor exception.
The proposal before the board today is shown on the zoning plan at Exhibit 5.
This includes one new three-story structure, which again is designed to blend with the three-story character of this block.
The building will contain six dwelling units.
Although there are no refusals related to the units or the dimensional characteristics of the building, we did include floor plans at Exhibit 5.
The units are an average of about 550 square feet, and you can see that here.
this particular developer is experienced with and also intends to accept tenants.
This particular developer is experienced with and also intends to accept tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers, which was something that was really influential with the community as well.
Trash is going to be stored interior to the building with access to the rear, and you can see that on this first floor plan here.
Regarding the refusal, this proposal only received one refusal for failure to provide a required two parking spaces.
No dimensional variances are required or requested, no variances are needed for the density, and this structure is in fact proposed to be quite a bit shorter than the CMX 3 district would allow, which does not impose a maximum height limitation.
The applicant submits to hardship in providing the two required parking spaces, given physical constraints of this lot, as well as based on the history of the lot and the context of surrounding similar developments.
Starting first with the lot, if I turn back to the zoning site plan, the board will see that this lot is only 17 feet wide.
Let me just slide that over.
If parking were to be provided in the rear yard, the entire rear yard width would be engulfed with parking spaces instead of open space for residents.
The 17-foot width would also create a terribly hazardous parking condition, given the narrowness of North Rosewood Street.
And again, I'll bring up the photo for reference.
It's difficult to imagine that two vehicles could safely turn in and out of North Rosewood Street from the rear, given the extremely limited rear yard width and depth.
Given the narrowness and the constant illegal parking, the applicant submits that providing rear-access parking spaces would carry a risk of substantially hazardous consequences to drivers and pedestrians on Rosewood Street, as well as potentially to the residential homes that would be in the direct path of someone backing out of a parking space.
Given that North Rosewood Street is already burdened with residents parking on the sidewalk, adding any additional vehicle turning conflicts would accentuate an already challenging block.
Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that PennDOT would allow parking to be accessed from North Broad Street, which even if permitted would be entirely inconsistent with the uniform three-story block and would create a conflict for pedestrians traveling down North Broad Street.
Additionally, this lot has historically accommodated multi-family usage, with no evidence of having accommodated on-site accessory parking.
There is no current curb cut on North Rosewood Street or North Broad Street to suggest that this site was ever accessed by vehicles.
A permit for this site from 1963 is included at Exhibit 9, showing that the structure at that
time had an open backyard for the multifamily use with no parking provided. Finally, the lack
of parking is consistent with most of the surrounding structures. As I noted earlier in
the presentation, with limited exception, the two structures on this block that do provide
intentional off-street parking are comprised of multiple lots and have sufficient width to
accommodate safer turning movements. For example, 3102 North Broad Street has rear parking available
for two cars, but those two spaces are provided on a lot that is double the size of this one.
Similarly, towards West Allegheny Street, there is another property at 3142 North Broad Street
with rear parking, but that lot is triple the size of this one, which again creates a much
safer ingress and egress condition given the narrowness of North Rosewood Street.
We submit that the variance request is the lease modification of the code to provide relief.
As explained, the challenges inherent in providing parking access from either of the two streets that directly abut the property would create detrimental effects to the public and the property's residents.
Aside from the parking deficiency, the proposed project is permitted entirely by right.
Furthermore, the applicant intends to address the parking deficiency by providing tenants with an allowance to park their vehicles at a public garage that is just about two blocks away at North Broad Street and Ontario Street.
If this garage had been just slightly closer, the applicant could have formally documented this parking arrangement and secured a buy-right permit by taking advantage of off-site parking.
by taking advantage of off-site parking. However, because that garage is just a few square feet
However, because that garage is...
beyond a thousand feet, that was not possible within the constraints of the zoning code.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air. The subject property is located under 400 feet away from the Allegheny
station of SEPTA's Broad Street subway line, which of course is a major station stop served by both
local and express service on the subway line. Broad Street and Allegheny Avenue are also served
by several SEPTA bus routes. As mentioned, this is a uniquely situated property to accommodate
public transit-oriented residents, which is consistent with the mandates of the comprehensive
plan shown at Exhibit 10. In addition to the official RCO letter of support, my client also
ventured to speak with as many homeowners on Rosewood Street to ensure that they were supportive
of this request. Even considering some duplicate signatures, petitions of support included at
Exhibit 14 established broad support among area residents. A more detailed analysis of the
applicant's compliance with section 143038E of the code is provided in the memo of law submitted to
the board at Exhibit 11, and I would, as always, be very happy to touch on any particular point
in more detail. This point, if the administrator could look for Reggie or Reginald Bullock.
Counsel, counsel, could you, did you show what the project's going to look like?
oh i i've um so we have the zoning plans here we don't have a rendering or anything like that but
we do have the elevations and the floor plans and the site plan if there's anything similar
to other projects in the area similar to other the front absolutely so if i just go to the photos
along north broad street you'll see that they're all three stories so this is designed to be
exactly consistent with those okay thank you for sure mr bullock
they've been enough to speak mr bullock could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer uh reginald bullock r-e-g-i-n-a-l-d last name is b-u-l-l-o-c-k you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you
Reginald, you are the member of Coinonia Investments, LLC, correct?
Correct.
And have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Thank you. Happy to take any additional questions.
Questions from the board?
No questions, Chair.
No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilliard Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, I have a hand up from Charles Richardson.
I've allowed them to speak.
Mr. Richardson, you've already been sworn to state your name and begin your testimony.
Yes, sir, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you very much for calling in.
We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX-3 commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property.
Therefore, if the Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for required off-street parking.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly respect that position.
But again, I'll bring up this photo just as sort of a summary of the position that we've stated here today,
that if parking were to be provided here, that it would create a significant hazard to this block of North Rosewood Street,
which is most likely why the vast majority of structures fronting on Broad do not have rear parking because of the narrowness of that street,
which is a unique character to not just this lot, but every other lot on this block that does not benefit from a multiple lot width.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000915, 3114 North Broad Street, I vote yes.
my vote is yes
the baron lennard palmer my vote is yes thank you council number six mi 2024 001
can you hear me yes chair
So MI 2024-001-034-4828 D Street, Joseph Consul.
There is a letter of unanimous support from the 42nd Ward Democratic Executive Committee.
Mr. Consul.
Good afternoon, board.
Mr. Consul, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Joseph Consul. That's J-O-S-E-P-H. Last name is Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in relationship to this property?
My client is Michael J. Construction Incorporated, and the owner is on this call. His name is Juan Pena, P-E-N-A.
Vice Chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to wait a reading that would choose or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
All right, my screen should be up with my packet for 4828 D Street.
This property is owned by Michael J. Construction Incorporated.
It was purchased in June of 2023.
At the time, the property was occupied as a three-unit, which you'll see it is outfitted for.
My client has had two of the tenants leave, and when he realized that the property was not licensed appropriately, he did not add additional tenants pending the approval today.
Now, again, I said three units, which was our initial application.
However, after reviewing the layout and meeting with the RCO, we've amended our request to two units because we, myself especially, don't believe that the basement was an appropriate place for occupation.
That said, the city did come out and inspect several times, and they have approved of the property in its state from a physical perspective.
But we still need to clear up this today, hopefully, by obtaining this zoning permit.
So my client purchased it, as I said, in June of 2023.
Actually, we did amend the permit to two-unit requested.
So at the time when he purchased it, he believed it to be a three-unit, and we filed for a two-unit approval here because, like I said, the unit in the basement, we don't believe it's appropriate.
So it's a two-unit request.
It's kind of a weird property.
It's almost 2,000 square feet on a double-wide lot.
We went in front of the 42nd Democratic Ward Executive Committee twice.
They approved it as a two-family household living.
They appreciated two entrances and exits.
The basement, again, they were very specific, was not to be used as a rental unit.
They examined the old separate meters and the external lighting my client had installed,
and also that he has a track record of successfully managing properties in this part of the city.
There's also plenty of place to store trash and that sort of thing on his property.
Their approval came with provisos for installing a fire ladder for the second floor
and cleaning and maintaining the property and performing yearly inspections.
I believe the state of the property was somewhat deteriorated
and he's working towards improving that significantly.
Yeah, we have photos of plans.
So it's this lot here, but also this whole side lot,
which leads to the backyard.
And I'll show you in a second.
Showing the property.
Front view, we included a layout.
Showing the layout of the properties
It's two bedroom units, each with a living room and a kitchen.
Two bedroom units, each with a living room and a kitchen.
Here's the back entrance.
And you can see this door stuff in the back.
Obviously, that should be cleaned up.
And there's the property again.
Here's the meters showing that it had three meters that existed on the property.
Another shot with three meters, three heaters, again, these are all old and had existed.
Four pictures before you cleaned up the yard, you saw the cleaned up pictures in the other
photo.
Then we included, I'm sorry, it's a weird thing. We included the project information form, the deed to Michael J. Construction, as well as the tax clearance certificate, showing that he's clear.
with that we'll call my client mr console can i ask a question was it always uh just residential
even though there was three there they never tried to zone it before the history of it there
is no uh it's weird the the property on the front says 4814 d street and i'm wondering if maybe
there's a lost zoning archive somewhere because there's really no history of this property ever
there's no zoning archive at all
that I can find
appreciate it
thank you
I'll call
Mr. Wampanian to raise his hand
about my testimony
they've been
about to speak
sir could you state your name please and spell it for the
stenographer
yeah mr pena could you state your name and spell for the stenographer
uh uh juan pena j-u-n-a p-e-n-a right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
to nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel good afternoon mr pena did you hear
my testimony just now about your property at 4828 d street yes do you agree with what i said
yes okay i have nothing further for mr council one more question so you when you went to the
rco you originally wanted three and they they came to two and you agreed with two we agreed with two
Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Questions on the board?
No questions, Chair. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I want to clarify two things. One, that there
are a couple of addresses associated with this location, as Mr. Consul said,
so that can be a little bit confusing. Second thing is the application
was filed for two families, so there's not an amended
refusal here, so I just wanted to clarify. I apologize.
That might have been in our appeal with L&I when they had inspected,
which led to us filing for this and it becoming clear the basement
was not appropriate. No problem. I just double-checked
because, yeah, sometimes we do get updated or corrected amended refusals, so
I just checked it to make sure, but yeah, this is what was originally requested in the application,
so there's no this is the original refusal yeah i dealt with an l and i case separately to this
too originally so anyway questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no further answer mr chair planning commission
amy boyd with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to existing rsa 5 single-family residential zoning at this location the appellant has shown
that the proposed use is consistent with prior use and the physical circumstances of this property
before the owner purchased it, and that complying with the zoning requirements would constitute a
hardship. Therefore, the city plan commission recommends that the board grant the variance for
two-family household living. Thank you. MI 2024-001-034-4828 D Street, I vote yes.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
lebaron leonard palmer my vote is yes mr consul could you please stay on yes sir okay so number
nine mi 2024 001 334 501
MI 2024-001-334-501-Kaufman Street.
Mr. Consul is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Queen Village neighbors with a request for a temporary variance and a letter of non-opposition received from Council Member Squilla.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Joseph Consul.
uh once again um i'm here with uh my clients um joseph i swedish he might be on there as
ian swedish uh or joseph swedish i'm not certain what he's coming up as on there but joseph
swedish okay it's joseph and uh elizabeth they own 501 kauffman street um what's
our vice chair or i'm sorry no that's okay that's okay our vice chair has a few questions for you
sir counsel do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy yes
i do you know then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
proceed in this case five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed and
share your screen all right so the packet should be up i switched from one to the other did that
did that work i know the zooms kind of changed yes it's up it's okay 501 kaufman street uh joe
console. This property was purchased in February of 2020 by my clients. First of all, it's a 423
square foot property. It's quite small in Queen Village. They live with their family
in a property that backs up to this property. So they purchased it in early 2020 as a property
that could both be used as a visitor accommodations permit and a place for friends and family to stay
when they're in town visiting them.
And the property has been an active short-term rental since that time.
And as I'll show you in a second, they've got nothing but glowing reviews from the folks that have stayed there.
We believe that coupled with the fact that it's such a tiny property
and it abuts the property that my clients live in,
we believe it makes for a good candidate
for granting this variance.
So refusal, as you know,
visitor accommodation is prohibited.
This property happens to be zoned RM1,
although, as I said, it's quite tiny.
The lot itself is 423 square feet.
So we've got an RM1
seeking visitor accommodations approval.
we went in front of the queen village neighbors association uh they voted to not oppose which um
feels like a a great vote from them uh in terms of what what queen village uh issues they um
were uh sort of um buoyed by the fact that a near neighbor came by and said that they
really approve of this and that my clients run this this property very well and in fact they
didn't even know that there was anything going on there. And they therefore issued that they're
not in opposition. They asked for a, I guess I'll qualify, they asked for a one-year temporary
variance. We're hoping to either not get that or have a more favorable variance than one year.
We understand their position, but we don't expect that after four years, my client will suddenly
start operating this in some way that is detrimental to Queen Village.
There's a proof of mailing, photos and plans.
There's one that I believe shows, there you go, you can see how small the property is.
There's not many properties in this area, the smaller, there's a couple, but this one
is tiny.
Showing the street, the interior of the property.
and the layout as it stands on airbnb as you can see it has got a ton of character
it's quite cute there's the one space to sleep my client included in there a little bit about
his family the owners their daughter and dog that's their property compared to the actual
properties. So they're fronting Catherine Street where they live and this property
fronts Kauffman Street. So, you know, he was at the meeting was saying, you know,
literally to clean the Airbnb, just walks out of his backyard and into this property
and cleans it for the next, for the next renter.
They call it the Queen Star. Looks good. Got a ton of
great reviews. 5.0, which might be the highest I've ever
presented in front of the board. 71 reviews going back to February
of 2020. There's the need.
There's the deed.
Zero dollar tax balance.
I believe we submitted a tax clearance certificate.
If not, we will get that in immediately, but there's no tax balance due here.
I know Mr. Swedish was working on that when I last spoke to him.
With that, I'll call Joseph Swedish to adopt my testimony.
we see mr swedish yes they have been enough to speak sir hi mr swedish could you please state
your name and spell for the stenographer yes can you hear me i can yes sir uh joseph ian swedish
that's j-o-s-e-p-h-i-a-n-s-w-e-d-i-s-h do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel good afternoon mr swedish did you hear my testimony
just now about your property at 501 kaufman street i did do you agree with it and adopt it as your
i do all right nothing further board questions from the board
no questions chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary members
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission
Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RM Run Multifamily Zoning at this location. The appellant has not supported their hardship plan with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for visitor accommodation.
Thank you. MI 2024-001-334-501 Coffman Street, I vote yes for temporary variance. That expires 5-22-27.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, board.
Number 10, MI 2024-001-509-4235 West Style Street.
Alan Notcomson is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from the East Parkside Residence Association
and the Central Park CDC, which was the coordinating.
Both oppose the proposed density.
Applicant has eight form letters of support and seven from the block.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Ockhamson.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, interesting name for a corporate entity.
It's Ristler Carter S11 backslash 81 LLC.
In the virtual audiences, it's member Rich Carter.
our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon council do you agree to we have to read another
refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed them all the required documents and
exhibits that is needed and required to proceed in this case five days in advance of this hearing
oh yes we have thank you council please proceed to share the screen thank you
um as the chairman stated we actually have we have eight letters um of support uh form letters
to support seven on this block um yeah we had our community meeting last night regarding 42 35 west
style streets as you'll see during the presentation i i honestly thought it was a very straightforward
project based on you know what's in the area what the 2035 plan um projects as the the intended use
for this property given this location uh next to two commercial corridors i thought it was pretty
straightforward so we were a little bit surprised when we got pushed back from the community
so we'll first review the news of refusal then the correspondence from the centennial parkside
community development. And there was an additional letter from one of the other RCOs. But my client
knows his block very well. His kids lived on the block for many, many years. He's a known quantity
and he knows the neighborhood very well. So it was easy for him to personally get
So it was easy for him to personally get letters of support from the nearby neighbors for this
letters of support from the nearby neighborhood.
project. This has been a dilapidated abandoned building for some time in desperate need of
repair. So it's going to be a very expensive project to renovate this property, keep its
beautiful building facade, which is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, and the use that we're requesting of three units at this RSA5 property is reasonable under
circumstances. First, based on the 2035 plan, the West Park plan indicates that the City
Planning Commission has labeled this as a soon-to-be RM1 property. The lot size for this
property is 1,331 square feet. So if this was an RM1 property, which is not, three units would be
allow this right. The second reason why we thought this is an appropriate triplex was the fact that
we looked at other properties on this block, and there are three other instances, 4243, 4241,
and 4221, all triplexes under similar circumstances. So what we're requesting is not
a character to this part of the neighborhood. Plus, it's on half a block away from West
derrard avenue which you know is you know aspirationally a commercial corridor as well as
i believe another commercial corridor nearby as well then you'll see maps of the area uh photographs
of the property and surrounding the area um our architectural plans and drawings our rco meeting
notice um we met with the community last night so uh we're just you know trying to digest what
the community told us, and I have some provisos which would address many of their concerns.
Our application for appeal that we filed before the ZBA are a deed to the property showing that
corporate entity that's owned by Mr. Carter, is the owner of the property, as well as the
certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Carter
virtually raise his hand and be sworn in, and I have a few questions for him. But based on community
the input, I just want to put it out there. We are looking to reduce the amount of refusals here
where the only refusal we would have ultimately is that use refusal of three units, which is,
you know, again, you know, not out of character in conformance with the 2035 plan. So we would
have a proviso, no roof deck or no roof deck access structure. That gets rid of two of the
three refusals. There was a concern in front of the community of having outdoor area above grade.
We have a backyard, which is accessible to all units because we have a common walkway.
So that goes to the second proviso. In addition to no roof deck or no roof deck access structure,
the second proviso would be trash would be stored outside because everyone has access to that.
The third refusal would have to do with, there was concerns about trash management, which is why we have the trash outside in the back for everyone, but in an enclosure.
But we would also do commercial trash pickup because, again, the community thought it was a burden, you know, to have city trash pickup.
So, you know, we want to be responsible and we want to show our investment in the community.
So that would be the third refusal.
And then, excuse me, proviso.
And then the fourth proviso, there was concern of having bedrooms in the basement. And so my client would agree to a proviso, no bedrooms in the basement. They would like living in the basement because they think that extra space in the basement would be good for a living room, a play area of some sort.
So we were hoping that, you know, the board would just limit it to no bedrooms in the
basement.
And so that's, those are the four provisos.
First one, no roof deck or roof deck access structure.
Second one, commercial trash pickup.
Third one, trash stored outside.
Fourth one, no bedrooms in the basement.
Based on that, we, you know, again, with eliminating the roof deck and the roof deck
access structure, we're down to one refusal, which is a three family dwelling.
So we did meet with the community and, you know, they they submitted letters this morning to us and we submitted that in the packet.
So but again, what we showed the community was that we actually made outreach.
My client personally made outreach to individuals on that block.
I tried to I told my client how important it was to get these individuals to speak at this at this hearing.
It was too late notice. Like we really thought this was a straightforward project.
Given the factual circumstances here, but before the community meeting and before this hearing, he had 4240 Style Street support it, 4227 Style Street, 4229 Style Street, 42220 Style Street, 4218 Style Street, 4237 Style Street, which is next door to us.
4218-style street, 4237-style street, which is next door to us, which is going to be most
directly impacted by any use of this property, and 4243-style street. He really kept it to this
block, which he knows very well. And then the 2035 plan indicates that the proposed use of
this property, aspirationally by the year 2035, would be RM1, again, to help support that nearby
commercial corridor. So again, not out of character on the block, you know, based on what we'll show
you, plus support from the community on that block. And again, I don't know who was on that
Zoom community meeting last night. You know, they were part of the community. I don't know where
they lived, but I know the people that did support this project are on this block. And then again,
not out of character on that block to have triplexes. As I stated, 4243 West Isles, 4241 West
Isles, and 4221 West Isles. And then maps of the area, as you can see, there's a diversity of
zoning nearby. There is RM1, CMX2, I2, RM2. So we're looking to, you know, again, look at some
of that commercial corridor that is being tried to be built up on Girard Avenue, maybe a little
further down to help support that by way of its zoning variance. And again, in terms of, you know,
there's always an issue in terms of parking. We are on the trolley line. We also have two bus lines
of 43 and a 64 as well. And then photographs of the property. So this is a really beautiful
building. And, you know, my client who has a long history in this neighborhood with his children
living here, all he wants to do is enliven this property that has been dilapidated for a long
time. The person next door who supported this project actually embraced the fact that my client
purchased the property and is going to fix it up. And it's just structurally and just aesthetically,
it just needs a complete gut job. And the cost involved in that, it would be financially
infeasible to have that as either a single family or a duplex. That's why we're only asking for a
triplex. We try to mimic the other properties on that block, which have also been approved
for triplexes. So that's the front of the property. This is the back of the property.
I want to show you both, but you can see this walkway. There's a common walkway,
which again, from front to back, each of the residents are going to be able to have
you know a communal living area for outdoors that's why we got rid of the roof deck because
it sounded like it's a nuisance to have roof decks in this neighborhood um and you know two
of our three refusals had to deal deal with the roof deck given the roof front setback of of the
roof deck and then also the pilot house hugging the rear so my client made a decision this morning
to eliminate the roof deck completely.
I mean, this is more of a communal area,
but also having garbage stored in a rear enclosure as well.
And then this is also another part of the property
at the rear of the property.
You can see this property needs some significant TLC.
And then this is the hearing notice
that my client put up for today's hearing.
And then this is West Isle Street
to the right of the property,
to the left of the property.
And then our plans and drawings,
Again, no dimensional variances here that we're seeking.
And, you know, the floor plans are pretty straightforward.
You walk in. This is unit number one. You make a right.
This is a bi-level. We would agree to no bedrooms down here at the request of the community.
Unit number two, there are two options. But ultimately, that's a two-bedroom, one-bath.
And then the third floor is a one-bedroom, one-bath.
And again, we're getting rid of the roof deck access structure by way of proviso if this board feels so inclined to grant the variance.
We did meet with the community on May 21st, 6 p.m.
We emailed notice of that.
You know, we tried to get the information as much as possible.
We didn't give as much time as we usually do, but we didn't get the information until like almost a week before the community meeting.
94 addresses were notified of the meeting, including the addresses which are, you know, which signed the letters of support, those seven letters of support.
And then proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of our clients, and then the deed to the property showing that he owns the property.
And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance showing that he does not owe any real estate taxes.
Again, I can't speak more about the fact that it would be financially infeasible for anything less than three units just based on the condition of the property.
uh to like for anything less than three units just based on the condition of the property
and that's why my client has made consent significant concessions to everything that
the community has stated other than the density issue which again the 2035 plan states it should
be rm1 given the lot size it would be or it would be three units and you know given the
surrounding neighborhood also has similar three unit buildings with that being said i would ask
that Mr. Carter virtually raised his hand
so he could be sworn in.
Mr. Carter?
We see him in the audience?
I know he's there
because he detected that he was in the Zoom area.
Zoom room.
Jason?
Hold on.
I have a hand up from a Jihad Ali.
Do I allow them to speak?
Let's see if we can find Mr. Carter first, and we'll get him afterwards.
Bring a Jihad on. Maybe he has Mr. Carter with him.
The name is Richard Carter, correct?
Yes, sir. Yes, Jason.
All right.
They've been allowed to speak.
And Mr. Carter, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter, are you still available?
You're unmuted.
maybe another technical difficulty sir okay uh it's mr ali's hand so
yes i have allowed him to speak
good afternoon chairman and members of the boy
could you state your name state your name please for the court stenographer and spell it
yeah i'm jihad ali j-i-h-a-d-a-r-i right all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i affirm your honor please proceed well mr uh members of
the board i just wanted to make a couple comments on what the attorney uh said last night i'm a
member of the community but i would like to point out to the court um and also to other attorneys
that seem to misinterpret what the what the actual code says about residents and citizens
of philadelphia being able to testify as only here it's not just people who live there i live
by the particular property. I just like that noted for the record because too many
lawyers come and imply that because you don't live on that block
you can't say anything and the code doesn't mention that. That's number one. Number two
when attorneys talk about their clients come and start talking about finances the code
doesn't mention anything about finances nor do attorneys present
any evidence at the meetings that would either substantiate their
request for additional units. They just do none of that. That's all anecdotal
no proof no facts um and then for the comments that the lawyer made uh for the community i don't
recall anybody last night saying that we didn't want anybody to live in the basement i didn't
have any problem with that um everything that the lawyer presented tonight it would have went a lot
different if all those concessions he made at i don't know seven o'clock this morning he didn't
make at six o'clock last night if he would have i'm sure the community would have been more willing
to talk to him but at the end of the day the community was just against the density because
if you look at it your honor and members of the board you're talking about putting three it was
last night it was three three two three bedrooms and one two bedrooms so we just thought that was
too many people in that space and the community as the lawyer pointed out it's a 2035 plan but
one thing about the plans the community has a plan for the area and they wanted that block to be
more single family because that area is being gentrified and is being heavily populated with
duplexes and triplexes. So we just want to reduce the density and try to work with the developer.
And you've had other attorneys testify about that argument over there. We will work with
developers. We're just asking them instead of always maximizing profit, which seems to be their
concern with what he's saying. It's just you could still get profit. You get duplexes in there all
day long. We're willing to entertain him with a duplex, but he wouldn't do it. So thank you for
allowing me to speak. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, if you are still in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Alan, I can't hear you, Alan.
Alan, I can't hear you, Alan.
You want mute on us, Alan.
Oh, hello?
There you go.
There you go.
He's calling me now.
He's saying he's having audio problems.
So can I just respond to Mr. Ali, if you don't mind?
Why don't you respond?
Go ahead.
So what I would say to that is that the legal standard does take the into account the feasibility of the project, given the condition and the property.
It's not feasible for us to build a single family home there, let alone a duplex there.
That's why we ask for the least modification possible under the Philadelphia Zoning Code under the circumstances based on the 2035 plan and other properties on that block.
And I never stated that people who don't live on that block, I never said they don't have a say. I just indicated I don't know where they live. I just know that people who would be most directly impacted were in support of this project based on those letters.
As far as the bedroom in the basement, that was pointed out to us.
That's why my client took it upon himself to say there was concern about bedrooms in the basement, even though there's nothing improper about it.
My client was willing, more than willing to agree to that proviso to show their flexibility.
And the reason why we made these concessions today was we did not expect that there would be an issue last night.
We waited to the possible last second.
And we didn't get a community meeting until last night.
So, Mr. Nockam, let me ask you this.
You want to have a resumptive hearing, go back to the neighbors and explain what you want to do?
Can you give me one second to go off screen and mute and talk to my clients?
It's two seconds. How's that?
Okay, thank you.
Hold on.
Thank you.
Thank you for your indulgence.
He will agree to a resumption here.
We will make the same presentation that we made today to the community.
Yeah, I just think the meeting was last night.
You're making changes, 7 o'clock this morning.
I think you should at least go back and say, hey, this is what we're going to do to appease some of your issues.
Does the board have any questions?
No, Chair.
No questions, Chair.
Hillary, do you have any questions?
I do not, Mr. Actually, no.
Quick question, Alan.
So with the changes that you're suggesting, there would be revised plans, right?
Now we can, given that we'll have a little more time.
This morning, I couldn't get the architect on the phone to change it.
Yes, I should.
And at the very worst, I thought that we can agree to those provisos and you would stamp something before it goes to L&I.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission, do you want to hold your vote or do you want to vote today?
Amy, we're with the City Planning Commission.
Yes, we'd like to hold.
Thank you.
So we'll schedule this for a resumptive hearing.
We'll see where we stand with the RCO.
We'll have other comments made by the audience again and planning, and then we'll vote.
Hillary, two weeks, you think?
I think it's better if Mr. Notkinson reaches out to the community, figures out when they can talk again, and then reach back out to us once they know they've been able to schedule a second conversation.
But Hillary, once we have the hearing, we'll be able to just be put at the beginning of the list just for a simple resumption, not having the weight in line with everyone else, right?
We will get in touch with Tanya and Tanya will arrange it.
we will get in touch with tanya and tanya will arrange it sorry thank you tanya
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you, Tanya.
We got you out.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you, Mr. Knockinson, for agreeing to follow up with the neighbors.
All right.
Number 11.
MI 2024-001-645-3515-21, Welsh Road.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from Homesburg Civic Association.
And there's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Driscoll.
Oh, shit.
It's okay, Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Chairman, my camera is not working for some reason.
And it just keeps telling me it's unable to detect the camera.
This could be a problem if we don't have any documents.
Why don't we do this?
Why don't I finish the list and then I'll come back to you.
All right.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Okay, sure.
Sure, sure.
Number 13, MI 2024-001-650-3509 at Baring Street.
Peter Telson is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Poulton Village Civic Association with Provisos.
They'll be rejoining as a panelist shortly.
Good afternoon.
Hi, Mr. Kelson.
How are you, sir?
Could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Absolutely.
Peter, P-E-T-E-R, Kelson, K-E-L-S-E-N.
On behalf of the applicant, Chabad Serving Drexel Incorporated.
Inc. Incorporated.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So, Mr. Kelson, we're going to hear this, but we think there may be an issue with some taxes.
So I believe we'll hear it, and then we'll hold it.
Is that right, Hillary?
And Hillary and I have agreed to that.
Taxes will be paid imminently.
I would like to promote Mr. Grigorski, if I could, so he can run the...
Sure, let our, you can do that.
How about if our vice chair asks you a few questions?
Absolutely, well, we're doing that.
Terrific.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did, yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Great.
Thank you.
And here we go.
Members of the board, I'm going to take you to Exhibit 3 to start and describe the subject property.
So the site is zoned RTA1.
You can see the site is identified with that red marker.
The property consists of a detached three-story structure.
A number of institutional and religious uses are adjacent or in close proximity to the subject property.
You can see on the screen church, which is catty-cornered to the property, as well as other institutional uses.
Now, the Zoning Board of Adjustment on December 22nd, 21, granted approval to use this property for religious assembly use and a four dwelling units and several additions to the existing structure.
It is under construction now.
You can see in the posting photographs, actually, the construction activity.
The property, by way of a little background, has a lot area of about 8,100 square feet.
In the district RTA1 requirement, the minimum lot size is 2,250 square feet.
So we're well above the minimum lot area.
Lot width is 75 feet.
Required under the district is 25 feet.
Open area, 51 and a half feet, square feet, required, 50% rather, required is 50.
So we're going to be a little bit above that.
Side yards were about 10, almost 11 feet on one side, almost 16 feet on the other side, required is 8 feet.
Now, the rear yard of the subject property, as you can see from this exhibit where the cursor is, is already nonconforming with existing structure.
Now, the rear yard of the subject property, as you can see from this exhibit,
It's now two feet from that property line. The code requires a 20-foot setback. We don't meet it now. We're nonconforming. We will never meet it.
And as part of our plan, which I'll go into in a few more moments, we're squaring out that rear area with the additions that we've described.
So it's not conforming now.
We're not exacerbating that condition.
And what we are basically seeking to do, members of the board, the uses continue as they were previously approved.
We're seeking a minor modification of the prior approval.
Last time, the board approved about 9,860 square feet of gross floor area total with the additions.
We're now proposing 10,303 square feet of total gross area with the two additions we're talking about.
Basically, 444 square feet members of the board additional.
It is as minor as you can get.
It is the minimus in terms of modification of the prior approval.
The additions will be located, you'll see with the cursor in a second, at the cellar level.
Here you go.
And the first floor.
And as I said, we're squaring off the back rear yard.
We've received non-opposition from Palton.
Part of their non-opposition required us to agree to certain conditions.
And I'm pleased to say that we've agreed in writing to all of those conditions.
The application meets all of the requirements for de minimis variance release on a dimensional basis.
As I said, 444 square feet, less than 4% of the total, and is in keeping with the spirit, intent, and overall approval granted by the board about two years ago.
If the board has any questions, I have the client here, Rabbi Chaim Goldstein, who will affirm my testimony in a second, as well as the architects.
Happy to answer them, members of the group.
Mr. Kelsey, do you have any pictures of the site besides that overhead shot you had?
I'm sorry.
Let's go back to the posting.
Yeah, sure.
Why don't we just look at the package?
It's easier to see.
Let's just go through the package.
It'll make it a little bit easier.
Let's go to the Exhibit 4, please, Marty.
There you go.
Now, this is, you can see the construction activities occurring based on the former approval. You can see there's a, oops, go back, please, a nice distance, as I described the side yards, from our adjacent neighbors. You can also see that very well from the overhead.
Let's go to the next one, please.
There you go.
Front.
And also you can see the adjacency to the other side of the property, the other neighbor, with almost a 12-foot side.
This will be the front.
There have been extensive meetings with the community over the course of a number of years, securing the first approval and in connection with the second application that's before you today.
Good. Thank you. Why don't you bring the rabbi on in, Dr. Shostomo?
Rabbi Goldstein, would you identify yourself and enter the room, as they say?
jason i i i don't know if you see um rabbi goldstein in the uh virtual audience i believe
i do he they've been allowed to speak hi hi hi rabbi could you please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer i am goldstein c-h-a-i-m-g-o-l-d-s-t-e-i-n right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth yes please proceed mr kelson
Thank you, Rabbi Goldstein. You've been present throughout this hearing. Have you not? Yes. And you've heard the statements and information I provided to the board at this hearing. Yes. Is that information accurate and correct and true to the best of your knowledge? Yes. And would you adopt that testimony as your own if you were to get.
And would you adopt that testimony as your own if you were to give it yourself?
Thank you.
And Rabbi Goldstein, while I have you on the screen, I understand that there are some real estate taxes that are open.
Is it your intention to have those paid imminently?
And Rabbi Goldstein, one last question.
It is part of the exhibit package. Michael, bear with me for one second. As part of the exhibit package number seven, there's a letter of confirmation of 501c3 status for the entity Drexel of Chabad. Is that correct?
Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
questions questions from the board no chair no questions chair questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emberson yes i just wanted to confirm um mr kelson because you you referenced
um provisos that the rco um had recommended and you agreed to them so the provisos that
that i saw that were enforceable by the zba were the proposed additions shall not exceed one story
and then no roof deck above the proposed additions.
I just want to verify that those were agreed upon.
Hillary, that's correct.
We've agreed to that.
And the reason I didn't put our answers back in
is because except for those two,
they're not zoning relevant, if you will.
Yes, yes, that's right.
Thank you for confirming.
Washington, comments from the virtual audience.
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a Deborah McCarty.
I want them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Debra McCarty, D-E-B-R-A-M-C-C-A-R-T-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, and I'm here representing the Peltan Village Civic Association.
Very good.
Very good.
Please proceed.
so um i i just wanted to point out that um while we did uh ultimately offer a letter of
non-opposition this is contrary to what mr kelson said it is not already non-conforming
it's a small portion that is non-conforming this is you know much more square footage than
currently exist as nonconforming. And we did not take this issue lightly. A 20-foot setback is an
important thing. This will be a two-foot setback. And so we don't believe it's de minimis. The vote,
as you'll note, was very close. It was eight to six. Nonetheless, we do have a position of
non-opposition and um we would hope that if this is approved that the provisions um that we stated
in our letter are um made it's done so with the provisors of our letter thank you miss mccarty
thank you for taking the time to call us we appreciate it is there anyone else in the virtual
audience. I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair. Planning Commission. Amy Boyd with the
City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RTA1
residential to family attached zoning designation at this location. The appellant has not supported
their hardship claim for a rear yard setback with evidence of unique physical circumstances
or conditions of the property.
The use as religious assembly is consistent with prior documented use
in a previous building at this location.
The Planning Commission, therefore, has no objection to the variance
for religious assembly use, but recommends that the Board deny
the variance for rear yard depth.
Thank you.
Proceed, Mr. Kelsey.
Do you have something to say?
Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
I would note for the record, and the plan is up,
There is an, as I mentioned before, there is an existing encroachment, as indicated on the plan, structure that creates a two-foot setback.
That's the nonconformity.
It is being squared off, but the way that it's measured, as the board knows, it's the closest point to the lot line.
So that already exists.
But I don't want to belabor that point, but I think it's important to be aware of that.
I thank you very much.
Thank you very much. We're going to hold this,
Hillary, until we hear that the taxes have been taken care of.
Am I correct?
Other than that, it's closed, Tilly. We're done. We're closed with this.
Other than that, it's closed, Hillary.
We're closed with this.
Yes, Mr. Chair. The matter is closed except for receipt of proof of tax compliance.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kelson.
Thank you. I'll provide that very shortly to Hillary.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, members of the board.
Thank you. Did I see Mr. Mattione on the screen again? Mr. Mattione?
Yes, I'm here.
Are we okay to go? There you go. All right. Let me get back to your case here.
There I am. Sorry.
So this is MI 2024 001 645 3515 to 21 Welsh Road. Michael Matione is the attorney. Mr. Matione,
could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Sure. It's 3515 to 21 Welsh Holdings, LLC.
And the principal is Manny Mathai, who is with me today.
He's right next to me.
And before we start, do we have a payment plan at 3515 to 21 Welsh with taxes?
We have a payment plan for 3515 to 21 Welsh.
We also are working on a payment plan for 3543 and 3545.
Revenue has not finished that with us yet.
We hope to finish that in the next week or so.
So Hillary, we'll start.
We'll hold the vote.
I believe that's what was recommended.
Did you talk to Hillary or her?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Yes, that's what we'll do, Mr. Chair.
Okay, good.
Our vice chair has a few questions, Mr. Padioni.
Certainly.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes sir outside of the you
know tax form okay thank you please proceed and show your screen thank you
all right so we're up yeah okay again i uh represent the owner of 35 15 to uh 21 welsh road
and that's manny and we submitted earlier um refusal rco non-opposition letter letter of
non-opposition from council member the site plan the survey the lot line adjustment plan
because we're consolidating three lots into one um photographs some prior permit showing that the
proposed uses have been approved in the past a parking agreement with the holmesburg united
Methodist Church, a neighboring property for an additional 47 parking spaces and support letters
from seven or eight, six nearby neighbors. I'm sorry, six nearby neighbors. Again, this matter,
what we hope to do, this is a unique property. It is a 17,000 square foot building that was
previously one. It has now been converted to RSA 5 zoning despite the existence of the 17,000
square foot building. We propose to have parking what is now in either front or the side yards
where 3543 and 3545 are. We propose to have adult care in unit two and a banquet facility in unit
two and a sit down restaurant in unit one. Again, these were all permitted uses in the CA1 zoning
district and somewhere along the way this got changed to the rsa5 zoning district
here's our non-opposition letter from the holmesburg civic association
non-opposition letter from council member driscoll um this is the site it's a very large building
um this side is unit one that's been a restaurant this is unit two there's been a uh both
a daycare, adult care facility, and a banquet facility, and that's what we propose to use it
for. This on the corner is the 3543 and 3545 Wells Road, where 25 additional
parking spaces were added. And this building predates the change to RSA 5 zoning.
In fact, back in 2005, there was approval for a restaurant, Backwood Facility Dance Hall, and then again in 2018, this was also an over-the-counter permit for a sit-down restaurant, Unit 1 Day Care Center, with an accessory serving of food in Unit 2.
the photographs show here's the outside this is what exists here this is certainly not a an rsa5
Here's the outside. This is what exists here. This is certainly not an RSA 5 residential type of dwelling.
Just some additional photographs showing this has always been a restaurant.
Interior, it's a turnkey operation there. It's been closed for probably seven or eight years, but you can see the restaurant on the restaurant side is there.
everything is there for a restaurant. This is certainly not a RSA 5 use. And here's on the
other side where the adult care and bank facility is proposed. As you can see, again, this is
what's there. And it's basically a turnkey operation. And then the surrounding
community, the United Methodist Church's parking lot is right here. This is 3545. So it's right
across the street where we have 47 additional parking spaces and then the rest of the neighborhood
is a mixed-use type of neighborhood. So the owner, again, we're just seeking to use it as
previously approved. What happened is in 2018, it was approved for the uses and then
And somewhere along the way, he didn't operate and it lost the ability to be a by-right use.
So, again, what we're talking about here is a 225-person capacity restaurant that would operate 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week.
Unit 2 with adult care operating 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., serving up to 169 individuals Monday to Friday.
Unit 2 would also then be available for an assembly facility as now defined in the zoning code or banquet hall, operating Monday to Friday, 6 p.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., with speeding up to 450 people.
Like I said, at Exhibit 11, we have an agreement with the Homesburg United Methodist Church that permits us to use their 47 parking spaces.
um again the previous use it's been approved for these uses the neighborhood supports the
continuous of this use it's just been closed for about six or seven years
these buildings given their unique situation cannot be used as single family
essentially row houses they're just not that use it's not what's there and that creates an
unnecessary hardship to the land because you can't use it as a permitted use um the variance
we believe is the least necessary and this is again what's been approved at least twice in the
past for the property. The grant of the variance won't impair public facilities, but it will allow
activation of this long vacant property. It won't adversely impact the area. In fact, the reason why
the RCA supports it is because it will bring life back to this area. It will stop this from being
a vacant building and with the attractive nuisance that's created by vacant buildings.
the owner also operates adult daycare facilities in bristol pennsylvania and has experience in
this type of business again we have the support of the community to activate this and bring it
back to what it had been in the past and for these reasons we believe you know this is truly
a unique situation for some reason they made this rsa5 zoning a few years back which really doesn't
fit what's always been here so with that mr chairman i'd like to call on manny matai
you can
hi sir could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer
Manuel
M-A-N-I-L-A-L
last name
M-A-T-H-A-I
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
please proceed counsel
thank you mr chairman and manny did you hear my statements in presentation to the board
yes and were the statements thrown correct yes did you adopt those statements as your testimony
yes i have nothing further for mr mathai mr chair all right questions from the board
questions from the board no questions chair
questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Board with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family designation at this location.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing.
The requested uses as a sit-down restaurant, adult care facility, banquet hall, assembly, and entertainment are consistent with documented prior use.
Parking is also in an existing condition at the site.
The planning commission therefore recommends that the board grant the requested variances for sit-down restaurant, adult care facility, banquet hall, assembly, and entertainment,
and the requested variances for parking requirements.
Thank you.
This case will be closed,
and we'll just wait on the issue relative to the taxes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sure, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair,
before we go to the next case,
I just wanted to note,
LeBaron Leonard Palmer is stepping out
as our alternate and emily persico um is stepping in as our alternate for the rest of the afternoon
thank you emily thank you lebaron not a problem take care of her okay uh i think we're number
four we just do a sound check on emily quick just make sure that we can hear her yeah i'm here okay
thank you great yeah is this one
yes i'm here chair okay good good good okay good okay so um number 14 mi2024
001 939 1325 beach street ronald patterson is the attorney there's a letter of support from
the Fishtown Neighbors Association
with Proviso.
Letter of non-opposition
from Council Member Squillin.
Thanks for joining us,
panelist, sir.
Patterson, could you state
your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Ronald
Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N.
Swear or
affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but
the truth? Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Sure. I represent the owner,
which is LA Battery,
QOZ LLC, which is a Lubrid Adler entity,
as well as Ballers Entertainment,
which is the tenant.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Council.
Do you agree to either refuse or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. Can you see my screen?
Perfect.
Okay, so thank you. This regards 1325 Beach Street, which is a large property along the Delaware River.
It's the former Pico power plant facility.
This is underdeveloped by Lubrid Adler's historical property.
It's now called The Battery and a few other things.
It has undergone an amazing transformation consisting of 161 residential apartments,
two banquet halls operated by the Chess Cafe Group, as well as placement of their headquarters office there.
the creation of 117 hotel units used by the chess cafe group for its wedding opportunities as well
as rivers casino and some office spaces i mentioned and then there's also a i'll show you on the site
clan. A 320 space surface air park. The property is located in the CMX3 commercial zoning district
as well as some overlays but the pertinent one being the North Delaware overlay. As you see
this building is massive and cavernous if you walk inside or large boilers and the like.
But it took creative thinking to be able to adapt this building for uses.
There's currently remaining a space of approximately 64,000 square feet that covers two floors.
And this application that today regards ballers, which is a use proposed that consists of for the rental of spaces for containing six pickleball courts.
three petal quarts, two squash quarts.
Three pedal courts, two squash courts, one turf soccer field, golf simulators with chip and putt and bunkers, pool room, as well as there's also a hospitality aspect of this, an amenity type, which is also supported by dining, lounge, food and beverage, we'll call it.
Again, it's rental, it's not private or membership available to the public, as well as for private events.
The refusal here is, and we'll go through these slides, the refusal here is for assembly and entertainment, and frankly, it's not the best description of the use.
It's sporting activities with food and beverage.
However, as an assembly and entertainment use, the North Delaware Overlay, while I mentioned it, requires variance relief or otherwise CMX 3.9.
You may know that the overlay was put in place historically, as far as I remember, to prevent the large nightclub proliferation that happened in the 1990s and the 2000s, which were permitted uses and caused a lot of adverse impacts.
As I mentioned, this building is large, it's voluminous, has large spaces, and coupled with
it's not the best category descriptor, it creates a hardship for finding uses that may
work here. Yet, this use, as you'll see, will have no adverse impacts on the public health,
safety, welfare, and traffic. It's surrounded by industrial properties. There are no homes there.
We already have one assembly and entertainment category use, which, as I mentioned, are the banquet halls for the Chess Cafe Wedding Group.
And so we feel that along with this, as you'll see, the occupancy is 75 for the sporting activities and 75 for the food and beverage.
Not many, not much occupancy for this size of a building.
And with the assembly and entertainment use comes a requirement of 65 parking spaces.
And as I mentioned, in the beginning, we had 320 on site that are most of them not being used.
We did meet and present it to Fishtown Neighbors Association, which provided its letter of support, as you mentioned, which therefore further supports the conclusion that this will not generate any adverse or detrimental impacts.
So with that said, I'd like to present first witness, David Guttstad.
Mr. Patterson, before we go, are you okay with the proviso from Fishtown Neighbors?
Okay, thank you.
They've been allowed to speak, sir.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, David Gutstadt, D-A-V-I-D-G-U-T-S-T-A-D-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Hi, David.
Good afternoon.
Hi, Ron.
Thanks.
You've heard my opening statement.
Would you agree that it is true and accurate?
And would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Yes. Thank you. Could you briefly tell the board your vision here?
Yes. I'll flip through the slides as you speak.
Sure. Our vision here is to create a social sports complex that invites the entire city of Philadelphia to experience some new sports,
which are pickleball and the other one is padel, which is a new racket sport that's getting very popular in Europe and is coming over to the U.S.
as well as some of the more traditional popular sports like soccer, squash, and golf.
And so, you know, our vision here is to bring people together to be able to play sports
and individually, you know, with their friends and leagues, lessons, clinics.
We'll do summer camps for kids.
And, you know, it's really meant to be something that, you know,
is obviously close to the Fishtown and Northern Liberties community,
but really easily accessible to the whole city of Philadelphia.
And there are no indoor pickleball courts in the city, despite the tremendous popularity of it.
So, you know, we think people are going to be very excited about this.
We are including a bar and a lounge area because, as we've seen in other projects and other markets, people really do enjoy socializing, you know, during and particularly after all of these sports.
And we know Philadelphians love sports as well, so we're going to do a nice sports bar that overlooks the turf field, and we'll have a secondary bar on the second level so people can enjoy food and drinks while they're playing golf or having events.
enjoy, you know, you know, food and drinks while they're playing golf or having events for around
pickleball or the Padel. And David, naturally, you and the land are aware of your use and
their residents there, but neither perceive any conflicts or adverse impacts? No, I will actually
say the residential building operators can't wait for us to get in because they think this will be
the the best amenity ever for their uh for their uh residents great thank you um what would be
and and my uh statement about the occupancy was accurate correct yes sir um yeah anything you
would like to add from the days and hours of operation that would be relevant i mean i think
our our view is it will be open from you know generally during the week 7 a.m until you know
10 or 11 at night and then you know perhaps a little later on thursday friday saturday
um if there are you know events or you know special events going on it could go you know
to midnight or so but not a late night place for sure great thank you david mr chairman that's all
i have all right questions from the board no chair this is emily persico um i don't have a question
more of a comment i wanted to disclose that i'm a member of fish town neighbors association
but i have not been involved in activities related to this matter and my
capacity as a member thank you very much emily questions or comments from our attorney hillary
emerson i just wanted to clarify one thing um and i apologize if i missed it david goldstadt
was he from the owning owning entity or proposed operator yes okay are you representing the
owner in this case or the tenant both both okay all right thank you you're welcome questions or
comments from the virtual audience yes mr chair i have a robert everett with their hand raised i
have allowed them to speak at this time robert i think i swore you once today didn't i yes you did
this morning just just sure just for the record just identify yourself please sure first name is
robert last name is everett e-v-e-r-e double t please proceed sir okay uh just here to support
uh mr patterson and his clients it was a well-attended meeting that was overwhelmingly
supported by the neighbors and we did discuss the the concern that's listed in our letter
regarding the variance so i would assume it would be similar to the one we did this morning on
Dover Avenue prohibiting
club and the other thing.
Mr. Everett, thank you again for calling.
We appreciate it. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience?
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning
Commission. The comprehensive plan
recommends no change to existing
CMX3 commercial mixed use
zoning designation at this location.
The proposed use is consistent with previously approved uses.
Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variances for assembly and entertainment.
MI 2024-001-939-1325 Beach Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Nightclubs and public entertainment venues use is prohibited.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Emily Persico, my vote is yes, with Provisors.
Thank you, Counsel.
Great. Thank you so much.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case from 2 p.m. has not been called?
No, Mr. Chair, I do not see any further hands.
Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break, then we'll come back, and we're going to do the 3.30 list.
Thank you, everyone.
Understood. Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman. I will be chairing the 3.30 meeting.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Aldous Board Member, Emily Persico, from the Division of Development Services.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and Tanya Sunken, our Executive Director.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov.
For the sake of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9, raise your hand, and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and address of the property in question.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sump.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Case number two, MI 2024-000076-336-38 Maple Lane Parcel A, and also case number four, MI 2024-000102-736-38 Maple Lane Parcel B.
both cases have been continued. Number six, MI2024-000105-1328 West Clearfield.
That case has been continued. We're going to go to our regular list. We're going to start with
number seven. Mr. Chair, can we ask you if there are any other requests? I do see another hand
Okay. Are there any other requests for continuances?
I'm sure I have a hand up from a number ending in 0641. I will allow them to speak at this time.
Okay. Thank you.
Person at 0641, please unmute and wait to be sworn in.
Could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
you're breaking up you have a
hold on you have a couple devices on
you have to shut one of your devices off
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
m-a-r-l-e-n-e price p-r-i-c
You swear or for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What case are you interested in?
The building at 2707 through 11 Federal Street.
I'm getting ready to call that, ma'am.
Are you one of the owners of that property?
I'm a neighbor.
okay that's okay that's going to come up in about maybe 10 15 minutes okay
okay thank you thank you ma'am thank you for calling okay anyone else in the first audience
i do not see any further answer mr chair so number seven mi 2024 000442 1209 south 18th street
Edward Ruan and Melissa Repco are the owner applicants.
It's a pro se.
They'll be rejoining us, panelists, soon, sir.
Melissa, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Chairman.
My name is Melissa Repko, M-E-L-I-S-S-A, last name Repko, R-E-P-K-O, and my husband,
Ed Rewan, will need permission to join as well.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chairman.
Are you going to do the testimony?
My husband and I were planning to do it together.
He has the form and the paperwork.
Okay, fine.
Is he?
He is on, I believe.
Okay. Do we see another hand?
They've been promoted to panelists as well, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Ed Ruan, E-D-R-U-A-N-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. So first, you have a letter of support from the East Point Breeze neighbors and requests for temporary variance ranging from two to three years, right? And that this application is for use as a visitor accommodation in apartment B in an existing structure. The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
good afternoon sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you please
proceeding through the screen.
you were up and go back again
there you go you're up yeah are you are you seeing the uh the refusal or are you saying
i do see the refusal sir okay perfect so yes this is a uh this is a request for visitor accommodation
in a residential zoning district.
We had opened up an apartment of ours on the premises
for use as a short-term rental in 2019.
We've been operating for the five years since
with no issues, hosting over 320 visitors over that time.
We are not requesting any physical changes to the property.
the variance is requested to remain in compliance with the short-term rental regulations that were
introduced in 2021. As you mentioned, we do have, excuse me, we do have support from the East Point
and Breeze Neighbors Association, near neighbors overwhelmingly in support. Overall, the vote
total 2325 in support of the project this is just presented last week and um i would uh
i don't know melissa do you have any other things that you want to to add mr mr rouen what i would
do if i were you i would show pictures of the property absolutely and do uh so here we have
of this is I have some some pictures in the in the the evidence of our zoning notice posted here
this is the the front of the property fronting southeast street you can see this is spanning
two former lots that were combined in 2019 the apartments are on the the corner side which is
fronting uh this side here which is uh on the northeast corner of uh south uh southeastern
street and manton street uh with a separate entrance for the the apartments uh on that side
apartment b is a standalone uh apartment two bedrooms one bathroom um
so as you can see this is a completely um separate from uh our dwelling unit we do live
within the building on the first floor and uh the the uh the half of the building that was
created so so to the chairman and the board we did when we purchased this property we did come
in front of the board to combine the two units into one triplex we see received approval for
the variance at that time also at the time we worked with the the city to create an aka for
this lot with a separate entrance, 1739 Manson, and then as my husband shared, we've been operating
for five years, and the hardship with this change, because we have been operating this so long, it
will be an impact to our ability to pay our mortgage, as well as support the schooling needs
for our special needs son, which was part of the reason that we went the Airbnb route in the first
place was the supplemental income. Melissa, it's only, you're only requesting this for apartment
B, am I correct? Correct. Correct. Airbnbs are a lot of work, sir. And we are running this as a
family. So we have enough laundry already. Good. Good. All right. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
no mr jay questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes mr chair i have oran pollock with their hand raised i have allowed them to speak at this time
Hello, this is Oren Pollack.
Hi, Oren, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
This is Oren, O-R-E-N, Pollack, P-O-L-L-A-K.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pollack, are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
I'm a neighbor.
I'm at 1711 Manton Street.
that's on the 1700 block of Manton Street, where the majority of the frontage of this unit is
located. I'm also the block captain for the 1700 block of Manton Street, as well as a Democratic
committee person for the district that includes this block. I, as well as the majority of the
The majority of the other near neighbors do support Ed and Melissa's application to continue using this unit as a short-term rental unit.
other near neighbors, do support Ed and Melissa's
There have been other short-term rentals on the block that we have not supported their continuance as such, and several have opened and closed over the last several years.
But Melissa and Ed have been very, very responsible owners of this unit, and we just support their application without any temporary restrictions.
Thank you.
I noticed, and I did notice as well from this, from these Point Breeze neighbors report here that there were, it does seem from here that there were two near neighbors who were opposed.
Neither of them have voiced their concerns to me directly.
Mr. Powell, thank you for taking the time to call.
So we appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Sarah Blitzer, I have allowed them to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Sarah Blitzer, S-A-R-A-H-B-L-I-T-Z-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and they'll see you about the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
As I said, I'm a near neighbor.
I reside at and own the property at 1736 Manton Street, and I wanted to express my support for the variance application.
at 1209 South 18th Street, so that they may continue to utilize the property as a short-term
rental unit for Unit B. I've been here for five years, and echoing what Oren just said,
I have absolutely no complaints. I have, you know, nothing negative to say about
the use of the
unit as a
short-term rental.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Do you not see any further answers, Mr. Chair?
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N.
Last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. This property is indicated for
residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to existing
zoning at this location. There's no unique physical condition or circumstances of the property that
prevent it from being used in conformity with the zoning code. The city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the proposed use variance for visitor accommodation.
Thank you. So MI 2024, 000-442-1209 South 18th Street. I vote yes for a temporary variance that will expire 5-22-27. Also proviso apartment B only.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Emily Persego, my vote is yes with proviso.
Congratulations, you have your you have your votes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're going to go to number number one. MI 2024, 000112707211 Federal Street, Taundang, Taund, Dawn Tang, Grady, and Clemente Amazon are the attorneys.
there's a letter of support from the residents organized for advocacy and direction
good afternoon counsel could you please could you please yeah could you please state your
name. It's spelled for the stenographer. Of course. Clemente Amazon. That's spelled C-L-E-M-E-M-T-A.
Last name is spelled A-M-A-Z-A-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Would you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Of course. My client is the owner of the property, 2707 Federal, LLC.
our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon council do you agree to
read the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
Good afternoon. Yes, I do.
afternoon yes i do have you emailed then all the required documents
Have you emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen, Councilor.
Thank you. And if I could also have Agatha Reister promoted as a panelist, she's the architect for the property.
Why don't you start, Mokita? Are you going to testify? Question him right from the beginning?
I'll be doing it.
No, I'll be doing the presentation, however, for the sake of efficiency, if the board has questions.
All right, we'll bring him on as soon as we think we need him.
Sounds good to me.
I'm going to full screen mode here.
Again, my name is Clemente Amazon.
I am the attorney for the property owner, and I'll be presenting 2707-11 Federal Street.
During my presentation, I will go through the refusal.
We do have a letter of support for this property.
we did also enter into a community benefits agreement. I'll go through the plans, exterior
photos of the property, surrounding area photos, the notice that we sent out to the community
regarding the meeting, our certificates of mailing, the application for appeal, project
information form, these showing that my client does in fact own the property as well as our
certificate of tax clearance. So the property is zoned I-2. The proposed use that we have here is
for multifamily living with nine residential dwelling units
and four parking spaces.
As you will see in this presentation,
although this area is zoned I-2,
it does not match the character of the neighborhood
as it stands currently.
It is a residential block.
So having an industrial use here,
which would be allowed by Wright,
does not fit the character of the neighborhood,
which is also reflected by the fact
the community has supported this project.
Board has granted similar variances of multifamily use
along this block.
So we did meet with the community on March 6, 2024.
We did receive this letter of support indicating unanimous support for this particular project.
As for the background, we've worked pretty closely with the RCO to create a project that
would fit the character of the neighborhood at this point.
Originally, our proposal was to have two single-family homes, however, the community had concerns
regarding the size for a lot of this nature.
This is three consolidated lots, 2707, 2709, as well as 2711 Federal Street.
And they requested instead that we have multifamily use here.
So we went back to the drawing board, and we did create the current proposal that we have before the board currently.
We met with the community.
They provided us with unanimous support.
And we are also, or excuse me, we have entered into a community benefits agreement where we will be providing two affordable units.
Affordable is going to be dictated by the AMI for this particular region.
And this is just a copy of the community benefits agreement that we executed in April 2024.
And here we have the plans for the property.
This is a five-story structure.
We do also have a roof deck.
The only refusal that we have is for the multifamily use.
There are nine units in total.
The first floor, I believe, has one unit.
That's two bedrooms, two baths.
And the remaining floors each have two units, and it is a mix between three bedrooms, two baths, as well as two bedroom, two baths.
They range in size from 972 square feet up to approximately 1,200 square feet.
So they are well-sized units.
My client's very proud of the product that he put together here in collaboration with the community.
So these are the floor plans indicating that there are about two units per floor.
so we have five stories along with parking that was made available there is an existing structure
that we will be demolishing in order to create the new structure that we have proposed for the
forest here's a view of the front of the property so zooming in here you can see that we have posted
the property and it is these once it's a single structure however it's three lots along here on
federal street and it is full lot covered so the front of the property is along federal street
However, the rear of the property is Long Annan Street, which is a small one-way.
And here we have a view of the rear of the property.
Here we have Federal Street to the left of the property.
You'll notice that there is residential use throughout this side of the block.
And here we have a view to the right of the property along Federal Street.
Again, we have multifamily use that you will see later in my presentation.
And this is just another view along Annan Street.
This is a very tight one-way.
It's in between Grace Ferry Avenue and Federal Street.
Very small, but it is the rear of the property, and I'll just zoom out here.
And here we have 2700 Federal Street, 2702 Federal Street, and 2704 Federal Street.
All of these properties are residential in nature.
2700 Federal Street is a single-family home.
2700 Federal Street is a single-family home, 2702 is a two-plus, and I believe 2704 is also single-family.
2702 is a duplex.
Again, showing that this is an area that is primarily residential in nature.
It doesn't have much in the way of industrial use.
Excuse me.
Get to the next slide here.
As I mentioned, the board has previously granted similar variances that we have proposed.
We have 2731 Federal Street, which was recently granted by the board for six family units.
So this is multifamily use that is very close to the property.
Similarly, 2738 Federal Street, which has also been granted by the board.
There are 24 units that were previously granted.
Here we have the notice that was sent out regarding the community meeting.
A copy of the refusal.
Again, the property is zoned I-2.
However, we are requesting to have multifamily use here in collaboration with requests that
were made by the community.
We are providing two affordable units as well.
A list of the properties that were notified of the community meeting.
Our certificate of mailing showing that we did, in fact, send out notice for the meeting.
Our application for appeal.
The project information form.
And the D showing that my client does own this property, again, is three consolidated lots, 2707, 2709, and 2711 Federal Street, and our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
So with that, I believe Michael Carousel is on to my testimony.
They have been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for this phonographer?
Hello, my name is Michael Carosella, C-A-R-O-S-E-L-L-A.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Michael, did you hear my presentation today?
And was it true and correct?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I would.
Thank you.
and council council your only refusal is multiple family in an i-2 zoning district
yes it is okay thank you questions right questions from the board
no chair no mr chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary members
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar City Planning.
While this property is currently indicated for a medium industrial use on the city plan,
our adopted comprehensive plan recommend a change to single-family residential at this location.
Multifamily is not allowed in the current nor proposed zoning.
Therefore, we recommend the requested variance not be granted.
Thank you.
M-I-2024-000011-2707-211 Federal Street, I vote yes.
Ms. Mashae, my vote is yes.
Emily Perseco, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2024-000077-606-66th Avenue, Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
No RCO letter or summary, but notice was given to nearby neighbors with proof of mailing.
Meeting was held 5-1-2024 in the Oak Lane Community Action Area.
The applicant provided a petition in support by approximately six neighbors, four from the block, two from the adjacent neighborhood.
Counselor, you've already been sworn once in a, just for the record, state your name.
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Vern Anastasio, on behalf of Kristen Pfeiffer.
And our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
good afternoon council do you agree a way to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you council
please proceed and share your screen thank you i'm just about sharing it now mr chair just
point of the record, the letter, the petitions in support are of seven.
The record, the letter, the petitions in support are of seven immediate neighbors, but it's close to six, so thank you.
Anyway, it's a 108-page exhibit package that I'm submitting today.
It's a pre-existing, non-conforming use of a three-family dwelling.
I want to direct your attention right now to page 96 of my exhibit packet, where, in fact, City of Philadelphia approves the property 1965 for a three-family dwelling.
And that is being submitted into evidence today for the application.
And, of course, all of my pages have now gone blank for some reason.
I'm not sure why.
Let me restart.
Yeah, I'm afraid I might have to.
I'm sorry.
I did reboot just before the hearing.
See if I could just reshare, and that might help.
It doesn't seem to be working right now.
I'm going to close out and come back if that's okay with you, okay?
Sure, why don't you do that?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in and is the panelist.
Thank you.
Thank you for your patience.
Not quite sure what happened there.
So, Vern, before you move on, just for a point of information,
you showed that piece of paper that 65, the city approved a triplex.
That's correct.
Our notes, maybe our notes are wrong, but we have the ZBA denied a variance for a triplex at 65.
And I just wanted to jump in here.
So I think that card, it doesn't indicate approval.
It just indicates that the open area requirements are met, but there was still a refusal issued on that application and a variance that was denied in July of 65 for a triplex.
So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, that that card does not indicate that that a variance was approved.
No, but it does indicate that that's that's I think akin to a certificate of occupancy, that particular document from 1960.
I don't think so, because it was submitted at the same time as the application.
And it just indicates that the open area requirements are met for that many units at a property.
Very good.
It says in 1942, ZVA granted a variance for a duplex.
For a duplex, right.
Somewhere between 1942, and why page 96 is important, and page 94 as well, is that between 1946 and 1965, someone turned this legal duplex into a triplex.
because uh in the 1965 application it clearly states that the existing condition is a three
family dwelling mind you this is all prior to my client even being born uh and that's why that's
why it's important a part of evidence uh is that this property sometime between 1946 and 1965
was converted without the benefit, I believe, of proper permits.
was converted without the benefit, I believe, of proper permits, although that's difficult to
ascertain. It was, in fact, presented itself as a three-family dwelling. And that's the
importance and that's the significance of us having that. It's a triplex now, right?
Yes, as it has been since between 46 and 65.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Church, this is Hillary.
I can just confirm on the refusal from 1965.
It says this use, the three-family use, is existing on the premises in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Right.
So it had been converted at some point.
Thank you.
Somewhere between 46 and 65, this was converted.
Again, prior to my client's birth.
But in addition to those documents that we've been discussing, of the 108 documents, we have a zoning refusal, our floor plan and layout, photos of the property, interior, exterior, side, and rear, our notification letter and proof of mailing, the poster and proof of posting, the archives that we talked briefly about, the deed and tax clearance.
We have a zoning map. We have a signed petition of all seven immediate neighbors on the block in support. And we also have a very long history, pages 97 to 104, then 105 to 107, of all legal three families right there, right there within 300 feet of the property.
So what we are asking for is to legalize the pre-existing non-conforming use.
Again, this conversion happened before the current zoning code ever existed, or even the current building code that we go by currently exists.
We got two individual refusals, the parking requirement, which we have actually satisfied.
There is a driveway with ample parking.
uh and of course again the three family dwelling i want to show you the
layouts of the property first floor is almost a thousand square feet
second floor is over 800 square feet these are large units it's a very large property
and um i'm sorry and there's the third floor at 732 square feet
we have a comprehensive trash plan everyone in attendance of the actual rco meeting
agreed that this had been at pre-existing use long before my client ever assumed the property
there's the driveway in question dedicated trash area
here's some interior photos
my client occupies one of the three units she is an owner occupant
you have three separate electric meters
here's the two-page letter that went out to all the neighbors all the addresses that were mailed
in total about 44 households again those that showed up were not immediate neighbors
but we do have the petition of support from all seven folks in the immediate area
Again, we also have the history of the property in question and the deed showing that my client purchased the property long after it had been converted and not by her.
Also, you can see the property is quite large.
And again, all of the properties adjacent and across the street, all those owners are in full support of the appeal.
and here they are all seven households
and again we have uh proof that the property's right around it all legal three family dwellings
there's a property caddy corner
property across the street
property right down the street six on sixth another property on sixth another three family
Another property on 6th, another three-family dwelling.
dwelling so at some
So at some point, this was a regular sort of conversion on this block.
As you can see, here's 6709, three-family dwelling, 6719, and two additional.
mr chair again this property was converted sometime between 1946 and 1965 as a three
family dwelling there's documented use of that in the city records
you know did you attend the rco meeting mike of course my office did yes it did
And what was the tenor that RCO made? Because we don't have anything from them.
You know, the tenor was that everyone was in agreement and understood that this was a pre-existing, non-conforming use going back 65 years.
Okay, thank you. You want to bring your client on?
Yep. Kristen Pfeiffer, if you could please raise your virtual hand.
They've been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Kristen Pfeiffer. It's K-R-I-S-T-E-N, and the last name Pfeiffer, P-I-P-H-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Pfeiffer, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
Do you believe it to be true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further on this witness.
I do have another witness to call, if you don't mind.
I'm sorry, Geshe Bohar.
Please raise your virtual hand.
they have been allowed to speak
could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer
it's Gishi or Gishi
G-E-E-T-I
B-O-R-A-H
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
I'm a near neighbor.
Ms. Getty, I'm going to ask you some questions, okay?
Thank you.
Are you an immediate neighbor of this particular property?
Yes, I live across from.
Okay, thank you.
And do you support the appeal as it's submitted today to legalize the pre-existing three-family dwelling?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to call Tia Graves.
They've been about to speak.
Yes, greetings.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Tia Graves, T-I-A, Graves, G-R-A-V-E-S.
Right.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel thank you mr chair miss graves do you live at 604 66th avenue
the adjacent property to 606 yes i do okay and do you understand the appeal today to legalize
the pre-existing non-conforming use as a three-family dwelling yes i do and do you support
the appeal yes i do thank you miss graves nothing further mr chair because the property has a unique
physical condition presenting as a three-family dwelling for over 60 years because the conversion
would be to a single family residential would be impracticable because my client did not create
the unique physical condition because the use pre-exists the and predates both the
current zoning code and the building code, because we have a driveway with off-street parking
to deal with the parking requirement, because immediate neighbors unanimously support the
legalization of the condition, and because the long documented history of a three-family
dwelling is apparent and obvious, we respectfully request the granting of the variance. Thank you.
We respectfully request the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Mr. Anastasia, just in relation to the refusal for the parking, there are some accessory parking spaces at the property.
Is that correct?
The driveway can hold two.
And if my client decided to extend it more, which she could buy right, it could even take more.
I just wanted to note that because it did appear once I saw the pictures of the property that the refusal was incorrect.
You may be short one space, but you do have some parking.
Thank you.
That's correct.
Just a comment from the virtual audience.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I have a hand up from a Frida Williams.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Rita Williams, please unmute and wait to be sworn in.
Oh, hello.
Okay, can you hear me?
Hi, how are you?
Yes, could you please...
I am so sorry.
No, that's okay.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Frida, F-R-E-I-D-A Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Technically, I am actually, I'm the chair of the RCO.
Oh, good, good, good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Okay, I offer apologies.
I am reading from the I can read from the report that was sent.
I did receive a confirmation of receipt from the city planner, because when I mailed that, when I emailed the report, it went to all parties, the city planner, district council office, the attorney, also the zoning, the zoning board.
So I'm very sorry that it was may not have been received.
So what's the RCO's position?
The RCO was in opposition to the request for variance, and so that I could, if I could.
Sure, go ahead.
Yeah, I'm here.
Okay, if I can.
Okay, so the points that were made were that unless we are misreading the documents that were submitted to us, there was indeed not one, but two applications.
So this isn't I don't know how formal the zoning process was, but there was one that was in existence.
And each time that the applicant, not this particular applicant, but whoever the owner was applied to make this a three, a two family or three family, they were refused.
With the exception that it appears in 1942, there was a proviso that said it could be a two family.
They came back in 1963 and it was noted that the home was in violation because by that time there were three doorbells, there were three doorbells, there were separate meters, etc.
And it said this property is subject to prosecution.
So what I'm saying is that this was indeed on record.
The position that we are taking has to do with a couple of things.
One, and there were neighbors at the RCO meeting.
Everyone was not a near neighbor as in terms of on the same street, but they're all neighbors.
And what happens in one area impacts other areas of the community.
And so the position was that this is single family.
At the very least, we would not be in support of changing it from, which is now an owner-occupied with what it was, I'm sorry, let me say what it was approved for, an owner-occupied with one additional unit for rental.
So we're not in favor of it at all, but at the very least, we do not think that it should be all three units.
The other concern that we have is that it is currently owner-occupied.
But, you know, life lives and the owner doesn't always have to be on the premises.
And then what happens is you have three units and nobody knows what would happen or who would be managing that property.
The other issue is that it seems unlikely to us that this was not known at the point of transfer when it was purchased, that it was single family.
And whatever needed to be done, it seems to me and to the community should have been done at that time.
The precipitating factor at this point in terms of coming forth for variants is that there appears to be a change in the tenancy.
is that there appears to be a change in the tenancy, and based on that, the home had to
come into compliance in order for them to continue the rental. So again, our position is that this is
single family. We are not ashamed of the fact that we live in an area that has a predominance
of single family, but there's group homes, there's apartments, and we understand that,
but the people who live here, for the most part, live here because they want to be in an area
that is not quite as densely populated.
So again, we're going back to the fact
that the documents seem to indicate
that it was on record
and that this application, it seems to us,
should have been made at another point in time.
We are not in favor of a blanket approval
of the zoning variance
because there's no protection to the community
for what happens when the owner vacates
by choice or by chance.
And so that basically is our position.
I will certainly make sure that you have this on record, and I offer my sincerest apologies.
No, no, no, no, no.
Because I made every effort to get it to you in advance.
Mr. Anastasia, do you have any questions?
Just one, Ms. Frida.
So you do acknowledge that since 1963, it has been physically presented.
It has been a three-family dwelling.
Is that right?
It's been illegally, yes.
It's been in violation as a three-family.
I acknowledge that.
I appreciate that.
And are you aware that there are more than six existing properties just in the very immediate area, all legally approved as three-family dwellings?
No, I am not.
I do not know the status of the immediate.
Well, we did submit that today.
And you are aware of the petition of seven homes on that particular block.
My petition has six names, not seven.
And we just updated it with one.
And you were you were presented with that petition of the six immediate neighbors at the RCO.
Is that correct? Yes, I was. Yes, sir. I thank you very much.
And I respectfully thank you for testifying. OK, you're welcome.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I just want to object to the RCO letter itself.
There are many factual errors in it, the first being that this was ever a single-family dwelling.
It hasn't been a single-family dwelling in my lifetime, and I don't think even in the chair's lifetime.
So it's been a long time since it ever was a single-family dwelling.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Any more?
Yes, I have one more.
Okay, two more hands.
One is from War Rotherspoon.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Ora, O-R-A, last name is Witherspoon, W-I-T-H-E-R-S-P-O-O-N.
Hold on, hold on.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Ms. Witherspoon, are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
I am opposed to a three-unit apartment, more so for the mayor, in fact, the dense population and the vehicles that will be parked in that area.
Second of all, due to the heavy traffic.
And thirdly, because if this house, this neighbor that owns this house right here, she has not been a part of the the unit, the sections we have.
I have never seen her. I've been in this area since 2008.
She doesn't attend any of the meetings. And if she wanted to have a communication with the neighbors, I think she would have made herself more so available to the community. So I'm opposed to it.
mr anastasia you have any questions sir i i have nothing really to add other than my client
regularly attends the rco meetings especially the zoning ones uh her occupancy of that property
predates miss witherspoons coming to the neighborhood uh and as far as traffic and
congestion again these three units have been occupied for 65 years uh with no incident no
issue. In fact, at the RCO meeting itself, overwhelming majority, and I know Ms. Frieda
will testify to that if I ask her to, overwhelming majority of the folks praised my client for the
improvements to the property. We're not trying to do anything here, but legalize the previous
thing use. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Kelly McShane Tyree, I have allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi there. My name is Kelly McShane Tyree, K-E-L-L-Y-M-C-S-H-A-I-N, Tyree, T-Y-R-E-E.
Hi there, my name is Kelly McShane Tyree, K-E-L-L-Y.
Do you swear, hold on, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am a neighbor in East Oak Lane. I am involved with the Civic Association. I own a single family home, which I have restored.
and i just finished a project on 66th avenue that might have some relevance
okay please proceed yes thank you um overall and this this is always a sensitivity especially when
you really really 11 i really really respect this homeowner um and and totally sympathize
with the fact that a property has been um grandfathered in in a way um i have to speak
more in generally and just that i just ask that the zoning board continues to protect the highest
and best use originally intended uh as well as the unique character of this contributing middle
neighborhood of east oak lane it's it's small and engaging we already have a blessing an over
blessing of a lot of apartment buildings along 66th avenue many large many mid-sized uh as well
as originally designed in existing duplexes triplexes and quads so the owner occupant
rows twins and very rare for the city's single family homes they are delicately balanced this
equation in this small 10 block by 10 block area so what does impact in one corner really does in
another i am so extremely concerned about precedence um and and that is really the
sensitive discussion. So I just finished a three and a half year restoration rebuild of a 1905
Dutch colonial that faces 66th Avenue. I could not have made that investment. I could not have
dove into that project were it not for the fact that I could be assured that the zoning across
the street and next to me and on the other side was protected single family because we have a huge
tipping point apartment building on our block and so this is the sensitivity we have to maintain
that delicate balance i trust that the zoning board i do trust while kristen is there that
she will do a fantastic job with this property because i think it's always beautifully maintained
I am concerned in general about properties moving forward and being divided up into from single family to triplexes.
I'm also a professional realtor.
We're getting knocks on the door all the time for people to do such a thing.
So it is a very, very important conversation.
So thank you.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
Kelly, one quick question.
but it's apparent that this place has been a triplex for a long time even if it's illegal
i did not know that okay all right thank you mr chair may i ask you just a couple questions
sure sure miss tyree what's your legal uh what's your legal address uh my well the one that the
property that i just was uh just i'm asking for the address upon which you file your federal tax
returns oh sure what is your legal residence yes in east oak lane 68 13 north 10th street
north 10th right so the 66th avenue property that you purchased when did you purchase it
uh the 66 three and a half years ago and they just sold it to a couple who bought it because
they knew it was single family in the property so you purchased it three and a half years ago
you renovated it and you flipped it is that right uh yes that's specific the other one i am living
in i restored and i got a um a homeowner award from the preservation alliance of philadelphia
i'm still living there a half a mile away right yes and actually more than half you know that
one of the properties that you mentioned 6709 north 6th street that is a a triplex that my
grandmother and grandpa julia and tom mcshane um owned for decades so your grandparents actually
converted to three family right no they did not no that was actually originally um uh structured
in such a way so they had a three-family dwelling on the same block your own family
my own family did have one thank you thank you nothing further mr chair anyone else in the
virtual audience yes mr chair of vivian chestnut i've allowed them to speak
i could you miss chestnut could you could you identify yourself please
Vivian Chestnut
V-I-V-I-A-N-C-H-E-S-T-N-U-T
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes I do
Yes, I do.
Ms. Chestnut
Ms. Chestnut, we've had a lot of testimony about this on both sides.
We've had a lot of testimony about this
On both sides
Are you in favor or against this project?
I'm against the project.
Is there anything you can offer other than what we've already heard?
No, it's that I've lived in Philadelphia all my life.
I've lived in East Oak Lane for the last six years.
My question is, the reason why this neighborhood still looks and feels the way it is,
it's because it's 90% single-family home, and it needs to stay that way.
for people who can't afford to live in the suburbs
or who choose not to live in the suburbs.
All right.
Thank you very much for calling.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I have no cross on Ms. Chestnut
other than to say that my client doesn't necessarily disagree with her at all.
We want to keep East Oak Blaine exactly the way it's been for the last 65 years.
and that means legalizing the existing use.
No further answer, Mr. Chair.
All right, thank you.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
given the site-documented three-family use history
with off-street parking available.
Recommend request of variance for granted.
Thank you.
MI 2024
66 Avenue. I vote yes.
I see a thumbs up there, Mr. Chair.
He's having a hard time.
He's in the car, I think.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Shahid voted yes.
He voted yes. Thank you very much.
Okay. Number five, MI 2024-000104, 4230 Howell Street, number T2123607, Henry Clinton is the attorney.
We do not have an RCO letter as of yet with this.
He's coming back in as a panel, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Here we go, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clinton, you've already been sworn.
Could you just state your name for the record?
Sure, Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Can you hear me now, Chair?
We do, we do.
Thank you.
could you identify your client relationship to this property sure there's two clients husband
and wife Henri A-N-R-I and Arena I-R-E-N-A Abedini A-B-E-D as in Dennis I-N as in Nancy A
and our vice chair has a few questions for you sir good afternoon counsel do you agree to leave
the reason of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy I do have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this
hearing i have thank you council please proceed and share your screen thank you mr sheen
mr chairman is that visible we see it sir uh good afternoon mr chairman members of the board
henry clinton here on behalf of mr and mrs abedini for 42 30 house street this is a table of contents
containing A1 through A10. I also have a rental license for adjoining property, which is a two
family dwelling. This is the refusal. So this request is for new construction for a two family
dwelling on a vacant lot, on a large lot, and on a corner lot adjacent to an existing two family
dwelling. Now the refusal says we're going to erect a two family home with a roof deck. We are not
going to have a roof deck that has been eliminated from this application.
There is no RCO letter. Here's photographs. This is the corner property that we're talking about
right here at the far corner. Again, vacant lot adjacent to a duplex.
Just an aerial view. It's basically about 24 houses on the block, counting both sides of the
street, and I'll have the designer testify concerning that. But basically, it's economically
concerning that. But basically, it's economically not feasible to build a single-family home
not feasible to build.
on this corner lot because, as the designer will testify, the prices of the homes on the block,
again, not being demeaning, the prices on the home on the block, the majority of them are less
than $175,000. And to build a single-family home, you're going to be in the neighborhood of $350,000.
So it would be basically economic suicide to build a single-family home, whereas you could build a two-family dwelling for about $75,000 more, and then you'd be able to have two families, no matter whether my client decided to rent or to convert them to condominiums.
These are the postings of the notices of the RCO meeting, as well as the meeting today.
So this is a pretty straightforward design.
it's a two-family dwelling. First floor, one unit, two bedrooms. Second floor would
be one unit with two bedrooms. Basement would have mechanicals and generally
storage. We have a large yard area or decent yard area and side yard for trash
in the rear yard. There'll be trash cans for each of the apartments and you'll be
able to just take the trash right out to the side street here again just some renderings of what it
would look like the property just more redundancy just a different shade of the of the renderings
the remaining documents are the pro forma documents you would see in an application
such as this. Tax clearance. Zoning map indicating this was a large lot at one time. It's been
subdivided, and both lots are 25 feet wide, wider than the other lots on the block. So again,
it could accommodate a two-family dwelling. This is the deed. Legal description. Mr. Chairman,
what I'd like to do is, if it's okay with you, can I call
a witness before I conclude my presentation and give a conclusion?
It's the designer of the property. Why don't you bring a witness on?
Mr. Luca Lacarini, could you please
unmute yourself? They've been allowed to speak.
Harold, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Unmuted. Thank you, everyone. Name is Luca.
Luka, last name La Curici, that is spelled L-U-K-A for the first name, and L-A-K-U-R-I-Q-I for the last name.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
All right. Thank you.
Luka, did you design this two-family dwelling that I just presented to the board?
Yes, I did, with my partner, Michael Tark, correct.
Okay. And why did you design a two-family dwelling at this corner property?
well well as always client approached me uh the word of mouth had heard of me and approached said
hey uh i'm a builder i have this big big uh corner lot he said i'm tired of building for
other people i'm just dying to build something of my own he said can you help me out do an
analysis see what i could build there what i cannot etc okay and then why did you design
to family dwelling then well right so exactly after doing uh we we uh did an analysis we did
a little uh site we looked at the uh adjacent properties and the 24 properties on that block
um and it made sense for a long-term investment for him i said that this is not something that
you would want to flip because of the cost cost of the uh properties around is is very low and
it would not meet the expenses. But I said, you can do something very nice and have a long-term
investment. And given the footprint of the lot, we're talking about a 25-foot lot, which allows,
as a corner property, allows you to build 80% of the lot. We have only occupied 60% of that lot,
So almost half. And we are still able to fit two 1,243 square foot units, two bedrooms, very generous in volume, generous in light, et cetera.
Yes, the renderings can use some work. Maybe the brick can use a different color, et cetera.
But it is a very pleasant design and a lot of volume.
To make a house there would be very big for one, and it would not make any economical sense whatsoever.
Luca, just a couple of quick questions.
Luca, just a couple quick questions. Would it cost about $350,000 to construct a single-family home?
Would it cost about $350,000 to construct a city?
A little bit more, given the square footage of this house. We're talking 175 to 250 square foot for a new construction. Don't forget, this is not a row home. This is all four sides. So we're looking at higher numbers. So it would be more than that, Henry.
Okay. And then to build a two-family dwelling, you're probably talking about $75,000 to $100,000 more than a single-family home?
Yes, because it's an extra kitchen, extra bathrooms, et cetera. So that's correct. We're estimating to around $100,000 more, $75,000 to $100,000.
And isn't it true there's 24 homes on the block, correct?
That's correct.
And 17 of those homes were purchased for less than $175,000, correct?
Yes, over the years.
And the remaining properties were purchased between $200,000 and $246,000, correct?
Okay. And do you live in the neighborhood?
Yes, I do. I live on the other side of Harbison Avenue on the Taconi side.
I'm literally a seven-minute walk from this property at 6711 Glenlock Street and probably a three to five-minute drive.
I have no further questions of this witness.
Is there anything else you want to add, Luca, that I didn't ask you?
no uh as as a long term i've lived in the area uh northeast i'm speaking in general we always
attend each other zoning meetings uh we we all three neighborhood meaning um with the noming
to coney mayfair etc uh it's an area that's dying for some uh new development and uh we i personally
certainly welcome it. Responsible development, of course. But we'd like to catch up with the
rest of the city. That's all. All right. Thank you, Luca. Mr. Chairman, no more witnesses,
but I would like to just conclude. And in summary, we have a situation, vacant lot,
large lot, corner lot. It's not economically feasible to build a single family home.
There's already a duplex adjacent to this property. We're not impacting anyone's
lighter air. We're not affecting the open space, the height or the rear yard. We're not altering
the essential character of the neighborhood. We're generally in harmony with the code and we're not
impacting the development of any adjacent property. And we have no lighter air issues where we're
affecting any adjacent properties or properties across the street. And with that, I'd like to
conclude and asked if my client can adopt my testimony yes but mr clinton let me ask you a
question what happened at the zoning board meeting uh at the community meeting they didn't like it
to be honest mr chairman we don't have a letter from them as of yet no i i didn't receive a letter
but i mean i attended the meeting um and just people were generally not in favor of to be
candidate with the with the tribunal okay all right bring your client on uh harry can you unmute
yourself mr abedini can you unmute yourself please they've been allowed to speak hi uh my name is
Henry Abedini.
Could you please spell your name for the stenographer?
I am A-N-R-I, and the last name is A-B-E-D-I-N-I.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Abedini, were you on the call when I presented your project and when the designer,
Luca, testified?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt his testimony and my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Okay, so Hillary, I'm going to hold this to give the RCO at least a chance to respond.
I'm going to close everything else other than the RCO letter, or if they don't respond, and Mr. Clinton will have a chance to respond to that.
Ron, do you want to take a position today or do you want to wait until the RCO letter?
Yeah, we'll take a position.
Please proceed.
Okay, the property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change.
This thing zoning it, residential single family zoning at this location, the applicants.
existing zoning it residential single family zoning at this location the applicants hardship
is not supported with evidence of any physical circumstances or condition of the property that
would prevent it from being used in conforming with the code therefore we recommend request
variance not be granted um so what we'll do hillary we'll give this a few weeks right
yeah why don't we why don't we hold it for two weeks um mr chair right and then we'll close it
other than um the letter from the rco and any response mr clinton yes the two weeks and we'll
vote at 2 p.m okay mr clinton sounds good mr chairman i really appreciate it thank you thank
you thank you miss emerson you're most welcome is there i think what's is there anyone in the
universal audience whose 330 case has not been called.
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, everyone. We got done fairly well today.
Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you all. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thanks. Have a good night. Thank you. Have a good night.
All right. Good night, everybody. Good night.
Wonderful job as always, Chair. Have a good night, all.
Good night.
Thank you.