has been vacant if you flip through the historic imagery since at least 1996.
So I believe that over most of that time, it's been owned by public-related entities.
uh uh well it looks here that that's been the case since 2005 um the city or its uh related
entities have had no success getting this property developed uh as a double wide lot so what that
says to me is that um we need to to subdivide this to fit the fabric of the neighborhood
in order for a um in order for the market to want to build something here um you know that's
a very good reason to grant a variance under hardship law. The current shape of the property
is not viable. It's not developable. And that's because nobody needs or wants a double-wide home
here for the construction price. Beyond that, I think that I will rest. And Justin Veazey is
the gentleman from BBG Property who would be adopting my testimony. Hi. Justin, could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter?
So it's
Justin Veazey, J-U-S-T-I-N
V-E-A-S-E-Y. Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do.
Proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Justin, did
you hear the full extent of my
testimony in this case today?
yes and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes um and would you therefore
Yes. And was it true
and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
adopt it as if it were your own testimony yes okay thank you thank you questions from the board
no mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no answer mr chair planning commission
Thank you, Chair. Sarah Bond, City Planning Commission, SARAHBANH. The proposed dimensions are consistent with nearby properties. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI-2022-005-283-4032 Cancel Street. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plans, three pages, stamped by ZBA, November 30, 2022.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
ishmael shaheed yes we're proviso thank you counsel thank you all thank you number five
mi-2022-004-586-7111 germantown avenue steve masters is the attorney letter of support from
east mount airy neighbors councilwoman bass has no opposition
still waiting for a tax clearance
mr masters yes good morning mr chair members of the board
steve masters s-t-e-v-e m-a-s-t-e-r-s i'm with the law firm of just laws and i represent philly
office retail the property owner in this matter do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Mr. Masters, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal
referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have
you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, to all of your questions. Okay, great.
you may proceed and begin by sharing the screen.
Mr. Masters, is the tax clearance?
Yes, I wanted to address the tax clearance.
We are in the process of getting it,
but we do not have it at the moment.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
All right.
we are here today on 7111 Germantown Avenue. This is the second time that this project has been
before the board. In our first appearance earlier this year, the board approved a special exception
for the Lantern Theater Company to occupy the vacant church sanctuary building. And this time,
we are here for a single dimensional variance for our lot adjustment to basically subdivide and
separate out the Lantern Theater Company's structure from the remaining portions of the lot.
There won't be any physical changes to any structure with the granting of this subdivision.
The property will look exactly the same. It is a non-conforming property. It was built
in the turn of the last centuries before our zoning code and as we'll see in a moment
there is a a rear yard setback that that is not in compliance with the current zoning for cmx2
the refusal here is a fairly technical one and it's so parcel b is the one that where the lantern
theater company is going to operate out of. And as I'll show you in a moment, it used to be
the whole structure was one single detached structure. Now with this subdivision, it becomes
two semi-attached structures. And because we have a party wall, we no longer have any rear yard
behind the part of the, behind the building where the Lantern Theater will be.
So we have here the letter of support from East Minorie Neighbors,
and we had a full discussion, and they were happy to support this subdivision.
I'm going to skip down.
I'm going to skip down. In our exhibits, we have the full condominium declaration,
And we, in our exhibits, we have the.
which was recorded, and then a second declaration that was recorded to correct
certain aspects of descriptions dealing with the building that we're talking about,
where the Lantern Theater is going to be. In that second condominium declaration,
it clarified that the condominium association for the residents who live in the remainder of
the property doesn't have jurisdiction over this new building that we're creating the new building
with the subdivision where the lantern theater will be. And that's really why it makes total
sense to have this be subdivided and have it be a separate structure since the entire rest of the
lot is all belonging to and for the use and enjoyment of the residents of those condominiums.
So here we have here.
Here we have the site plan.
So, as you can see, all of these spaces here are the residential condominiums.
This is a parking area that's only for the use of the residential condominiums.
And this is the building that we are going to be subdividing out, and that's where the Lantern Theater Company will be.
Right now we can see there's an existing nonconformity.
The rear wall of this structure is too close to the property boundary.
And if when we subdivided it, that nonconformity remained the same extent, then it would be by right under the zoning code.
But because this is a party wall and it's fire rated completely for being a separate structure, there are no means of ingress or egress between the residential area and the theater area.
But because now this is a party wall where there's literally no setback, that's why it triggered the refusal for that dimensional variance.
Whoa, all right, let's bring this guy back.
We also have the deed, the RCO letters
and the proof of mailing.
Photos.
Yeah, these are external views of the property.
This area here is where the Lantern Theater building is.
This is the parking area I referenced, and these back here are parts of the residential condominiums.
This is another view of the Lantern Theater Company's building, and it goes kind of midway down here, and then the residences come in towards the rear.
This is the end of the Lantern Theater building, and the residences are behind here.
This is our zoning notice poster and refusal postings, both in the front and on the side of the property.
and we do have um a number of different um hardship um claims here uh basically in order
for us to put a 10.4 foot rear yard setback we would have to essentially demolish the church
sanctuary which is a historically designated building and to create a new building with a
rear wall that is at least 10.4 feet away from the front wall so strict compliance with the
dimensional requirements would require us to destroy a beautiful historically designated
building. It would also violate the terms of the condominium declaration, which specifically
outlines the precise boundaries of all of the structures on the lot. And it would violate the
historical code of the city to destroy a building for no legitimate reason. In terms of the minimum
variance, the elimination of any rear yard setback for this parcel would be basically
the variance that we have is the minimum variance because there is no way to provide any amount of
rear yard setback between parcel B and parcel A without destroying the sanctuary. I wanted to
parcel b and parcel a without destroying the sanctuary i wanted to um i wanted to at this
time ask kate sconer from philly office retail to testify to um one of the urgent needs for
this subdivision at this time um which which arose because of an issue dealing with pico
and electrical service so if kate could raise her hand i could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter. Hi, my name is Kate Schoener, K-A-T-E-S-C-H-O-E-N-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel. Sure. First, Kate, you've heard my testimony up till now. Do you
affirm that it's true and accurate and adopted as your own? Yes, I do. Great. Kate, can you talk
to the board about the issues that have arisen with PICO, with applying for enhanced electric
service to the new Lantern Theater Company? Sure. So in last summer 2021, we signed a lease
with the Lantern Theater Company. They're undergoing a full renovation to what we refer
to as the sanctuary portion of the building. And in their engineering and design, it was
concluded that they needed a larger electric service than what is currently provided for the
building. We immediately applied for a new PICO service last December of 2021. I immediately
received a notice back from PICO and we scheduled an appointment to view the building in January 2022
due to the multiple services that would need to come into the to the building. It was immediately
determined by both PECO and a representative from licenses and inspections that a separate address
would be needed in order for us to receive a second electric service from PECO.
And what this means is there is currently an upgraded electric service transformer
in the rear of the property for the condos only. PECO gave us two options. Either we
tap off of that existing electric transformer in the rear, which would mean that we would need
the approval from the condo association, and we would need to disrupt multiple condo units that
have already been finished and sold to new owners. So it would be nearly impossible for us to
use the existing transformer and bring in a new service to the sanctuary building in the front.
The alternative is that we would need to receive a second, sorry, a new address from the city of Philadelphia in order to receive a second electric service into the building.
I immediately reached out to OPA and there's no method of receiving a second address without fully subdividing the property.
And so that's why we've come before you today.
Thank you.
That's all we have unless we have an architect available if there are questions.
No, we're fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair.
sarah bond city planning commission s-a-r-a-h-b-a-n-h the proposed variance is minimal and does not
conflict with the purpose and the spirit of zoning code the philadelphia city planning commission
recommends that the zoning board grant the variance thank you hillary will hold the vote
for the tax clearance yes mr chair so uh mr masters uh we're closed and as soon as we get
the tax clearance, we'll get you back in here, okay? Okay, thank you so much. Thank you.
Number six, MI 2022-004-118-1101-53 Chessna Street. Stephanie Boggs is the attorney.
Recommendation of non-opposition from Washington Square West Civic Association.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Mark Squilla.
Mr. Chair, I have a hand raised from KHHB LLC.
I will allow them to speak at this time
so they can-
...by themselves.
Hi, could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Carl.
proceed
Proceed.
I'm sorry
I'm sorry, sir.
C. O'Neill
Stephanie's still on maternity leave
so we're filling in for her
also on the line
should be
could you do me a favor
just state your name again
Carl Primavera
B-E-R-A
and then also hopefully on the line
we will have Bill McDowell
and Charles Norman from
National Realty
uh hopefully i'm going to just be available to adopt my testimony all right and you also have
available i assume uh hugh lowry uh and uh we also have the assistant counsel uh sherry hanley from
tju so call call why don't why don't we why don't we swear you in first right yes you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client
and the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is 1101 Chestnut Street LP.
It's an affiliate of National Realty.
And they ultimately are also going to be
turning over the completed hospital building
to Thomas Jefferson University.
But as of right now, National Realty is the applicant.
So our vice chair has just a few questions.
hi do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh yes uh it is a referral for a special exception okay have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes to all eva okay great you may proceed and begin to share your screen um jason i just
wanted to know, this is Gussie O'Neill. I'm helping out with the exhibits, and I'm going to be doing
it from another computer. I'm going to identify myself. If you could allow that computer to be