Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning
Board of Adjustment. Before we get started, I'm going to ask Mr. Hand if we have any
continuances. I'm sorry, excuse me. Let me rephrase that. Before we begin our session,
I'm going to read off continuances that have already been requested.
Chair, can we wait maybe three minutes so everybody can get in the room?
Yeah, that's what I was getting ready to say. Thank you.
Thank you.
While we're waiting, Mr. Chairman,
I don't see Carol Tanari, is she not here today?
Oh, there she is. Never mind. Hi, Carol.
Ms. Tenere, you're on mute.
Is that Pauline talking?
Yeah, that is Pauline. Happy New Year.
Happy New Year.
Morning, everyone. Happy New Year.
Good morning.
Frank, I need another. Oh, can you hear me? I need another card table. This is getting really
confusing. I'm working off of card table also. I just don't have a deck of cards.
okay we should be ready thank you tanya okay good again good morning everyone my name is frank
di chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our vice chair miss carol tennieri board secretary confessor plaza and
board members mr thomas holloman and mr james snell our board administrator miss tanya suckon
and Mr. James Hand, Jason Hand, excuse me, and board member, board attorney Sharon Saleta
are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. Third, for anyone participating
by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then
star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you
wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to
unmute yourself. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat. To enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
And I'd also like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to our board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit, or Mr. Jason Hand.
With that, before we begin, I will read off a list of continuances that have already been requested.
When I complete reading the list, if anyone objects to those continuance, please raise your hand.
Frank, you muted yourself?
I can't hear you.
Sorry about that.
For anyone, I'm going to read off the continuance list that has been requested.
If anyone disagrees with the continuance after I've completed the list, please raise your hand.
Following cases have been requested to be continued. MI 2020-000922-1220
dash 000922 1220 walnut street number three on our list mi 2020 dash 005507 2102 south 64th street
Number four on our list, MI 2020-005610, 2063 East Dolphin Street.
Number five on our list, MI 2020-005508, 2432 South Franklin Street.
number six on our list mi 2020-003-603-2425-39 north american street
oh i think i got ahead of myself was that to be continued
um it is not on the continuance list it we don't have a record of exhibits okay that's why i
confuse it all right let me finish the continuance list and then we'll go back to that number nine on
our list mi 2020-000258 335 east price street
number 12 on our list mi 2020-001-839-5011 woodbine avenue
number 13 on our list mi 2020-001-837-5232 rodman street and just give me a
second um i'm sure i left something out but let me just get my schedule here
okay those are the continuances that i have if i missed any please let me know
um i think number 11 should be continued also but oh is that correct sharon
that is it has no exhibits okay so why don't we do this uh i just read off a list of requesting
continuances doing does anyone have any objection to those continuances please raise your hand
mr chair we have a we have vern anastasio whose hand is raised i will allow him to speak right
now sir good morning mr anastasio please identify yourself with a record good morning
mr chairman members of the board vern anastasio 1315 walnut suite 1006 philadelphia
19107.
Would you please spell your last name for this stenographer?
Yes, sir. It's A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned continuance on 1220 Walnut Street.
That case is being withdrawn.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
So MI 2020.
Excuse me. This is Sharon Saleta.
Mr. Anastasia, we generally wait until we receive a letter asking that it be withdrawn
so we have it in the file, but we did understand that this was going to be withdrawn.
Very well.
Thank you.
Also, I need to correct the record, Sharon.
Do I need to read that in?
You can just say that it's being continued and expected to be withdrawn.
I think you've already said it.
So noted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, 2212 Bryn Mawr Avenue should be on the list.
That should also...
For 930?
I don't see that on the 930 list.
Does anyone have that?
It's on the 330 list.
Oh, my apologies.
No worries.
No worries.
And then you had mentioned 2063 East Dolphin.
um we did not request number four number four yes number four should not have been read as
continued thank you so i'm ready to hear that today yes sorry about that it's my mistake that's
okay i got it thank you and that concludes my business for now thank you okay thank you we'll
get back to you um anyone else have any uh concerns about the continuance list
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have a
Justin Crick. I will allow him to speak right now.
Mr. Crick, please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N-K-R-I-K. Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 630-19102.
swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Thank you, sir. Please proceed. Yes. You had mentioned on the continuance list
MI2020-001962, the address of 2425-39 North American Street. The applicant did not request
the continuance. We would like to proceed in tandem with the application for 2401-11 North
American Street. And just wanted to note that there was no continuance on our end requested.
Mr. Crick, this is Sharon Saleta. Can you tell me, did you submit exhibits? I don't have any
record of having received them. Yes, I submitted them on January 1st, emailed to yourself as well
as to the RCOZBA email. And I can do that right now again, if you would like. Okay, thank you.
All right. So when we get to that, we'll hear that. That's number six on our list.
thank you thank you
any other objections or concerns about the
continuance list that i read into the record
mr chair i have mr alan knockinson i will allow him to speak right now
good morning thank you good morning mr knockinson please identify yourself with
the record i'll swear you in
Alan, you can unmute yourself.
Sorry, I've been talking this whole time.
Not really.
Can you hear me now?
All right.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
First of all, Happy New Year.
My name is, yes, thank you.
My name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
And I'm here to.
Alan, please spell your last name.
Yes, Nockamson.
N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Yes, I'm here to request a continuance for 2610 Edgemont Street, calendar number MI-2020-000461.
Number eight on our list, MI 2020-000461-2610 Edgemont Street is continued.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other, anyone else subject, any objections to continuances?
is anyone else would like to have a case continued or withdrawn please raise your hand at this time
mr chair i have a newest bomb whom i will allow to speak right now
thank you good morning sir please identify yourself with the records play your
last name and i'll swear you in uh yes sir my name is lewis bound b-a-u-m
for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do, sir. Mike, I have a question. I'm wondering if you could advise the person requesting the continuance for 5232-Rodman.
We what?
Excuse me. This is Sharon Saleta. The request was from Vern Anastasio. It's because he is
he's requested permission to submit an amended application to LNI.
Very good. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else have any requests for continuance or withdrawals? Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, I have Sloan Foulkes. He is pending out to speak right now, sir.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Foulkes. Happy New Year. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco. Happy New Year, members of the ZBA board.
My name is Sloan Foulkes, S-L-O-A-N-E-F, as in fire, O-L-K-F.
My name is Sloan Folks, S-L-O-A-N-E-F, as in fire, O-L-K-F.
Officer Councilman Maria Quinonez Sanchez, room 508 City Hall.
Mr. Folks, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
We are requesting a continuance for calendar, for meeting number, calendar number MI-2020-001841, 3469 Crystal Street.
They have yet to set a meeting with the coordinating RCO and are in the process of doing so.
This is Sharon Stolidide.
I believe that was read as continued.
Or if not, then we haven't received it.
I didn't read it in yet.
No, I didn't read it.
Oh, I'm sorry.
No problem.
it's that we have no exhibit okay all right thank you mr folks so mi 2020 that's zero zero one eight
four one three four six nine crystal crystal street c-y c-r-y-s-t-a-l street is continued
thank you sir thank you
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
No hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Before I begin, I believe we have a couple of add-ons, MI 2020-000037, 3114 Frankfurt
Avenue.
This is to correct the proviso.
My vote is yes with proviso. Revised plan, two pages approved today. Maximum three units.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. You just read the original proviso. The proviso now is maximum
five residential units. Sorry about that. That's okay. I'll read that in again. 3114
Frankfurt Avenue. Yes with proviso. Two pages approved today. Maximum five units.
No, excuse me. No, it's that we can't do revised plans because there were no plans originally submitted. So the only proviso is maximum five units.
Okay, I'm sorry. The way I was reading it, I saw provisions. All right. So 3114 Frankfurt Avenue, MI 2020-000037, maximum five units.
my vote is yes with proviso five units yes or proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso
okay uh we have another add-on uh mi 2020-002679
1100 Oak Lane and MI 2020-000737-1122 Oak Lane. My vote is no to reconsideration.
My vote is no to reconsideration. No to reconsideration. No to reconsideration.
before i get started get my card table straightened out here
um i guess that's it on my end did i leave anything out sharon jason or tanya
no i don't believe so so i think we'll begin with uh case number one number four on our list
correct or is it number one it's number one one number one on our list right calendar number
1843 12030 glenfield street um this is sharon slid i don't have a record of having received
exhibits and this is the first listing um remember i gave you guys that as a continuance
ah i'm sorry okay so was it read into the record tanya i don't know um i didn't hear it this
morning no i gave it to you at the executive session that they requested a continuance
All right. Let me read that in then. MMI 2020-001843. 12030 Glenfield Street is continued.
Calendar number 001864-2063 East Dauphin Street.
Vernon Anastasio is the attorney.
excuse me before you begin Mr. Anasaja my question I guess is for Tanya
on the continuance like the one we just read should we also be saying must be heard
uh should we also be saying must be heard yeah that would be wonderful thank you all right so
yeah that would be wonderful
12 let's see 12030 glenfield street is continued must be heard thank you
mr anastasia are you there yes okay i'm sorry this is sharon slutted um we have a letter of
non-opposition from Councilwoman Squilla on this case. Give him one second. I promoted him to
panelists. Hi, Mr. Anastasio. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name, please? Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006. And do you agree to
waived the no strike that do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i'm already under oath okay do you agree to waive the reading the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of
the refusal or referral photos and 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 everything thank you you may proceed
Thank you. 2063 East Dolphin. I'm going to share my screen. Everyone can see? Yes.
Awesome. Okay, this is a 2063 East Dolphin Street. It's the application for the legalization of
two-family dwelling with three accessory parking spaces on Arizona Street. As you're going to see
here, here's Dolphin, here's Arizona. The property goes from street to street.
None of this is being built. All of this is already in existence. As you can see,
You have a single-family home here on East Dolphin.
You've got a one-and-a-half-story structure here that is a garage with space above for a living space.
And you can take a look.
I'll zoom in a little bit here for you.
There's access to the rear house with a living room, dining room, kitchen, and two bedrooms.
And there's access to the front house with a breezeway leading into the shared courtyard.
This is the front of the house on East Dolphin.
This is Arizona Street.
The rear, already a legal curb cut.
As you can see here, that's the shared courtyard.
Go through. There's the garage. There's the separate electric meters already there.
Interior of the house itself.
we'll get you through all these photos pretty quickly.
give me one minute while I scroll
we met with the community organization here's the flyer here's a proof of mailing we did over 200
215 exactly pieces of mail went out we have a copy of the deed and we have our tax certification
We met with EKNA, overwhelming support,
22 to one opposed and one non-opposition.
Into exhibits, I would also like to submit
separate electric bills, water and sewer runoff bill,
separate electric accounts again.
It's also already the owner is paying
for the refuse collection fee that would only apply to multi-family dwellings they've been
paying that for quite some time and as a result we respectfully request relief in this regard
as this is just a legalization of existing uh conditions thank you do you have that i'd like to
have my client
Ms. Anne-Marie
Schultz be
recognized. Thank you. Good morning
Thank you. Good morning, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your name.
ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record
spell your name.
I'm not sure if she's been recognized yet.
Just an offer to speak, sir.
Ms. Schultz, you may unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
we're having some technical problems mr anastasio court will stipulate yes hi this is
ann marie schultz there you go can you hear me yes please identify yourself with the record
spell your last can you hear me i'm sorry i apologize no worries spell your last name
This is Anne-Marie Schultz, S-C-H-U-L-T-Z.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Absolutely, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Schultz, can you attest that you heard my presentation to the board this morning?
I did hear your presentation to the board.
Okay, and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
It is true and accurate.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
you very much that's all thank you any questions from the board no
no one else would anyone else like to testify in this case
including rco members or members members of any of the district council person
go ahead to this time mr chair thank you planning commission
good morning i'm paula brumbalo burns b-u-r-n-s with the city planning commission
good morning paula do you morning paula do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do thank you uh this property is indicated for residential use
on the comprehensive plan the garage that will host the three parking spaces is already existing
and looks to have been built as a garage many years ago accordingly we have no objection to
granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001864, 2063 East Dauphin Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. You too.
calendar number one nine six two twenty four twenty five dash thirty nine north american street
yes good morning justin crick good morning you've already been sworn in yes name and address
record please and by your last name yes justin crick k-r-i-k 1500 jfk boulevard suite six three
0, Philadelphia PA 19102.
Thank you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Members of the board, I would like to see if we can also hear calendar number MI2020-002138-2401-11
North American Street.
These are basically a joint application for the single owner and a single project.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon Saleta.
That's number seven on your list.
We have letters of non-opposition from Councilwoman Sanchez on both of these.
2425 American has two use refusals.
2401 American is a special exception only.
Thank you.
Could we hold one moment?
And Jason, can you promote Mr. Crick, the panelists?
please it has been done thank you okay and i will also read in calendar number 2138
2401-11 north american street mr crick have you emailed exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans of the property
five days in advance of the hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes, to all. I apologize that the materials were in a combined package if that caused
some confusion, but all the materials were submitted five days in advance and we do have
support from the RCO with letters.
Thank you.
This is Sharon Saleta again. Mr. Crickick, if you could just in the future submit any
exhibit packets to my email address as listed in the instructions. This went to...
this went to um okay i apologize it was the auto populate i guess but i will do that
Thank you.
I apologize.
it was the
thank you thank you thank you members of the board i'm going to share my screen at the moment
let me get that document up
okay all right so this application is twofold there are two properties next to each other
or separated by a property in the middle, all owned by American Supply Company.
And the first, just to give you guys an example of the geographical layout,
2425-39 is right here, and 2401-11 is at the other end cap of the block.
And American Supply Company owns the property in the middle as well.
So American Supply Company is a warehouse company,
and they are seeking to put an additional warehouse structure on 2425-39 and parking on
2401-11. The refusals received for 2401-11 is that there was non-accessory parking because that
parcel does not contain a building on its own. So it was seen as a non-accessory parking which
is prohibited in the area in this district. As for 2425-39, this property generated refusal
because it did not contain enough parking or any accessory parking, and it did not have the
minimum number of loading spaces. However, as you'll see momentarily, the layout of the property
and its combined use as a whole, although the owners do not intend to consolidate the lots,
does contain loading spaces and when used together the parking will be for the entire use of the
parcel. So I'm going to just show a couple of geographical photos. This is where the parking
will go and the structure will be built on this side for use as the warehouse structure and that
is from the one street frontage at the American side street frontage and the rear view of the
same layout of the properties. Here is a blueprint of the property and I'll zoom in a little bit
showing what they intend to do and the number of parking spaces over here would accommodate
for use by the facility and account for those minimum spaces and we also have additional
loading area here on this side that will account for the loading spaces required.
this is an elevation of what will look like the new structure will look like on the property
obviously there's nothing for the 2411 because that is just parking but some a little bit better
of a ground view we've spoken with this is 2411 North American Street and we've spoken with
the neighborhood one of their concerns was this beautiful mural considering that this
parcel is going to be used for parking only nothing is set to obstruct or block this mural
and on the other side we just have vacant land at this point with a quite amount of overgrowth that
will be taken away but the the parcel has has nothing on it that would obstruct or cause the
neighborhood any concern the zoning posters were placed uh on on multiple frontages you can see
one in the background here we had the uh we had the owner put them on all three frontages
These are also end caps of the block.
Our meeting on November 11th with the RCO went very well, and we received support, basically unanimous support.
There wasn't a ton of people involved, but there was one opposition we did not hear as to why.
But letters of support, as for this, this is for 2411 North American Street.
And our additional letter of support for 2425 North American Street is also attached.
we have the support. I've also attached the first page of each of the deeds to the properties and
you know just as an exemplar to keep to save a little bit of space but the public record
information is here and this company has been at this site since 2002 approximately. They've
been in business since 1997. We see this as a the best use for the property here and
And our hardship in this instance is that this would not have generated either the referral for 24-01 or the refusal for 24-25 if the applicant had the intent of consolidating the properties.
So we have the tax clearance for 24-01 as well as the tax clearance for 24-25.
And that's basically what the intent is for the project.
and we would like support to allow the refusal to be granted and the referral as well.
uh and the referral as well thank you do you have a client i do i have a pat mancini
Thank you. Do you have a client?
if you want to raise your hand pat
I'm trusting of Mr. Mancini to speak, sir.
Hello, can you hear me?
Good morning, Mr. Mancini.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your last name, and then I'll switch.
Good morning.
Patrick Mancini, M-A-N-C-I-N-I, 2411 North American Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19133.
Mr. Mancini, thank you.
I'm sorry, I muted myself by accident.
Mr. Mancini, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. Crick.
Thank you.
Mr. Mancini, you've heard my testimony today before the board, correct?
Correct.
And do you accept my statements to the board as true and correct as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Members of the board, that concludes Mr. Mancini's testimony.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else who would like to testify in this matter, please raise your hand, including
members of the RCO and or members of the district council person.
I'll answer this time Mr. Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Paula Brumbelow-Burns with the City Planning Commission. We have no objection to the warehouse
and parking lot at this location. Thank you very much.
Excuse me this is Sharon's letter. We have letters non-opposition from Councilwoman Sanchez on both
this. Thank you. MI 2020-001962 2425-39 North American Street and MI 2020-002138-2401-11
North American Street. My vote is yes to both. My vote is yes to both. Yes to both. Yes to both.
yes to both thank you members of the board and have a happy new year thank you likewise
calendar number 0968 4240 north broad street suite 2
did we skip a case did we do number eight i believe number eight was one of the two we
just read in right no i'm sorry edgemon i had we had that in as a continuance that's continued
no that wasn't this is alan knockamson if you read on your list the
i read it off i did read it off as a continuance earlier
could you call and ask if mr knockamson is here please sure i'm available
for 2610 edgemont street i thought he asked for it no um i could be wrong on that then
yeah he's not here he's not available yeah i think he asked for that if i'm not mistaken
well look we'll keep it in as a continuance if it's a mistake he'll come back and we can
we'll hear it all right but if he's not on i have to assume that it's continuing yes he may
have requested it it wasn't on the list that i had i think it was a good request earlier yep thank
you so we're back to calendar number 0968 4240 north broad street suite 2 yes and on this one i
have no record of having received exhibits is there anyone here for 42 40 north broad
i believe this was also a continuous has it already been continued i gave you this this
morning i believe uh yes you did all right has it has it already been continued
i didn't hear it earlier no i'm asking was has this already been continued oh this is the second
one is i don't i believe this is the first listing listing yeah okay so mi 2020-000968
4-2-4-0 North Broad Street Suite No. 2 is continued.
4240 north broad street suite number two is continued
And would that be a must be heard?
Yes, must be heard.
Thank you.
And calendar number 1873-614 South 7th Street.
We have a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla on this case.
Mr. Daniel McElhatton has his hand raised. I will promote him to randomness right now.
Good morning, Mr. McElhatton. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your name.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
My name is Daniel McElhatton, D-A-N-I-E-L, McElhatton, M-C, capital E-L-H-A-T-O-N.
Thank you.
You swear, swear, as a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Sorry, Carol.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter i have submitted all the
required documentation the rco letter i believe was sent on the 28th it is not part of our packet
but i believe it has been received it's a letter of support from the rco thank you you may proceed
May I share my screen, sir?
Give me just a moment.
Mr. Chair and members of the panel, this is a follow-up application to an application that
was approved by the board on July the 10th, 2019. The property is the Good King Tavern at 7th and
Cater, right below south. And you approved an expansion last July. And this application is a
follow-up on that because when we went to do the construction, it was determined that a stairway
that was proposed could not fit where it was designated to be. And we had to bump out about
four feet to the edge of the property. And that's why it required an additional 80 square feet
to be able to conform with the proposals and what was originally approved.
So that, you know, our request now, which we made to the RCO,
was to just really give us the ability to complete what you had approved in July.
And I can show you what the...
dan this is uh this is the old chick's bar right seventh right on the corner
oh yes sir you're more familiar with that area than i am yeah i know i had a few there
if you ask me about some other places i might be able to okay uh but there wasn't there something
if i recall at the original hearing that was the second floor there was an extension or something
with that it was approved it was approved right now it was approved and this second floor is now
instead of a little bump out in the back it's going to be flush right right okay access okay
so and and frankly that's all that we're asking for is that 80 square feet and um you know we
met with the rco got a letter of support there was no opposition there were no concerns by the
community. And I believe it's a rather simplified application. All the documentation has been
provided. I would request that Bernard Brighi be acknowledged so he can confirm my representations
to the board. Okay, please. Sir, please identify yourself for the record once you're promoted.
An individual will please raise his hand so he may be promoted.
Not any hands, Jason?
No, I see no hands raised, sir.
Okay, why don't we do this?
Dan, as an officer of the court, we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony.
yes sir wait a minute i see i see a hand raised it just went up
An alarm to speak right now, Bernard Grigri.
i don't allow him to speak right now bernard
Mr. Grigri, you may unmute and wait to be sworn in, sir.
Just did. Sorry about that.
No problem. Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself, first and last name.
Bernard Grigri, G-R-I-G-R-I, 12 Lenape Trail, Winona, New Jersey, 08090.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
I swear. Mr. McIntyre. Yes, sir. Well, Mr. Grigey, you've heard my summary of the
request of the zoning board for the additional 80 square feet in order to be able to complete the
project. Do you agree with my representation and adopt it as your own? I agree. Thank you.
Any questions from the board? No. No. No. Would anyone else like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand, including members of the RCO and a member of the District Council Office.
I'll hand at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Planning Commission.
I'll have Grumbelow Burns with the City Planning Commission. We have no objection to this
application. Thank you very much. MI 2020-001873, 614 South 7th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you and good luck. Mr. Chairman,
that completes my business. May I be excused, sir? Yes, you may. Thank you. Happy New Year.
Thank you to you too, all of you. Calendar number 1871883 Belmont Avenue.
I think the attorney is Leo Mulvihill.
Mulvihill has been promoted to panelists, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Mulvihill, will you please state your name and address for the record and spell your last name?
Yes, Leo Mulvihill.
M-U-L-V-I-H-I-L-L
Address is 2424 East York Street, Suite 111, Philadelphia 19125
Do you swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I always do.
I know. Do you agree to wade the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, but we do have revised plans that were submitted to Ms. Zuletta
along with a provisor sheet, and I can go over that, I guess, first
so we all know kind of what we're looking at here.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance? And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? And do you have a problem at this time with this case for us to hear it?
There's no problems. No. Everything got sent in and we met with the RCO and they're in support.
Okay. So you're going to move forward with this case?
So, good morning, members of the board.
Leo Mulvihill for Belmont Avenue Development, LLC.
My client would usually be with me today, but they are still out for the holiday, taking some well-deserved time off.
So, I have up on the screen the zoning information packet.
What I'm going to do first, though, is go to my proviso plan sheet so everyone can see.
Hopefully, this works right.
There we go.
So, essentially what we're doing is proposing the erection of a new building at 883 Belmont. There's nothing there at the moment. We've made a couple changes to the original plans that were submitted, which included a little bit less open area, which is still by right.
We got rid of some parapets and reduced everything to match the adjacent structures.
Entry level and front steps of the property were lowered to match the existing adjacent structure.
We got rid of the balcony.
And then that's really it.
We just kind of worked with the neighborhood to try to give them what they wanted.
So let's go back to resuming this page.
All right.
So back to my packet.
Refusal appeal project information form at page one.
Area zoning maps at page seven.
Deed is at eight.
Commercial activity license, I don't have it for my client, but we have a tax clearance.
If the board chooses not to vote, I'll give it to you later.
And if you want to hold it, we have the zoning, pardon me, the tax clearance at 14.
Zoning notification letter and mailings are at 15.
Letter support is at 18.
Vote is at 20.
And I have revised plans as described in the previously described proviso sheet at page 46.
I just I'm sorry I can hear somebody talking I'm not sure whether that's you guys or just
i just i'm sorry i can hear somebody talking i'm not sure whether that's you guys or
some there's background noise if someone would please mute yourself that would be helpful thank
you so there we go get through all that so members of the board I'm showing you now page
seven of my packet this is the property uh it's basically at the intersection of Belmont and
Lancaster there's some intact uh properties to the lower part of the block then there's a big
hole in the middle of the block right across the street. It looks like it was a used parking,
pardon me, used car lot or a garage of some sort. It's all zoned CMX2. It doesn't really make any
sense to be zoned to CMX2 because everything on this block is residential. There's no commercial.
My client's D. I'll just get to the good stuff. Letter of support, bam. So overall we had
16 attendees at the community meeting and it was supported by west belmont civic per this letter
dated december 11th 2020 found at page 19 of my packet and that kind of explains exactly what we
did out of 16 people at the meeting one was an affected neighbor they voted in favor six other
people also voted in favor just to give some context this is page 20 of my packet showing the
posted zoning signs backing up and looking at the existing properties on belmont now we're just
going to pull 360 now looking southbound in belmont towards lancaster avenue now across the street
where that's now at page 28 that's where that i maybe it was a cheesesteak place i don't know
a used car lot or something like that along the way and you can see the adjacent properties
members of the board where we're trying to do this infill it's all residential with porches
There's no commercial.
It doesn't make sense to be zone commercial.
Here's a shot from right across the street.
And then just giving you a better idea of the other adjacent properties.
So zone commercial doesn't make any sense.
We're asking for multiple units.
The neighbors have no objection.
I'm pulling up right now if my computer pays attention to me.
There we go.
Page 46 of my zoning packet.
So this is what we're proposing.
it's a little bit more modern the neighbors were receptive to that actually because we kind of
discussed we really couldn't match the older style of the homes we did not originally have a porch
like this it was just kind of open we incorporated trash storage if you look to the bottom left hand
photograph we incorporated covered trash storage for the units so that neighbors won't have to
worry about any trash and so that the tenants have some place to put it what i have here members of
board taking a look is so you have three units unit a is about 1500 square feet basement and
ground floor basements just for storage or whatever else they want to do with it and there's a
utilities down there for all the units as well ground store you come in you have living room
dining kitchen bathroom one bathroom two nice little light well allowing for the compressors
for air conditioning, and a rear yard. It's all by right, at least with respect to the dimensions.
If you go up those stairs, oh, lose my page. If you go up those stairs, we're talking about the
section that's now in like a light blue slash lavender. Come on in. You enter this unit in the
kitchen. It's about 800 square feet for the unit 750. So you got kitchen, bathroom, bedroom in the
front bedroom in the back and same thing for now the third unit it's uh highlighted in green
basically exactly the same as the unit below it the neighbors at the meeting were receptive to
the pricing for new construction uh while it was a little bit more than median rents now in the
neighborhood they understood that because this is newer construction rents are just going to be a
little bit higher. So the hardship in this case, members of the board, is simple. This is a
residential block. There's no commercial on this side of the street on this block. It doesn't make
any sense to require commercial on a residential block, especially when doing this sort of infill.
So that's the hardship my client faces. With that, I submit it to the board, and I'm happy to take
any questions you may have at this time. Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. I checked the tax
balance it's tax compliance so there is no need to hold it for that yes and just uh mr letta just
for boom because the board sees this i pulled this uh the other day this is our tax clearance
of page 14 of the packet is 224. okay uh how many pages
you have revised plan yeah the revised plans um hold on for one second chair
I believe for the purposes of zoning Z1, we only need one page.
I believe it's for purposes of zoning Z1.
We only need one page.
For the Z1, we only need one page.
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board?
Would anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand, including members of the RCO
and members of the district council office.
Mr. Chair, I have Mr. Andrew Goodman, whom I will allow to speak at this time.
Good morning, Mr. Goodman.
Please identify yourself for the record, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning.
Andrew Goodman, Office of Third District Council Member Jamie Gaudier.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Goodman, please proceed.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the council member. The council member has no
opposition to this variance application as long as the proviso be included to reflect
the updated plans. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify?
no further hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
this is paula brumblow burns with the city planning commission this property is indicated
for residential use on the comprehensive plan we have no objection to the revised plan
Thank you. MI 2020-001871. 883 Belmont Avenue. My vote is yes with the proviso. Revised plan.
One page approved today. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso. Thank you. I believe that concludes the 930 session. Sure does. That's it.
Thank you, members of the board. I hope everyone had a happy new year. I thought 2021 was supposed to be better. Dr. Dre had an aneurysm. My favorite metal guitarist just died at 40 years old. This is not a good start to this year so far.
But Ossoff won.
Ossoff won.
my name is Frank DiCicco I'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair who will be a few minutes
late Ms. Carol Tenere our board secretary confessor plaza and board members Mr. Thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell board administrators Ms. Tanya Sunkett and Jason Hand and our board
attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance for those of you who haven't yet participated in
one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. Third, for anyone participating by
phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to
unmute yourself. I'll repeat for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. To enter an appearance statement
Call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat any comments should
be directed to the board administrators thank you uh before i call the we call the first list
i'm going to read out those cases that there has been a request for continuance
so bear with me folks
MI number five on our list, MI 2020-002477, 1624 North 26th Street.
And hold on, I think there's one more.
hold on I think there's one more
and also no that's it that's the only as of the now that is the only
case that has been requested to be continued if anyone objects to that continuance please raise
your hand at this time
no hands at this time Mr. Chair thank you is there anyone else at this time who would
like to request a continuance or withdrawal if so please raise your hand
Mr. Chair, Mr. Alan Nockamson has raised his hand. I will allow him to speak right now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Nockamson. I believe you're still under oath from this morning. Please
identify yourself for the record. Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. Alan Nockamson of
Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
I am asking for a continuance on matters relating to 726, 728, 730, and 732 North Shedwick.
There are numbers 11 through 14.
Yeah, I know.
I'm looking for number 14 on my list.
I don't know what I did at that point.
It's the one that we added this afternoon.
Yeah, I don't know. It's the one with the letter from, what, say something.
I can give you the MI.
Yeah, give me the MI number.
Is that the 2660?
Yes. MI 2020-002606-726 Shedwick Street.
Oh, 06. Okay, I had it backwards. Okay. All right, Mr. Notkinson.
Calendar numbers MI 2020-002557, 728 North Shedwick.
Calendar number 0020, excuse me, calendar number MI 2020-002606, 726 North Shedwick.
Calendar number MI 2020-002611.
732 North Sedgwick
what did I do at number 14?
I'm not having a good day here.
I apologize.
I think you read that first.
I did. You're right.
I did read it first.
So those four cases,
thank you, Sharon,
will be continued.
Thank you.
Anyone else requesting a continuance
or withdrawal?
Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Andrew Goodman has his hand raised. I won't want him to speak right now.
Mr. Goodman, you are unmuted.
Thank you. Mr. Goodman, you're still under oath from earlier today. Please identify yourself
for the record.
Yes, Andrew Goodman, spelled G-O-O-D-M-A-N, Office of Third District Council Member Jamie
Gaudier.
Please proceed.
uh we have received some communication from the um from the applicant for the um address
1322 south 53rd street that that would be continued as well i just wanted to check on that
yes that is being continued yes great thank you thank you that's all for us thank you
anyone else have any questions or would like to request a continuance or withdrawal please raise
your hand. No further hands at this time Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. I'll read this in
Confessor. MI 2020-002499 1222 Annan Street. Excuse me Chair, just a reminder that there
is also the add-on for Kinsey Street that is just a delay vote.
Yeah, you did me that one too.
I'm about to get on.
Hold on.
What did I do with that paper?
Sharon I know you gave it to me I wrote it I can read that in if you'd like yeah please do I don't
Sharon I know you gave
know I juggled some papers around that's fine it's calendar number 38981 1827 Kinsey this is
a delay list case the hearing was held on um on February 12th and photos were that you were
waiting for were submitted so it only needs to be voted okay so what is that number again
it is calendar 38981 1827 Kinsey Street thank you calendar number 38981 1827 Kinsey Street
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you sorry for the confusion
All right, we're ready to go with 1222 Annan Street.
Is that correct, Sharon?
That's right, yes.
It's Ellen Nalkinson.
All right, Ellen, again, you're under oath from earlier today.
Please proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. My name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson
PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19109.
Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to wave and step?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof
of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans
of the property five days in advance of the hearing yes i have and have you met with the rco
yes i have okay uh may i share my screen please do
I'm here today to present 1222-24 and in street.
And in front of you is the rendering of what we hope the property will look like if the
zoning board approves our zoning variance.
As you can see from the brick facade, the building in the middle, this is Ralph D. Mico and Brothers
building. It's a pre-existing two-story building with a garage that's been in existence for some
time. And with it, I'm providing you an exhibit packet which includes eight exhibits. The first
This exhibits the deed to the property, which shows that Philadelphia Motoring Club LLC
is the owner of this property at 1222-24 and in Street.
After that is the Certificate of Tax Compliance, which shows that they are in good standing
with the City of Philadelphia.
After that is the Notice of Refusal.
This is an RSA-5 property, although if you look at the history of this property, its
It's history has never been single use.
And if you look at the configuration of what the property looks like, it speaks nothing
like single family use.
And it's 1222-24 Annan Street, so it's been two properties at one point as well.
What we're proposing to do is to repurpose this property by having three dwelling units in the property, having a total of six parking spots by repurposing the garage that's on the first floor, and to add a third story responsibly by having it set back in many different ways.
So our refusals are this. First of all, the open area. We're required to have a 25%
open area. We have a 0%. Now, I will say that the first two floors have 0%
open area. We're asking for the third floor to add an addition. But the reason why it's a
technicality in terms of the code, we do have a significant amount of open area. It's that our
decks our rear deck and our side decks are not considered as part of the open area but you'll
see from the structure that if you do not count the decks as part of the calculation you would
have enough open area the second part of it is the rear yard depth same thing ninth feet of rear
depth is required zero is proposed again the current pre-existing building has full lot coverage
and all we're doing is proposing to add a third story.
And all we're doing is proposing to add a third story.
And if you discounted the fact that our rear yard on the third floor and the rear deck and the side deck were not counted or would be counted, we would have significant rear yard setback.
And then in terms of the height, we're required to have a maximum of 38 feet.
we're proposing to have 40 feet eight and a half inches and you'll see from the roof line
that we have of the pre-existing structure and we'll have the architect discuss this
we have no we have no ability to like have anything less than what we're proposing essentially
and we actually even reduced it after talking to the neighborhood group just because the roof line
so high given the physical structure of the building as well the beams that go across the
metal beams it would be almost impossible to reduce this any further and under the circumstances
comparing what's allowed by right comparing to what we're proposing there is no impact or greater
impact than to the neighboring properties and we have a sun study in that respect. I did provide
Ms. Saleta earlier today revised plans so should the board approve this zoning matter there are
revised plans and as part of this application here's our application for appeal to the zoning
board of adjustment and here is a map showing where we are as you can see this is a rather
large property again it's 1222-24 annon street you'll see where we are in the neighborhood as
well. We're between Federal and Ellsworth and 12th and 13th streets. And then you'll see photographs
of the property. So this is what the property looks like today. It's a historically significant
property in South Philly in terms of its history and the way it looks. And it's not enough character
for the block of the way it looks. You'll see there's other structures on that block on Annan
Street that even though this is an RSA 5 block are different and unique in nature and we wanted
to preserve the history of this property and repurpose it. You'll also notice across the
street the fact that there's off-street parking on both sides but on this side there's off-street
parking and that the properties are set back. The reason why I mention that is from like again a
light and air perspective for the surrounding properties and we'll talk about the properties
to the left and right of us and behind us as well so you'll see again that this is a very unique
looking block even though it's rsa5 most of the properties do have garages off street parking
there's no on street parking on this block so you know but we're repurposing a garage anyway
but again this is a very unique block you'll see that there's multi-family in the in the area just
as an example 1216 and in street 1229 federal 1235 federal and then here's our our zoning posters
for the you know to show proof of posting for this hearing and then i'll skip over the architectural
plans and drawings because we'll have john weckerley of boxwood architecture is going to go
specifically through that to guide the board as part of this process i'm just going to skip over
that but you'll see these rental properties are that for sale there we believe that they're going
to be condo uh this is going to be condoed the owner is tim burling the owner of the properties
on here as well he actually plans to live in the biggest unit i just was curious that's
yeah obviously very familiar with the property um excuse me this is sharon saleta we have a
letter of opposition from Councilman Squilla that references a letter in opposition from the
Passions Square Civic Association. Yes and that's what I want to get to and then I'll have the
you know the architect kind of walk us through from a technical standpoint in terms of the refusals
and why it's no greater impact than what would be allowed as a right. So then the biggest thing that
they were upset about was the height of the property and the architect will you know John
will talk about that. But just because of the current configuration of the property,
the only way to conform as a code is to basically knock down the building. And it would be a real
shame to knock down that building, because as of right, we would have two single-family structures
with no parking, while we're proposing to have three condominium units with six parking spots.
So that means each of the unit owners would get two parking spots. And you'll see from the floor
plans as well, it's very comfortable. We're not trying to add so many, you know, units and we're
not trying to add so many bedrooms. And the property owner actually plans to live in one of
them. But one of the issues was like, what, you know, what effect would it have on?
But one of the issues was like, what, you know, what effect would it have on the light and air of the neighboring property owners?
And, you know, I take fault for this, that we didn't have a shadow study because that was one of the things they were demanding.
And in this letter, they actually stated that they're like, well, you know, we believe that this is going to cause undue hardship or harm to the light and air of the surrounding neighbors.
So after that, after our community meeting, we actually conducted a shadow study.
And, you know, John Newecker-Lee of Boxwood Architects is going to show you that in actuality, what we're proposing is in a lot of respects better than what would be allowed as of right.
Let me interrupt you for a minute. I think I heard you say earlier that the proposal is 40 feet, 8 inches.
That's right.
2 feet, 8 inches over what is a by right, correct?
That's right, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, the issue is, and John will mention it, is just the fact we can't lower the building.
And we can't reconfigure the height of the floors given that there are steel beams going across.
It would be almost practically impossible to do that.
And you'll see from our revised plans, we actually lowered the height of that third floor as reasonably possible.
So that one portion of it is 39 feet, and another portion is 40 feet, 4 inches.
So we even lowered it even more.
But he'll go through that.
But again, the biggest thing was, what would be the impact in the neighboring properties from a shadow effect?
There would be none.
Some of the comments at the community meeting was this, build as a right.
And we stated, well, if we build as a right, we can put two single-family homes really big, which may not be practical.
But then we wouldn't have parking for these individuals.
Here we have a sufficient amount of parking of six parking spots for three properties.
And I can see the flip side of it.
If I was going to propose hypothetically to ask for a variance to destroy a historically significant property in South Philly and try to put some new construction, I would have been killed at the community meeting.
here we're trying to repurpose something where it has off street parking and a significant amount
of it for only three units so that's that's where the group came out in terms of that so
I'm going to like leave it now to John Weckerle who's on the call so John can you virtually raise
your hand is the intention of the owner to leave ralph de amico and brothers up the signage up
there um i would defer i i'm not going to answer it doesn't matter to me i just was curious i mean
it looks like at least from the rendering
probably yes
but I would ask
the owner
it's not a big deal I just was curious
Mr. Chair
Mr. Albert Alburgo
good afternoon sir
please identify yourself with a net record
name and address by your last name
Mr. Alburgo you may unmute
can you hear me now sir yes okay my name is andrew albergo i am the next door neighbor to
the property i live at 1226 annon street your last name please a l b e r g o um mr firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do sir you're not the architect are you no he's
that's what i was going to say if we can make our presentation and then we can have any comment from
the community yeah mr alberger you have to just wait and give us a few minutes we have to get the
i understand the architect on we'll get back to you thank you thank you just for a refresher who
is the architect again mask john weckerly all right excuse me mr reckonly has been allowed to
speak, Mr. Weckin-Lee. Can you guys hear me now? Yes, please identify yourself.
John Weckin-Lee, Lockswood Architects, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1614, Philadelphia, PA.
By your last name, please. I'm sorry, Chair, W-E-C-K-E-R-L-Y.
We're and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes. Please proceed. Thank you for everybody's time today. Alan, if you wouldn't mind,
just scrolling as we talk through the images we'll be able to present here.
I think as Alan described, here we're looking at the site plan as you can see in the upper
left the property is 34 feet wide on the width, the length of the building is
On the width, the length of the building is 108 foot two on the east side and 91 foot on the west side with a stagger in the back, you know, based on the dimensions that are shown.
The rest of this drawing goes over the requirements that Alan described in the refusal.
We include a building section, which we have a more explanatory section, which we'll share
in a moment. First floor, second floor, third floor, elevation that you saw on the rendering.
Go ahead, proceed, Alan. What is the current height of that building?
I'm sorry, the current height is 29 foot seven. Thank you.
So here you can see on the ground floor, just based on the parking analysis, we're proposing
to reuse the existing garage door that is there.
It's got an existing 15-foot width door there now.
We're showing the kind of configuration for six parking spaces that nestle between the
existing columns that provide the structural framing for the left side right side of the
of the property it was discussed that kind of in between those double banks of of of parking we
would have an opportunity to provide storage for the for the units above above the parking you can
see the stair the lobby and the stair that would access the residential units above which is similar
Similar to where the existing stair is for the access to the second floor now, adjacent
to the stair on the right is where we're proposing our internal trash storage and utility area.
Additional trash storage as needed would be within the building in that ground floor common
area between the garage door and the first parking space.
Moving to the second floor, you can see as you arrive at the top of the steps entrance
into the first unit, which, as Alan said, the intent is Tim Barling, who is the owner of the
property, is also on the call. This will be his primary residence. You can see living space on
the ground floor. And then I'll get to the third floor in a moment. And then below Tim's unit would
be two rental condo units with access, as Alan is pointing there and there, with internal stairs
at each unit to get to the third floor. Moving to the left image, you can see there that
upon access to the third floor at Tim's unit, it's a large one bedroom with a roof deck
north of the proposed facade wall. We're proposing an 11 foot six deep deck that would be set back
five feet off of the existing exterior storefront wall as the code requirement would require.
And then in the back, you can see the additional two units were proposing a one-bedroom and a
two-bedroom based on the layout shown. Both of those units, as Alan said, would have their rear
rear wall, the existing, the proposed rear wall would be north of the existing building wall and
offer more of a setback than the minimum nine foot requirement. I believe that based on the
rear decks, our total open area proposed for this third floor is 35% as opposed to the required 25
on the, on the, on the, on the standard delivery. So Alan, go ahead, proceed. Okay.
So, so, and I don't know, Alan, if you can zoom in any further on this, on this image.
Oh, hold on a second. Sorry. Try it. Hold on a second. Let me, actually, let me unshare my screen
and then kind of, then actually, hold on a second. It probably would be best for you to, I might
be harder at uh i don't have this on my computer so it'd be better if you can continue moving if
you don't mind no i'm just going to say i'm going to share it a different way so then you can
see it a different way and we can expand out
let's see okay
oops maybe that's too big
Okay. Is that better?
Yeah, that works. So we spent a lot of time, you know, based on the development of the design and then subsequent to working with the RCO to kind of understand the physical footprint that we're proposing here as part of this.
as you can see in section, the ground floor has a ceiling height of approximately 14 feet
and the second floor has a ceiling height of approximately 13 foot 7.
And the second floor has a ceiling height of approximately 13 foot 7.
All of that is framed in by a series of steel columns with a beam that runs north-south through the middle of the building.
And in that context, reconfiguring the floor-to-floor heights to work with the allowable 38 foot would, for all intents and purposes, mean removing everything except the walls to bring that down.
So our initial pass was to kind of propose a design that was consistent with the ceiling heights that are present in the building now, and that's what we ultimately presented to the RCO, and the feedback from that was that the ceiling heights seemed, the building, the proposal for the third floor and the building overall building height seemed larger than it needed to be or should be.
So subsequent to the meeting, we spent a lot of time working on how to address the scale of the addition and the impact of the addition, both from a physical presence as well as the SUN study, as Alan mentioned earlier.
So what this section represents is that the red indicates the allowable, what would be the allowable 38-foot height of the building, and then the add at the back wall there, what we're showing, what would be allowed as a 42-inch parapet, you know, at the perimeter of that, would yield a 41-foot-six overall height to the top of the parapet.
So what we ended up doing then was use that as our datum to say that our proposed roofline would be the top of what would be the allowable top of parapet with the pitch headed downward and within that slope to achieve a slope that would allow the water to shed within the property and out of the building.
So another point of note is if you if you notice there at Allen, I don't know if you can see the sink there in the in the to the to the right of the master bedroom in Tim's unit.
You can see the dimension. If you just go to the left a little bit there, keep your right a little bit further.
there's a dimension there of seven foot two that would be the ceiling height based on a 38 foot
height you know for the building at a 38 foot based on these very high ceilings that exist on
the first and the second floor so I just just wanted to point that out and another thing to
note is you can see here the sight line is such that you know based on the existing top of parapet
and the proposed setbacks of the of the addition there there really is no impact from the street
level in terms of visibility um or very minimal you can you can see and we'll show you renderings
perspective views down the street line uh that for the most part the building is set back far
enough that it it doesn't impose on the uh fenestration of the of annon street uh you know
in a proper form. So with that, Alan, I don't know if you want to continue through the package and
and we can share. So here you can see these are our rendering showing the proposed
project. You can see the upper right image, you know, there you go. And Tim did respond to me
via text, we are proposed, the proposal is to keep that sign, yes, on the storefront. Our goal was to
bring that storefront back to as close to a previous era as possible. The windows now
were infilled to an extent to create smaller windows. Our proposal here is to make those
windows go back to the width of what you can see in the original masonry as the original
width of the building. You know for the most part there's an existing hoist beam there we're
proposing to leave that as part of the character of the original building. A Juliet balcony proposed
just to kind of have an opportunity to let some light in there you know if Tim is able to open
those doors to just provide access there. You can see as Alan's moving to the rear we're proposing
the rear decks for those two residential units and then and then perspective view from the kind of
northeast looking at Tim's roof deck and then the view on the lower left is a view from the
utmost western edge of Annan Street and you can see a very small amount of the proposed
proposed facade wall of the addition there at the setback, which would be 11 foot 6 for the
facade wall of the addition there at the setback which would be
deck and then 5 feet, so 16 foot 6 back from the existing facade of the building.
And here are just some interior renderings we just wanted to share. You can see the
existing steel columns and beams and what's shown as white is drywall would be the existing
joist above there. The lower right image is a stair up to the third floor,
and then the upper left image is the view from the master bedroom towards the northeast.
And these images are images of the two apartments. You can see lower right is apartment two living
space and upper right is apartment three living space. View three on the upper left is the bedrooms.
Okay, so then here, as Alan mentioned, we did not have these sun studies as part of the RCO meeting.
We worked very hard to kind of understand what impact the sun study, the sun and the shadow,
the proposed addition would have on the adjacent properties. And I believe Tim worked to communicate
with the neighbors as such. What we're, shall we have, we can go through this at length or I can
give an overview and we can speak specific as needed. What we did is create the sun study for
spring, summer, fall, and winter at March 19th, 2021, which is just after the vernal equinox,
I believe, is March 14th. So the time slated would be the actual times as of March 19th. And you can
see on the upper row is the existing building and the existing shadows as they would go from 9.30
a.m. hourly over to 2.30 p.m. The lower images then show a combination of both the existing
line, as you can see, the cyan or blue line that transfers down from the upper image.
That is the line of the existing shadow. And then we, and Alan, if you don't mind,
can you please zoom in on the 930 or anyone? So scroll down, yes.
So here what you can see is what we're proposing there is if we, there's two points of note to
mention here. The green line represents what would be a, if we were to tear down the building and
build a residential unit at 38 foot with a 42 inch parapet. The green line represents where the
shadow line would fall based on that proposed structure if it were to be built. The hatched
lines that are dotted in perimeter there, there, there, and there are the impact of the addition
as it relates to what we presented in this section.
Point of note, just to note, Alan, if you can just scroll up just to that.
No, no, I'm sorry.
On that, your hand, the middle rectangle there,
if you could just hover over that middle rectangle,
to the right of those shadows between the blue line and the wall
that's immediately to the right of your hand
represents the shadow of the existing deck
that is on top of the property that is there.
You know, in talking with the property owner to the west, who I believe I heard is on the call, that those rectangles that represent themselves just above Alan's hand there, there's one, two, three, and then one to the left of that.
Yep, those are our five existing skylights that are on the existing roof.
So as you can see from 9.30 moving across, you know, our understanding based on this is that the proposed addition somewhere between 11 and 11.15 a.m. would then take the addition out of shadow.
And you can kind of see that as you move from 1130 to 1230, you can see that the green line, again, representing what would be the allowable shadow versus the hatched line goes from on top of the skylight to at 1230 being all of that being completely outside of the line of the skylight.
And we can go through each season as needed or open for discussion or questions as you see fit.
open for discussion or questions as you see fit.
Here's the chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Can you hear us, Mr. Chairman?
Frank?
So, Frank, you might have to go out.
I think he's indicating it.
He's sick.
You can continue.
Would you like us to go through each season with the shadow study?
No, that's not necessary.
Okay, so again, what we tried to do was to have a thoughtful and creative project, repurposing
a historically significant building, reusing and repurposing.
Counselor, is it clear that you're only going two feet eight inches over the allowable
height?
Well, now it's 40, like the average now, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, John, the average on the one building is 40 feet, four inches, and the other one is 39 feet. Is that correct?
That's correct. That presents itself in the section, yes.
I'm back. Can you hear me now?
Yes, sir.
Yeah, excuse me one minute, Tom.
Alan, I didn't get the beginning of that last question that the architect answered.
What was that about heights?
Yeah, I'll go back to that, Mr. Chair.
Hold on a second.
I just want to reduce the size of this so it's more manageable for me to move through.
So as part of our proviso revised plans, we actually reduced the height even further to account for making as limited of an impact to neighboring properties.
So, you know, our revised plans were now the highest point on here, correct me if I'm wrong, John, is 40 feet, four inches, while here it's 39 feet.
Yeah, no, Alan, the correct response there, the midpoint of that northernmost addition is at 40 feet, four inches.
The utmost highest point is at 41 foot six, which would, in essence, equal the allowable 38 foot plus a 42 inch parapet.
So that was our logic or kind of thought process was to let that datum of what an allowable building height as of right would top out at as our dictate our height, which both accommodates a comfortable third floor for us while also being within the guidelines of what a single family dwelling would ultimately obtain.
I think Mr. Holloman had a question.
Yeah, they answered my question, Frank. It's very good. It's only two feet, a few inches
out of what is allowable. So I would think that would be okay.
Okay, thank you. Alan?
Yeah, I'll hold off for now. My understanding is that the next door neighbor is on the line.
Yeah. So I think it was Mr. Alberta.
yes sir yeah mr albergo i believe you were sworn in so please proceed
sure uh thank you very much uh my name is andrew albergo and i live next door to the applicant
the applicant's request for height and density uh simply put are to recoup uh cost of his
investment to redesign the property. The property is a single-family home, and you could argue that
it is really two lots. So best case scenario should be two units, not three. The need for the
three is to spread the cost of the redesign over three properties rather than two. If he stopped
to two, he would not need the third floor. The 3,000 square feet on the second floor more than
is enough space for one very nice single-family home or two very spacious apartments or condos,
whoever he wishes to develop the property. This property is located on a dead-end one-way street.
That makes it very difficult, as it is now, to move people in and out of the street. And as
the attorney has mentioned we already have several other multi-units on the block so this isn't like
this block hates apartments we just recently approved 1235 federal which added an additional
eight apartments onto annon street as well as we have several duplexes and i believe uh there's a
as well as we have several duplexes and i believe uh there's another large building that i'm sure
the councilman's aware of that i believe was owned by mr donatucci that has several units in there
all of this additional construction and additional density makes it harder and harder for us to live
in a reasonable way when they filed the paperwork for this property they said there would be a
minimum impact on density which isn't accurate they said there'll be minimal impact on the sun
in shade because the other properties were set back on annon street this isn't correct luckily
they did finally come around to doing the shadow study which we appreciate the main thing they did
is they are diminishing and discounting the fact that my house has five to excuse me seven
skylights those skylights light the interior of the home as the home is designed with that
additional shade even if it's 10 minutes it's 10 minutes a day i understand the architect could
argue well you know 10 minutes is the great is the longest on that one day but every day there's
an additional shadow on my house if you're putting up a building and an addition of 11 feet there is
no way you can tell me that that does not impact the comfort level in my home additionally after
speaking to my architect i was advised that this additional um 11 feet and when i say 11 feet that
his current roof is at 29 feet and he's gone to 41 feet so that's an additional 11 feet you put an
11 feet wall and it may vary at certain levels it increases the rain and the snow that is coming
down on my roof it acts as a wall it prevents the flow of the rain and the snow so it puts
additional strain and weathering on my property so i'm going to object mr chair um in terms of
any expert testimony that's being professed sustained sustained i i i all right i i missed
alberg is it albergo or berga albergo it's andrew albergo from annon street sir yeah i know we're
in the street i just yeah i want to make sure i get the last name right uh let me let me ask
you a question um you know like if that hypothetically they tear the building down
and they put up two single families yes single family would be adjacent to your property and by
right they can go up to 38 feet correct yes sir yeah would not would not that have the same
impact on your property as it would be if they go up to 41 feet i i don't i don't know
where the you eliminate that issue that that i'm not dismissing your concern but the issue of
that you have regarding the height and the shadows i don't know how if you get 38 feet
it's going to make it any less of a problem for you.
Problem is probably not the right word to use.
No, I understand your point, sir.
And if you went to 38 feet, then it's still less than 41.
And where he goes to 41 and 6, it is an additional height above.
So every inch matters.
And I understand Mr. Holland had said that it doesn't sound like that big of a deal.
but that's thought of in a isolation if every day this shadow is there then yeah there's a problem
and if every day with the weather increase that's a problem so when you add the additional height
my argument simply is this is that the density does not need to be an issue if he stuck to two
or even one and if he stuck to two or one he wouldn't even need to do the third floor
So when he's asking for a variance, it undermines the idea that this is a house that he wants to live in for the long term.
It's more like an investment.
If it's more like an investment, it's not the responsibility of the community around him to save him money or to make it better.
When you walk in and you ask for a variance, those steel beams were not hidden from him or his advisors at the time of purchase.
It's not like they were in the wall and he could not see that.
so for those various reasons you had the during a pandemic you had the entire community come out
and vote 13 to 1 against the property then you had the entire zoning board committee
passion square civic board vote against it excuse me i believe it was one vote for yeah it was eight
to one yeah so what you see here your honor and the board is that the community sees this as
not support the idea. From the community themselves, the near neighbors, every single
near neighbor on each side of this building is against it. And many of them are already on this
phone call. You were given a, I believe you were given a signatures of all the people on the block
saying, when I say the people on the block, I'm not talking like five, six houses away. I'm talking
right next door mr albergo yes sir the way it works uh you can't speak on behalf of other folks
you can only speak um as it relates to you the other folks will have an opportunity to be heard
as it relates to you the other folks will have an opportunity to be heard
okay i understand that i just want to go back to what i said if
if the owner decided that this isn't going to work or the board voted against it he builds two
single family 38 story a single family homes with a garage uh because i don't see how the board would
deny this property they garage when you have and i'm very familiar with that block by the way
you probably would line up with a one-car garage for each unit yeah now you're getting three units
but you're getting six off-street parking spaces which is especially back there I mean I know that
block there's no on-street parking even though people do park on the sidewalk and that's okay
because everybody gets along but I just don't see I don't know I don't see the problem alternative
being that much different than what is being proposed,
I guess is what I'm saying.
Yeah, the idea would be that what he is proposing
isn't necessary, and I kind of feel like
the decision's already made, so I'll be quiet.
Don't think that way.
That's why we're asking questions.
I'm thinking, you know, again,
I am very, very, very familiar with this block.
I mean, I'm going to raise it.
Being that you are familiar with the block, sir,
then you know the density is already a problem.
And the people all over the place. Additionally, when he's putting forth, they vacillate between making apartments and condos. Those parking spaces, unless they're deeded to the condos, are not necessarily for them. If you read the paperwork that was submitted, he says the garage is for personal use.
and when usually but i need to interrupt you for it is certainly the parking spaces
are certainly an amenity for any tenant that wants to either buy or rent if he decides not
to sell them and use them as rentals which is going to take cars off the street that's
unusual for yes but this if you notice the name of the owner of this property is a is a car club
and i i heard that i was curious right and the fact of the matter is is unless these prop these
spaces are deeded to the condos the owner is as i said because it's listed as personal garage
he may use it as a personal garage or have anybody rent those spaces not necessarily the tenants
i'm going to object to that actually he can do whatever he wants with that well mr chair i would
object to that because that would be non-accessory use if we rented it to anyone else but to the
people well but that's that alan filled the respect that's going to be hard to police
no i i hear you legally yes you're right but how do you enforce that i i don't know no i hear you
but uh yeah i do you have anything to say alan because i'm going to go to the next no i i so
i think the base level is two units we're asking for an additional unit and we're providing six
parking spots and i think that deals with the density let me ask you a question it may have
been addressed you know i lost contact with you guys for a while the third floor addition at its
highest point is 41 feet six inches what what does that mean as far as the the ceiling height
on the interior of that section i will leave that to uh mr weckerley that section uh yeah i'm going
to go back to that section mr chair let me just uh i apologize let me just get into
architectural drawings what is the lowest point of the ceiling height in the addition
i believe it's i believe sir it's it's eight foot eight foot six i believe in the at the lowest
point that's the lowest point at in the within the uh northern unit you can see the dimension
there in the cloud uh and the highest point at its peak at 10 foot six and and again the logic
So what we did there was we based it on a 38-foot allowable plus a 42-inch parapet and set that as our height.
And then we pitched the roofs, which in essence make less of a shadow than a 42-inch parapet wrapping all the way around the building.
Understood. I appreciate that. Thank you.
All right. Alan, do you have anybody else before I get – okay.
No, Mr. Chair.
Would anyone else like to testify in this case?
if so please raise your hand including members of the RCO and anybody who's here on behalf of
Councilman Squilla's office please raise your hand and we would ask that if you testify you
give us something new and different that would be helpful. Mr. Chair I have a Michael Henry I will
allow him to talk right now. Thank you Mr. Henry please identify yourself with a record name and
address. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Awesome. My name is Michael Henry. My address is 1227 Federal Street.
Awesome. My name is Michael Henry. My address is 1227 Federal Street. I am the property directly south to the property that we're discussing today.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you one of the newer homes that have just been built?
Yes, I am.
Yeah, there's two new homes there, correct?
Yes, on the other side of this property.
All right. You're one of the homeowners. Okay, on Federal Street.
All right, please proceed.
Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate some of the points that Andrew brought up.
I know that he was speaking on behalf of, you know, some of the neighbors, but a lot
of what he said does resonate with me, and we've been in contact with each other.
I don't have to reiterate it.
You did just say that you want us to bring up new points, but I find it very suspicious
and interesting that the idea of preserving a building that has many parking spots
is bought by, you know, an LLC that is a motoring club.
I just, I'm not, that doesn't rest easy with me.
I hear what you're saying.
I guess it does send off some alarms, but it could be antique motors, cars that are stored.
I don't know what the motoring club, what kind of business they're in.
I don't know if it's a business.
Is it a collector?
No, he – yeah, Mr. Chair, and the owner is on the line, and he can speak for himself.
But he just likes antique cars, and he named the company because he thought it was an interesting name.
It's not a company that, like, is a profit-making company about cars.
He just – yeah.
All right.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Henry, I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to interrupt you.
I'm just trying to get that issue raised alarms with me as well.
So I just want to let you know that.
That is all right.
I am not in favor of these plans.
I want to make that clear.
And I just wanted to reiterate the points that Andrew had already brought up.
I don't need to go through them again.
We already talked about them.
But I think he presents very valid concerns that haven't been properly addressed.
I appreciate that.
But again, as I said, if they went to 38 feet, which is a buy right, whatever potential negative impact that may impact your property is really not going to go away because at its lowest point, I think, towards the...
Understood.
A unique thing about our property that doesn't necessarily apply to Andrew's property is the fact that we share a back wall with this property.
And if we're trying to restore and maintain this building, I have concerns about how that aspect of it will be restored and maintained.
A lot of focus of this document is on the front of the building and not necessarily the back of the building.
So there are also other concerns about, you know, construction, falling debris, things like that.
if we're extending the height of the building
that could fall into our back patio area on our property.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Something new and different, please?
Chair, we have Wesley Palmer.
Sorry?
Wesley Palmer.
I'm sorry, Jason.
Hi, how are you?
Hi. Please identify yourself. Name and address. Spell your name for the record, please.
My name is Wesley Palmer. My address is 1225 Federal Street.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you the next-door neighbor to the gentleman who just was on?
You're one of the new homes, correct?
Correct.
All right. Thank you. Please proceed.
First, I'd like to say thank you for the committee for taking the time today.
I'd like to start this off by saying, you know, I, you know, we are new homes on the street and we recognize the development to South Philadelphia is key to a thriving city.
However, when I look at this plan and I look at the surrounding area, this does not make sense for our neighborhood.
That's one. I think, too, there's been this has been iterated numerous times that if this this this this current plan is the only option.
and if this option it does not go two giant townhomes will go in with garages that's simply
not the case you know if if two new plans go go before this board there can be an approval for
garages or not garages if the home is torn down so i you know i think that there this has been
pushed several times where this is the best and only option for this property i just don't think
the only option for this property and i just don't think that is the case for the surrounding
that is the case for the surrounding neighborhood um you know
neighborhood um you know and i think lastly i stressed to the committee and i um you know a
couple weeks ago into the zba we need to think about the density issue in this neighborhood
right this is a small street um and when you look at annon it's it's tiny and we're going to have
two additional condos plus timothy's condos condo and who knows how much parking on the
committee meeting three weeks ago timothy said oh i may rent those spots well he then backtracked
during that call too so you know i i just i think that this from a overarching perspective that this
plan for this home in this neighborhood is half baked and does not take into account
our the surrounding neighborhood thank you so sir before you leave what what would be your
something that would be uh acceptable to you you know in my opinion i don't think we need
three two-bedroom condos in this neighborhood. I think one or two-bedroom family townhouses
we perfectly find that aren't looking to push above the existing foot requirement. I think
Timothy and his lawyers have expressed numerous times that the structural integrity of this
building does not make it feasible to do anything else. Well, I've seen multiple other
multiple businesses, construction companies in the area maintain facade, maintain interior walls
by taking down steel beams you know that's an excuse you know and i think um there's options
to maintain the facade of this beautiful building as the lawyer has indicated without having to
you know encroach upon um you know 1227's backyard encroach upon the the uh the foot requirement um
the total the total uh foot requirement um above 40 feet so i just think there's other options we
can put two new townhomes in there that holds um will be two families we don't need to put in
you know, three condos and eight additional parking spaces on a small street like Annan.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this matter, please raise your hand.
And please, if you could, I mean, this with all due respect, if you give us something new and
different, that would be helpful. We do have a long list to get through on the two o'clock
hearings. We have a Mr. Tim Barling, sir, who hasn't been allowed to speak. I will allow him
to do so right now. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record name
and address. Spell your name for this time. Hello, this is Tim Barling. I'm the owner of 1222N.
Last name is spelled B-A-R-L-I-N-G. Do you need any additional info, Mr. Chairman?
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you for your time. I just wanted to address some of the points that came up.
First of all, Wesley, nice to hear from you. I've spoken, obviously, with your neighbors,
but not with you directly. Just to briefly touch on what you just mentioned, you mentioned eight
parking spots. That's not what I'm proposing. We have six. You mentioned multiple multi-bedroom
units. That's not what I'm proposing. We have two one bedrooms and a four bedroom. And in terms of
density, I understand your arguments and I've had the conversation with other people on the block.
My feeling is that I'm looking to put four total bedrooms across a nearly 3,500 square foot lot.
And I have to believe that putting two single-family homes side-by-side traditionally would have likely double that, four bedrooms each, maybe three bedrooms each.
But if we're speaking in terms of bedrooms and parking spaces, I think my plan has a lower density.
You speak to, you don't know what the alternative is, but I mean, just to kind of remove any doubt that was cast there, that is the alternative.
There's not multiple alternatives.
I would like to save this property. I'd like to build this apartment that you see labeled as
apartment number one for my personal place to live for many years to come. And the alternative is
turning it over to a developer, which I am not by any means. I've never developed anything in
Philadelphia. This is a project for my personal home. And I've spoken with them, and what we
propose as the alternative is exactly what I have every reason to believe is the other alternative.
um finally just to speak to the name of the uh the llc that's that's owned that it's owned under
um sorry i might have misspoke there i'm thinking back there's a a single bedroom a single bedroom
and a two bedroom so four total bedrooms across three units uh just to be clear anyway uh to
speak to the name of the llc that i posted under i'm sure a lot of you are familiar with you know
the advantages to purchasing a property of this nature, especially one that I'm not currently in,
under an LLC, insurance. The prior tenant that owned this building since 2004 was a gentleman
named Mr. Connors, and he's a Philadelphia owner, frankly. If you've eaten in a restaurant in
Philadelphia, I guarantee you've eaten in one that he designed and did the sign for. The first floor
The first floor used to be his personal shop to restore old Volkswagen vans, and he called it the Philadelphia Van Club.
used to be his personal shop to restore old Volkswagen vans.
It's very hard to choose an LLC name.
Most of them are taken.
I chose Philadelphia Motoring Club as an ode to the prior use of the building in his honor as the previous curator of the building.
It doesn't have any implication that I plan to do anything other than store my personal vehicles there.
Yes, the garage is part of the reason I love the building, because it allows me two spaces, which so few properties do, but I hope to sell the neighboring units to people who appreciate that extra parking as well.
So I'd be happy to answer any additional questions, but I hope that helps clarify some of the questions, and thank you for your time.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify?
there is no one else mr chair okay thank you any questions from the board no no
planning commission good afternoon david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
we're going to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do
thank you please proceed thank you sir mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated
for residential single-family use in the comprehensive plan we agree that asking the
applicant to demolish the entire existing building just to build by right would be a hardship
while we do not object to the additional height we believe that three units on such a small street
with no backyard space is not a healthy condition for the occupants of the building
accordingly we recommend against granting these variances thank you uh mr knockinson
question about trash where would trash be stored yes and maybe you were disconnected at that point
we actually have a trash room on the first floor okay i figured yeah i just wanted to
And the other thing, Mr. Chair, to highlight is, and I don't know if you're on, each of the units have significant outdoor space.
So there is outdoor space, and that's kind of where our open space is.
They have significant decks.
I know about the decks.
I wasn't sure about the trash.
Okay, thank you.
Look, I'd like to do this.
I'd like to have the record closed and the board will render a decision at next Wednesday's executive session.
all right thank you thank you thank you everyone for participating
mi 2020-001867 1221-25 north fourth street
that's me mr chair oh here we go
um this one will be a lot easier in less pain yeah i see your name on here okay
may i share my screen yes and you're still under oath and do you agree to wave and step
i do mr chair and uh have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents including proof
of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral and photos or and or plans of
the property five days in advance of this hearing i have and have you met with the rco i have
I'm here to present 1221-25 North 4th Street.
We're also repurposing a very beautiful building.
It's a former firehouse in the old Kensington area of Philadelphia, just off of Gerard Avenue.
And with it, it's a table of contents which include eight exhibits.
The first is the correspondence from the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.
So my clients are looking to purchase the property from the city, Engine House 29 LLC,
and they have the authority to seek zoning approval regarding this process, this project.
And again, the RDA has reviewed this project already. And I'm glad to say that the councilman,
District Councilman Daryl Clark. He was actually the coordinating RCO for this these purposes
given the impact it had on the community and we do have a letter of support from the councilman
after a community meeting in which we received unanimous support for this project.
You'll see that there are no taxes due on the property. You'll see the notice of refusal.
So this is an RM1 property. And what we're proposing to do is have 29 dwelling units,
So this is an RM1 property and what we're proposing to do is
off-street parking, as well as bicycle parking. And originally when we proposed this project,
the understanding would be that this was going to be a CMX 2.5 project. Zoning approval has taken,
or reclassification has taken a little longer than thought. So we want to push this forward
by presenting this by way of a variance. So the refusals that we have, we're requesting 29 units,
which is a tad more than allowed by RM1. The roof deck access structure setback,
we're requesting no setback, but that's an architectural element, as I'll show.
The open area proposed is 3% while 25% is required, but similar to the other project I
I presented last time. It's really a misnomer in the sense of that the open area is like the decks.
And here we have a lot of green roof space here. So if you counted the fact of the open area in
terms of the roof decks or the rear decks or the side decks, we would have a decent amount of open
area for this project. The height of the project, again, is 38 feet allowed by right of RM1. We're
asking for 55 feet, which is not out of character for the surrounding area, and we'll show you that.
And then the parking spaces. We're providing parking. The drive aisle, we're requesting to have
a little bit less than what is allowed by code, but which is not uncommon, and it's responsible
on those circumstances. Similar to the other project, I have a revised proviso plan form I
provided to Ms. Saleta prior to the hearing. So if this board would grant the variance,
we would ask by way of a proviso with two pages for this project, Z1.0 and Z1.1.
So then you'll see the application for appeal for this project that we filed with the zoning board.
And then you'll see the zoning map of where we are. It's a property that goes street to street
on North 4th Street in Oriana. And here is Girard, which is a commercial corridor, which has public
transport near here and underneath the L. And we're also between Thompson Street. As you see,
in terms of the height, we're not going to have as much of an effect in terms of height because
you can see there's a lot of open area in terms of there's a senior citizens facility with parking
that sets back the building so we're not taking anyone's light and air away.
You'll see from the google map where we are commercial corridor which is always good to
have increased density to support that commercial corridor and then you'll see photographs of the
property this is the current condition of the property right now from fourth street from
oriana and as you can see there is parking already back there on oriana they're you know repurposing
uh the curb cut uh you'll see the project our property uh a view on north 4th street to the
left of the property to the right of the property on north oriana from the left of the property and
the right of the property this is the property next door to us uh that has a peak of 53 feet high
so again we're not out of character for what is on north 4th street uh and then there's similar
developments and projects in the area, 1200 block of Germantown, 1250 North 3rd Street is the senior
citizen facility, 1427 Germantown Avenue. Those are the type of projects that are around there.
And in terms of the architectural drawings, again, we want to repurpose this, really beautify and
put something nice in the neighborhood in this respect. You'll see that, again,
And one of the owners of the entity that is looking to purchase property is James Moransky of E-Built,
which focuses on creating green roofs for not only his projects, but other developers in the city.
So he's very into having sustainable projects like this.
And you can see that we're trying to emulate on the Oriana Street side,
the historical nature of the uh north fourth street side and again you'll see that this tower
is that that's one that's not set back but we're trying to do that in terms of having it as uh an
architectural feature and i can go through the floor plans if you want i think you could summarize
that would be yes yeah so i'll just show the last one this is a letter of support from councilman
Clark. My clients are very excited to do this project. The community is very excited and the
district councilman is in full support of this project and you'll see the latter. I have Mr.
is in full support of this project and you'll see the latter. I have Mr. Tubbs,
Jeffrey Tubbs on the line. Jeff, can you virtually raise your hand?
So Tubbs has been allowed to speak. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself
for the record spell your name uh jeffrey tubbs j-e-f-f-r-e-y t-u-b-b-s where and firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth i do thank you alan yes uh jeff you heard everything
i stated today yes correct and is it true and correct yes and do you adopt it as your own
testimony yes sir okay thank you questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to
testify in this case please raise your hand including members of the rco and district council
offices all the hands mr chair thank you planning commission good afternoon david effecto city
planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for
residential multi-family use in the city's comprehensive plan this former city firehouse
is listed on the philadelphia register the redevelopment authority let out a request
for proposals and received several bids the proposal in front of you today is the winning bid
planning staff took this item to the planning commission who recommended approval of this
building's disposition to enable construction of the current proposal therefore we support granting
these variances thank you mi2020-001867 1221-25 north fourth street my vote is yes with the
proviso revised plan two pages approved today yes for proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso
thank you mi 2020-002478 127 mckean street
Mr. Chair, I have a Scott Good. I will promote him to panelists right now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Good. Please identify yourself for the records by your last name.
Hello, Mr. Goode. You may unmute and please wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, as well as the other board members and participants here today.
Your last name spelled?
G-O-O-D.
Thank you. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You agree to waive and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you mailed an exhibit packet with the required documents including proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or and or referral and photos and or plans of
the property five days in advance of this hearing i have and have you met with the rco i have thank
you sir please proceed excuse me before you start chair can i tell you that we this morning received
a letter in non-opposition from Councilman Squilla. Thank you. Mr. Goode, please proceed.
Okay. Good afternoon. I'm representing Patrick McGuggan, who is the owner of 127 McKean Street,
and we are here for a variance with respect to the open air requirements. Mr. McGuggan would
like to add a one-story addition in the approximate square footage of, well, approximately 80 square
feet. The current open-air requirement for this property, which is an RSA 5, is 240 square feet,
and with the addition, it would take that down to approximately 16.67 percent.
um so the and i'm sorry here if you don't mind if i can share my screen
please do thank you all right so
so if i apologize if it becomes a little difficult to read so the 80 square foot
addition is to expand out the area in the breezeway of the rear of the house. So if
you can see this diagram or trolling. I can show you if it's, sorry.
I can show you if it's sorry it would be in this area here it's only we're only talking the
the first one story edition and this is to expand out a kitchen property we did provide a copy of
the denial letter as well as the deed showing that Mr. McGugan is the property owner he purchased
of property in 2013 and is looking to make this property more conducive to his future living
arrangements. They're simply looking to expand out their kitchen slightly and expand out into
the breezeway. So we don't believe that this, we don't believe that the proposed modification,
well, the proposed modification is the least possible modification since we are only dealing
with the breezeway. The front portion of the property is not going to change. We don't believe
that this is going to affect congestion in the area at all because we're not looking to add any
additional occupants of the property. It's still going to remain a single-family home.
It's not going to affect the light for the neighbors or anything else with respect to
neighbors. There's no windows on the neighboring property that would abut up to this property.
uh the addition area and um and we are simply looking to take this area back to the rear edge
of the property so we're not taking away any further portion of the rear yard um
and sorry so if we can take a look at some of the over i provided two photographs um
And I just wanted to show that this is consistent with the other areas of the property here.
So this property here is 127 McKean Street, and this is the area, the breezeway, that they would be looking to expand out into.
The neighboring property goes from boundary to boundary at the same area.
We would not be abutting a second floor.
the by leaving the second floor open we are maintaining a means of egress through a bathroom
window on the second floor we're happy to answer any questions oh and as I mentioned so the
neighboring property immediately neighboring property is it goes from wall to wall as well
as this property here and the end property here and I believe this property as well
so we're trying to maintain the consistency of with the neighborhood without overburdening
neighborhood and we did also provide some renditions of what they would like to do with
the the area and that's simply to expand out their kitchen slightly we got it is Mr. McGuggan
available do you have him he is online yes yeah if you can ask him to raise his hand please Mr.
Mr. McGuggan, please raise your hand. We'll recognize you.
Is it Guggan or Guggan?
Mr. McGuggan.
Guggan.
Mr. McGuggan has been allowed to speak, sir.
Thank you. Mr. McGuggan, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself with the records by your last name.
Hi, this is Patrick McGuggan, M-C-G-U-G-A-N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Good.
um mr good yes sir yeah you want to ask your client if he adopts your testimony
oh yes mr murgoogan um you've heard all the uh my statements today with respect to the property
do you have anything else that you want to um add to what i've stated to the board or
any additional comments or if not then i just ask if you would advise the board whether you
accept my
adopt my testimony as yours.
Yes, I adopt
your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case,
including members of the NARCO
and our Councilman Squillers office?
no further hands mr chair thank you uh planning commission good afternoon david fecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board this property is indicated for residential
single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan we have no objection to granting this variance
Thank you, MI2020-002478.
Thank you. MI 2020-002478, 127 McKean Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you. MI 2020-001230, 1407-09 West Grange Avenue.
Thank you.
Chair, there is in the email that I sent this afternoon, there is a lengthy letter from the RCO.
Very lengthy.
I also have Ms. Rachel Pritzker whose hand is all raised if she wishes to present.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Pritzker. Please identify yourself for the record and I'll
swear you in. Good afternoon, Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street,
Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy?
No. So we've actually revised the plans to eliminate the refusal for the units. So it'll
be 47 units. And we've also, the other refusal should be eliminated as well. There is enough
rear yard space. We're only here for height at this point. We did present this case earlier to
the board and then had continued it for to make some revisions and to work in conjunction with
1419 which uh mr knockamson uh presented i believe maybe two weeks ago um so i i assume
the board will be familiar once i bring it up but we're really only here for the height refusal
met with the rco i don't need to go through that correct
so um jason do you see ray rolla um the architect as well
if he could be promoted i'm going to go through the refusal and the plans uh lightly and then
let him jump in as well. Rachel while you're doing that you're going from 63 units? To 47.
To 47. Yeah the property is zoned CMX two and a half or two so the amount of units is permitted
by right. We spoke with the community and the planning commission and that was a suggestion
that was made by both those groups so we were able to reduce take an entire floor off
So to just have a height refusal, given we're working within sort of rehabbing this existing structure and just putting on one floor instead of the two we had originally proposed.
Two hands raised. One is ACCA, another is Charles Richardson, and the third is Ray Rolla.
ray roll is the architect charles is from the council with this and accas rco
all right so let's begin rachel and uh give us an overview of the changing are we beginning with
mr rogan yes please um so as the board can see um we're looking at 1407-09 west green street
it is this center completely 100% lock coverage existing structure it is in the middle of the
block so sort of unique in its location and size again it's an existing structure that we're
looking to rehab the building has all concrete on the sides so we are adding an additional floor in
order to have some windows and some habitable space in which we will be providing 47 units,
which is permitted by Wright and CMX2, in addition to small commercial space. And again,
the other reduction we made was for parking spaces. CMX2 does not require any off-street
parking spaces for multifamily. However, given there's already been parking provided in the
building and given the additional density, we believed it was important to provide parking.
I'm going to have Ray, our architect, present the revised plans, which the board should
have in addition to Sharon as well. And then I'm happy to sort of go through the back and
uh sharon as well um and then i'm happy to sort of go through the back and forth of the community
someone has their radio on um or television would you please mute it
thank you was ray promoted to panelists i'm just not able to see it yes he was
okay thank you please identify yourself with a record first and last name spell your name for
the record please raymond rola r-o-l-a 1704 walnut street philadelphia pa i'm sorry 1518 walnut
street that was my old address old address okay you're swearing in front of him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed rachel um ray are you
able to share your screen and provide the plans and kind of go through the revisions that we made
and sort of the reason that we um are only left with the height refusal i can try i have i have
things on on my screen um okay if you have difficulty i can share my screen and you can
narrate whatever is easier i think that's your screen right now so maybe we'll go through that
first try it with your screen basically what's existing give me one second because i want to
get the plans loaded so that the board can can see it didn't have them up
just download them so that it can be clearer
okay go ahead
one second okay basically the what's existing on the site
now is a concrete structure two stories that basically is a parking garage on three levels
the two interior levels, and then a roof level. So it's very durable structure, very heavy-duty
structure, concrete structure. And initially, the idea was going to be just to put units into the
what was the existing parking garage. However, because there is basically no yard space,
we can't really have windows. So what we came up with was to build on top of the parking garage,
a structural engineer did evaluate the structure in terms of its ability to carry the weight of
additional structure and we set the building back on two sides on the north side and the south side
we set the building back by 17 feet in order to be able to create windows and to recess the building
back from the property line and to utilize the two existing concrete floors that are designed
as parking utilize them as parking for the development the initial plans had four stories
of residential which were reduced to three stories and we've also proposing to utilize the
remaining roof deck that was used for parking as balconies for the units on the third level
I'm sorry, on the first level of residential.
So approximately a third of the units will have outdoor space in the way of balconies
that would be on what is now the roof of the parking structure.
So this is the updated one.
There you go.
So you can see the balconies which exist on the north side and on the south side.
Do you want to go down, Rachel, to kind of see the aerial view?
Or do you want to ask me some questions at this point?
Yeah, I just wanted us to go through kind of the changes that were made.
Again, you mentioned sort of the uniqueness of building on top of the existing parking
deck and sort of we had originally tried to do this by right.
and at least have reduced the number of units to the 47, which is the buy right number,
which again was a suggestion from the community and the planning commission. I think that was
their main concern. And sort of the height is as a result of sort of building on top this
existing structure and sort of we have this unique middle of the block sort of property. So
we believe that sort of just this addition, the reduction in units and the addition of
the addition of parking and sort of the rehabilitation of this structure will help to
parking and sort of the rehabilitation of this
provide more affordable housing for the area and sort of provide a landlocked piece to bring back
to life. So that's sort of the long and short of it. I know that there's some comments from the
community. What I would just kind of point out is we, this community group was ACCA and they
they let us know that they did not want to do a zoom and instead kind of wanted to go back and
forth through this platform in which they sent us a list of questions and we responded and we kind
of made those revisions as we mentioned we sort of answered the questions in addition to continuing
the hearing so we could work with Mr. Nockamson and his client who got approval from the zoning
board two weeks ago for 1419, which is the directly adjacent vacant property next door.
So I think a lot of the concerns that we're still hearing, I believe we have addressed or have
addressed the best of our ability. Again, we're dealing with sort of an existing structure and
just looking for a slight height variance in order to accommodate, you know, building on an existing
structure. So I don't really have much else. I think the board gets the gist and happy to answer
any questions that you may have. And thank you, Ray. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you
both. Any questions from the board at this time? No. No. No. Anyone else would like to testify in
this case? Please raise your hand, including RCOs and any member of a council person staff.
Mr. Chair, I have ACCA with their hand raised. I want them to speak right now.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself with a record name and address.
My name is Sandra Baradis. I'm representing a concerned community association. We are the RCO
located at 5801 Ogons Avenue in Philadelphia, 19141.
And would you please spell your last name?
Last name is Baradis, B-R-O-A-D-U-S.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I'd first like to ask, I am working on a phone, and I have one of the community members
with our presentation, if she would be allowed to share her screen as well. I have to work from
her screen. I can't do it from here. Okay. I haven't seen any presentation. I just received
the sort of the back and forth letter from you. Sandra, would you be able to provide that to us
as well? I'm just not sure what you're presenting. I'm just presenting pictures of the property so
that we can discuss what our concerns are. Okay. Okay. Yep. The first, her name is
Oh, she signed into CL Morton, if she can be allowed to share her screen.
And I also request that if this presentation goes into discussion, that I'll be allowed
to remain one line to be a participant in the discussion.
Yes, you will.
Okay, I appreciate it and I thank you.
um just let me know when she's uh she's uh able to share her screen
is she just sharing a screen or is she verbally testifying
um mr chairman because my uh letter and and testimony um should cover all the bases i've
asked all the community members to simply um allow our testimony so i'll be the only one
speaking that is a favor that I've done for you but I would like to be heard in entirety if you
if you will okay because there are many people that would like to speak um but I think that I
you know can address it all um we appreciate that thank you okay should um should she uh should I
go ahead while she's getting her screen up I don't know how this works yeah well before you begin
And I'm going through this material letter that was submitted to us, and it has numerous provisos, other issues that are of concern to the community.
Is there still opposition?
Because I'm kind of confused.
Yeah, and that is their support with the provisos there is absolutely no support the provisos in no way address the community concerns. We have never discussed this with Rachel beyond the Q&A on paper that was submitted and answered at a very late date so we've been scrambling to stay on top of this appeal and this is the first time that the community
Or is there support with the provisos?
has actually had a voice in this, and this goes back since like September, October of last year.
This case has been before you several times, but this is the first time that the community can
speak and share with you why we're so concerned, because I know you are aware that we are very
concerned about what is happening in the 1400 of Grange Avenue. Tina, if you are able to share
your screen? Is that happening? Has she been promoted to panel to share her screen?
She has just now been promoted. She may set up.
Okay. So we put together a presentation package. It starts out whenever it's ready. It starts
out with the letter that you have in hand but what is not and what uh very good okay here we go
okay so um the rco letter that you have in front of you um basically outlines the concerns
starting with the fact that this community has never been notified properly um by the applicant
and we feel as though the case should never have been allowed to move forward
all the way back when it began in its inception. There is a little cat and mouse game that we
understand gets played and we've watched it with the other property as well of emailing an RCO that
has already indicated that they are not going to do Zoom on numerous occasions and then stating
that the RCO will not give the applicant a meeting. In this case, the applicant was allowed
to present and hold. So in spite of our request for continuance, while we put together our ability
to meet with the applicant, support it with a request for continuance by the council office,
this case was heard and held without the community. Tina, if you can just. Excuse me,
you said was heard, was heard and held by the zoning board. Yes, all the way back in, right.
I'm a little bit confused. You're saying the community had no meeting?
The community had no meeting. The applicant had no RCO letter.
And the applicant never notified the community of the appeal.
That's not accurate, Mr. Chair.
That is very accurate.
Ladies, ladies, ladies, ladies, ladies.
We have signed ballots from practically the entire impacted community that was required
to be notified that they were never notified.
And there is a requirement that even if you are suggesting that you did not have a meeting,
you should not come to the zoning board and present without first notifying the community.
The community was never notified.
This confusion was compounded by the fact that Mr. Knockamson had a project on what if you go to the map
is the exact same location, and that's why this is rear.
hello again ladies ladies please please just let me finish back to this testimony because it's
it's not accurate and i'm not given a chance to properly address these concerns so i can't have
her putting on the record things that are are not accurate yeah i'm totally confused about not
having a meeting. Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, please. I am totally confused and maybe my board
members, I don't know if you have the letter in front of you. You keep saying there was no meeting.
I think also Charles Richardson, who's on the line, could get involved to sort of help
navigate this as well that would be i would hope so because what i'm reading sounds to me like
there was a lot of interaction between the community the rco and the applicant so there
was can't be confused yeah so why don't i get mr richardson on if we could maybe you can shed some
Maybe you can shed some light on this.
light on this.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Mr. Richardson.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
Room 312, City Hall.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Richardson, I don't mean to put you on the spot,
but if you can shed some light on some of the accusations
that have just been made regarding not having any meetings, unaware of what was going on,
I find that to be conflicting to the letter because the letter talks about all the things
that they don't like about the project and you can't talk about things you don't like unless
you know what's being proposed. So maybe you can help me with that. Historically, let's go back.
When this was first proposed, ACCA was assigned because they are the RCO, the standing RCO in the
area. At that point in time, Ms. Broadus did express the fact that she would not be able to
do Zoom meetings because I had suggested to do a Zoom meeting and she said that they
would not be able to do so due to technology challenges for the residents in that area.
Understandable.
So they came up with, she came up with a paper-based system where she asked
for the applicant to submit to,
well, they submitted questions to the applicant
with regard to the project.
And then they did some back and forth
with regard to that.
What Ms. Brodus is referencing
is the fact that applicants are required
to send something out to each of the folks
within 250 feet to at least speak about it,
to talk about their project.
And she's saying that that did not occur.
because we didn't hold a meeting so we can't really send out letters saying we're holding
a meeting when we weren't holding a meeting and we were working through your office because you
had originally suggested a couple of times in october and then it kind of got flipped and then
she had mentioned that now we're not doing a zoom so there was a little bit of waiting on our end to
not um sort of overstimulate the area with letters with no real information until um we had heard
back from you on how best to proceed. So then once we had done the back and forth with her
and posted on the property twice, we had assumed that that was acceptable given, you know, we had
been fully prepared to meet in person or on the site or at the vacant lot, et cetera, et cetera.
So that's where the confusion came from. But you also did not do any advisory or anything as to
what it was that you had planned to do with those individuals. We did. We sent out multiple
letters to her, to Sandra. I actually have called her multiple times. I have the emails
to your office. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm talking about to the folks that live within
250 feet, those that are required to be notified. Well, I'm supposed to send out letters for
a meeting to them saying when the meeting is being held. And because the RCO decided
not to hold a meeting after multiple back and forths to the point where your office got involved
to help coordinate one, I wasn't going to send out a confusing letter with saying we don't have a
meeting, we do have a meeting. So you can understand sort of the confusion on our end,
how best to handle that when, you know, this was a pretty unique way to resolve it with the back
and forth. And she had said that the community was meeting regularly on the weekends in which
she was providing them with these questions um even she sent me questions up until last or two
nights ago at nine o'clock at night um that my i my office got back you know within 24 hours to
even address them early first thing this morning with the architect last night and the client so
i would it'd be hard to believe that nobody nearby especially because in her email she says
they met over the weekend and we were not included in that meeting um it's safe to say that there
has been there have been there has been communication yes there has been discussion
about the project which led to some of the provisors that are in the rco's letter uh that
may not be acceptable to them but there were obviously provisors that were offered correct
yes and there was correct and there was posting on the property twice with the new hearing date
and we continued it at the request of the council office on the last time around so all right no
Okay, let's say here, Mr. Richardson.
Okay, so that's pretty much gives some perspective as to Ms. Broadus' original statements with regard to, you know, that no notification took place.
And that, you know, I'm going by her understanding of that being the case.
uh so you know if we can see to to miss miss uh bro that's to for her to continue with her
testimony okay just to reiterate chair we're here just for the height review
okay just to reiterate chair we're here just for the height refusal so we've reduced everything
else in order to be as per code so really just want to try to keep it a little bit focused on
the the refusal at hand okay let's see how it goes and hopefully uh we can we can get uh past
all the other stuff that has already been addressed in this letter i i just yep
All right, Ms. Brodus.
My mic continually gets unmuted when I'm testifying.
I would like to continue to speak.
If you would scroll down to the picture of the actual property,
I think that will help you.
Page three, Tina.
Okay, so this is the actual property.
If you can see it on the right, it is the rear building.
It's the rear building in the middle.
Well, just show the top picture, first picture, Tina.
That's the building to the right in the back.
Right.
The rest of the buildings are the residential homes, and that is the rear driveway of residential homes.
So if you move into the rear driveway of these properties, there is an old abandoned garage structure that used to be an active parking lot garage.
Tina, if you would just scroll down to the other picture, at the end of the lot where Mr. Knockamson is putting 34 apartment units, you'll see the entrance and exit to that parking garage.
It was a two-story parking garage. It does have code violations on it that says the structure is unsafe that are currently still standing. So I'm not sure what clearance there was to erect apartments on that property.
The community is outraged because they are proposing to put this structure in the back
of residential homes, that driveway that people use to get in and out of their homes.
One of the refusals was the use of the curb cut to come in and out of the roof for a curb cut.
Pardon me?
I think you're referring to 1419.
We don't currently have a refusal for a curb cut on 1407-09.
Okay, the curb cut used to get to access this property is shared by the residents and the entrance to the building, if you could use your pointer, is in the middle of this old garage structure in the middle of the driveway.
So pedestrians, residents coming and going from this property have to walk into this driveway to get to the entrance to the building.
The exit for the 1419 property outdoor parking lot is right at the end of this structure that you can see.
I think you're mixing up the property.
I am not mixing up the properties. And the fact of the matter is, I will share with you the only information that we were given by Ms. Pritzker after asking numerous times for details of the project.
She sent us on a one-sentence statement that repeats the one sentence on the refusal letter,
and that is the extent, aside from the blueprint, that is the extent.
It's not accurate.
I'm going to pull them up so that the board can see the back and forth, because I can't
have you.
The back and forth is, how are you, Sandra?
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, here we go again.
Ma'am, we're not going to argue, okay?
if you're going to start arguing with it we're going to shut this hearing down
okay i want to try to get as much information so the board could
listen to what you have to say what the proposals are and what the objections are
you want to argue do it on your time not on our time with all due respect am i able to share the
screen so i can provide the yeah because i'm totally confused i don't know about my board
members but i'm yeah yeah um jason do you have the ability to allow me to share my screen
just want to provide some clarity
the only refusal correct me from wrong rachel is for the height correct this is an existing
so the only refusal correct me from wrong
structure 1419 is the one that is this vacant lot where you see the cars parked
our building is an existing structure it's a two-story um existing so this just to be clear
this is the back and forth and the different colors are the amount of times and iterations
we went back and forth to state that there was a one-word answer that's not how i do business and
that's not how i treat people let's not go over that i think we make you made the point thank you
so just so the board's clear there was a lot of back and forth i figured that just by the letter
i just and just to be really clear on this property this is not what we're discussing
this is 1419 this is a completely separate project that again i said uh alan knockamson
represented the owner a few weeks ago and he was has been more than helpful as has that owner
in working with us on any of these shared drive aisle issues, this is an existing two-story
structure that has been a parking lot. So for anyone to make a claim that use as residential
units, which with a lesser impact than a parking deck, is going to be disrupting these single
family homes that have lived next to a parking deck, I just don't think that that's necessarily
accurate or reasonable. A lot of the concerns around trash or violations or the soundness of
the structure. That's why we're here. We're here to propose something that fits in in character
as a rehabilitation of this structure and is the least. Excuse me. Excuse me,
counselor. Yes. Excuse me. Yes. Can you show me the site plan? Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Thank you, Tom. Absolutely.
All right, George. I got I'm on a case right now.
so this is the you want the site plan because this is the third one z1
do you want me to zoom in where's the site where's this where's the site plan
this is what i have from the architect
it doesn't appear to me to be a site plan it says site plan this is what was
to ellen i can you can you blow it up yeah of course
this is this this is the site so where's the adjacent buildings in the alleyway over here
I assume so
This is Grange
This is 1419 Grange
This is the curb
I assume this is
It doesn't appear to me
That you have the adjacent
Buildings
We don't
You're not showing a complete site plan
This is all that we own
This is the frontage
This is all that we own
That's highlighted here
i see i see what you own but you you are required to show more than just what you own
this is what that i that i got from lni um i jump in with the with the refusal uh so
this is what was approved and submitted with lni raymond i don't know if you have something of
more detail that that we can provide but this is what i have you know this is basically fulfills
requirements for a site plan if you want to see it in context go to z4 and we can just look at
the aerial plan and see how the building fits in with the surrounding buildings it's on z4
would that be helpful mr hallman we can go there okay
up hand corner
yeah that shows the building um and the vacant site in front which was approved and chose the
residences that run along 15th street and uh chose an existing apartment building which is
about the same height as our building is going to be that's to the north and you can see the
balconies on the south side and the north side which don't really face the rear of the
residential properties on 15th street you can clearly see the uh excuse me uh sir you you see
the the photo shows me existing conditions but your site plan doesn't show me propose
so this is a rendering these are what's only there is just the two stories it's not i understand what
i'm i understand what you're saying and i'm not disagreeing with what you're saying i'm
i'm just clarifying it here um is this is actually a rendering of what we're planning what's there is
um is this is actually a rendering of what we're planning what's there is is the is just this
two-story um site this is this is proposed conditions this is not existing conditions
excuse me counselor what i'm referring to is how do you address the appearance of the driveway
your building i see i see your building right and i see and i see the houses
across the driveway right here yep so now so so how do you address your building in
opposition to those buildings what how is your physical treatment of that driveway is it you're
going to let the state remain or you're going to do something proposed to it a site plan would show
me that you mean are we going to like rehabilitate it and sort of repave it whatever whatever you're
to do i don't i think we just have an easement for it i don't believe that we have um yeah but
see your parking space parking lot is across from a residential area and you're required to do some
kind of treatment some kind of landscape or something you don't show that let me let me
jump in if i could uh i think you said earlier uh correct me if i'm wrong rachel that that where that
park i guess it's a parking garage we're looking at yeah right here it is currently a surface
parking lot it's it's currently a two-story parking lot it's not it's not in operation but
it's an existing okay it was was used at one time as a two-story um excuse me this is sharon
saletta mr hallman i just emailed you the plans if that makes it any easier for you to review them
thank you that would be helpful thanks sharon so what was existing at one time that garage
use of that garage would then be used by your proposed development for the tenants correct
correct correct with the it's a common area or shared driveway with the homes on 15th street
yep i'm trying to orient yeah yes it would not be for um public parking
it's the building is back here if you can curve cuts there already everything is there and
at one time it was a factory or whatever i guess was standing there and they used the
they had off street parking parking garage excuse me counselor my understanding is that once you
do something to a building you searching for a permit for it you have to bring it up the codes
and do something with the adjacent property or the driveway uh we haven't gotten to the streets
department phase of this just for the addition to the existing structure and for the multi-family
use that that's this is what the city has provided us as far as asks are concerned we've not had
we've gotten you know stamps from streets if it was relevant we wouldn't have gotten to this point
if we weren't providing, you know, whatever L&I streets department, the planning commission would
need for this building. So it's not like we bypass any of that. This is, I'm providing you
with what we have. And in the event that we're required to make any sort of improvements, I don't
see why we have any issue doing that. I just don't know that we have full ownership of it and would
need to kind of coordinate with both this owner. And I would assume based on reading the deeds and
easements these owners as well um so i think it's sort of a shared in my understanding it's an
we have an easement but we don't have ownership over it um and i know alan uh could probably weigh
in on the ownership piece of it as well because it was part of discussions but it's not something
that's um that the city has required excuse me excuse me do your plan call for you your site
using that driveway it just for access
we don't have ownership of it the prior use of that garage
uh what ingress and egress was it out from that driveway i believe so i don't see that there's
another way you're not creating um correct me if i'm wrong i'm not putting words in your mouth
it doesn't you're not going to be creating an ingress and egress no from that drive lane
correct it's already existing it's already there all we're doing is rehabbing this building and
adding on two stories that's it understood thank you
all right tom any more any more questions no i still have to get the uh
so all right um mr richardson are you still there i am can you hear me yes i can uh okay
Yes, I can. I don't know if we cut you short or not. I apologize if we did.
i don't know if we cut you short or not i apologize if we did
Not a problem. That was quite helpful.
I wanted to try to bring a little clarity to this.
The green portion in front of the building that Ms. Pritzker is referring to is that building that was approved that will have 37 apartments there.
So that will be filled in with an entire building there with the parking lot on the interior.
a surface parking lot. Beyond that, on the left-hand side of the property, that driveway
that is the driveway for North 15th Street. And that is the, from our understanding, is the front
door for the, or the public entrance for that property. That's what they're proposing. And then
on the right side, which borders with the properties, the businesses on Old York Road
slash Broad Street, that is a shared driveway, which also will be shared with 1419, which is
Mr. Knockamson's property, and further up now, that would be the entranceway for the 47-car
barrage that Ms. Pritzker is proposing. So just to clarify, let me start with, because
we went over this early this afternoon, once we finished getting all of the
uh pertinent information uh 47 apartments by right it would be denoted at 38 feet they're
asking for it to be additionally additional uh feet added to it the councilwoman feels the
proposed structure is still too tall and what they're attempting uh to come in uh by a by right
proposal they need to adhere to the height restriction as well with regard to the parking
the proposed use of the shared driveway with businesses on north york road and the approved
237-space parking lot for 1419 Grange Avenue.
The Councilwoman has concerns about the traffic that will be caused by 1419 using that driveway,
as well as the proposed 68 parking spaces that Ms. Pritzker's, rather 47 now, 47 parking spaces that are being proposed.
Our offices personally observed truck parking in the driveway yesterday, making deliveries and blocking the driveway.
So that would also be another issue because while they tried to indicate that deliveries are made by the front, they're actually also made in the back as well.
The community entrance in the rear driveway, the homes of the 5800 block of North 15th Street.
Councilwoman has concerns for foot traffic that will take place walking up and down,
going in and out of what was originally just a private driveway, Uber drivers, deliveries, etc.
In the driveway, she feels will negatively impact the residents of 15th Street.
So as such, she is opposed and she is supporting the RCO and the community in opposing the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Rachel, what is the height proposal on your...
I want to, Ray, do you have it in front of you? It's with 60.
I'd also wanted to bring the owner. I think he could speak a little bit to the alleyway as well
on greens with some of the traffic flow. I wanted him to jump in if possible.
Is it at any point the RCO, I have pictures of what we are concerned about up to when including
a truck loading in those curb cuts that we're concerned about if we are at some point allowed
to present i really would like to well i we we started you started to present and then we but
you won't let me present you keep making right letting rachel speak no because she objects and
then you you look you start arguing we don't want the argument well i'm i've been quiet
Letting her speak.
I just asked for the same time.
I hear you.
I hear you.
I've just asked a question.
I'm waiting for an answer.
As long as at some point the community can be heard.
We've waited a long time.
Yeah, I understand that.
But actually, your community has already spoken.
You can speak some more to it, but through the Councilwoman's office.
So, again, what is the height that you're proposing?
50 feet, 11 inches.
50 feet, 11 inches.
11 I saw 51 feet roughly all right all right number of units is down from 63 to 47 all right
let's hear from the community again and I would ask you to stick to the issues
I think we we understand and my board members could correct me if I'm wrong
that there actually has been communication there has like significant been communication
than communication. How do you submit a six-page letter talking about all the issues of concern?
How do you submit a six-page letter?
I'd like to tell you. Okay, let me hear it. Okay. I'd like to tell you. Okay. Because it's on a
separate screen, I'm going to share with you the total sentence that we were given about the
project about uh beyond the email but let's just stick with the property right now if you look at
the at all the way to the end of that driveway that is the 1400 of conlin street that is a
residential block at well in the front of those are commercial buildings that we're looking at
excuse me rachel let me finish are you ma'am are you speaking to the photograph in number three
The photograph in number three, the top photograph where you see the driveway and you see where.
So at the end of the driveway is the 1400 block of Conlon Street.
That is a block of residential homes.
Right.
The building that you see that extends above Rachel's property is, in fact, the Eli apartment building.
It has been the source of much unrest and violence in the neighborhood.
um we testified previously for 1419 about the degree of violence that is already occurring
because that area is saturated and it has become a very unsafe neighborhood bloodshed and and and
people running um from gun violence down that driveway if you can let ma'am i we respect that
But if you can limit your testimony to the project.
The project is proposing a height that is above and beyond what is allowed to further saturate, populate an area that is already overpopulated and is a troubled area.
We would not like to see, never suggested to Rachel that we were interested in having anything that was not permitted.
We asked her in the questionnaire that we sent, how many units could you provide with the allowed height unit, with the allowed height?
And that just doesn't get answered.
But we would not like to see any more structure than what is allowed.
which would be pretty consistent with the one alongside it.
That is a troubled area.
We do have additional pictures, but the traffic,
if a tenant has to get a pizza delivered,
to get coming in and out of the building,
they all have to traffic through the driveway.
Rachel did provide...
Let me interrupt you if I could respectfully.
What is the height of that existing, the highest point of that existing building to the right in Photograph 3?
Does anyone know?
Mr. Roller, do you happen to know?
Yeah, that's 1906.
Approximately 20 feet is the existing parking garage.
No, and the building behind it, where the smokestacks are.
He's talking about behind it, the taller building behind it.
Yeah, forget the smokestacks, the building itself.
What's the height of that building?
I haven't measured it, but I estimate it to be about, I would say, 42, 44 feet.
We're about the same height as it is.
It's a four-story building, but our fifth floor is sunk down.
The parking garage is sunk down.
So our cornice lines will pretty much line up.
Well, that's what I was getting at.
So you would be pretty much in line with that.
Your roof line, your top of your building would be pretty much in line
with that taller building in photograph three is that correct that's correct yes except that the
lot in front is going to have a a a 34 unit building so the i understand man we understand
but we're talking about 14 0709 right and you and you raised you raised an issue about the height
So I wanted to know what the proposed height of 14.07.09 would be in comparison to the structure that already exists.
And it seems to me that it's going to be about the same height.
About the same height adds more units to the property.
I understand that. We're talking about height.
They did reduce the number of units from 63 to 47.
but it is in the that might not be acceptable to you but we listen we listen to a lot of testimony
about can you hear me because i keep getting cut off
can you hear me because i keep getting cut off i can hear you okay we can hear a lot of testimony
about light um and um it is clear that the residents in in the 50 um in in this block
this residential block will be cut off from light if this structure is allowed to be any higher than
And it shouldn't be there at all.
But we absolutely oppose it being higher than it is allowed by Wright.
Let me ask you a question.
Are you familiar with that neighborhood to be able to speak to the empty lot in front at 1419?
What was on that lot at one time?
um i actually it was a it was a apartment buildings that were so miserable that they
burned i'm asking it was it was a residential property it was a it was a residential apartment
how many stories how many stories was that um now that i don't i don't know but i think it was two
two story building all right we'll look at the archives we'll take a look
Okay. All right. So again, we are indicating that there is, let me just scroll down so that I can show you.
We're concerned about the density in the area.
As you scroll down, you will see the complaints that we were sending to you, Mr. DiCicco, about the noncompliance of just saying that there was not communication, there was not this discussion that we had.
there was numerous complaints by the RCO. And if you scroll down to page 7, 8, it goes on.
So let me just go. If you go to page 10, that is the front of the apartment building that is in
that driveway um there is a trash issue um with this this this property that ma'am ma'am again
we need for you to just talk about the issues you mentioned you mentioned density 47 units and
correct me if i'm wrong rachel i think i've already asked you this a couple times is a buy right
correct the units are by right the height is not and and the height will add what makes
we want less units because we want less density the apartment building that they're building next
to is a nuisance property page 10 shows you what it looks like um living in the conditions that
they're proposing to add to this is that goes that will go away they're not going to have an
empty lot there any longer yeah no no no this this is at the end of the driveway that i tried
to show you where the other building connects to this one um at the old conlin street that is what
we are living with um already and she's she's this the proposal of this property is adding salt
to that wound um let's go up to the traffic the the the proposed use of the driveway
again sort of ma'am ma'am with all due respect you're all over the place there's a driveway
that exists there was a building there which looks to me i could be wrong may have been a
factory building or something there's always been a garage there that accommodated that building
and probably whatever was in front where the vacant lot is whether it was a two-story three-story
whatever apartment building that driveway has been used by other folks beside the residents on
the left and i don't mean that to be disrespectful it's a common driveway we established that
if that driveway is used by the residents it's not a thoroughfare and people search but you
but okay i'm sorry chair all right we're gonna need we're gonna need to uh wrap this up but i
just would like to say if the chair is speaking please do not over talk him i appreciate that
tanya but it doesn't seem like it's sinking in yes all right so if you want to move on you can
yeah we're going to move on all right can we ask the planning commission maybe yep
planning commission
i'm sorry i got ahead of myself any questions from the board uh yes mr chairman yes yes mr
chairman yes i'd like to see the elevation uh the elevation of the new building that fronts
the driveway.
What the, where the vacant lot is?
Were they vacant lotters?
Or you know, not what they're proposing, you're saying, right?
Yeah, what they're proposing, correct.
I'm sorry, yeah.
Can I see the elevation of the drive?
Absolutely.
okay now let me ask you a question counselor is that parking garage existing or new existing this
few stories exist yeah yeah you know it's a two-story parking garage existing yes and it
faces the neighbors across the driveway so there's garage doors here and there's uh the driveway is
on this side it's the rear of them so any treatment you're doing to that existing garage
two-story garage now i understand that it's always been there but you're asking for something
to get a zoning variance for it so what kind of treatment are you going to do with that
Hey, Tom, can I interrupt you just for a second? I want to make sure I'm following you.
Correct. Rachel, the garage doors are not going to be facing the back of the residence,
the rear of the residence on 15th Street. Is that correct?
Oh, these face Grange Street. Correct.
Right. So to the left of what you're showing us.
Right here.
This is where the driveway is, correct?
Correct.
All right.
So you're not showing me the elevation that faces the driveway.
the driveway. This is the elevation that I have that faces Grange Street and the driveway
is this way. Yeah, but I asked for the elevation. I understand that. I'm just providing you
with what I have, sir. So the garages, Tom, the garages are not facing the rear of the
15th Street residential. It's just the driveway. It faces the rear of the driveway. The people
in the rear it faces the residential across the driveway right but the driveway garage doors
face grain street i understand that i understand any proposed treatment for the garage that faces
the residential on the across the driveway as far as the bottom of the building is concerned
correct the two-story garage um can do you see nissan levy um i believe the goal i want to have
him speak because he's the developer so i don't want to misstate anything i would assume there
would absolutely be treatment in order to bring the full building back to a more attractive look
but i would like to have him weigh in on that so that it's okay let's get him on please
okay um jason do you see um it's either nissan levy or the last four of the phone number would
be 8433 who are you putting on rachel the owner
once he once he's uh acknowledged i'll have to swear him in okay
Can I talk?
Yeah, your name, sir?
Nissan Levy, N-I-S-S-A-N, L-E-V-Y.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Holloman has a question for you.
What is the treatment for the elevation that faces the driveway?
First of all, do you have an elevation?
We have no elevation.
It's street level.
why why you don't have an elevation because it faces a residential community what we're talking
about facing the residential community is like just a drive it's not a driveway it's just a
pedestrian entrance there is no driveway for our building it's only entrance the only the other side
what we see on the for the street where the parking supposed to go in this is going to just
like gonna fix everything as and also one of the questions of the community if we're gonna do the
driveway and i actually accept it and we're gonna do this but actually it's not ours so we need to
ask for permission from everybody it's not ours we only have a small easement over there you need
only for pedestrians and not for cars sorry i'm gonna jump in for a minute looking at that
rendering uh the top one we're looking at now correct me if i'm wrong the garage doors are
to be to the right over here always would you do it with the other that's it right there
that's going to be the garage doors entrance into the garage correct correct all right so what tom's
asking about are there's any treatment which it doesn't look like they're going to be able to do
Are there any treatment, which it doesn't look like you're going to be able to do it, in the driveway?
in the driveway.
Is that what I think you're asking, Tom?
Anything on the building.
Like, what are we going to do to the buildings that faces the residential?
Correct.
The counselor was correct.
what treatment are you going to do on the parking garage wall to enhance the new you're asking for
something for the community to grant you a variance what enhancements are you going to do
on the new building that you're going to the new and the old garage that you're going to
have facing the easement nissan can you speak to how what the plans are to rehabilitate
the existing structure as far as the exterior, specifically as it relates to the portions of it
that are facing, well, all of it, but most specifically the portions of it facing the
residential. It looks like in the photos, there's, you know, cleaning up of the brick, but if you
could speak to that, sort of how are we going to be enhancing the aesthetic and the materials so
that it's more appealing facing the, you know, residential side of the block in addition to just
given the conditions of it in general you can hear me yep definitely we're gonna actually
renovate everything including the the garage itself is going to be one it looks going to
look like one one structure with all a stack outside about cars and such it's not so important
as far as like if there is something that they prefer or something we can work with
this is not the issue the issue is like everything going to look new and nice and developed
we're actually going to touch everything including the garage if this is the question
and also the paving i have a follow-up question if i could and i'm probably going to hate myself
for opening up this can of worms but the parking garage uh the wall that we're looking at of the
garage that faces the rear of the property zone 15th it looks like there's openings correct
is window openings or window openings yes what are they the height of those in relationship to
a car's headlights shining into the rear of the houses on 15th street let me let me jump in there
because at the ground level that's commercial because that was required that's vacant commercial
because that was required by zoning to have commercial 30 feet into the structure so there
are no cars at that lower level at that driveway what about the next level up the next level up
there will there will be cars and if that's an issue then we can propose screening of some sort
that's that's what i'm getting at because i think that could be intrusive that especially at night
headlights shining into the rear of the homes on 15th street thank you mr chairman i think we
should we should have a drawing to define what they're going to do with that space other than
just verbal that's fine yeah I agree I agree Tom that would be that would be absolutely fine I think
um to get some more clarity on how much time you think you'll need well actually let me jump in
also above that is not parking either that's that's units and Rachel if you go to the second
floor plan I can see the beach I see the umbrellas up there yeah I can see that I'm more more concerned
about the headlights um and the materials and yeah i'm sorry to just interrupt but anyway
because of the winter or whatever and as much as we want to keep it as not as closed they're
going to be open blocks so basically you're barely going to see the the cars yeah i understand that
but the headlights shining directly into the rear of the properties i don't they're they're actually
going to be units mr chair three units there at that only faces grain street it won't be
actually facing okay the resident units from that from that rendition it looks like they're
openings you know for airflow for the garage yeah no i understand maybe you can submit something
to us that's a little bit more definitive we can look at it sure all right and some whatever
whatever you might want to consider to do as far as wall treatments sure when would would work best
for the board well you tell us because you guys have to go back and figure that out i mean as
soon as possible as my obviously all right uh mr chairman yes i'm sorry a uh a more comprehensive
site plan would be helpful too okay all right um where we could resume for next wednesday just to
go over those two um I don't know I'll have to ask Tanya about that no actually we're so backed up
no actually we're so backed up
when works for you tanya you want you guys want to talk about that offline
yeah that's fine all right why don't you do that tanya is that right you talk offline and figure
it out sure okay all right um any other questions from the board no no planning commission good
afternoon mr chairman members of the board david effecto city planning commission mr chairman this
property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the city's comprehensive plan we gave a
recommendation against the application on october 6 2020 since then the applicant has made concessions
and revised their proposal we are going to drop our objection to this proposal however we would
suggest provision of some kind of open space for the residents of the building even if the open
space is above grade. I think if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, Rachel, isn't the open
space on the top of the garage? Ray, is that? The rendition looks like beach umbrellas up there or
something. Yeah, well, all of the units on that level do have balconies, and in response to the
community, that very point, what we did was we reduced some of the sizes of the private balconies
and created two community balconies
that could be used by all the residents
that didn't have balconies.
And those balconies are pretty much shielded
from the rear of the 15th Street properties,
one by a stairwell and the other one is all the way over
on the other side by the commercial, so.
Okay, thank you, thank you.
All right, thank you.
We'll go to the next case.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2020?
I'm sorry, Chair.
Tanya?
Because we would have to really give a date, so I want to try January the 20th at 2 p.m.
Great.
All right.
This case is being continued to January the 20th at what time?
I would suggest we say resume January the 20th at 2 p.m.
This case will be resumed on January the 20th at 2 p.m.
is there a way to limit it to just those two issues um or it's i don't see what other issues
there are i mean we talked about density it's a buy right um i i i don't know anybody has any
board member have any other opinions please i could just mention there are other people with
their hands up just to note for the board so i don't know how you want to state it's going to
be handled on the 20th if it's just for certain feedback clarity on how many how many hands we
have up tanya three uh well two because um the rco spoke already so it's two left
so we can have them return with the intent yeah why don't we why don't we do that and we'll limit
it to those their testimony all right thank you very much yeah we'll never get those who have
other testimony to add the hearing will be january the 20th at 2 p.m okay thank you all for your
patience thank you okay mi2020-001237 1801-59 north american street
Mr. Chair, Jared Klein has his hand raised
I'm sorry, I'm not able to promote him
I had to log back in, sorry
I'm not able to promote him for some reason
all righty i promoted him and if i could ask it pauline if you could um put jason as a co-host
i would appreciate that thank you sure tanya you got it good afternoon mr chair members of the board
hi uh good afternoon please identify yourself with the record certainly uh jared klein k-l-e-i-n
from blind rome 130 north 18th street philadelphia we're on the firm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. Yes I do. Mr. Klein do you agree to wave and snip? I do. And have
you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents including proof of ownership, proof of
tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property five days
in advance of this hearing? Yes we have. And have you met with the RCO? We have. Thank you sir.
Please proceed. Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm going to share my screen. So we're here for 1801 to
So we're here for 1801 to 59 North American Street. I understand that the board's agenda
59 North American Street.
has probably gone a little longer for the two o'clock than they expected. So I will
endeavor to be as brief as possible and give the board an overview. We do have the architect
Rustin Oller from Harmon Deutsch and Oller on if the board has any specific questions
as I move through. This is the project site, 1801 North American Street. It is an ICMX
zoned property. And we're building on a portion of the site. You can see here the aerial view.
This is where the proposed work area is. The site, part of it presently contains a warehouse
and two-story structure that is used for ICMX general purposes. There's makerspaces in there
and the owner and developer. The parcel has his office there. We are proposing to work on this
area that's outlined in white to construct a new structure that's five stories tall
that will have 110 residential dwelling units and 60 parking spaces and will also have ground floor
commercial space. This is some site context. As you can see, the site is currently a vacant area
with some greenery. These are photos of the other surrounding corners and photos of posting
of the property that I will scroll through quickly for the board to see. Let me jump right to the
PLANS. THESE ARE REVISED PLANS THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TODAY AND I SENT MS. SALETTA A PROVISO FORM
AND THREE PAGES OF REVISED PLANS. THESE REVISED PLANS REFLECT SOME SMALL REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT
THAT OCCURRED AS WE WENT THROUGH THE RCO AND THE CDR PROCESS. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE
existing site. So zooming in a little bit, we're going to have a parking area that's located both
here and here with the residential that we built above. As we front on American Street, the portion
of the property that immediately fronts American Street is lower than the rest of the property,
and I'll show you a rendering of that. The reason that was done is, as I explained, this property to
the side has the existing warehouse and so we set back the height towards the second street side to
allow for light and air for this existing parcel. There's going to be a pedestrian walkway that goes
through the site. I'm showing that here. That was one of the things that we did as part of our
conversation with the RCO and the nature of the revised plans. The main revision was we reconfigured
the commercial space as it fronts on Second Street and removed the curb cut there and created
this pedestrian walkway through the site that's also adjacent to an open area that will be used
as a general purpose open space. The conversation that we had with the RCL, one of their main
concerns was to preserve the open access of this walkway. This is a very long block of American
Street, and so to avoid people having to walk around a very large rectangular block, we've
opened up this cut through to the public, and we've told the RCO that it has our intention to
leave it ungated, and the plans don't show any gate, and we've set it up in that fashion. Here
are the basic elevations of the site uh these will be more impactful for you as i go to
the actual renderings uh this uh this would be the commercial space along the ground with the
residential units above and this is another view this is towards this is the american street
frontage here second street is to the back this is the lower level portion of the building that
I was referring to that fronts on American Street. One of the other plan revisions we did was to
increase the height of this lobby and entrance structure to add some additional height to the
front portion as it faces American Street. That was one of the things that the community had asked
for and was part of the CDR process as well. And this is just a section showing you the eventual
to be constructed building. As I mentioned earlier, the project went through CDR and we were able to
complete that process with these plans. This is again another rendering showing how the building
will look from the American Street frontage. The RCO in your packet is a letter of
The RCO in your packet is a letter of support from the RCO.
I want to briefly touch on just two of the items that they mentioned because there's been some further conversation with the RCO since this letter was sent to you.
And they may be on the line.
They had asked for a couple of provisos that we couldn't agree to.
The first one was that they asked for the dog park to be made a permanent public addition.
That was the result of some confusion in the way that the diagrams for the space were presented.
We are not proposing a dog park as part of the site.
So that is a moot point.
With regard to the pedestrian walkway, what we have agreed to with the RCO is that we would meet with them
in the future event that we would like to close that gate, we will reach out to them and discuss.
The owner's concern here, you know, particularly in light of recent events around the country,
if there's civil unrest or some other need to secure the property, he needs to leave himself
the opportunity to do that, but is trying to create as welcoming a public space as possible.
The RCO, as I noted, voted to support, and their letter is in your packet.
and with that given the board's lengthy agenda I will stop I will ask my client
to raise his hand so I can have him adopt my testimony and then we'll answer any
particular detailed questions the board may have Adam Lasowski can you virtually raise your hand
please and while he's being recognized Mr. Chair I will mention one of the other points is that 10
of the units in this building will be affordable at 50% AMI. We also agreed with the RCO that we
would offer 2,500 square feet of the commercial space at a 50% market rate discount to enable the
space to be used by a local maker or business. Your client has been unmuted. He's free to speak.
Adam, can you hear us? Yes, good afternoon.
Adam can you spell your name for the record please sure it's Adam Lysuski L-I-S-A-U-S-K-Y
Mr. Chair we're not hearing you I see you speaking but we're not hearing you
could one of the other board members swear in Mr. Lysuski
yes do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you thank you mr holliman um can you hear me now yes we can okay thanks tom
good um adam did you have a chance to listen to my uh presentation and comments
i did do you adopt my testimony as true correct in your own i do thank you um mr chair as i said
we have the architect on the line if the board has any specific questions but i would rest my
uh presentation at this point thank you questions from the board no
would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
that includes members of the rs and rco and any member from the council district office
Mr. Chair, I have Sloan Foulkes with his hand raised. I will allow him to speak right now.
Mr. Foulkes, you're still under oath. Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the ZBA board. Sloan Foulkes, S-L-O-A-N-E-F as in
fire, O-L-K-S, Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez, room 508 City Hall.
the applicant having met with the community and receiving a letter of support the councilwoman
offers no opposition to this gamers request thank you thank you anyone
anyone else would like to testify
thank you uh planning commission good afternoon david effecto philadelphia city planning
commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for industrial commercial
mixed use in the city's comprehensive plan this proposal went to the civic design review committee
the committee had very few comments on the proposal and believed it was well designed
We did want to note for the record that the affordable units that the applicant proposes
are a nice gesture, but they have not entered into an agreement with the city to provide
those units, so the applicant has no obligation to maintain them as affordable.
Yeah, so just so the board is aware, this application was submitted to LNI just prior
to the overlay that was enacted over this area that made it part of the zoning code
to require affordable units.
Because we submitted just prior to that, we're not obligated to follow it, but we wanted
to work with the community and support the councilwoman's um agenda for for affordable
housing and so we've made that commitment uh to her um so it's part of the record thank you i i
would i would be very surprised if we didn't follow through with that commitment okay that's
part of the record thank you mi 2020-001237 1801-59 north american street is there any revised
plan i'm sorry there are mr chair uh three pages three pages my vote is yes with revised proviso
revised plan three pages approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
thank you very much any further uh i know we're running late is the sonographer does
there's a sonographer need a break i apologize for not asking we have a couple more cases
mr chairman if i could have a quick bathroom break that would be great
okay we'll see you in 10 10 minutes thank you thank you sorry about that
20-002-482-1916 delancey place
is that you mr notkinson is this your case
yes you're not missing i'm sure he's on mute i believe he's on mute
yes yes mr chair all right mr knockins as you know you're still under oath
uh i have to read off the other stuff here uh you agree to wave and stip i do and have you
emailed an exhibit packet that with the required documents including proof of ownership tax
compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property five days in
advance of today's hearing i have and have you met the rco i have okay mr knockison please proceed
so i have a unique circumstances first time during uh covet 19 and zoom my internet's not working in
my office but i have the presentation materials in front of me and i'm going to have my co-counsel
uh clementa amazon uh if you can promote her to a host she's going to share her screen
and provide the documents and i'll walk you through with miss amazon's help
may i share well good evening chairman and members of the board
if they're new please identify yourself with a record and then say amazon
if you can either raise your volume or get a little closer to the mic that would be helpful
can you hear me better now yeah better and then while you're doing that uh do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you
all right so as you can see we are presenting 1916 to lancy place and along with uh miss amazon
on the line is the owner of the property christopher spay uh so mr spay did not
recently purchased this property and he discovered soon after that he purchased the property he had
water issues in his backyard which led to water infiltration into the basement and this was not
an uncommon occurrence. So I'm going to go through the table of contents. Clementa can you go down
one page so along with my table of contents is the deed to the property and you'll see that
clementa can you go down showing that mr spay owns the property
after that is the certificate of tax clearance
which you know shows that mr spay owns the property and then after that is the notice
of refusal. Hold on a second. So this is an RSA 5 property. We're not trying to get any
use variances. What we're merely trying to do is that as part of the process of dealing
is that as part of the process of dealing with the water infiltration issues
with the water infiltration issues,
it was recommended to mr spade by professionals to uh to install a one-story structure at the rear
of his property which will prevent water infiltration into his basement at the time
he hired a contractor with his understanding that he was going to get all permits necessary
you know as part of that renovation project unfortunately the contractor did not pull the
permits did not tell Mr. Spey that uh he needed to get special approval from this board in order
to get the in order to do what he wanted to do or was advised to do so more than halfway through
the project after spending tens of thousands of dollars we're here today to legalize that
structure and continue to get the zoning permit and then eventually the building permit and fix
you know the situation so we have two variances one for open area where 25 is required where zero
is proposed and the other one is for the rear yard setback where nine feet is required and zero is
proposed so after this is our application for appeal which we followed with the zoning board
adjustment. And then after that, you have the zoning map. And you'll see where we are in the
area. Again, we're in the Rittenhouse Square of Philadelphia. If you look at the aerial view,
the next one after the zoning map. So it's actually not uncommon what Mr. Spey is requesting.
If you look at the properties, the property, if you look at, if you're facing the front of his
house, the property to the left of him, it's a double-wide property, but it actually has
full lot coverage. Clemenza, can you go back to the actual aerial view, which is nearby properties
with full lot coverage? Thank you. You'll see that the property to the left of Mr. Spade has
full lot coverage. You'll see another angle of that. And a lot of the properties on Delancey
street throughout the block have a similar situation again again it's not uncommon if we
walk by this property uh built as proposed we're not asking for anything that other individuals on
that block don't have if you we'll go past the other map you look at the photographs of the
property uh first one's to find the property then there's properties on delancey street to the right
to the left
and then the rear of the property so this is us looking out on our second floor
you'll see that the person that's behind us on panama um has a tree that purposefully you know
blocks for privacy purposes um any type of view from our property so our one-story structure by
the way is slightly above our fence uh it would have no effect on anyone's light and air
and you go to the picture after that go back to that picture again just a second
that looking at this the lower portion of the photograph that gray area looks like slate slabs
is that is that the pavement no that's actually the top of that top of that okay that we're trying
to legalize but you can see like that the lip of that structure is much lower than any tree
that board that that's behind us on panama street i thought it was i just wanted to double check
because it's a little yeah okay thank you and then if you go to the next picture this is the property
of the rear of the property as it looked previous to the installation of that structure. You'll see
that there is also, in addition to the tree, there's a lattice as well, which is above our
roof line. And then you'll see the rear easement of the property. There's a setback of three feet
between the properties on Delancey Street and Panama. And then you'll see a picture of an
existing drainage pipe from our property. This is our rear wall. So what we understand it to be
is that at one point it seems like there may have been a structure attached to our rear wall.
That's why there was a rear pipe embedded into it. So the history of this property,
although we don't have any pictures of that structure, shows that there was probably a
structure back there to begin with a one-story structure at one point. Now you look at the
picture of the subject property. So our property as you can see is where the ladder is and you have
the two skylights and then if you look at the property that's to the left of us you see that
it's a two-story structure full lot coverage above us and then you look at the pictures of the two
full lock coverage above us and then you look at the pictures of the two decks that are next
to us or the rear yards that would be 1918 and 1920 we actually have letters of support from
those neighbors so those neighbors will be most affected in a lot of ways from the continuation
of this rear structure and and they are in support of this project after that are pictures
showing interior water damage. Again, this was a significant insurance claim showing the basement
area that was flooded because of the infiltration from the rear yards prior to the installation
of this rear structure. Again, Mr. Spade, upon professional advice, was advised to remedy this
situation, which I guess has been a lingering effect for this property, was to install this
rear structure and his understanding was he was installing it by law and here's
more pictures of the interior water damage and then you can see the rear
yard you know we have they had to rip it off like it says exterior water
damage and when you see the mold there but you see the very yard it was pretty
significant water damage and then you'll see the architectural plans and drawings you know we're
trying to take this really seriously even though this is just a legalization of a structure we
understand that it's in a really nice area of philadelphia and that you know many people are
passionate about you know legalization of structures that went up you know without
government permits so as you can see here you see the two skylights that's our structure
again to if you you know if you're looking to the left there's a two-story structure which goes
straight up full lot coverage and then the other thing i would point out to those pictures you see
the planters on to the rear of our property that's our property owner to the rear of us now this is
a rendering but you know if you we couldn't get a good picture of it but they also have in addition
to a tree they have planters up there and the lattice so and then you'll see the floor plans
of the property not that it matters but the room that we're if you look at the first floor
the room that we're adding is a 14 uh by nine foot uh room
and then you'll see a site plan that we that was created as well
and one additional drawing and you know just the rear elevation the front elevation the most
important thing is the one story structure is is only once it doesn't affect anyone's light
in there in the sense of it barely goes above the pre-existing uh rear uh rear uh wall now we
there was questions during the meeting with the center city residence association is whether the
structural stability of both the wall as well as the structure. So after the meeting, we actually
obtained an opinion from a structural engineer, which states that the rear brick wall
is structurally sound. And that there would be no concern for the continuation of the
development of that one-story structure. And then there are just pictures of what
you know the property looks like you know just as part of his report and then yes and then yes
and then there's the letter from the center city residents association they are in opposition that's
why i'm i'm trying to and i know i have it in front of me i have a copy of yeah and so you'll
see the letters of support you know we have the owner of 1915 delante place which is across the
street 1918 delancy place which is right next door to us and uh 1920 delancy play 1920 delancy places
which is supported this and then most importantly the historic commission actually reviewed this
application because this is a historic property and they also reviewed this application and they
you know they approved based on the information we gave them that would conclude my presentation
at this moment. I don't know if any members of the community are on the call as well.
Okay, before we get to those members of the community, do you have your client?
I do. Mr. Speight, can you virtually raise your hand?
It's been allowed to talk, sir.
Hi, good afternoon. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your full name.
Hi, thank you.
It's Christopher Spey, and last name is S-P-A-Y.
and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
yes thank you mr knockinson yes mr state uh mr spay you heard everything i stated today
Thank you.
correct and is it true and correct correct and do you adopt as your own testimony yes okay thank
you questions from the board no no one else would like to testify in this matter including members
of the RCO and or the district council person's office.
Mr. Chair, I have a Rosa with her hand up.
I won't allow her to speak right now.
Okay, ma'am, please identify yourself with a record.
First and last name, provide us with your address.
Hello, my name is Rosa Esquenazi, E-S-Q-U-E-N-A-Z-I.
I live at 1912 Delancey which was mentioned as the left property the property on the left of
Mr. Spade you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do
thank you please proceed thank you for taking my comments after a long day
Mr. Chairman my name is Rosa Eskenazi I live adjacent to the east side of Mr. Spade
my property
was not mentioned
but was grandfathered
before the zoning
was established
as I previously told Mr. Spey
I mean no ill towards him
and welcome the block
since he moved in
wishing that his home provide the same solace
as mine does to me
even though this addition does not affect me visually
I do however question his means
the disdain for due process safety and lack of respect for his neighbors because the addition
has been already been built after reviewing the documentation provided by the lawyer in charge
there are many instances where words and documents get manipulated for favor midst the applicant
for instance zoning requires nine feet of yard depth not storage depth as it was stated the word
storage maybe may grant for some leeway in zoning lingo but what was erected is in no way a storage
structure it is a living area with two skylights on the roof and the wide internal sliding glass
door also i'd like to know in what way mr knockamson believes that this addition enhances the
character and nature of the neighborhood what about from the perspective of mr space neighbors on
on Panama Street, whose backyards face this addition. This issue permanently changed the
nature of that specific property, allowing for complete grab of open space. If allowed to remain,
it sets a precedent for the rest of the neighbors to add storage areas in their backs, thus altering
the view from the backyards of the properties on Panama, and therefore possibly diminishing
their property values. Mr. Nuckamson is asked on the application whether this change may cause
damage. Judging by the quality of construction and history with his contractors, I am worried
that the overall quality may be below par. He had a LNI come and stop the
direction of this, but he continued. Having a shared party wall with the property in question,
I do worry about the integrity of the footing and the partition wall insulation. Mr. Spey defends
the quality of the people he hires, but had they had the qualifications required, then they shouldn't
have been, then they should have been aware of the regulatory process and followed it. Several
documents show previous water damage as an excuse to build this addition, but that problem could
have been potentially solved without the enclosed addition. And they don't show how that water
issue has been solved also. The applicant provides a signature by one neighbor in support of this
construction, Mr. Roger Johnson, who lived on the north side of Delancey Place and was not directly
affected by this addition. But below, I submit a document previously signed by him, which I
provided to you, which questions whether the signature provided by the owner's lawyer
is in fact Mr. Johnson's or if it was forged. Also, according to the City of Philadelphia,
106 properties needed to be notified about this issue of hearing was posted on the building prior
to the ccra meeting and to my knowledge most neighbors directly involved did not receive one
in the mail i'd like to hear from the board the reason behind the 25 of open space rule if they
feel it is important to keep it and whether they deem in terms of due process if there is any
justice to applying retroactively for a zoning permit and L&I now that the addition has been
retroactively for a zoning permit and lni now that the addition has been finished and if granted
whether there will be an inspection inspection to certify the quality of the construction
and compliance with all applicable safety rules thank you for listening thank you thank you
mr chair can i just respond quickly who's speaking this is mr this is alan occamson
oh alan i'm sorry okay please proceed so a couple of things and i'm not in front of my computer but
can you go into the picture for the for the rear yard you'll see that the the the lady that spoke
just now our next door neighbor to the left she has a two-story structure on her side on at least
part of her property which is two which is full which has full lot coverage
so you'll see that picture right there and then in terms of she said that picture right there you
could you show with the uh point to it please oh can you comment can you point to that two-story
structure uh it's no uh no go forward yeah uh yeah so you see it right there mr chair
so our our structure is the is the one on the roof with the skylights but beyond that
that two-story structure that's gray in nature that's the lady who just spoke that's right
that's what she has full lot coverage on her side she so and two stories and then we have
we have a letter of support from 1918 and 1920 um in support of our you know of our
yeah and yeah and we have a structural engineer that was why we you know again i don't think
enough said i okay uh anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand if you haven't
already done to?
I think the other end of the row is this.
No, we have Neal Kraus.
I'm here, I'm here, who are you?
Neil Krause.
Okay, Mr. Krause, please identify yourself, spell your first and latest name and provide
us with your address.
N-E-A-L-K-R-O-U-S-E, I live at 1921 Panama Street.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
well first the rendering they have looks like it's about a foot above the wall that the the
roof comes down it's shown it's flat i measured it today it's four and a half feet you can see
on this picture that's here that you know it's it's well above the one foot that they show on
the rendering this is something i'm not i'm not clear what what are you referring to okay um
I guess you can't see my uh uh can I can I show you saying the party wall between
1916 and I believe it would be 1918 yeah it it's not it's not like a foot above the wall
it's four and a half feet I measured it when you say wall you're talking about the rear
the adjoining of the adjacent property if you look at the if you look at the picture
of the rendering that's all nice and you know flat the roof looks like it's flat but it's not
and uh it's four and a half feet above that wall so it gives you a closed in more of a closed in
feeling now the thing is i i don't know i'd like to i'd like to uh share a picture of what i have
to look at every time i look out my window that's above my sink so i see this a hundred times a day
and uh and uh you know i i don't have blinds on the windows because no one can see in
but i and i need the light i need the you know the natural light but i have to look out the window
every time I'm sitting there. Is your property directly behind 1960? No, I'm just slightly,
I'm behind 1920. Okay, all right. But my window faces this directly. It's in my face all the time.
The construction is like ridiculous. It's not, you know, it looks to me like a bunker.
It looks like a bunker that's overlooking Omaha Beach, you know, in Normandy, a German bunker.
That's what it looks like. It's just a big block. And I have to look at this a hundred times a day.
The draining now, the drain pipe, I looked at that, that's like 100 years old.
I'm not sure, you know, you could even drain into that.
And the rendering shows that the water runs right off.
It doesn't show a gutter or anything for the water to go to.
And it would run right into the alley.
And the alley's all wet back there all the time.
I mean, and I don't think, you know, it's causing mosquitoes and everything.
I, it's, it's just, it's just a terrible, terrible structure and, and it should be, it should be
torn down because it's, because it's, you know, was never inspected.
so uh thank you i think this should be torn down and restored to what he had there before
thank you mr chair just would like to clarify that the structure is not finished that f if if
this board does grant this the variance we will obtain a zoning permit and then we will obtain
a building permit and go through the the process that we should have done the first time where
there will be inspections and work done. It's just the shell of the structure. As soon as L&I
notified us that this was done illegally, we stopped construction of it. And the other thing
I would indicate is there, if you can see from that picture, there's a two-story structure
right in the same line of sight. And if you look at the aerial view that I previously provided of
nearby properties with full lot coverage on that block, it's not uncommon for the other properties.
am i still okay hello roses roses building there she has a whole garden that goes from uh from the
alley all the way to uh to uh delancey street she has an enormous garden there ever if you look at
all these this is all all everyone except i think one near 20th street one building near 20th street
has open space outside their house every single one all right thank you sir anyone else want to
wish to testify we have wade albert good afternoon sir or good evening uh please identify yourself
with a record name and address sure good afternoon can you hear me yes okay uh my name is wade
albert and i am counsel for the center city residents association hey wayne how are you
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do hello hello sorry i was muted for a second okay um yes i do um so i uh believe that the uh
the zba received ccra's letter in opposition to this project we have and it is it is rare
at this point that we impose anything outright um and i i think that that sort of i want to explain
why we did that um we heard from um the council for the applicant um he said that this structure is
is is made it clear that it is uh it is sort of currently being built this is not a pre-existing
structure um that the when the applicant presented to us uh at our rco meeting a couple months ago
it became pretty clear that they began building this without permits um i understand that happens
um but i also understand that ellen i was called once and possibly a second time while that was
happening um i i don't want to misrepresent anything but i know that there's been an ongoing
a bunch of ongoing issues um with regard to the reasons for the actual opposition
the first is that ccra supports the neighbors who complained about light and air um that there are
um there there is one property right next door that goes to the property line but most of the
properties that are around there um they uh they do not have structures that directly abut the
they do not have structures that directly above the property line. There are some decks
property line.
outdoor space but they don't go that far. The other issue is that we do not believe
that the applicant can establish hardship. Our understanding is that the structure is going to
be used primarily for storage and that it is being built to apparently alleviate some sort
of problem with water damage and we respectfully submit that neither one of those issues are
sufficient to satisfy um the dimensional hardship requirements under the code um there is no
evidence that um that um not being able to build this would cause an economic detriment to the
applicant or that they would suffer any sort of financial burden um to bring the property
into strict compliance because they're really understanding there were no compliance issues
before they they attempted to build this structure um so therefore we would uh respectfully request
that the cba oppose this um this application thank you thank you sir i do agree that there
would have there are probably numerous other ways of addressing the water damage problem
i just think he backdoored this thing and got caught anyway that's my opinion well yeah mr
chair again we yeah alan no disrespect yeah you don't have to build a room to prevent any damage
to the basement there's concrete there's a whole bunch of other materials that could have been used
there just has been there's not no one's going to convince me otherwise
that's just my opinion that's my opinion i'm not being i'm not arguing with you
no i know this respect but there were there are other remedies that could have been taken
anyone else yes bob bennett please identify yourself sir name and address
my name is robert bennett my address is 1917 panama street
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir please proceed uh mr chairman and uh board members thanks very much for your time
i've been on with you since two o'clock so i know it's been a long day for all of us
um i do appreciate it um i don't want to throw stones or or start a catfight but mr knackinson
and Mr. Spey, their memories are very selective as far as what they've told in front of the board
here. I've dealt with this issue now since October 13, 2019. That is the day that Mr. Spey started
tearing apart his back patio, which if you would have saw it, it was gorgeous, okay? He tore
everything out that you could imagine, and that pretty much contributed to much of his water
problems that he's speaking about the other thing is sure it's a mute issue but mr um mr
knockerman said about the the foliage in the back that foliage is on my brick wall and they're box
wood plants that are sitting in uh 75 hour planters and if you're at my table say this
looks gorgeous okay excuse me you are the you're the property directly behind correct directly
behind yeah i'm still looking at the aerial view of there could could we have his aerial view uh
pictures removed yeah we have the knock of some presentation please take that down
okay so what are we i'm confused what are we asking for he wanted the arrow view taken down
mr bennett do you have something in replay yes mr i do have pictures but i still want to just
finish with a timeline if i could and i'll be very brief okay but he hasn't been promoted yet
So you're asking to do a presentation?
I sent all my pictures in.
I'm asking a question, sir.
Do you need to present so I can promote you to a panelist?
That's all.
Are you going to be presenting photographs?
Yes, sir.
Okay, yeah, then we'll have to promote you.
Can you wait one minute?
We have to promote you.
Thank you very much.
He's been promoted, Ms. Sunkin.
Thank you. Mr. Bennett, please proceed.
You still there, Mr. Bennett?
Mr. Bennett, you have to unmute yourself.
I did. I'm sorry. I'm still here, Chairman. I'm sorry.
Okay. Thank you.
I just started on October 13, 2019, without a permit.
I actually approached Spade in regards to this, and he told me he was putting a new patio in.
in regards to this. He told me he was putting a new patio in. Mr. Spade receives a stop order
Mr. Spade received...
from L&I on November the 13th and he ignored that. Well I'm going to object Mr. Chair.
You can object but it's the truth okay. L&I from Giovanni Caputo they issued
and Mr. Spade continued to do the work in his backyard. Is that this past November?
November the 13th, the stock order was issued.
No, it was the 19th. It was L&I case number 715-522.
What year?
Okay, thank you.
He started this project 14 months ago. Now, the beauty of Mr. Spey is he did this project because he knew the city was under the COVID and no one was there.
i'm gonna have your mr chair i i i i need my time that's an opinion okay that's your
okay i'm sorry i'm sorry mr bennett mr bennett could you please just testify regarding the zoning
please we have so many other cases to get to thank you
mr bennett you're still there yes i am okay the lot is against the codes 14701 there is no
there is no open space there is no yard depth um the impact that i'm going through right now
is that it is it is creating a mold situation in my patio um maybe once a year i have to clean my
patio since since mr spade has put this aluminum drain on top of his rooftop it's draining into the
back alley and it's it's it's it's affected it's affected my patio it's also affected despite what
mr knockerman said because he doesn't live here the light and and the different uh the different
things that you enjoy of open space that's all away from me um i have safety concerns from my
family if if hopefully i can bring these pictures up or one of my associates will be able to do
it but that wall that is built i have fear for my family it is a dangerous wall it is just they
they put this thing up in a fire sale to get this over with they put stucco over ellen i came out
for the second time the same gentleman mr caputo and and ordered him to stop order mr i'm going to
object uh again if you know if he has documentation i i get a lot of his testimony hearsay
we could ask mr spay if he met with mr caputo we'll get we'll get to that mr bennett thank you
okay the other thing is um when i look at it it's built on it's it's a failing wall in an alley okay
it's between the easement and its property there is a window cut out that goes into the alley right
now and an actual window cut out um the the fact that he says he wants this for storage it's so
ridiculous he's got this project was pushed forward under the veil of secrecy and i cannot
for the life of me for being a businessman my whole life how someone could have the audacity
to go after our neighbors 439 days later he's before the board here 439 days later after he
did an illegal project and he's looking for a variance. That is the most ridiculous thing I've
ever heard in my life. He has no respect for his neighbors and he has no respect for the city of
Philadelphia. And that's honest truth. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Anyone else? Sir, Mr. Chairman,
may I try to get my photos in? Quickly, if you could. I will. One second.
Okay, here we go.
okay here we go can you see this Mr. Chairman not yet
that you can see the pictures they're up in front of me
Sir, you have to select share screen at the bottom of your Zoom application first.
I'm trying to do that, not letting me do it.
Mr. Bennett, with all due respect, if you can maybe just describe what it is you were
going to show us.
We are still on our two o'clock list.
We have several more cases to go and then a 3.30.
We're not trying to rush you.
We understand it's important to you.
I'm trying to find the share screen if I could.
i'm trying to find the share screen if i could do you see a green button at the bottom of your
Do you see a green button at the bottom of your...
zoom application that says share screen no i'm looking at my pictures right now hold on one
second no you have to start at the zoom application
Perhaps Mr. Spitzer, who is also is looking to speak, Mr. Spitzer will be able to do that.
Is Mr. Spitzer going to offer us anything that we already haven't heard? And we mean that
respectfully um we don't need redundancy i think sir i think he could bring like i see all your
pictures right now online but i cannot see how i went oh wait a minute here's my share my screen
There it is. Thank you so much for your patience.
Here we go.
okay thank you mr chairman are you able to see it
we were but then you went out of it again
go back to your yeah we need to move along miss i i i don't know what other pictures we need to see
yeah mr chair yeah mr chair that was why it was really important for us to get a structural
engineer to go out after the community meeting that we we thought it was really we don't want
to do anything that's structurally going to cause issues that's why we again no disrespect he
shouldn't have done it in the first place all right without without proper permits and any
and again mr notkinson i got a lot of respect for you so i'm not it's not directed at you
personally all right all right anyone else something new and different
something we haven't already heard please are you still there Mr. Chairman I'm still here
Pamela Hoskin yeah we can only see a portion of your picture
I'm sorry I took them down uh I would like to move along too and yeah we're going to move along
right now all right we have Pamela Hoskin who can be sworn in chair thank you Pamela yes Pamela
Holskin, H-O-E-L-S-K-E-N. I'm at 1919 Panama Street. So for the sake of time and lack of
redundancy, obviously I'm concerned about property values, lack of light. That structure is blocking
my light. I have continual water problems on my back patio. I have algae growing and I have
safety concerns as well about the integrity of that wall and that it's compromised thank you
thank you ma'am thanks for your patience anyone else
questions from the board no uh mr uh josh spitzer i believe that is sir
wants to speak let's get mr spitzer please just identify yourself a brief comment
it's josh spitzer last name is s-p-i-t-z-e-r i live at 1915 panama so i'm uh mr bennett's
neighbor and i back up to the lancesque property okay you swear in the firm to tell the truth
the whole truth that is correct please proceed can you know what can you make it so i can share
my screen i have bob's presentation that um it's up on my screen i can show you a picture or two
and walk you through my concern
and then I'll be done.
It's pretty quick.
Tanya, are we able to help Mr. Spitzer?
Jason, can you promote him to panelists, please?
Yes, we're going to.
He's not a panelist.
i'm sorry clementa i put you back i apologize all right yeah we can hear you okay so basically
like i said i'm 1915 panama i'm bob bennett's neighbor i back up to the delancey street
um my concerns essentially um like everyone else has mentioned that
Um, my concerns essentially, um, like everyone else has mentioned that, um, with this wall
going, uh, or the structure being where it is, it's a hundred percent lock coverage,
um, which, you know, to me is a concern for several reasons.
One of them is for safety, um, and a fire hazard.
Imagine if we all build our property to the property line, I think that would be obviously
a concern up and down the street.
In addition, it was mentioned there was no permit. There was open air and light that is no longer there, although Bob does have some shrubbery. At the end of the day, the structure is, you know, 12 to 14 feet high.
and I'm going to show you, this is the pictures that Bob was alluding to.
So you'll see that the wall is obviously structurally pretty poor.
You can see that this is where they were doing the up above the skyline here.
they put in a window in the middle of a structural wall that's supporting a you know a above
structure to me like you had mentioned chairman if you were really trying to get rid of a water
problem most people I know would try and do it in the most efficient manner as well as the cheapest
manner and not build a whole new structure you could regrade your property and now because of
the way this property was built as you can see it was built up on cinder block without having
concrete. I would assume it was not done with concrete because you couldn't get a cement truck
in the back of our alleyway. The only way to do it would be by hand, which would be a fortune
or very difficult. So to us, our fear is that it's not done well. It could fall over. It could
kill someone, catch fire, et cetera. And lastly, you know, I wish Mr. Spaywell, I'm sorry, this has
to be almost confrontational between him and his neighbors, but we really are concerned
as neighbors that this does impact us in terms of fire hazard, open air and light.
And the water drain, Mr. Chairman, as you can imagine, when it rains, it rains in our
backyards, which then goes into the ground or into the sewer.
However, now with this new structure, the water actually rains off of the structure
into the easement alleyway, which causes problems for all of the neighbors, which, you know, people
have complained of mold, debris, et cetera. And my fear is if this is allowed, then why wouldn't
all of our neighbors do this, which would create all kinds of problems, I think, for the entire
street. So that's my personal view. And here are Mr. Benin's photos. Thank you. Okay.
we also have both a chris and an anthony spay hold on we're going to move on
questions from mr chair that's actually the property owner well we already heard from it
haven't we well he just adopted my testimony i think there were a lot of allegations i i know
this has been a long day and it's been it's not a long day and it's time and you know we're not
on a specific clock here but no i hear i mean i i don't know what i get him on mr spay it's on
that's it one more one more witness again nothing personal mr knock it's him i'm just
no i hear you this is just total disregard for neighbors and the city as far as i'm concerned
mr chairman the bottom line is you have you had a homeowner who did demo without a permit
and then they had a contract excuse me this is a reporter i have no idea who's speaking
That was Jim Snell.
I'm a board member.
Yeah, this is Christopher.
Christopher Spade, do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I don't deny some of the look of it currently, but what the neighbors are saying.
I went about this project with a general contractor who promised me to get me the permits.
Can I ask one quick question?
Jim Snell here, Ford Motor.
Who was the general contractor?
I've heard this banter about quite a bit.
What's the name?
A&B Contracting.
Giovanni was the GC on this particular job.
He is no longer employed with A&B.
I paid him a great deal of money to do this.
He promised me multiple, multiple times he was in charge in getting the proper paperwork.
um in writing and documented via text message um and that's why i'm here and it's taken 423 days
because he's long gone and i paid him all this money and i'm taking the reins behind this by
hiring an attorney to try to rectify the situation the structure out there the structure at the end
Sorry, at the end of the day, the homeowner has to take responsibility.
of the day the homeowner has to take responsibility you just can't blame the contract
He just can't blame the contractor.
I'm going to try.
I agree.
And that's why I'm here and he's long gone.
And I am trying to rectify the situation.
The structure as it is now is by no means complete.
It is not looking like what a finished product looked like.
We only put the roof part on, which is the black, to protect more water that was coming in.
The outside wall is not complete.
there's a ton of things that are not complete still. And I understand where all the neighbors
are coming from. The structure looks like hell looking from the back. From what Rosa said,
I'm more than happy to have anybody come in and look at the quality of work,
take on more recommendations for anything like that. I don't want people to think that that
structure, what they're seeing right now, would be what a final product would look like. I was told
that by him using the outside pipe and there was slab on the outside that was allowing water to
seep into my basement, that was the easiest way to do it. As he put it, simply adding a roof over
the exterior. The wall was existing. He simply put a roof. That's the way it was worded to me.
And, you know, I'm really sorry that, you know, it has looked like that for a year,
but it's taken me that long to get in contact with historical and the right people to try to
push this along. And, you know, again, I do respect my neighbors. I've taken a lot of pride in my home
and, you know, I'm more than happy to take anybody's advice in the area. And I want to
make it legal and i've paid for civil engineers and done all the above so um you know it's an
unfortunate situation i just have to defend myself a little bit when everybody says
christopher spade did this christopher spade did this i personally take responsibility
but i personally didn't do that directly mr spade did you see the photographs that uh mr
spritzer uh yes provided us is that the condition of the property now with with the wood with the
wood with the uh brick wall or that sitting on the cinder that existing that existing brick wall
is 150 years old what i would be doing is fixing it i'm asking you that's a condition now how far
along in the project is this i the the roof is built and the wall is not finished the exterior
is not what about the interiors not not complete yet no it's it's studs studs flooring uh basic uh
basic plywood all right all right thank you anyone else
oh chair you can continue okay planning commission thank you tanya planning commission
good evening david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan. This proposal
would result in the complete loss of open space on the lot, which is contrary to the city's health
and public safety standards. Accordingly, we oppose granting this variance. Okay, thank you.
MI 2020-002482-1916 Delancey, please. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Thank you. Thank you. MI 2020-002497, 2202 North Marshall Street.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Richard DeMarco has been promoted to panelist.
Good afternoon, or good evening, Mr. DeMarco. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
There is the board, Richard DeMarco, here for the applicant in this matter.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, and I can wave and stip.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos of the property and or plans within five days of this hearing?
We did email a packet.
It was not five days in advance.
I appreciate your indulgence on that with the holidays and COVID and my office being closed.
It was done on Monday.
But we also have testimony as to our tax clearance situation.
The applicant's been working on that.
He believes he has paid everything.
We have some proof of that.
So we are going to ask you to vote the case, but we don't have the actual certificate.
Have you met with the RCO?
Yes, we have unanimous support from the RCO.
You'll be happy to know.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll share my screen.
I believe I've corrected an issue
where I was unable to rotate things, but let me.
Tanya, I'm sorry, I meant to say, Sharon, do you have exhibits?
Tanya, I'm sorry, I meant to say,
Sharon, do you have exhibits?
I do, yes.
Okay, thank you.
And I'm sorry, can I just ask a quick question and make sure I'm clear?
Did Mr. DeMarco say he does not have a tax?
We don't have.
Yes, Tanya.
No documentation regarding your tax?
We have documentation.
We don't have the actual tax clearance certificate.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
I'm checking that now.
Perfect. Thank you, Sharon. Sharon, it's not in the packet, but let me address it right now,
and hopefully you'll be able to- No, I'm actually checking with the Department of Revenue to see if
there's a tax balance. Oh, that's good. Well, here's what my client found out when he worked
on this the last few days. He does have a zero balance, and he will testify to that,
but the payment was somewhat recent so we are unable to actually get they do not update the
computers and he's unable to actually produce the actual certificate but we've got copies of the
canceled checks and i do have an email from grb who is the enforcement uh law firm for the city
and they confirmed that they did get the checks but we don't have the actual clearance certificate
And if worse comes to worse luck, if you feel more comfortable, go ahead.
You actually don't need the certificate.
If you can send any information, the canceled checks, that's fine.
I have that.
Let me put it up on my screen now.
I'll show you the canceled checks.
Can you see my screen okay?
Yeah, we got it.
Thank you.
So that's the one check.
And then there's a $4,000 check here.
And my client will put on – my client, by the way,
is Irvin Daughty, and he can verify all this when I present him to verify all the, and I do have,
I actually have an email from GRB. Let's see if this works. Can you see the email from Jane
Schlechter at GLB? On my screen? Actually, Mr. DeMarco, I just pulled this up and you have a
zero tax balance, so you're fine. I'm glad to hear that. That makes things much easier. Thank you,
Sharon. Also, Mr. Chairman, I do want to put on the record right away, there was a small
revision to the site plan after the application was filed. There is an amended plan form that
was not in the packet. I did submit it to Sharon today, or actually the architect, I think, sent
directly. The only one I could find was an older revised proviso form. We just changed the size of
the court within the building. This is a multifamily dwelling proposal. And there's a slight change to
the footprint and a rear stair. Let me show you the site plan. How many pages? One page.
One page.
Yes, it is one page.
Anthony Sarantanoptis is our architect who can verify that.
But I believe what I have up is, I know, I don't believe.
That is the revised plan that you see on your screen right now.
So if you can summarize, go through it.
I can be very brief.
And I'll summarize my client's testimony and he can just adopt it so you understand.
We have full support from the RCO on this matter, Mr. Chairman.
Let me go to my – of course, now I can't get to the – the application is blocking my – all right.
Let me give you a testimony.
I'll get to – I don't know why it does that.
That is weird.
The app is – I'm going to stop.
The app thing is blocking the – I can't click.
Oh, here we go.
I know what to do.
All right.
So this is a vacant lot. It's surrounded by vacant lots. It's a very unusual development situation. Our refusal is for not having commercial space on the first floor. This is the refusal.
my client would testify that he actually has another property nearby that he is required to
have commercial use he cannot get a tenant the the lot is off of the beaten path and is a very
difficult location to attract a commercial tenant the other variance is we are asking for an
additional unit this is a cmx2 property in order to develop the property feasibly he's asking for
an additional unit. And that's the extent of the variance relief. My client actually met with some
of the near neighbors. He spoke to the woman across the street who runs the children's mission.
He agreed to partner with her. They're concerned about some of the vacant lots in the area.
He's going to shed, put some light on those lots. And he really can
He's going to shed, put some light on those lots, and he really cannot develop this vacant lot
And...
without some of this variance relief that we're asking for.
So he would testify that he really cannot develop this feasibly without variances.
The other issue, Mr. Chairman, that he will verify momentarily is, this is the old site plan, by the way,
I'm scrolling through, not the new one.
The other thing he will verify is that if he were to build to code, he would have abnormally large units for this neighborhood, which would be unrentable, unsellable, or would be at a price point that would be too high.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Tanya to enable Irvin Daughty to be part of the discussion, and Anthony Sorontanakis.
But one other thing, Mr. Chairman, there is a trash storage room accessible to all tenants
through the common area. And there is one basement bedroom. It's a split level unit.
I'll show it to you in a moment. It's here. You can see here and here are the by level. This is
the first and basement. This is a walkout second means of egress. So there is a bedroom or two
in the basement. But you see here, this is a walkout into the rear yard. And that would be
most of it. I'll ask Mr. Daugherty to be authorized and to accept my testimony.
We did meet with the RCO. I'll scroll to that. Full support. We actually had a unanimous vote,
which, as the board knows, is not too common. Oh, this is the site, Mr. Chairman.
And these are the lots.
Only one of, you can see here, is the width of the lot.
And all of the other, these are all vacant lots here.
So it's a lot of vacant lots in this area.
I'll show you the RCO letter.
Is Irvin Dottie with us?
Irvin, can you hear me?
Mr. Dottie, if you're here, please raise your hands.
Can they be allowed to speak?
Irvin, raise your hand.
and uh anthony sarantanakis as well anthony is the architect yes we don't we don't need anthony
yet i don't think okay fine that's fine unless the board needs him but always no no
ervin you with us
mr demarco as an officer will stipulate that your client would have done very well
thank you he may have he might have had to go because of the all right i'm here oh there you
go please identify yourself sir spell your name for the record my name is ervin e-r-v-i-n last
name is Dowdy, D-A-U-T-I. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? I do. Mr. DeMarco? Irvin, did you hear all of my factual statements and testimony before the
board today? I did. Do you adopt it as your own and as true and accurate testimony? It is. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, you've had a long day, so I'll wrap it up there. Thank you. I could have Mr.
dottie explain why i don't think it's needed uh questions from the board no no no planning commission
uh good afternoon uh or good evening uh mr chairman members of the board david effecto city
planning commission this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the city's comprehensive
plan we're going to go with the rco's position and not oppose this proposal thank you very
you very much. MI 2020-002497. 2202 North Marshall Street. My vote is yes. Revised plans.
I'm sorry, with revised plan, one page approved today. Thank you. Yes, with proviso. Yes, with proviso.
Thank you. MI 2020-00. I'm sorry, I have a continuance request for the 330 list. Should
hang around or can that be granted? Tonya, we can do that now? No. No, we gotta hang around.
We have more time. That's all right. Okay, that's all right. Frank, you're muted.
Sorry about that. MI 2020-003296, 332 West Wildey Street.
Chair, if you remember, this is a hearing on reconsideration. You initially denied this
um this application you then granted reconsideration and rehearing so that's what you're doing today
application. You then granted reconsideration.
thank you
chair mr whalen has had his hand up he has just now been promoted to panelist
whalen please identify yourself with the records by your name
yes good evening uh chair members sean whalen vintage law here on behalf of the owner and
applicant for 332 West Wildey Street. Can you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth? I do. I don't need to read off the other stuff. This is a reconsideration
correct? Yes it is. Okay so please proceed. And I know you guys are used to me bringing long
confused cases in front of you but I think I can do this in three minutes for you to get
get you guys out of here. This is a relatively straightforward case. I'm going to share my screen
just to give a quick reminder. I'll only show like two slides. So this is hopefully you're seeing
an atlas aerial view. The darkened area right here is right at the intersection of West Wildey
and North Oriana Street in Northern Liberties. The blackened area is three small
properties that we are proposing to consolidate into two larger properties to build two single
family homes. We had, you've already heard all of the arguments and all of the refusals and the
reasons for the granting of a variance. So I won't go into that unless you ask for it. So I will just
jump to the basis for today's reconsideration, which I appreciate the board granting.
So at the last hearing you heard, we had an approval from NLNA and from Mr. Matt Rubin,
who not only is he part of the RCO, but he lives right across the street. So we reached out to him
as well as other neighbors. And we had agreement, we lowered the height by two feet,
two and three quarters feet. We reduced the curb cuts, we made the deck railing 75% opaque.
And most importantly, Mr. Rubin wanted the roof deck and the RCO wanted the roof deck set back eight feet from the street frontage.
We presented revised proviso plans at the hearing that had been confirmed and approved by Larry Friedman at the RCO.
And when Mr. Rubin saw them at the hearing, he felt that they did not meet the eight foot setback agreement that we had met.
Unfortunately, this is solely a matter of doing things via Zoom as opposed to doing things via in-person. In-person, we could have dealt with this probably within a five-minute sidebar and not delayed anything, but unfortunately, we had to move forward and press the board for a decision because, as you know, there was the end of the year tax abatement deadline pending.
What we've done now, and what I just showed very briefly, is we've submitted very, very slightly revised plans that the RCO and Mr. Rubin both confirm do meet the eight-foot setback agreement.
Essentially, all we had to do was we flipped the stairs going up to the roof deck so that we had people walking up the stairs within the eight feet and then circling back to the setback roof deck.
and now the stairs go directly to the eight foot setback roof deck and therefore nobody is within
eight feet at any point in time. So I believe that's all I have for you today. I'm happy to
answer any questions and Mr. I understand that Mr. Matt Rubin and Larry Friedman on behalf of
the RCO are both here to simply confirm that we're all in agreement and this was just a miscommunication.
I can't hear you, Chairman.
Okay, he's going to probably go out and come back in.
We can pause for a minute.
No problem, Ms. Sunket.
If we want to speed up the process, like I said, I believe Mr. Friedman and Mr. Rubin are both there.
And I did forget to mention one item.
we have also agreed separately it's not really a zoning matter something that we can show on the
plans but we have agreed that the roof deck itself will not be unreasonably above the uh the roof and
as close to uh on roof level as possible um you hear me now yes i can mr chairman okay thank you
yes i can mr okay thank you how many pages the revised two pages revised plans they were
how many pages the revised two pages revised plan
submitted already to uh all right thank you um do you need to bring your client on uh i don't
believe i need my client i would simply say that yeah mr rubin and i'm sorry i spoke over you
that's okay we'll stipulate your client would agree that uh adopt your testimony so we have
mr freeman and uh mr rubin two of the heavy hitters in northern liberties
who's the most who's the most prominent one
i'd say i'd say larry because he lives across the street
well mr rubin lives across the street i meant to say mr rubin yeah
i meant to say mr rubin yeah
mr yes
Larry, okay.
Please identify yourself with a record, please, by your name.
Yes, I'm Larry Friedman,
chair of the Northern Liberty's Neighbors Association zoning committee.
Friedman is F-R-E-E-D-M-A-N, correct?
Correct.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, sir.
do you do you do you agree with the testimony of mr whalen yes yes yes all the issues yes
and uh basically i'm just here i was actually on the the last uh at the last hearing um
as more or less more or less an observer because we of course did send out a support letter
until the very end and then it was kind of a little bit late for me to chime in so i thought
I would just be here today to say that we saw this back, I believe it was August.
We had a very extensive meeting. It took a long, long time. The zoning committee supported the
project. After that, there were some additional negotiations and the zoning committee
uh supported the additional negotiations and that's the plan that we supported okay well thank
you uh any questions from the board no no no anyone else if you would just i i would i would
like uh mr rubin to be able to yeah this was getting anyone else would like to testify please
raise your hand matt rupin is available to be sworn in good evening mr rubin
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members.
Hi. Matt, please identify yourself with a record name and address.
Matt Rubin, M-A-T-T-R-U-B-E-N, 1000 North Oriana Street, Philadelphia, 19123.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
As per what Mr. Whalen said, I met with him and the architect and the owner or owner's representative
after the last hearing, discussed what he said, and they came up with a revised plan that they
have submitted, which addresses the roof condition to my satisfaction and to the
satisfaction of what I understood to be the agreement that was had, you know, that was in
place. Learn more about the project that was good and appreciate Mr. Whelan also mentioning at the
hearing the effort to mount the roof deck as low as possible on top of the roof. And so what he
said is accurately representing the situation from my point of view thank you appreciate your
testimony thank you anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
oh the hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission
good evening david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the city's comprehensive plan
On October 27th, we gave testimony recommending against this proposal.
We thought that it could simply be redesigned to be by right, and we still think that it could be redesigned so it could be built by right.
So we're going to not support the proposal again.
I appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
MI 2020-003296, 332 West Wildey Street.
My vote is yes.
With revised plan, two pages of revised plan approved today.
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you mi2020-000811490 conaro street c-o-n-a-r-r-o-e
mr chair
Mr. Chair, I have just promoted Mr. Joseph Consul to panelist.
Good evening, Mr. Consul. Please identify yourself with the records by your last name for the
sonographer. Good evening, Frank. Good evening, board. Thanks for having me. Joe Consul. Consul
Madison, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204, Media, Pennsylvania, 19063. And do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you agree to waive and
stipulate? I do. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal and or referral,
photos and or plans of the property within five days of this hearing yes sir i have and have you
met with the rco we did thank you sir please proceed hi everyone uh this will be short and
sweet i'm here on 2020 00811 the property is 490 conroe street uh the property uh is a two-unit
building in Roxborough. We have the owner, representative of the owner, Ms. Jennifer
Cessna. The owner is MNNC Properties 2, LLC. This property up until the 1970s was part of 6100 Ridge
Avenue. We'll have a picture of it here. It's not the property on the corner. That's 6100 Ridge
where the building next to it, but they were one property. It got subdivided at some point. The
the commercial space in the front was sold off.
The spot in the back is two units
and it has been since that time.
It was purchased by my clients in 2020.
They realized they did not have two unit zoning.
They filed for the variance because it's CMX 2.5,
which would allow for two units,
but also would require commercial use
along the first floor frontage.
So we got a refusal.
The first floor of the building,
and i'll i'll pull up just a mock-up of their their blueprint here the first floor of the
building has one bedroom uh and this is one unit and the second and third floors are a total of
two bedrooms and that's the the second unit we met with the rocksborough central roxborough
civic association in september uh several members of the general public attested to the fact that
The property has been used as a two-unit and rented out consistently for over 30 years.
There was no opposition to the legalization of the duplex, and the letter sent by the RCO reflects the same.
We had over 50 people at that meeting, and no one opposed.
And that's really the bulk of my presentation.
I could call Ms. Jennifer Cessna to just verify what I've said is accurate.
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your full name for
the court reporter. There she is. Again. We didn't hear you, Jen. Okay. Yeah, I just got
unmuted. Jennifer Cessna, J-E-N-I-F-E-R-C-E-S-S-N-A. Hi, Jennifer. We're in a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Ms. Cessna, have you heard my testimony today?
I did, yes, and it's completely accurate. You adopted as true and accurate to your knowledge?
I do. Is there anything you'd like to add? Nope, just that we're looking to downsize,
not not upsize so hopefully it's an easy one all right thank you uh questions from the board
no no no okay anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand including members of the rco and or the district council office
no additional hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission good evening david fecto
city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for
commercial mixed use on the city's comprehensive plan since this is a pre-existing use and the
neighbors have no objection we do not object to granting this variance thank you very much mi
2020-000811490 Conroy Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you. That concludes the two o'clock hearing list.
Does anyone need a
does anyone need a break
I'm okay how about we take just five minutes I need a break all right five minutes is fine
thank you everyone I'm sorry Tanya are you ready yes chair thank you good evening everyone my name
is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating
in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair. No, Ms. Carol Tenere is not here. I'll be
participating in today's hearing with our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board
Members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrators Ms. Tanya Sunkit
and Mr. Jason Hand along with our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i'll repeat to enter an appearance statement call
google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat
any comments should be directed to the board administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkit or Mr. Jason Hand
with that uh we will begin our first case excuse me before I do the first case I would like to
read into the record the following cases that have requested continuances
number three on our list MI 2020-001-957-2212 Bryn Mawr Avenue
number four on our list MI 2020-001-836-3461 Cotman Avenue
number six on our list mi 2020-001 382 4426 north 19th street number seven on our list
MI 2020-001-850-610-Fernon Street.
And for some reason, Sharon and or Tanya, I don't have, oh, here it is.
I have it.
What number eight on our list would be MI 2020-001862.
I don't have the address for that.
Sharon and or Tanya? Yes, it is 6717 Chew Avenue. That case is continued. Thank you.
Chair, if I could. Any of those cases that have been requested to be continued,
have any of them already been continued? Number seven, if we can ask that to be must be heard.
yeah i forgot to ask that in the beginning i apologize okay so mi 2020 that's zero zero one
eight five zero six one zero fernon street is continued must be heard
any other ones uh tanya did i miss nope i think that might be it okay um
can you continue we want to make sure we got that three this is two and three o'clock okay
3 30 all right um first case mi 2020-001957 2212 Bryn Mawr Avenue
Chair I think the first two cases are I passed over that again I apologize my mistake
let's start again so Mr. Anastasia just hang in there we'll be right with you
I went past the first two MI 2020-001
I went past the first two. MI 2020-001524, 109 West Rockland Street.
Sorry about that. MI 2020-001523, 111 West Rockland Street.
anyone here for 109 and 111 west rockland street
i am mr chair obviously okay um mr anastasio please be you're still on the oath from this
morning yes sir all right did you uh wave agree to wave and stip i agree to wave and stip
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documentation, including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
I did all of that, yes.
And have you also met with the RCO?
I have.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
I'm going to share my screen with you right now.
Can everyone see that?
All right.
Awesome.
It's 109.
Actually, it's 109-111 Rockland Street.
It's for the vehicle equipment and supply sales and rentals for business and professional offices in an existing structure.
That's 109, and this is 111.
for personal vehicle repairs and maintenance this has been a pre-existing condition for quite some
time clients thought that this had been legal legalized it's been it's been actually in use
for over 30 years and for some reason they recently received notification that it was no
longer in compliance. Let's look at 109 Rockland first. We have plans here for a storage area,
an office space, and a reception area. The refusal for 109 Rockland is storage.
So that's what we're here to do here is legalize the storage space.
Again, there's no painting here.
This is just a basic vehicle repair.
No ventilation, no painting at all.
And then we have in 111, three bays for cars and a ramp that goes into the property for repair.
There. This is what the property looks like. Let's take a look here. It goes from, here's
Rockland. If you can see my cursor goes right through and here's their parking lot in the
rear. So it's quite a large property. ZNA Auto Sales is already over here. I represent ZNA Auto.
so they've been in the neighborhood for quite some time they're they're pretty well known
well regarded this is the existing conditions i'm going to go through this relatively quickly
the rest of the block is primarily
commercial for the most part as you can see mostly stores garages warehouses
lots. Here's interior photos. Here's another business. We have a lease. We have the flyer
that went out to the community. We have proof of mailing. There were 64 neighboring homes.
we have tax compliance we did meet with the RCO I do not have a letter from the RCO
but they have in fact told me that they emailed one a letter of of non-opposition to
the zoning board of adjustment directly and when I spoke to the
to the RCO. They told me that they were out of town and they were not able to
to get that to us. I don't know if you could see
this email. I just tried to share an email with you. Do you see it here?
Yes. It's from Quincy Lazada. Good morning. I submitted a response of not
It's from Quincy Lozada. Good morning. I submitted a response of non-opposition to the office of Councilwoman Maria Kenyona Sanchez. I'm not in the office this week, but we'll send you a copy when I return.
Unfortunately, that was on the 5th of January. Today is the 6th. So they're not back in the office yet, but they have no opposition.
you. With that, I'm going to rest my case. I believe Mr. Atila should be online, who is my
client. If he's here, I ask that he raise his hand. Could I interrupt for one minute? This is
Sharon Saleta. We did receive letters from Councilwoman Sanchez, and she is in non-opposition
and refers to the RCO's position of non-opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Saleta.
I don't know if Mr. Attila is online, but if he is, I ask him to raise his hand to be recognized.
So you have no hands up for him, sir.
Mr. Alastazio, as an officer of the court, we'll stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
I would ask that you do that, sir. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand that would include
frank you anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
that includes any members of an rco and or the district council person's office
no answer this time mr chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chairman members of the board uh ian litwin planning commission staff i need to be
sworn in thank you and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you please proceed okay this property is indicated for commercial mixed use
on the comprehensive plan and the zone accordingly as this is a long-standing existing use with
community support we do not oppose granting the advances for either 109 or 111 west rockland
Thank you very much. MI 2020-001524, 109 West Rockland, and MI 2020-001523, 111 West
Moreland. My vote is yes on both with the proviso, no spray painting, and no body and fender work.
Thank you.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
QMI 2020, that's 001383, 4003 Filbert Street.
Mr. Chair, I have a Mr. Dennis George on the line.
I will allow him to, I guess it's been brought to a panelist already.
Good evening, Mr. George.
Please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you will.
Sorry, sorry, Mr. Chair, my bad.
I have someone else, my bad.
No, Mr. George should be right.
Dennis George, I believe.
Would you promote him?
Okay, Mr. George.
Mr. George, you can unmute yourself
and begin your presentation after being sworn in?
Good evening, Mr. George.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Dennis George, Ranjian George, 2000 Market Street,
Suite 1440, Philadelphia, 19103.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive and stipulate?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, and photos and their plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
The email was sent, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize.
It was not done five days in advance because our offices were closed.
But we did submit all the documents.
Have you met with the RCO?
We have.
Sharon, do we have the documentation?
We do, yes.
Let's proceed, Mr. George.
Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that if we could also have Sky Architects be entered,
they'll be posting the documents.
documents. This is an application for an erection of a single-family home on the
This is an application.
property located at 4003 Filbert Street. The refusals, there are three refusals.
One is for the front setback, which once we get the plan up we can show you. The
other is a required minimum yard space. Because of the design of the lot, there
There is a side yard, but not a rear yard, which I think basically complies.
You'll see that the side yard is...
I hate to interrupt, but did you say there was someone else presenting?
Oh, here we go.
If we could bring up the plan.
Yao, are you there, the architect?
Hopefully we can get the plan up.
Yao Cheng Huang?
Yeah, I'm okay on the plan right now.
Sorry, please hold on.
Mr. Chairman, if you want, you can swear in Mr. Chen.
Mr. Chen, please identify yourself, first and last name.
Yes. First name Xin Yuan, H-S-I-N-G-Y-U-A-N. Last name Chen, C-H-E-N.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Okay, Mr. George.
Mr. Chairman, this is the applications for a single family home, which would be approximately
2,100 square feet of space within the height limit on an odd-shaped lot.
We can show you the plan. We did meet with the RCO, and you will see a letter from the RCO.
There were actually 31 attendees and five opposed and zero support, but we'd like to address that
after you you review the plan um basically the the
uh the first floor will be mr george yes when you turn your head you're you're off the mic
i apologize okay the first floor is um is for the parking
the cellar will be for mechanicals the second floor is a master bed as their living room and
kitchen the third floor is a master bedroom and bath and the fourth floor is two bedrooms
and two bathrooms if we can go back to the side yard on the on the plan
what we're proposing is a side yard instead of a rear yard because of the configuration
And you could see that that would be approximately almost 7 by 10, which is basically in compliance, but not rear, but side.
And also the setback, they're saying it doesn't match the other building, but the buildings are, as you can see, a different configuration.
The one does and the other doesn't because it's a corner property.
And if you look at the RCO letter, basically it's the, I think the complaint is it's allowing the building of a 37-foot home would open the possibility for other developers to build on smaller lots.
This is the proposed site. It's within the height of the building next to it and there is no refusal
for height. I'd entertain any questions for myself or the architects. Is there an existing curb cut?
There is. It looks that way in the photograph. Okay. There is an existing curb cut but we'll
have to move it some to match the entrance all right um any questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
including members of the rco and or the district council person's office
Mr. Chair, I have Yaocheng Huang to speak at this time.
Good evening, please identify yourself for the record, spell your first and last name
and provide us with your address.
My name is Yao Chang Huang. I'm principal at the Sky Design Studio. The address is 1823 Spring Garden.
My name is Yaocheng Huang, I'm principal at the Sky
All right.
What role do you play in this? You're quite a few miles away.
Pardon me?
He's just the architect.
Okay, all right.
Well, we're two architects for this project.
All right, you got two. Okay, you got a two-foot. All right.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Did I just get a spelling?
That's what I was going to say. Thanks.
Y-O-C-H-A-N-G, last name, Huang, H-U-A-N-G.
Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Mr. Chairman, the owner may be online, and she could adopt the testimony, if you'd wish.
What is the name?
Lily Zhao.
I have Lily with her hand up. I want to allow her to speak right this time.
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your first and last name.
I'm Li Zhao, owner of 4003 Filbert Street.
Spell your first and last name, please.
Li, last name of Zhao, C-H-A-O.
Thank you.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Mr. George.
Lily, did you hear my testimony tonight?
And do you adopt my testimony to be true and correct, and that is your own?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that would be the conclusion of our testimony.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
good evening chairman members of the board ian litwin planning commission staff
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
due to the lot size and dimensions planning commission staff does not oppose granting
the requested dimensional variances however parking is prohibited in this zoning district
unless accessed via a shared driveway alley or rear street on which no parking is permitted
Accordingly, Planning Commission staff opposes granting the variance for accessory parking accessed via Filbert Street.
Mr. George, to the right of your diagram, it looks like there's a driveway to that building.
It looks like a cyclone fence to the right, looking at the...
It looks like there's a curb cut there and a cyclone fence to me with a...
It looks like a hinged fence there.
Yes, it does.
I'd have to defer and ask the...
Yeah, I think it is because it looks like there's a no parking in front of the driveway sign.
All right.
Chair, I'm sorry.
If I could mention there were members of the public with their hands up.
I forgot that, and I'm just coming back to that.
Thank you.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Tara O'Brien, you can unmute yourself.
Good to be sworn in.
Yes, hello.
I'm Tara O'Brien.
Pam, please spell your last name, first and last name, and provide us with your address.
My name is Tara O'Brien, T-A-R-A-O apostrophe capital B-R-I-E-N.
My address is 32 North 40th Street.
We're confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
Thank you so much for allowing me to speak.
Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of inaccuracies presented here by the lawyer for this case.
the um our head of the rco pam andrews has informed me that there were actually 31 objections
to this property not five and the community is very much opposed to this if you'll remember
the neighbors of this property came together back in 2017 when the former owner wanted to
consolidate this property and slice off another piece of property behind it to make it a larger
property we strongly objected to that and um we were granted that um that objection which we
really appreciate um this property is not going to be built on a correct size property the legal
size for a single family home in philadelphia is closer to 1400 square feet this piece of property
is half that size. Also, the curb cut is not legal. And that's very easily established when
you go and look it up on the zoning variances. So that would be another issue. I think that
I have other friends and neighbors who would also like to speak so I can finish my testimony
at this time mr george i have a question the the lady just said that
Mr. George, I have a question. The lady just said that this property is half. I thought you said it was 2,100 square feet.
The interior is.
Right. I was confused when she said normal homes of Philadelphia are 1,400 and this is half the size.
Yeah, I'm confused also, Mr. Chairman. Also, the veracity of my statement, just with all due respect, I'm looking at the RCO letter.
i would not deceive the board or anyone the rco letter in front of me which i think you have a copy
of said that there were there were 31 people in attendance there are 31 people in attendance but
my it says oppose five so 26 were attendees but did not come up in the opposed column so if i'm
if i misinterpreted the letters just that's the way the letter is read written anyone else
would like to testify please raise your hand Arlene Caney you could be sworn in
good evening ma'am please identify yourself with the records by your first and last name
and provide us with your address
Arlene are you there?
We can move on chair we have Pam Andrews please provide ma'am Ms. Andrews
Can you hear me now? Yes. Please identify yourself for the record first and last name
and provide us with your address and I would ask that you limit your testimony to something new
and different. No problem. My name is Pamela Andrews. My address is 4209 Filbert Street,
Philadelphia, PA. I am the chair of West Pout and Saunders Park RCO so I just wanted to clear
up a few things. How are you? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth? The whole truth and
nothing but the truth. Yes, yes. We met with the developer on November 12, 2020, and 31 community
members were present at our meeting, seven of which were near neighbors. It was unanimous,
there was unanimous opposition for the project at our meeting. We believe that granting the variance
for a single-family home on this small lot would create a dangerous precedent for similarly
small lots in the area. And therefore, we're requesting that the board deny this variance
request.
Can I ask you, what is the danger in developing this vacant lot into a single-family home?
The issue for us is the size of the lot, the odd sides of the lot. There are many
small lots in this neighborhood and we really feel that if there was a precedent set by allowing this
then we would have a lot more developers coming in and requesting to build single
family houses on lots that are too small. That's our issue. Anyone else to testify?
Chair, we have Tara. I'm unmuting her right now.
No, I thought she spoke already, right?
Yes, I just need to clarify the square footage question.
Yes, please.
What I was referring to, and I apologize for using the wrong words, is the lot area.
And that's very clearly stated here on this image that we're seeing at the moment where
the required lot footage is 1,400 square feet, but the proposed footage of the actual lot is
only half that or just about. Understood. Thank you. Thank you for clearing that up. Appreciate
it. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Mr. Chair, we have Arlene Canney. Something new
and different, please. Yes, evidently she's having audio problems. So we can move on.
else anyone else no chair we can move on thank you planning commission we heard i think we already
heard from you yes i'm sorry thank you all right and questions from the board i think i asked but
i'll ask again no no nope thank you mi 2020 does zero zero one three eight three four zero zero
Philbert Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you everyone I believe that concludes our list excuse me this is Sharon Saleta we do have
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. We do have one other minor thing to address, though.
one other minor thing to address
It is, we've had a request for a slight revision, correction of a decision that you, in case you voted on December 9th, it is MI 2020-000264-2222, North 17th Street.
There were three provisos at it. One was maximum two dwelling units, no living space in basement, and the final proviso was a ventilated trash closet in each unit.
There's just a request that it be changed the last proviso to ventilated trash closet in second floor unit, since the first floor unit has access to the yard.
i'm not sure that this is so minor i'm not sure you even need to re-vote it if you could just
acknowledge i'm just i'm just going to say so note your your testimony it will take that
uh on the face value so noted and it will be corrected thank you will be corrected okay anyone
else seems like that's everything well they couldn't wait to get us back after two weeks
huh all right i know thanks so much good job frank