Good morning, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of the
G. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. So we may wait for three minutes for the virtual room. Okay. Yep. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Chair, that should be good enough.
Thank you, Tanya.
Good morning again, 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, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board
Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board Member Mr. Thomas Holloman. Board Administrator Mr. Jason
Han and our Board Attorney Rebecca Cole 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
and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
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 six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to make 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. Pardon me.
I would also like to advise everyone, please
do not attempt to testify
in the chat. Any comments
should be directed to our Board Administrator
Mr. Jason Hand.
Pardon me.
With that, I will read off a request
an attorney moving party
for a continued case for
MI 2021
000505
6743 Upland Street again that's an attorney moving party at this time I will ask if there's
anyone who's requesting any continuance or withdrawals to please raise your hand
or if you object to the attorney moving party I just read into the record
Mr. Chair, I have Mr. Darwin Bovey with his hand raised. I will allow him to speak at this time, sir.
Okay, good morning, sir. Please identify yourself with the records, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Darwin, D-A-R-W-I-N, last name Beauvais, B-E-A-U-V-A-I-S. I'm at 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. My request isn't necessarily for a continuance, but a shuffling of the matters that are before the board today. I understand I have 14 matters.
matters that are before the board today i understand i have 14 matters on the list
and i believe there's only 16 matters one was just continued um so i just ask that the other matter
just go before ours and and we move forward yeah that that's just a vote by the board
which i will not participate in because i wasn't at the original hearing after that we will then
go with your cases thank you i'll lower my hand now um so no request for further continuances with
that carol you'll need to uh read on the uh the hoarder street because i wasn't present for that
vote i'm sorry before we continue we do have augusta o'neill okay sorry about that augusta
o'neil good morning mr mr chair um i had please just miss miss o'neil just please spell your full
name sure my first name is augusta a-u-g-u-s-k my last name is o'neil o-n-e-i-l-l um i'm just
requesting you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed short so i just wanted to confirm that um the board received my
request for a continuance on 915 south 18th street um both the rco and myself requested
the continuance um to afford more time to meet with rco was that scheduled for 9 30 this morning
yeah that was scheduled for 9 30 this morning what is the address again um 915 south 18th street
I don't see it on our list
we'll make note of that
Ms. Saletti gets back later this morning
I'll check with her
unless Tanya do you have anything
on that 1915
excuse me, 915 South 18th
I'm checking on it now
So we could consider it continued if it was listed for this morning.
Yeah, all I need is the MI number.
The MI number is MI-2021-001091.
915 South 18th Street.
That case is continued.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Frank, where was that?
it's not on the list so if it was if it was an error not getting put on it's in on the record
as being continued so okay thank you and with that um i believe we can proceed wait uh mr chair
yes mr jim one more uh person has a hand up on mr charles karn i will allow them to speak if that
is okay yes good morning mr karn please spell your name for the record
Charles Kahn, C-A-R-N, 3853 North 19th Street, 13 Ford RCO.
I just heard an attorney.
Excuse me, one minute.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Kahn?
I just heard an attorney state there were 16 cases.
We have a case, 3613 North 16th Street.
I was under the impression it was going to be at 930 this morning.
What's that address again? 36?
3613 North 16th Street.
Again, hold on, please, Mr. Karn. I don't see that on our list.
It was a continuance from May.
Early May.
A resumption, I'm sorry.
Resumption hearing. I think that might be this afternoon.
but we'll check. Tanya, could you shed any light on that?
It's not listed on the schedule for today. So if it's a resumption,
whenever it's time for it to be voted, Sharon will make the board aware of it.
Yeah, Mr. Kahn, do you have any documentation as to that hearing being scheduled for this morning?
yes sir um during the last um zba meeting it was stated that it was going to be um continued to
today june 2nd um no one shared well first of all um i don't have any information on it but
it was stated as june 2nd um i'm pretty sure i got the whole community waiting at 9 30 but
I'm pretty sure I've got the whole community waiting at 930, but that's what I have.
I'm not sure if someone can get back to me, I can inform everyone, but I'm pretty sure
they're on and they can probably hear it.
So if it's not today, I'm sorry.
I'm pardoning, Mr. Carn, I apologize for the interruption, but was the attorney Mr.
Counsel for this?
Because I do have Mr.
Counsel with his hand up.
No, I'm sorry.
it was um uh rachel pritcher as the attorney um okay so we'll revisit it um with uh mr letta
because she prepares everything for the board and we'll revisit it and get back to you
okay do you have my information always okay sorry for the confusion okay thank you
all right any other hands up that was a good one time here mr chair joseph console has his hand
up i will allow him to speak at this time mr console please identify yourself and i'll swear
you in good morning joe console uh c-o-n-s-o-l-e that's it you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth please proceed uh on the topic of resumption hearings
i was seeing if um the 4204 and 4206 parkside resumptions were being held this morning it was
a similar thing two weeks ago you guys said uh 9 30 on the second i just wanted to see if that
made the list before i stuck around i apologize there's obviously some confusion we don't have
that on our list either uh just hang in there a moment okay thanks
so let me touch base with mr letter um regarding the resumption hearings that were mentioned
and then as necessary i apologize we could always um vote them as necessary at the two o'clock
session if that's agreeable with the chair and the board. Okay yeah obviously there's some
technical issues. We apologize for anyone who's listening in. It's been a challenge as you know
for several months. Chair if I could if you don't mind if I could ask as as we're speaking now if
there is any other cases that were supposed to be heard as a resumption this morning and then we
we can make sure we gather them all and discuss with Ms. Noletta.
I see no other hands, so we're going to go with those.
Sloan, folks, raise your hand.
Folks.
Good morning, Chairman Hiko at ZBA Ward, Vice Chair Tadere.
Sloan, folks, Office of Councilwoman Maria Canelo Sanchez.
is room 508 city hall by your name and i'll swear you in yes sir sloana f is in fire o l k s
you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do i'm
just we don't have a resumption hearing we're just um circling back around to letters that
i'm sorry the property is 1640 um with hancock street the zb calendar is mi2021-000959
um just uh wondering whether i whether the uh we were supposed to be us our office and the
attorney um hercules griegos for support or supplying letters uh as to the outcome of the uh
of the uh of the um meeting with with the rco and we were wondering i was wondering whether that was
going to be held this morning or later this afternoon that's simply the question i don't
have the afternoon list in front of me i don't tanya could you shed any light on that
no not yet it's not it's not prepared totally yet um so we'll take that one into consideration
as well thank you very much i'll uh i'll hang on for the day thank you if i could make a request
last final request here is that all those who are looking for resumption hearings
um for this morning or this afternoon um and you're uncertain if they're going forward if
You can email them directly to me, tanya.sunkett at philip.gov,
and we will follow up with a response from Ms. Saletta
so that we can assure that everything that should have been prepared for today will go forward.
Thank you very kindly, and I apologize for the confusion.
And that's tanya.sunkett, S-U-N-K-E-T-T, at philip.gov.
okay any other business before we proceed with the list
Okay, any other business before we proceed with the list?
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Carol, you want to do the add-on and then we'll get to the regular list.
Calendar number MI-2020-003326, 265 East Porter Street.
my vote is yes with revised plans stamped today yes for proviso yes with proviso
okay that with that we can go on to the regular list
do you want me to call them all out frank yeah if you'd like to yeah be my guest
I'd love to. I figured you'd say that. Calendar number MI 2021-000530, 1545 Page Street,
and calendar number 0532, 1522 Fountain Street, calendar number 0529, 1713 West Montgomery Avenue,
calendar number 0524 1800 north 18th street calendar number 0527 1828 north 16th street
calendar number 0525 1812 north 16th street calendar number 0514 1940 north 17th street
calendar number 0515, 1934 North 17th Street calendar number 0517, 1928 North 17th Street
calendar number 0516, 1930 North 17th Street calendar number 0521, 1924 North 17th Street
calendar number 0520 1922 north 17th street calendar number 0522 1926 north 17th street
and calendar number 05132005 north 17th street on all of these cases we are holding the vote
for tax compliance the record is closed
do i read uh number 16 mr chair um no i think what i think you got maybe got ahead of ourselves
we got to hear the testimony and then we will make the statement that the record will be closed
pending tax cert okay i believe are we correct on you that is totally correct so we are going
to hear these cases and at the end then the announcement can be made but we're going to
go forward and have Meredith promoted for her to handle these cases. Okay, then that's you, Mr. Chair.
What was that, Carol? I guess that's you calling Meredith or either Darwin. I'm not sure who it is.
Darwin. Darwin, I believe, is one of the heavy cases. It's presenting the case.
is darwin or meredith available which one is going to present we're ready for you now
i'm voting in the panelists thank you kindly jason
looks like darwin
good morning he's still he's still under oath thank you thank you mr chairman for quickly
reminded me that I was still under oath. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, again, my name is Darwin Beauvais. I am at Dilworth-Paxson, which is located at 1500
Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102. Before you today are 16 applications,
all for a special exception. Within existing structures, and I'm sorry, 14 applications
within existing structures, and they're all at the edge of Temple University. So in essence,
they've been marketed and they're mainly occupied by students.
we are in front of you to legalize the use what historically that area before the new code came
What, historically, that area, before the new code came into effect, was R10, and it allowed for this type of use to exist.
With that, we were able to get rental licenses and move forward, and we've been able to continue with that.
However, as we're doing due diligence, because this is all under one ownership, we realize that we need to make sure that everything is in compliance.
Again, there are no violations on any of these properties.
We just know that we are out of sync to what once was R-10 to now what is RM-1.
So with that, we did get a special exception.
We got referrals for all 14 structures.
And if I can share my screen, I would just like to go over what our applications consist of.
So we submit it. Again, thank you for allowing us to present. We are in the process of getting our tax clearance certificates, and we will present them shortly after the record is closed for today.
We have deeds, right? But I also want the board to take notice of what's our Exhibit 5. It's a history of the properties in the area, especially located next door or close by to our subject properties.
You can see that there is a ton of multifamily. There's a ton of high-density uses there.
Also, with Exhibit 6, I just want everyone to take notice that the block with these properties
are showing the same amount of density.
And let me just switch to what are...
And excuse me for the squeaking noise.
I have a puppy who is very active right now.
So let's start here to give the board a nice orientation.
So 1545 Page Street, we are looking for four individuals there currently occupied, but the rule is three unrelated, so that's why we're seeking our special exception.
1522 Fountain Street, the same issue. It's a single-family home, three unrelateds are allowed. We're asking to increase our density by one.
1713 West Montgomery to three family dwelling. Again, three unrelated are allowed. However,
we're requesting to increase our density by two units. And you'll see similarly as I go through
the list, the density is not necessarily taking five pounds of sugar and adding it to a one pound
the back. If you could see with 1713 West Montgomery Avenue, it is a 3,700 square foot
building. And we have one-for-one bathrooms in this building. Same, very similar to 1828 North
16th Street, we are looking at a 3,300 square foot building. Same with 1812 North 16th Street,
we are looking at a 2,700-square-foot building, saying 1,800, 18th Street, a 3,400-square-foot
building, a 3,800-square-foot building for both 1922 and 1924, 17th Street. Again,
1926, North 17th Street, and 1928, North 17th Street, over 3,900 square feet.
1930 North 17th Street, over 3,800 square feet, and 1934 North 17th Street, over 4,000 square feet.
Similarly, with 1940 North 17th Street, over 4,000 square feet, and for 2005 North 17th Street, 2,400 square feet.
with with all of this you know we can go over the floor plans but in essence the the the buildings
are a are in existence they've been existence since prior to at the time when everything was
They've been in existence since prior to, at the time when everything was zoned R-10.
And again, my apologies for the...
So we're looking at standard bedrooms, common area spaces,
um where where there's storage there's commercial trash pickup um for the the buildings that are
that are um that are in greater density uh we have multiple bathrooms for for each of the units
and the residents. So common living is the nature living around temple. You have the dormitories,
you have the apartments. This is very similar. So even though we're asking for density,
we believe that we're not creating any significant impact to the surrounding area.
So if I can want to show the maps, here is our zoning map.
Highlighted in red are our properties.
So as you can see, everything here is RM1.
You have 2005 North 17th Street.
You have the properties on 17th Street.
everything is arm one and we're we're literally we're no more than one block away from the spins
district which encompasses temple university also what i want the board to note is that the
the lower north district plan put together by the planning commission part of its 2035
comprehensive plan. I want to make note that this dark gold color makes reference to residential
high density. And as we flip through and look for our area, we're near Temple's main campus
In black, everything here fits that high-density recommendation that the Planning Commission suggests.
We have aerials.
Again, just in terms of if the board is concerned about rental versus home ownership, because we are very near Temple,
there's a ton of rental space here. Now, we have several photos of the various properties.
Again, this is just a four-bedroom, one-bathroom property. We're looking at four-bedroom,
two bathroom. This is 11 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms. And if you can see, it is the largest building,
largest structure on the block. That's the aerial. And then we're looking at a fairly
new construction, 11 occupants, 11 bedrooms, seven bathrooms. As you can see, the commercial
trash pickup is there. Again, we're looking at eight bedrooms, six bathrooms, eight bedrooms,
8 bathrooms, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, I feel like I'm on a time loop, 11, 11.
Again,
We're looking at all of these structures that are already in existence, very much near Temple University.
Our interiors, you know, again, these properties have not been cited for any violations.
We comply with the building code.
There are no issues outstanding.
there are no issues outstanding again we're coming before the board because we in our due diligence
Again, we're coming before the board because
we realized that we needed to reconcile the fact that we're no longer r10 and we have to be
compliance with rm1 so with that all the properties had are occupied they have students
and they did accommodate us
as we went in to take photos.
It's very similar to dorm life,
but there, again,
there's no overcrowding of the space
or of the structures.
No overcrowding.
that's photos of the notice that we that the postings that we made
apologies
So with that, I am actually submitting that we, because we do not have any impact to the
resources, to the manner in which we use the property, the manner in which that the level
of density that we're requesting, given the fact that we are requesting this density,
we're submitting that we are in no way creating a negative impact with the surrounding area.
We did meet with the community, and in meeting with the community, I think we all know that there's always town gown issues, but given the fact that this particular property owner, my client, he has been steadfast to always make sure that he satisfies any community concern.
Again, if we look at the photos beyond the notice, the exteriors, there's always issues about trash.
There's always issues about the students throwing away trash.
My client, he takes pride in his properties.
He engages with the community.
He engages with his tenants, and he tries to ensure that they are good neighbors as well as good tenants.
So with that, I do believe we did meet with the RCO.
I believe that there were two RCOs that were suggested we meet with.
And I believe you have a letter from Beach Corporation, I believe.
And with that, they did make a request that we comply with things that are beyond the application.
but we're we we can't help him in that respect but nonetheless the the the presentation that
we made with with the rcl they did agree that my client was one of the better ones but if not the
best and we and he continues to engage in the community so if there's any issues they can call
him he's always made that effort and and we are more than happy to answer any any questions that
the board may have thank you any questions from the board yes mr chairman i have two questions
one is what is the hardship and my second question is
you're requesting
the code under which you're requesting
is single room residence.
Is that correct?
That is how
That is how LNI is defining it. And let me just back up for a moment. So your first question is, where's the hardship? You know, respectfully, we were given referrals for all 14 structures. We weren't given a refusal.
LNI is defining it.
And let me
let me
So, and that, of course, just to put on the record, because it's a special exception, it is allowed, but the board is just obligated to see what kind of impact with resources may occur.
And what we're suggesting is that we have no negative impact. We don't burden any light or air. We don't burden the community with our trash because we have commercial trash pickup.
But because we rent to students, we don't have issues that one may have if this was single-family homes with cars parking all over the place because we have the increased number of long-time residents.
What we do have, we have structures that are abutting Temple University that have been long used by students, and we are in the position now to seek the legalization of what our historical uses have been.
thank you but your zoning notice refers to single family residents
correct i i i believe the zoning notice refers to single occupants yeah not single family so yes
single okay single room resident yes okay now with single room residents private bathrooms
are not permitted and I'm looking at the 1713 Montgomery floor plan there are several private
bathrooms and and that we are in compliance with the building code we if L&I the these plans were
submitted to L&I and had they I believe I don't think they missed it I believe they interpreted
that so long as this is already in existence, it's allowed.
But it's still private bathrooms
since you have to go through a bedroom to get to a bathroom.
I don't think with all the properties, it's like that.
You know, the 11 bedrooms with 11 bathrooms,
I believe that is each bedroom has its own bathroom.
I only have plans for about 10 and most of them are you have to go through the bedroom
to get to the bathroom.
Let's go over.
look at 1713 montgomery avenue i'm trying to call it up now
would the board just indulge me for a moment i just have to deal with this puppy hold on
Thank you.
Excuse me, sir, you're still muted.
1713 Montgomery Avenue.
Just to walk through, we have the first floor here showing utilities.
we have the first floor apartment a um the next level you have a bathroom
you see that you have to go through the bedroom to get to the bathroom so they become private
bathrooms yes i'm looking at bedroom two you have to go through the bedroom this
looks like it's a bathroom dedicated to bedroom one when i look at bedroom three
i see a bathroom dedicated to bedroom three i look at there's a door entry and that bathroom has
has a door immediately next to the entry i'm looking at bedroom one
and it looks like it's a bathroom
dedicated to that bedroom.
And what I see similarly
to the second floor
is that we have a bathroom,
bedroom one has a bathroom dedicated
and bedroom two,
there's a bedroom door
and then immediately to the right
is a bathroom that's dedicated
And bedroom three, I see the same.
And with bedroom, the third floor, I see bedroom one, dedicated bathroom.
Bedroom two, dedicated bathroom.
Bedroom three, dedicated bathroom.
And same with bedroom four on the fourth floor and bedroom five.
so i i and again right i i would like the board to also be mindful that the a single room residence
right my understanding of the code is that it's a building containing a room rented as living
quarters without a private bathroom and and that will be something where where you will find that
in a dormitory. You'll find it in rooming houses. You will find it in supported living
facilities, whether it's a nursing home or some sort of health care home. And that's not what
we're suggesting here. We're suggesting that these are students that are living together.
They do share common areas, but in some of the structures, they actually will share the bathroom. Other structures, they'll have their own bathroom.
So under no circumstance are we creating a dormitory-like situation, but what we are doing is creating an environment where students can live together.
And again, what we're seeking is a slight uptick in our density because we have had a long history of using the property as presented.
And we believe that by doing so, by granting our special exception, it's being done so without any impact to the nearby neighbors or to the overall neighborhood.
Why? Because we are right next to Temple University.
And again, had we been R-10 still, this wouldn't be an issue.
But because the RM-1 took out this distinction, we're coming back to try to put the structures in compliance.
Solomon, any further questions?
Well, just that single-room residents do not permit private bathrooms, and most of your buildings have private bathrooms.
So, I don't know if you're going to do a revision on the floor plans, or you're just submitting them as is.
a revision of the floor plans, or are you just submitting them as is?
What we're saying is that, and our position is that, we're not a single room resident.
What we are, we are group living, and we are very similar.
And what we're looking to do is increase our density.
That's basically what it boils down to.
Well, group living, single room residence comes under in the code under group living.
I understand.
And that is actually an issue that we argue with L&I because that distinction was made before the code.
And here we are, you know, we are now no longer in compliance, so to speak, because group living is now being mixed in with defining single room residence.
And that has created a whole mishmash.
And I predict that this board is going to be dealing with this issue when it comes to this type of use.
at, that are at or near institutions.
I'm telling you, this has been a long story,
one of the issues that the Zoning Code Commission
should have addressed,
but nobody can think this far into the future.
Thank you.
Thank you, any further questions from the board?
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
so chair um miss mary jones has her hand raised i will allow her to speak at this time
good morning miss jones please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
yes good morning board uh mary jones um council president daryl clark city hall room 494
are firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
yes um well the um council president is opposed to the granting of these special exceptions to
legalize these structures um the there is a concern um that many of these are new construct
newer construction and they were overbuilt purposely and now we're trying to come into
compliance. Through reports from the RCO, we have complaints of these illegal uses over the years,
overcrowding and trash. And finally, there's no hardship. So we ask that the board
deny these special exceptions and and if i can respect respectfully respond um i appreciate how
she she she um couched her uh the council person's objection it is because there is a history of this
going on, that there's trash all over the place, and that we have no hardship. All three issues
are irrelevant to this. My client, this applicant, has had a history of always maintaining his
property. I challenge anyone to say that his properties have not been maintained.
We cannot speak for the other owners, and it is a problem.
I grant that.
Two, saying that there is no hardship, again, this is a special exception.
The burden here is to just show that we do not have a negative impact on the resources.
And we've already spoken to this issue by telling the board that we actually, if this weren't students, you probably will have a tremendous amount of vehicles and parking will become an issue.
regardless you take take our four take take our take uh one of our structures that only has four
bedrooms that's that's potentially four cars that's on the street so so but these are students
again we respectfully uh submit that we are we we are we are not creating any
We are not creating any negative impact, and although I do appreciate the councilman's thoughts, I do believe that his thoughts do not apply to us here today.
Thank you. Do you have your client, Mr. Bovee?
Yes, he's on the line.
It's Mr. Herbert Reed, if somebody can let him.
And please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
All of a sudden, I can't hear you.
I'm sorry.
One second.
Can you hear me?
Please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Okay, can you hear me?
And I can hear you now.
All right.
I apologize.
No problem.
Please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Herbert Reed III, H-E-R-B-E-R-T-R-E-I-D.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Belved.
uh mr reed have you heard everything that i uh i discussed with the board today
i have and do you have anything to add uh simply just uh kind of starting from the
the beginning here uh these properties are anywhere from um six to 17 years old
uh the vast majority of them were built out of the ground not rehabs uh with us going through the
entire uh process um of getting approvals uh all of the inspections all of the rental licenses
uh for you know on average likely 15 years these have been in existence as far as a hardship um
simply we followed the rules as the rules were outlined at the time of of construction
uh to our complete knowledge and mr mr reed there is no hardship so there's no need to discuss a
hardship understood so we follow we follow the rules as were uh understood at the time went
through the zoning process was before this board all of these were approved they are built to spec
they are built to plans nothing was ever in in in any way shape or form built illegally
There is no overcrowding, as is evidenced by the structures having private bathrooms and so forth.
They are there's not you know, there's not a density issue within any of our housing was all built responsibly and thoughtfully.
We are not the landlords that are shoving kids in the small 10 by 10 foot rooms and just trying to get as many people into the building as possible.
as far as us for as landlords um we are very involved in the community continuously we're
on the board of the special services district which addresses trash within the neighborhood
as well as security within the neighborhood we're on the forefront of that and we individually
are responsible for our own properties on a daily basis when it comes to trash partying any of the
town and gown issues. We have been a non-nuisance landlord for nearly 20 years in this neighborhood.
So you directly manage the properties, that's what you're saying?
We do, very actively.
Okay. So with everything that you said and with everything I said, would you adopt all of my
statements as part of your testimony? I would. Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Reed,
Mr. Chairman. Reed, as it relates to the newer structures that were built several years ago,
when were they completed? Between 2013 and 2014. And at the time those structures were
uh being proposed was there any objection uh from the community there was not
and those plans were shared widely because the land was bought uh from the city and those shares
were those those plans were widely shared and and seen by uh by many parties that that would
oversee this sort of thing thank you all right again any questions from the board no anyone else
to testify? Anyone else to testify? Please raise your hand.
Anyone else to testify, please raise your hand.
There are no further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning. David Fecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Word for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends these properties for residential multifamily use.
The houses on North 17th Street were all approved as two-unit or three-unit buildings between 2009 and 2011.
We believe the cumulative effect of adding 83 occupants to the 1,900 and 2,000 blocks of North 17th Street
will cause more congestion than otherwise might be expected from a typical rooming house.
The US Census Bureau's latest estimates show that 52% of housing units in this census tract have at least one vehicle available to them. That works out to at least 46 new vehicles on two already congested blocks.
We recommend that the Board deny the special exceptions for North 17th Street and approve the special exceptions for the remaining properties in the applicant's package.
i um i would like to respond to that um they the not too long ago right there was a special
exception that we had presented in front of the board and and the same issues came up then and
and i think respectfully the court of common pleas uh rejected the the the mr effectos
our argument saying 80 the cumulative effect of 83 occupants at temple university is going to do
more harm than good what's stopping us from what's stopping a developer from consolidating lots and
building 83 units there the i i don't know how uh um how that makes sense given the fact that
the planning commission based on the exhibit i showed you that they are recommending that that
area be they have high density so but yet the planning commission just said well 83 is too much
where is that coming from he picked that number because that's our cumulative effect so we can
have high density, so long as it's not 83 being requested by special exception. Respectfully,
I asked the board to see through that. Under the code special exception, there has to be proof
that we are creating a negative impact. Numbers alone do not create a negative impact.
Again, he mentions the census tract creating 83.
I have testimony and logic that dictates that students do not have cars.
That alone creates relief.
If we were to have non-students, you will have more cars in the area.
Two, we also have a very active landlord.
My client, the owner, he will go in and he has created a whole system that he can pick up trash or any type of quality of life issues.
He can respond to it immediately.
So respectfully, I cannot agree with the planning commission.
And I hope the board does not agree with the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
With that, the record will be closed pending receipt of proof of tax compliance for the 14 cases that have been previously read into the record.
Any objections to that from the board?
Did I leave anything out, Tanya?
No, sure.
That's absolutely correct.
Ms. Cole, are we all right?
You're good.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beauvais. Thank you.
Thank you.
I believe that completes our list, unless we have any updates regarding those
re-hearings, the resumption hearings.
No. What my suggestion would be is that we confer at our next executive session.
this afternoon and then we could go forward at 2 p.m. with all those cases that should have been
done this morning. All right thank you all and see you all at two o'clock.
all right thank you all and uh see you all at two o'clock
board executive session at 145 thank you thank you thank you mr chair chair of the
um the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i don't know if you got the first piece because
something can let me start again good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator, Mr. 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 all 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 and that the recording will be made available to the public on the
web or otherwise. 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
nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, 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
that. 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,
Mr. Jason Hand at this time I will read off the list of continuances for the two o'clock list
just bear with me folks I'm having some technical stuff problems today so um MI 2021-001113
2,012th Street is continued MI 2021-001-091-915 South 18th Street is continued did I leave
any help Sharon? As far as continuances? No, there are only two. Okay, and I will ask at this
time, does anyone disagree with the request for those continuances? Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, I have a way she but someone's hand was up but you put it back down again.
never mind sir okay thank you at this time i will ask if anyone would like to request
a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
i see no hands mr chair thank you uh tanya and sharon i'm sorry before we get started i should
have asked this when we were in executive session did we not give the attorneys representing 1526
Packard and the uh opposition folks until 5 p.m today yes that's why you will be announcing that
it is and I wrote to them to let them know that you would be announcing today that the vote will
be continued until next Wednesday right so I don't need to read that in now is what I'm saying
Well, just in case anyone else is here for it, it's only the lawyers that I contacted.
MI 2020-001532, 1526 Packer Avenue, at the May 25th hearing, the record was closed.
And we ask that counsel for both the applicant and the protestants submit written testimony by 5 p.m. today.
at which time we will then, the board will take the arguments, review them, and a decision will
be made at the executive session, after discussion of our executive session next Wednesday. Is that
after discussion of our executive session next Wednesday.
Is that accurate, Sharon?
accurate?
Yes, Chair.
I don't know whether we decided
whether you were going to also request
that the Planning Commission
put its recommendation on record.
We can do that now then, I guess.
Oh, is the Planning Commission on?
Yes, we're here.
Please spell your full name
and I'll swear you in.
Ariel DiLiberto, that's A-R-I-E-L, D as in dog, I-L-I, D as in boy, E-R-T-O, with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
You heard my comments.
I don't know how familiar you are with this case.
I don't remember if the Planning Commission took a position at one of our three hearings.
So I'm asking you, does the planning commission
have any recommendations?
The comprehensive plan recommends this property
for commercial use.
We believe that the applicant has shown
that the proposed use will have no more of an impact
than might normally be expected for this type of facility.
We recommend that the board approve
the requested special exception.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
Okay, having said that,
I believe we now go to the other add-on
and correct me if I'm wrong.
MI 2020-003086
1231 Federal Street.
That's right.
We heard testimony and the record was closed.
So it's for the board to conduct a vote.
Correct?
That's right.
Okay, on MI 2020-003086
1231. Somebody say something? No. 1231 Federal Street. My vote is yes, but the proviso of the
uses is a legal non-conforming use that does not require a variance.
Next vote. Carol, you're muted. James, I need the board to vote on this.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Thank you, everyone.
The next add-on, I believe it's just for a vote, is MI2020-001522, 1310 South Broad Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Okay. Thank you. The next case, MI 2021-0009591640-48NorthHancock.
This is a resumption hearing. The letters will be read into the record.
I understand that there's a letter from Councilman's School of Non-Opposition.
But Madam Vice-Chair, if you can read the letters into the record.
uh the letter i have is from councilwoman sanchez and that is a letter my mistake my mistake
yeah and this is a little confusing and you'll hear why dear chairman de chico i am writing
this letter in reference to the zoning appeal for the application which was heard by the zoning
board of adjustment on may 19th 2021 at two o'clock the applicant met with the rco and garnered a
letter of opposition from the coordinating RCO for this variance request. Recognizing the impact
of this project in the South Kensington community and the willingness for both the developer and
the RCO to continue discussions, our office requested that the ZBA hold their decision
for two weeks to allow the applicant and the RCO to find an outside-of-the-box resolution.
At the meeting on Tuesday, June 1st, a consensus was reached between the applicant and the
coordinating RCO, and they will be entering into a memorandum of understanding to that effect.
Therefore, our office has no opposition to this variance request. If you have any questions
or need any further information, please call Sloan Folks in my office. Thank you for your
attention respectfully councilwoman maria canona sanchez the second letter is from the law firm of
clare harrison harvey and bransburg dear chairman de chico this is on 1640-48 north hancock street
this office is counseled to the owner of the property referenced above
the applicant with respect to its pending zoning application as you may recall
with respect to its pending zoning application as you may recall a zoning board of adjustment
hearing was held in this matter on may 19 2021 in peren the hearing at the hearing south kensington
community partners submitted a letter of opposition citing inter alia concerns with the proposed public
open space being located above the first floor councilwoman sanchez's office suggested there may
be a compromise to be reached with a South Kensington community group if the neighbor's
concerns regarding public open space could be addressed at another location. As a result,
the hearing was concluded with the record being left open to reflect letters submitted by the
applicant and the Councilwoman's office. In order to explore this possibility, a meeting with
Councilwoman Sanchez's office, SKCP, and the applicant was convened on June 1, 2021. At this
meeting, SKCP and the applicant reached a consensus pursuant to which the applicant
has agreed to enter into a memorandum of understanding with SKCP with a commitment
to support SKCP's efforts to develop and preserve public open space in the neighborhood.
In connection therewith, SKCP has agreed to withdraw its opposition to the project.
As such, we respectfully request that the board accept this letter as part of the record for the hearing and convene a vote to grant the requested variances.
Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted, Hercules Grigos.
The end.
Okay. So for now, it's a straight up and down vote, correct, Shana?
That's right. Yes.
All right. So MI 2021-000959-1640-48 North Hancock, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI-2021, that's 000592, 900 Greenwood Street.
This was a resumption hearing.
We were waiting for feedback from the RCL and Councilman Squilla's office.
And I believe it was Mr. Bertil.
Mr. Bertil has been a promoter to Panama, sir.
Good morning.
Good afternoon, sir.
please identify yourself with the record. Spell your name and I'll swear you won't.
Good afternoon.
Hello. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your last name. Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L.
Claire Harrison, Harvey and Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400.
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed yes uh just to clarify uh my understanding is that this was actually
moved to next uh next week on the ninth um due to the community group one we made some revisions
and the community group wanted us to come back and present and their meeting is on the eighth
And so my understanding with correspondence with Ms. Sumkin in the administration that this was moved from the 2nd to the 9th.
I apologize, Chair. Yes, Sharon and I conferred.
And because of the ongoing discussion, this was a request to move to the 9th.
So if you would agree to move this to the 9th, I would be so grateful.
Sure. 2 o'clock?
Yes, Chair.
Okay. All right, Mr. Battelle. So MI 2021-000592, 900 Greenwich Street, is continued to June the 9th at 2 p.m.
Thank you very much.
We now go to number six on MI 2021-000467, 3613 North 16th Street.
this is a straight up and down vote again is that correct it is a resumption hearing chair
resumption hearing oh i'm sorry i didn't again i'm working off of a phone i don't
part-time scene all right so uh who's here on this case rachel pritzker
is the attorney
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, Muriel Titus Korn has a hand raised.
Do you wish her to be promoted at this time?
I'm sorry, who has it?
No, we're just looking for Rachel.
Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker, if you're available, please raise your virtual hand.
um if rachel is not here could you move this back and i will try to contact her
okay that will okay that uh completes the add-ons i believe we're gonna go to the regular list
um yes if number four on the regular list is actually a resumption hearing but
yes that's the end of the add-ons. Okay I'll start with two Mr. Chair. Yes. Calendar number
MI-2021-001109 4040 City Avenue. That's Steve Bertil the attorney.
And there are letters of non-opposition from the Winfield Heights Civic Association.
Mr. Bochell has been promoted back to the panelists.
He's already under oath, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Okay, I guess you may proceed.
Do you want to ask me about this?
You've got to ask the question.
I do everything else.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, 1835, excuse me, Claire Harrison, Harvey in Brandsburg.
uh 1835 market street uh suite 14 philadelphia pa 19103 have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of this
property five days in advance of the hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
uh yes to all the above thank you you may proceed thank you very much sure
Okay. As I stated, my name is Steve Bertil. I'm here on behalf of the applicant
for 4040 City Avenue. We are seeking our variance relief to allow for the removal of
for the removal and replacement of three existing wall signs with static illumination and the
replacement of face panels of two existing freestanding signs. And so just to orient the
board, the property in question, 4040 City Line Avenue is zoned to CMX3. It's located
on City Line Avenue between Monument Road to the south and Presidential Boulevard to the north.
An aerial. It's part of the large Target Plaza that I think many people are familiar with
along City Line Avenue. And so the refusals that we have
are two-fold. One is just a refusal regarding the accessory wall sign control.
Essentially, one of the signs that is being replaced is going to be slightly above what's
considered the roof line, and I'll show that in a second. And the other refusal is due to the
max area of the aggregate of the wall signs. Now what you'll see is that we're actually reducing
the sign area with the new signs, but it still generates that refusal. In addition to that,
because of the city avenue overlay, we have a refusal for having a wall sign on a wall that's
not considered a frontage of the property because it doesn't front on the street.
So just to give everyone a sense of what we're talking about here, to the left of every slide
that I'm going to show you is the existing signage, and then to the right is going to
be the new proposed signage.
So this frontage here is facing inward towards Target, towards the plaza I should say.
inward, towards Target, towards the plaza, I should say. As you can see, again, same location,
basically reduction of the signage with the new branding for Verizon. The property is currently
utilized as a Verizon store for retail sales of cellular phones and accessories.
This is the frontage that doesn't front on the street, it fronts on the entrance to the
plaza, and this is what generated the refusal regarding a sign that's not on the frontage.
But as you can see, again, we're replacing the existing sign that's in essentially the
same location and we're reducing the size of it with the new design.
And lastly, for the wall signs, this is the frontage that faces on City Line Avenue, replacing this existing signage with this new signage here with the new branding for the company.
As you can see, they're considering this the edge for the roof line, and therefore the location generated a refusal for being above that.
And lastly, what you'll see here is the freestanding, existing freestanding sign where we're removing
or replacing the face panels with the new signage.
There's actually two.
There's one that enters the main entrance off of Monument Road for the plaza.
And then there's a second one that's at the corner of Monument.
in City Line Avenue, they're identical. And so we did meet with the community. We met
with both RCOs, both the Winfield Heights Civic Association and the City Avenue Special Services
District, who was also considered RCO for City Line Avenue sites, and we received no
opposition, unanimous vote to not oppose this project. As such, due to the de minimis nature
of the variance and the fact that we're actually reducing the size of the signs and the unanimous
support, we're asking this board to grant this variance. Mr. Bertil, do you have a witness?
I think Ms. Jessica Woods is on the line, but if she's not, the board will grant me the ability
we'll stipulate
why don't we do that in the interest of time
as an officer of the court will stipulate your client
would adopt your testimony
any questions from the board?
planning commission
I'm sorry anyone else would like to testify
please raise your hand
no answer this time Mr. Chair
thank you planning commission
good afternoon ariel di liberto staff with the philadelphia city planning commission
the proposals for the replacement of existing signs and reduces the non-conformity with the
city avenue overlay district we recommend that the board grant the variance you mi 2021-001109
4040 city line avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
This is Sharon. Chair, could we have a one-minute conversation offline before the next case
is called, please? May I be excused or should I stick around?
Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, Carol, there's another case that should have been on the list.
I'm going to call it up now. Okay. MI 2021-000741-3600 Grant Avenue.
I think Mr. Sean Whalen will be representing the applicant. Okay.
All right, Mr. Chair. Mr. Whalen has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you. Mr. Whalen, please identify yourself, put your name and address on the record and spell your last name.
Certainly. Good afternoon, Sean Whalen, S-E-A-N, last name W-H-A-L-E-N, from Vintage Law, here on behalf of the owner and applicant in this matter.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Can you give me the address of vintage law?
Certainly. 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
yes yes and yes okay you may proceed proceed proceed thank you very much okay happy to bring
this one before you today um we actually have uh full support from councilman bobby heenan's office
and from the rco uh so if i can share my screen very quickly
i will uh you guys obviously have a long list so i don't want to belabor any points
um hopefully right now you're looking at a screen that says uh torresdale manor residences 3600
grant avenue um so what you see on the left are existing homes right here this l shape
is the property at question. This is Grant Avenue. And this up here is a Toursdale Union League golf
course. And this golf course is actually the John F. Byrne public golf course. So we're bound on
three sides by golf courses. And we're putting in 30 single family homes, 28 twins and two
standalone homes wow so here's sort of a layout of you know just an overview you can see
here's the uh the zoning you obviously have the golf course here golf course there
um this is and of course please interrupt me at any point in time but since we do have full
support and no one is in opposition i i don't want to waste your time with uh you know unnecessary
details. So this is the L shape of the property that we're talking about. Again, we have a creek
that runs right next to our property. You can see it here. This property currently is deemed
imminently dangerous. It was a very large gym, basically taking up this entire portion of the
property over here with an Olympic-sized swimming pool. That gym has been vacant for some time,
The creek here has been completely sort of fallen in.
We're going to be doing significant creek bed work and are working with the state and the city water departments to reinforce that wall.
This is the type of creek that has quite literally a couch inside of it right now when I just went out to the site.
This property is a large open parking lot with access off of Grant.
and uh like i said a large dilapidated building on this section that i'll go through um right now
as the neighbor said this is the type of property where all the people looking to do bad things
come to congregate um so we're we're we're looking to to uh correct that we have existing
homes right here and as i previously showed kind of up this is actually uh to the west
all existing homes we are building 30 homes with 86 parking spaces each home
We are building 30 homes with 86 parking spaces.
Each home will have two dedicated parking spaces and we'll have additional overflow parking, as you can see.
So these homes, do these homes front on Grant Avenue?
No, so none of the homes front on Grant Avenue.
So Grant Avenue is over here.
Let me, I think I can jump.
I can see where it is now.
Yeah, so here's, this might be a better, so here's sort of the overview. This is Grant Avenue right here. This is, you know, existing public streets going into the existing neighborhood.
these existing homes back up to our property these homes right here actually have alleyway
parking but they do front on on grant we would be building homes all along here here you can
see the building that's been deemed imminently dangerous the creek right here is what's been
fully overgrown and this is the large parking lot that i was talking about so thank you
just kind of summarize that would be helpful
pardon me chair you can summarize yes um so in short we had uh five refusals
um we have cured all of the refusals except two so we've cured three of the refusals which were
just dimensional um the last two refusals we have set up this project as a pud instead of going
through a subdivision for multiple homes it's just much cleaner and easier to develop that way
but that generates a refusal for multi-family use in a single family or twin neighborhood as we're
in so that's one of our refusals and the other refusal we have is that there's existing outflow
pipes and utilities involving that creek we're cleaning all of that up and working with the
Water Department to make sure we clear all of that out. So that's done. As I said, Northeast
Community Civic Alliance. I think Tom Neville, their president, was going to be on today's
hearing. They fully support the position. They're excited to see this property rejuvenated and
redeveloped. We also have a letter of support from Councilman Bobby Heenan's office
and from the union league and from 23 individual near neighbors um so i i think the the size and
scope of this project uh greatly benefits the neighborhood and obviously we've got 130 000
square foot l-shaped property which is difficult to manage if you're required to put in a single
family home um so with that i will uh conclude and i'll just call my witnesses to adopt my
testimony if the board is okay with that you have witnesses plural uh yes i have an engineer
who would testify if the board is interested with regard to the work going on at the creek
it's quite significant and uh a an architect from avatari design who actually did the all the plans
and then Sean Killeen on behalf of the owner
who could testify to any questions
that the board may have.
The board have any questions
for the architect and or engineer?
Okay, so all we'll need is a testimony
from your developer, I believe you said?
Certainly.
Again, he would just be adopting the testimony
that I've already provided.
Okay, we'll stipulate to that.
We'll stipulate that your client
would adopt your testimony.
you being an officer of the court okay all right and so i guess the only thing i would request is
if you would stipulate that the uh my architect and engineer would also um agree with my testimony
and adopt it as their own noted thank you any any questions from the board in general no
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
There are no hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Ariel DiLiberto, the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for both residential and open space use.
We recommend the Board grant the variance.
much MI 2021-000741-3600 Grant Avenue. My vote is yes. Were there any revised plans?
uh yes thank you for uh reminding me uh proviso one page uh my vote is yes with the proviso
Yes, thank you for reminding me. Proviso, one page.
revised plan one page approved today my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
yes with proviso you uh do we now go to north 16th street thank you board for your time today
thank you thank you i think we go to number three
yes number three on the regular list calendar number mi-2021-001168 4501 woodhaven road
gussie o'neill is the attorney and we have a letter of support from councilman brian o'neill
and no RCO letter from Northeast Community Civic Alliance.
Mr. Ronald Patterson has his hand raised.
I will promote him to panelists at this time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Patterson, you have been promoted to panelists.
Please wait to be sworn in, sir.
Mr. Patterson, please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Hi, good afternoon.
Ronald Patterson, Claire Harrison, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
Do you also agree to waive the reading and refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter uh i have all the above okay thank you you may proceed
oh great i'm going to share my screen please okay all right
can you see that site plan yes yes okay so this regards as you mentioned 4501
woodhaven road it's a shopping center that was once part of franklin mills it was carved off
It's a large shopping center to make sure it is for us.
Can you see this photograph here?
Okay, all on the right-hand side were all the current Franklin Mills stores.
This is the area here that we're in question, and especially in particular this blue area here.
So the overall site plan, you see Woodhaven Road, you're driving north, you turn off of Woodhaven Road, Nice Road, you go on Liberty Road.
This is the property portion that we're talking about.
Over here currently consists of Dick's Sporting Goods that used to be a Walmart, Home Depot,
one or the other. There's a new car wash that the board approved that's going in here. So
what we're proposing here, it's a by-right standalone CVS pharmacy retail store. We have
our permit for that. And what we're proposing is a freestanding sign at this location.
There are three other ones here that I denoted in yellow.
And here's an example of the three other freestanding signs that are located on the property.
Here's a store looking down towards north.
Here's where the building is currently under construction.
We'll see here as we go through here, a construction site back here.
So as the photograph showed, what we're asking here is a construction site.
The sign would be approximately right here at this location, so it could be seen from
Knights Road and Liberty Belt Lane. As I mentioned, it's by right. We have the rest of the signed
package that was approved. This particular sign is the blow of the store located right
here, as I mentioned, in the red dash. We're returning off the Knights Road. This is the
sign is proposed. It's a typical CVS, one of their model signs. It's 24 feet tall,
It's 24 feet tall, double-faced, about 68 square feet per side.
double-faced, about 68 square feet per side.
The refusal here, we're located in a CA-1 commercial zoning district, is that we're only allowed one side per lot.
Now, it seems kind of perplexing, but of course, there's a history to this.
um the property was as part of franco mills was originally and last before the zoning had changed
a ca2 zoning district um and this uh frontage here along between combining franco mills boulevard
and liberty bell is about 1360 feet which is a quarter of a mile for those of you to drag race
um it's a very large shopping center as you can see and at the time as i mentioned was constructed
it was a CA-2, but it was later converted to CA-1. And CA-2, you can see this in the zoning code,
allowed at the time, no limit on the number of projecting freestanding signs,
but you would get one per 15,000 square feet. This shopping center is approximately 1,450,000
square feet which will have allowed 96 freestanding signs it was remapped the property
i'm guessing about five or seven years ago the ca1 was from the codes shows that you're only
per lot so you know in the fact excuse me one minute ron ron i'm sorry if you interrupt someone
has uh their mic open and we're hearing like sounds like dishwashing going on in the background
something. Okay. Please mute. All right, continue, Ron. Sure. So CA1 currently, again, allows only
one freestanding for this large shopping center. We just want to add, as I mentioned, the one
near the property entrance location here in the red, right off of Knights Road and Liberty Bell
Landing. And it's, you know, it's needed that sign to identify the building and to also, you know,
promotes traffic safety efforts when you're turning off of Woodhaven Road to try and find
the location. We believe that it will cause no negative impacts as the property was constructed
considering and presuming there would be more freestanding signs because of the number of
driveways that enter the shopping center. And so, you know, we believe this overrides the
restrictions and the hardship that were caused by the down zoning of this property. As I mentioned,
that was constructed under CA2 in a prior equivalent zoning district that was there.
We did meet with the Franklin Mills Advisory Council.
They are not the registered RCO per se, but they are the selected ones that we were instructed
to meet with per Councilman O'Neill's office, and we did.
We met with them on May 25th, and we have a letter from the councilman.
I'll show you the refusal first
but I didn't show you that
it says one freestanding sign per lot
we do have a letter from
the councilman
advising he has no objection
with that said if you could promote
John Cogan C-O-G-A-N
as my witness
Cogan please identify yourself when you're on
spell your full name and I'll
swear you in. Please raise your virtual hand, sir.
He's been allowed to talk, sir. Are you there, John?
Can you hear, can everyone hear me? Yes, please spell your last name, sir,
and i'll swear you in i'm sorry uh last name is cogan c-o-g-a-n john do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do uh hi john uh please uh so you're
affiliated with with summit realty correct that is correct and uh summer realty is the developer for
this uh cbs site is that correct yes and uh you've heard and seen my presentation would you agree is
true and accurate and you would adopt it as your own yes i would and so where i'm showing the sign
here on on the screen that's the location of the proposed sign correct yes it is and the sign
package that was submitted was one of the typical sign packages for cvs yes that's correct so the
idea and the purpose and desire for the sign was obviously to locate the cvs because of the long
the winding roads that this shopping center fronts up on, correct?
Yep, that's correct.
And it's typically this freestanding sign would be useful for CVS to identify the location.
it's typically this freestanding sign would be useful for CVS to identify the location of the
building and to promote traffic safety. Would that be your opinion? Yes. Okay. That's all I have for
Mr. Cogan if the board has any questions. Any questions from the board? No. No. Anyone else
like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand. There are no hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission. Good afternoon. Ariel DiLiberto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommended keeping the previous CA2 zoning at this location. The zoning
has since been changed to CA1. We believe the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship
as this lot is almost 1.5 million square feet and the existing zoning permits only one
freestanding sign per lot. We recommend the Board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2021-001168
4501 Woodhaven Road my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you thank you calendar number I'm sorry to interrupt again um I spoke with Rachel Pritzker
she's asking that the hearing be continued which case that was the um that was number six on the
add-ons, 3613 North 16th Street. Okay. All right. Let me read that in, Carol. MI 2021-000467
3613 North 16th Street is continued. Thank you. Calendar number MI 2020-003174
4701-15 King Sessing Avenue. The attorney on here is Brett Feldman.
Mr. Feldman has been promoted to panelists thank you Jason
Mr. Feldman yes uh good afternoon hi put your name and address on the record please
and spell your last name and then I'll swear you in
Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
I represent the applicant and property owner, King Sessing Realty and Chester Realty.
Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I just would, as I made clear at the first hearing on this back on April 7th, I believe three or four of the refusal items have now been corrected and are no longer in place.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
Okay, thank you. You may proceed.
If I may share my screen.
Again, good afternoon.
This is a continued hearing, or a follow-up second hearing from the April 7th hearing, at which time we put on most of our case.
And what I would ask the board, in fairness to, I know there's a lot of people on the call who are in support.
I know there's a lot who are in opposition, including a number of RCOs, that I will give a, I don't know,
cliff notes, five or six, seven minute recap of the project.
And then also some of the developments, the relevant developments since April 7th.
And then I would leave it up to the board to, I assume at that point, reach out to the RCOs, provide their opinions, as well as the many community members who are on this.
So if that's acceptable, I'll begin.
Please share, Sean.
Great.
So again, this is a second hearing from April 7th. These were the exhibits that we passed up
back in April, in April, exhibits one through nine, which I'd ask also, again, be incorporated
into the record. As you'll hear, this is a multifamily project at the corner of 48th and
Chester in West Philadelphia. We've had five or six different plans, and we now have revised plans
that the Cedar Park neighbors are in agreement with, are in support of. We also have
Cedar Park neighbors are in agreement with, are in support of. We also have a binding recordable
community benefits agreement that's been reached with Cedar Park, which would govern not only the
development, but also really kind of the groundbreaking precedent-setting affordability
that we're providing in this project. This will be, I don't think there's almost any other project
I've ever seen that's provided this level of affordability in a completely private project
with no subsidies and we don't even qualify for these cities bonuses for affordability and you'll
see that I'll get right to it these are the refusals that were issued we've reduced most of
them we've removed most of those and the ones that remain either they can't be they can't be
removed or we've come closer into compliance. Just to reorient the board, here's 48th,
here's Chester Avenue. These are the five properties. There's four on 48th and Chester
that are vacant, completely vacant. And then there's a fifth lot, which my client owns. This
is the Renaissance Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center. For zoning purposes, we're keeping these
lots together. And the idea was that we have our own parking for this multifamily building,
But Renaissance has significant overflow parking that's not used primarily in the evenings.
And we would gain access to that to better handle the parking that's at this location.
We don't think parking is a primary issue because 48th and Chester, there's actually
a trolley stop right basically at our front door, as you'll see.
Here is the context of the project.
This is our building here.
It's a three and four story multifamily building.
up and down Chester Avenue there are multi-family three four or five story multi-family buildings
all up and down Chester Avenue this is just a small sampling that are that are close that are
close to the location including the nursing home that is right there here are what those buildings
look like all around us this is the one of the predominant housing forms in the area
ms vice chair you can see you can see my screen correct
yes okay these are the uh zoning notices uh that we put up uh as the board uh might remember from
our first presentation uh we had a uh historical uh consultant to testify we did research on the
location uh these properties were formerly used as multi-family buildings uh until recently until
mid-90s. There was about 150 units of multi-family on the location and these were the Sanborn maps
show a multi-family building after multi-family building. We actually had some neighbors who
showed us pictures from the 90s what those buildings looked like before they were before
they were demolished that you'll see here. So what we're proposing again here's the here's
a building on on Chester Avenue that was actually on our location. So here is here is the the project
after many months of close cooperation with the neighbors and with the RCO.
It's a three- and four-story building along 48th Street.
It is a three-story portion with a setback four-story portion.
The three-story portion is actually now below the zoning code 38 feet.
We're at 32 feet.
And this is what it looks like on Chester Avenue at three stories and four stories.
Here is a rendered site plan.
Probably the best way to see it.
Here's Chester Avenue.
Here is 48th Street.
The light blue that I'm pointing to is at 33 feet, and it's actually 32 feet.
Light blue, we set back much of the building, anything that was approaching the height requirements.
So it's 32 feet here, all in this light blue.
And then a four-story portion that's actually only at 42 feet that is in this darker blue.
large, generous landscaping. We created a large courtyard in the area to accommodate
the residents across the street. We had this setback, you can see here in the green,
to accommodate the neighbors across the street on Chester Avenue. And then again, we set back
and we reduced the height of this portion to less than what would be code compliant.
The other part of this is we have our parking in the rear here, and we have 76 units. And again,
And as we'll explain, 20% of these units are affordable at 40% of the AMI.
Again, the city, even its own bonus program is at 50% or less.
This is well in excess of what even the city bonus program is.
We have seven one-bedroom units.
We have eight two-bedroom units, 15 total units.
So there's 23 bedrooms of affordability.
And this became very clear as we worked with the neighbor.
And this became very clear as we worked with the neighbor, we worked with the district council person and the community groups that we had to come up with a project that worked not only from a design and operations standpoint, but also had a significant give back on affordability.
We work with the different
And we were able to do that.
And we now have a binding community benefits agreement on that.
This is the full site with the nursing home.
Our 34 space is here, but again, we were able to use additional parking that the nursing
house home has here, here, and here, and that's why we decided to have this all-in-one zoning
We're now code compliant in terms of parking, but two of the refusals that remain are multiple
structures on a zoning lot, as you can see, our building and then the nursing home, and
then multiple uses, again, our building and then the nursing home.
So those are two of the remaining refusals with multiple structures and multiple uses,
which wasn't possible if we wanted to take advantage of the parking that was out there.
Here's what the building now looks like. Three stories. This is the corner of 48th and Chester
with the four-story portion here. It is very contextual with, you know, the four-story building
across the street and you saw those other multifamily buildings in this area. It was
reviewed by Civic Design Review. Civic Design Review passed it on and approved that after
After only one meeting, looking at the context,
looking at the way we related to the built environment
around us, spoke very positively of this project.
And here is the remaining views.
Chester, 48th Street, landscaping.
You can see the four-story portion.
You barely can see, but most of it is just three-story,
actually at 32 feet below the code limit at 38 feet.
Here's some additional views of the site.
Back in April, we presented the testimony of Nancy Templeton, who is a certified Pennsylvania land planner, who prepared an extensive report on why this was compliant with the zoning code, why the current zoning code imposes an unnecessary hardship on the property,
why this project was not was consistent with the area did not have any negative impacts
and we can certainly get more into that here but this is her report again we put this on the record
but she talked about the history of the site the multi-family history of the site
the way it is contextual with the other multi-family buildings that are that are in this
neighborhood the location of mass transit right at our front door the availability of
parking for those who do require parking. And also, and this is, you know, I think really one
of the most critical issues of this project was the as of right, despite the fact that this property
has always been used as multifamily, the as of right on this site is something is a kind of
strange animal named RTA1. RTA1 is a district that is a duplex twin. So you have two on this side,
to on this side. It is four units. It requires parking, which in this configuration would require
that there'd be curb cuts all up and down 48th Street, all up and down Chester Avenue to satisfy
this parking requirement. Here's actually some pictures in the neighborhood where this alien
life form has been imposed in the neighborhood, which I think most would agree is not something
that we want to see in in this in this area um and nancy talked was templeton talked about how
that was not something um that was consistent with the neighborhood uh and imposed that type
of hardship uh in this area here are the remaining zoning refusals uh we removed the refusal for
landscaping um uh front yard depth we removed in the revised plans we now comply in the parking
spaces as i explained there's only one building allowed per lot only one use allowed per lot
and again that's because we are on the same zoning lot as the nursing home which allowed us to take
advantage of the parking resources that that has and again that the multi-family is not allowed in
this district the history of multi-family on the property these are massive lots we're talking
about a total lot size of a hundred and twelve thousand square feet with um each one of these
lots being 10 15 20 000 square feet not appropriate for the rta1 many of the multi-family uses around
us um and uh as it was important for the community and uh and for my clients um to do those types of
rta1 would result in a situation where there was uh no affordable housing provided uh in a
code compliance situation which again was a value that the neighbors
again was a value that the neighbors the council person wanted was this provision of affordability
the council person wanted was this provision of
that became so important and as all we all know is so important in the city
this is the matrix of the affordability that we're providing and is now documented in a recordable
form 20 of units of the 76 15 affordable units at 40 ami and that's the bedroom breakdown
this was at the time back in april was our proposed community agreement which has now been
codified and in writing, like I'm happy to say, there are massive numbers of letters of opposition,
massive numbers of letters of support. This is the most contentious project I've ever been part of,
but we are so pleased, so proud that we now have a letter of support from the Cedar Park Neighbors,
which is the very well-established group in this neighborhood of support.
and that I believe has been shown to the board.
This is the letter itself.
And I have to just point out a couple of points
that they've made here.
And I'll just read a couple of points.
There have been multiple community meetings
regarding this project.
Neighbors voiced their concerns regarding affordability,
regarding the height and appearance of the proposed building
and regarding parking.
The applicant has been willing to negotiate
with the community, has made significant changes
to the original design in response to those concerns.
The current project respectfully fits in with the existing fabric of the neighborhood and is located just steps away from public transportation where the city should be encouraging development.
During the process of the redesign based on negotiations with the community, the applicant was able to eliminate four of the variance requests.
The remaining variances are true hardships that should be granted.
And then finally, and I think you'll see this play out as the hearing goes,
there is a group of concerned neighbors who regardless of the concessions the applicant has
made do not want to see any development on the property this is simply not an option the property
owner has made it clear that the property will be developed the question before the view is whether
the property will be developed in accordance with the current inclusionary development application
or in accordance with the by right development of the rta zone which allows for 14 buildings with
two units in each building in front loaded garages facing the street thereby eliminating
existing on-street parking the current project allows for 15 units of affordable housing
for 50 years the buy right option includes no affordable housing units and that was that's
from cedar park's letter and they can certainly elaborate further on on that again we had numerous
letters of of support and here's just i'm just flipping through it but i could have just put
countless letters in here. As I go through, we passed the Inga Safran test, I would call it.
She did an extensive write-up on this project, was very supportive of it, talked about how it
fit in, and actually drew a comparison with other projects in the city that should have been as
made the same efforts to work with the neighborhood on a project that is
consistent with the neighborhood sympathetic and also has this level of affordability which we
all know is a value in this neighborhood i would i would i have to mention that we had worked
closely with the district council person really almost from day one on this
however she did issue a letter of opposition it is despite the conclusion of cedar park
despite which we thought was the encouragement of the direction that we were taking
on this project but just like cedar park her letter is is really a it's one of the strongest
endorsements for why this project makes sense and why this board should strongly consider approval
and she says i understand and philosophically agree with the push for 100 affordability
that many of those opposing this project have repeatedly made but we also must consider the
alternatives building nothing at all or building only what the zoning code will allow which in
this case is 28 duplexes with no affordability affordability restrictions on them to me these
do not feel like viable solutions to the challenges our district faces regarding housing affordability.
So fortunately, we continue to work with Cedar Park, and this is the binding community benefits
agreement that we executed last night with Cedar Park for the affordability on the 50 years,
the 20% of the units at the 40% AMI, these 23 bedrooms. And we want to, again, just thank
Cedar Park. And thank you, thank so many of the neighbors, and other people in this neighborhood
who worked with us to come to a project that we think really could set a framework for how
a, you know, framework for how development can be done privately, because there simply isn't
development can be done.
enough public money to provide all the affordability that we're going to need. We're going to need to
have these creative partnerships with communities and with private developers. And we were able to
reach that agreement last night. So with that, I would, I'll reserve the right to, you know,
cross-examine any witnesses. We do have revised plans that I provided to Ms. Saleta and Ms. Sunkit.
I would also emphasize that in this community benefits agreement, we actually did put in a
preference for local residents for these units, which was something that Cedar Park thought
would be helpful, that these will be residents who have lived in this neighborhood who will
that first crack at these units and with that I will I will I'll turn it over to back to the board
because we do want the community and the RCOs to have the opportunity to address the board.
Mr. Feldman do you have two questions you have anyone to adopt your testimony?
We previously did it Mr. Chair at the first hearing on April 7th. Okay no and revised plans
how many pages i believe there's is it i think it's five pages i can check that um
excuse me this is sarin i have three pages in my notes okay yeah thank you i think one is a
turning radius but yes those are the revised plans uh with the proviso form that match up
with the community benefits agreement with cedar park thank you questions from the board no no
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand and i'll preface that
with saying i understand there may be a number of people on both sides of this issue who would
like to testify we ask that you when you're uh when you're recognized to please do not give us
any duplication of what the previous uh folks have said uh and we would appreciate you keeping
your comments as brief as possible but again please do not repeat any of the concerns that
have been raised by folks who may speak before you with that before i call i'd like to know is
mr goodman is held from councilwoman gaultier's office i'd like to hear from mr goodman first
and then we'll open it up for the rest of the folks goodman if you're available please
okay yes he is he's been allowed to speak good afternoon good afternoon mr goodman please
identify yourself and i'll swear you in andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n here representing the office
of third district council member jamie gaudier room 586 city hall you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you mr goodwin please proceed
thank you mr chair members of the board our office is here today to oppose the granting of
this variance this decision stems from the input we've received from constituents which is at
volume that dwarfs all other zoning related matters we've encountered since entering office
last year. Between the RCO meetings, petitions, and direct outreach to our office, we count at
least 600 people that have given input in total, roughly 90 percent of which have said they're
opposed. Reasons we've heard for the opposition include concerns about density and loss of parking
and green space, but the most prominent we heard was the concern that the market rate units were
priced at a rate so high that they would reset the rent rates for the neighborhood and risk
displacing long-term neighbors in the process. Councilmember Gaudier firmly believes in the
community's right to have a voice in how their neighborhood is developed. We know that it's a
priority for constituents all over our district to proactively plan for what equitable development
looks like in their neighborhoods, and we hope to engage as many voices in our district as possible
on this topic proactively in the summer and fall as we you know think about solutions to to these
and how we how we ensure equitable development that has all the ingredients of equitable equitable
communities throughout our district thank you for the opportunity to testify thank you um
mr chair hi um may i make a suggestion if it's okay how many hands are up yes if we can check
your hands. I lowered them all. So please only raise your hand as directed by the chair's question.
Thank you. I will ask for those of you who are out there wishing to testify,
would everyone please put your hand down and only raise your hand if you're here in support.
We'll get to the those who oppose next. I just want to get a head count.
If you're in support of this project, please raise your hand now.
please raise your hand now all right sir there's at least 17 people with their hands raised at this
time. I would ask those folks who are in support to please limit your testimony and please
do your best not to repeat what has already been said by the previous speaker. So with that, Mr.
Mr. Hand, you can start calling up some of those folks. And if it gets to be redundant,
then we will move on to the next group. Okay, I have Ms. Catherine. I will allow
you to speak right now. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record, spell
your full name, and I'll swear you in. No, I'm against, so I'll hold my hand for this
time. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in support who would like to speak, who would
to testify? If so, please raise your hand. All others please lower your hand at this time. We
will get to you shortly. Alex Schiefferdecker has been allowed to speak, sir. Hello. Good afternoon.
Please identify yourselves by your full name for the record and I'll swear you in. Hi, my name is
Alex Schieferdecker. My last name, S-C-H-I-E-F-E-R-D-E-C-K-E-R, and I live at 4721 Springfield.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you. I live a block away from their project site, and I want to start by sharing
some contextual information about my neighborhood. The project site and my apartment are both
in the same census tract. From 2010 to 2019, the median annual income in this tract increased
by over $7,000. The population of the tract that identifies as white increased by 201,
and the population of the tract that identifies as black decreased by 162. This tract has,
over the past decade, experienced a textbook case of gentrification. This change can't
be blamed on new development because there has been none. In fact, in that same period,
the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the number of housing units in the tract decreased by 93.
My neighborhood has seen displacement without development. More people want to live here,
but there are fewer spaces available for them, and so prices have increased, and people who
can't afford the new rents have been forced out. And I support this project not because I believe
it will solve this issue alone, but it will help. The project proposes to add 15 new homes that are
deeply affordable for decades. It proposes to build 61 new homes that will be available at
extremely standard rents for the neighborhood, and rental apartments will always be a more
affordable way to live here than home ownership. There are no homes currently on the project site,
so this project is an example of development without displacement, and that should be celebrated
and embraced. I believe the ZBA should grant this variance request for two reasons. First,
it will help the City of Philadelphia achieve specific public policy goals as described under
the Thrive vision of the Philadelphia 2035 plan. This project will add affordable housing,
it will add a mix of housing at different income levels, it will provide housing adjacent to high
frequency transit, it will reuse a vacant lot, and it will add to the property tax base.
These are all enumerated goals in the plan. Second, I support the request for variance
not just because this is a good project, but because the existing zoning creates an unnecessary hardship by which the property owner is disallowed from building a building that is contextual to the neighborhood and equivalent in use and form to the multifamily buildings that previously existed on this site and exist today on the immediate blocks.
The existing map that limits the site to single-family attached housing is a classic example of exclusionary zoning.
To uphold the zoning on the site would be to endorse a city policy that the only people who can live in this neighborhood are people who are wealthier than those who lived here before.
It would also punish a property owner who is attempting in good faith to build an attractive, context-sensitive project that directly meets neighborhood needs far better than what the existing zoning and the existing condition allow.
For these reasons, I urge the DGBA to approve the variances for the site.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony, sir.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
anyone else
Thank you.
chair this is sharon i just wanted to mention that we had an email from
ian hagerty at the planning commission yesterday saying that
he wanted to or would be submitting written testimony
we don't have it yet i don't believe i have it but um and you might not want to take it until
the end, but I wanted to mention Leslie. Okay, thank you. Anyone else to testify?
I believe I can wait to be sworn in, please. Yes. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for
the record, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in. Name is Ken Stager, last name S-T-A-G-S
and girl E-R. It's correct on the screen. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed uh alex said many of the things i
was going to speak on so i'll be a little briefer than i thought uh i share his complete sentiments
towards this project i would just like to say that i'm a little worried about the buy right
duplexes and the harm they'll do to this neighborhood um walking around the block
yesterday with my wife i'm seeing a lot of garage fronts starting to pop up and you know each one
of those equals a curb cut at this point and one less parking spot. I believe personally that the
proposed building is probably our best option to stabilize our neighborhood. That is quickly
changing and I will acknowledge that. I'm not sure about the best option to reduce gentrification in
the neighborhood, but I'm firmly under the belief that doing nothing is not the right answer.
That's it for me. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Brett, while we're on
that subject you may have said this uh the buy right duplexes yes uh they would be double car
garages yes and how what is the width of those curb cuts what would it be do you know oh i don't
know 15 16 feet actually it's uh i'll pull that up but it is a they have to be i mean they're huge
yeah i know i figured they were yeah i mean mr chairman here is here is what you will get
here is the by right i mean that is this is a block away um that you have to provide
two parking spaces and that that garage that you see this is for this is 40 this is 4600
block at king sessing it is almost throw a baseball that's what you'll get and then this
is what it looks like in manioc yeah all right thank you 20 feet here we have a gabriel gabriel
can unmute himself and wait to be sworn in good afternoon sir please spell your full name to the
record i'll swear you in yes my name is gabriel gottlieb g-a-b-r-i-e-l uh first name last name
is gottlieb g-o-t-t-l-i-e-b you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes i do yes uh thank you chair uh i my name is gabriel gottlieb i live at 4804 chester
Avenue, Winchester Apartments, which I believe is about within maybe about 50 feet away from this
site. I just want to make a couple points. Over about a block away from this
site, at the intersection of 49th and Chester Avenues, is probably the busiest intersection,
well, very likely the busiest intersection in southwest Philadelphia for public transit.
You have a stop of the Media Elven Line, which, as you know, goes into Center City and University
City and has a stop at the big Penn Hospital complex. Of course, you have the Route 13 trolley
as well as, as we pointed out, there are other trolleys nearby in Baltimore Avenue, Woodland
Avenue and the like. And also you have the Route 64 bus, which literally goes from Fairmont Park
all the way to the Delaware River waterfront in South Philadelphia and passes by numerous
shopping centers and supermarkets or within a short walk of that bus line. Anyway, so I think
that this neighborhood is one of the most prime areas for transit-oriented development, which,
as you may know, would require the building of apartment buildings so that you have as much
population near all this public transit as possible. And I think this building definitely
is a reasonable size for that. I also think that the demand for new housing, including
of different income levels will continue to increase in this neighborhood. As the board
knows that there's literally millions of square feet of new development happening in University
City and Center City, which will have thousands of new jobs, and this space is commercial,
office space, research, academic, and medical space. And most of these thousands of new jobs
are within a short walk of the transit lines that run through Cedar Park and Squirrel Hill
neighborhoods, the ones I mentioned.
So I think that we will find
incredible demand for new housing
continuing in this neighborhood, perhaps
continue in this neighborhood perhaps more than most people realize and i just think as uh one
more than most people realize.
And I just think as...
person mentioned earlier that if we limit the supply of this new housing then the rents would
probably go up by a greater amount than they would otherwise i mean they'll be increased but
i believe that the increase could be a little bit less if we allow some new construction of this or
or maybe other buildings like along um certain sites along the rail lines nearby also um i also
worry, too, because if we limit the development of some of these new apartment buildings in this
neighborhood, it makes it more likely that the owners of existing buildings like mine here at
Winchester Apartments will want to convert those buildings into expensive luxury housing to try to
fill the demand for all this new housing that will be happening in coming years. And just one
point I'd like to make, that this corner where the property is located at night is a very dark
and very desolate corner at night. I pass through here regularly, and in fact, the intersection,
Fort Heath and Chester, is probably the most dimly lit intersection you have along Chester Avenue,
and I think having a new building here with new lighting, with the potential for more eyes on
the street, we'll definitely, you know, brighten up the intersection.
I mean, I do a job where sometimes I have to wait for the trolley at three or four in
the morning on a Saturday or Sunday morning, and, you know, I often will have to wait out
there in this very dimly lit corner here at this dimly lit intersection, and so I just
think, you know, I'd feel better standing there waiting for the trolley at three in
the morning on a Sunday morning if there was, you know, a building there with lighting,
with the potential for eyes on the streets
and some people do stay up late at night here.
Right now, it just looks very dark and very desolate.
So I just think that it just makes sense
to build this building at this location at this time.
And I believe if we don't build it,
it'll only exacerbate the concerns
about gentrification in the neighborhood
and rather than what some others are saying,
the theory that it'll reset the rent.
I think it'll only make things worse
if we limit the supply of new housing
including preventing the construction of this building, which is one of the best sites for
a new building like this in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Yep. Go ahead
Chair, I'm sorry. Okay, you ask. No, I just was saying the next person is Bianca. Okay.
I think if someone said maybe you or Jason said there were about 17 people who had their hands
up in support. We're going to have to limit the testimony. We do appreciate and respect everyone's
taking time to be with us today. But in the interest of time, we would ask that you limit
your testimony to something new and different. So the next person. If you don't mind, I would like
to add if what was going to be testified regarding this project was already stated, that those who
had the same plans to testify please lower your hand and we can get the others with new something
new and different excuse me this is sharon did we get a count of hands from those in opposition
not yet no i think we only got oh sorry thank you bianca you can unmute yourself
um oh no i was against so i don't know how i got counted on the wrong one
we'll get to you thank you so chair we do have a problem because evidently people have their hands
up so our count might not be accurate because we asked for them to put their hands down if they
were opposed i think they're worried that we may not recognize them anyway um okay next hand
next person
catherine dowell has been allowed to speak sir good afternoon please identify yourself
for the record first and last name and i'll swear you in good afternoon chair my name is
catherine dowdell d-o-w-d-e-l-l where from to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do thank you man i will be brief um i'm here representing cedar park neighbors
we are one of the neighborhood RCOs. We are in strong support of this project. I want to thank
Mr. Feldman for reiterating our letter. I just want to add a couple of brief issues. Zoning is
about use, but zoning is also about building form. And I think that we've heard a lot of testimony
from both Mr. Feldman and from neighbors about how the form of this building is more desirable
for the neighborhood than the form of curb cuts, RTA-1 twins.
So I would like to emphasize that the form of this building is an important piece of
the zoning component.
Secondly, I'd like to reiterate the fact that the community benefits agreement for the 20% affordable units is binding to the property.
Secondly, I'd like to reiterate the fact that the community benefits agreement for the 20%
If the current developer chooses not to develop this property, chooses not to develop this project, and sells the land, and someone wishes to develop this same project,
these same 20% of affordable units will have to be retained. This is a deed restriction.
um thirdly i'd like to encourage this board you will hear a lot of testimony in favor of this
project you will hear a lot of testimony against this project i think they're very compelling
arguments on both sides i would like to urge the board to make a decision today or quickly
this has been a very stressful issue in the community and i think everybody would like to
know what their next steps are so thank you very much for my testimony um that's it thank you
Thank you.
Next witness.
I have Christopher.
Christopher, unmute yourself, please.
Wait to be sworn in.
Identify yourself, name, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Christopher Mejia-Smith, M-E-J-I-A-S-M-I-T-H.
I live at 4957 Pine Street.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I just wanted to reiterate the comments
that I made in my letter to this board dated April 5th. I wanted to speak specifically to
the hardship that is created by the zoning of this property. I believe that there was
a drafting error made in the 2012 designation for this law. I believe that at some point of
the planning process when the zoning code was overhauled that somebody took a look at Google
Street View, saw a bunch of Victorian twins, and thought that RTA 1 was the appropriate
designation. Given the historic nature of this property, its historic use as a multifamily
apartment building, that was an inappropriate designation. Then later, when the University
Southwest District Plan was created, it doubled down on that incorrect zoning designation,
which further shows that the historic context for this lot was not considered when the designation
was made originally. I believe that if these variances are granted, it would reaffirm the
use of this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next witness. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, please identify
yourself. Yes, my name is Taylor Kessinger. T-A-Y-L-O-R-K-E-S-S-I-N-G-E-R. I live at 4814 Chester.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Excuse me, before you begin, someone has their mic open.
We're getting feedback.
So unless you're testifying, please mute your mic.
Please proceed, sir.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak here today.
I'll try to keep this quick.
I am a renter in this neighborhood.
My wife and I moved here a couple years ago.
I can testify that it's quite hard to find housing here.
When housing is scarce, landlords raise rents because they know they can get away with it.
When a neighborhood gentrifies, they raise rents even more because they know the gentrifiers are willing to pay more in rent.
I think the easiest way to stop this problem from destroying the neighborhood is to increase the supply of housing.
This is a problem that Council Member Gaudier acknowledges.
She states in her letter, this section of our district is experiencing intense housing demand, so it's likely rents will go up even if nothing gets built on the site.
I sent you a long, boring letter outlining some of the arguments from the housing economics
literature that I believe support this position. Very briefly, I want to touch on the opposition
that you're going to hear. I know that much ado has been made about a petition, including 600
signatures opposing the development. Many of these petition signers, I think, were under the impression
that if this development doesn't go through, they get to keep the dog park or convert it into a
public park or cat corner or bird sanctuary but I think we know the most likely outcome is that
Miragelli just builds according to the zoning and as council member Gaudier notes in her statement
of opposition that would be 28 duplexes with no affordability restrictions on them I guess they
would sell for $700,000 or more I have to wonder what the 600 people who signed a petition
supporting no luxury housing in Squirrel Hill would think about 28 luxury duplex homes with
no affordable units at all. It only seems to me like 15 affordable units being greater
than zero is the better option from a renter's point of view. I want to quickly thank the
neighbors whose persistent negotiation made this level of affordability possible. It's
unprecedented. I think it would be heartbreaking to see it all go to waste. And today, you
have the chance to set a real precedent for affordability and private development, as
well as for good faith negotiation between neighborhoods. I urge you to grant these
i urge you to grant these variances and approve this project thank you very much
variances and approve this project. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
thank you okay chair we're all ready with christopher
please identify yourselves by your full name and i'll swear you in christopher unmute yourself
can you guys hear me now yes okay my name is christopher aho my last name is spelled a-h-o
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Well, I'm a long-time renter.
I've lived in this neighborhood for several years.
I currently live at 48th and Beaumont.
There is a severe shortage of affordable housing in this neighborhood, and I support this project.
It's going to add more units than will be possible with the by-right development,
and more affordable units.
I think this project also represents an opportunity
for the city to help meet its climate goals
by having a dense infill near an intersection
that's very well served by mass transit.
It will enable more residents to live here
without relying on cars to get around.
And I think that's a benefit for the city.
That's all I have to say.
you thank you we have larissa you can unmute yourself again before you begin ma'am uh no no
disrespect to the next speaker or any speakers thereafter we're hearing some redundancy about
affordable we appreciate that we hear about uh what the buy right would mean in terms of parking
so i would ask that uh you try to limit your comments to something that we've not yet heard
Thank you.
Thanks.
I'll try to be quick.
My name is Larissa Magano, L-A-R-I-S-S-A, Magano, M-O-G-A-N-O.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I'm a 15-year homeowner in West Philly, and for the last five years, I've been co-leading a neighboring RCO called Cobbs Creek Neighbors.
However, I am not writing on behalf of the organization.
I'm writing only as a concerned neighbor with some historical context.
While I generally prefer not to involve myself in proposals outside of my own neighborhood,
this is a community I spend considerable time in as a member of the nearby Warrington Community Garden,
Mariposa Co-op, previous member of the dog park that once sat on this lot,
and I find it imperative to consider the impact that adjacent communities have on one another.
We do need affordable housing in our community,
and I'm concerned that the knee-jerk oppositional responses to any and all new developments
sets Cedar Park, Cobbs Creek, and points further southwest for shortfall and viable options,
particularly as some reactionaries work to down-zone entire swaths of West Philadelphia,
leaving nothing but single-family homes available.
We experienced a similar situation with the Irvine, which just sits a few blocks away
when we lost the opportunity a decade ago to engage with the previous owner,
who consciously sought to include us in their plans.
Sadly, the community's short-sighted worries resulted in the exhaustion of the previous owner
and the sale of the building to the Post brothers who couldn't be less invested in appeasing
the surrounding community. At the time, I'm sure it felt like a win to those opposed,
but to the best of my knowledge, the Irvine now sits less than 70% occupied, quite possibly
because of their excessive rents and exclusion of neighbors. This is a cautionary tale that
is continually overlooked. History shows that our response to these completely valid fears
of displacement and equity and gentrification need to be much more strategic and thoughtful
if our aim is to serve the larger community's long-term needs. I agree that affordable housing
is a misnomer because the federal definition of affordability is skewed, and it doesn't even
account for our terribly inadequate living wage or the needs of people with disabilities or other
mobility issues. But when we have the opportunity to work with and be included in plans for our
communities, we need to seize them instead of chase them away. The alternative by right development
that could wind up here, as people have said, would be far worse for the very equity neighbors
claim to be fighting for. And related, the pressure put on the developer by the opponents
of the original plans to include an excessive amount of surface parking along a busy trolley
route and all the multiple um the other multimodal options around here that carries hundreds of
neighbors from lower income communities southwest of 40th and chester while vehicular crashes and
fatalities increase drastically is also counterintuitive intuitive but i'll save more details
for another another letter on that one housing and land values have reached a point where
subsidized affordable housing projects are no longer feasible, and I'd encourage more proactive
engagement from those opposed to this development to help curtail that and work to better define
what affordability means on a local scale. Inclusion of 20% affordable units at 40%
of less AMI in this project is critically important to create affordable units which
otherwise wouldn't exist. I strongly encourage the zoning board to consider pushing other
I strongly encourage the Zoning Board to consider pushing other future market rate projects
future market rate projects of the scale to
of the scale to include 20% or more of affordable units at 40% or less.
Thank you.
Inclusionary zoning practices would have a positive impact on housing affordability in
the third district and across the city.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
And I will ask again, please try to not repeat what has already been said numerous times.
Again, I say that with all due respect.
we have david david yes hi um i'm double double meeting here so
my name is david hincher uh spelled d-a-v-i-d last name is h-i-n-c-h-e-r uh i am you swear
excuse me do you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed so i am calling in as a neighbor in the community i'm a homeowner i've
lived in the neighborhood for uh 14 15 years at this point i'm also a board member of cedar park
neighbors but i'm really calling in as a neighbor within the community you know i have a vested
interest and increased property values as a homeowner but that doesn't really uh assist the
neighborhood. And I do feel like we need all of the tools available at our disposal to find
affordability whenever and wherever we can. And I think working with buy right developers to get
below market rate affordable units is something that we should always strive to do. And I am
proud that we have been able to do this on this project. I also feel like for going forward in
future with other by right developers we need to have trust with them that when they negotiate with
us that it's done in good faith and that they know that we we will be working together with them
to push for a fair and equitable space for community members.
Thank you. I think we've heard pretty much the same concerns from supporters. I'd like
now to move to some of the opposition folks. So I would ask anyone who would like to speak
in opposition to this project, please raise your hand. All others will lower your hand
for the time being please and I know we've spent you've spent a lot of time on this we're not
trying to rush this but uh we keep hearing pretty much the same comments so I'd ask anyone as
opposition please try to adhere to the same rule something new and different not repeating what
has already been said I'm seeing 23 chair yeah well okay let's start with number one
to run white has been allowed to speak sir good afternoon please identify yourself spell your full
name and i'll swear you in good afternoon my name is ron white w-h-y-t-e you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you sir please proceed
i'd like to start by saying that cedar park neighbors rco does not represent the views
or the diversity of the local community most of whom are in opposition to this development
i object to the to the developers proposed zoning variants and speak on behalf of myself
and nearly all of the near neighbors including the many many petition signers who are also
opposed to the zoning variants we strongly you need to testify on your behalf sir
yes um i strongly oppose having the cedar park neighbors rco in any way authorized to negotiate
deals with it yeah but tell us what your opposition to this project is my position to this project is
very much centered on uh the work of cedar park neighbors to insinuate themselves as on the behalf
of the community when they're not what is it about this project sir that you are opposed to
putting Cedar Park and that board aside.
Well, Cedar Park has insinuated themselves
as the standard bearers of the community,
and that's a misrepresentation.
That's what my statement is about.
They chose to represent the interests
of this wealthy out-of-state investor.
Tell us what...
I'm sorry, Chair.
If you like, we can move on, Chair.
It's your call.
Yeah, well, I'll give him one more opportunity.
Tell us what it is about this project
for getting Cedar Park
the developer, what is it about this project that you object to?
I object to the way that the process has unfolded to exclude members of the community who do not support this project
I object to the way that the process has unfolded to exclude
and the way that certain entities have been elevated and other people have been excluded.
That's my statement. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else to testify?
Sir, Ms. Cynthia Miller has been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, Ms. Miller.
please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Miller, please state your name on the record.
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
My name is Cindy Miller and I live at 4725 Chester Avenue.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, ma'am.
Please proceed.
um actually you'll be glad because i'm going to speak about a technicality of this zoning issue
that is unlike anything anybody has talked about before um i'm in total opposition to this project
and um before i speak about why i'm in total uh opposition to this monstrosity project that will
totally destroy the character of my neighborhood uh i would like to talk a little bit about the
signage the signs that were posted for zoning purposes um i've lived in this neighborhood for
35 years i live right across the street from where this project is proposed to be so it's
going to directly impact me um i've lived in this building for like eight years um the the signage
is a real problem and has always been from day one for one thing uh the signs are supposed to be
five feet high and legible when a zoning ma'am pardon the interruption are you suggesting that
it was not properly posted exactly exactly there's nothing posted at 47 20 the posting
when is the first time you heard about this project when the when the signs first went up
when which was when do you approximately uh i can't quite i'm sure it was around christmas time
so you're telling us there's a problem with the correct right now you could see it
the scientists but did you not see them back in december exactly they're behind they're behind
a double fence i am older i'm 67 so this is probably an ada issue as well they cannot
They're seven and a half feet tall.
Miss, ma'am, with all due respect, you're aware of the meetings that took place?
Yes, I've been to all of them.
So you obviously were notified?
Yes, I was notified by my other neighbor friends.
Well, could we proceed and speak to the issue of the development, the project itself, what it is you're opposed to?
I was under the impression that signage was a very important part of the zoning process.
It is, and I think you established, that you were made aware of this project way back from December.
Right. Not by the signs, but from my name.
Ma'am, whether someone told you that means someone saw these signs, you have participated in the public discussion, I assume?
No, somebody didn't see the signs. The way somebody else knew was because the developers sent out a letter.
Okay, okay.
They didn't see it from the sign.
Look, I have a question.
So did you attend any of these meetings?
I attended all of the meetings.
And you were silent?
And you were silent?
Did you not raise the issue of signage at any of those meetings you attended?
I'm sorry.
Ms. Miller, please unmute yourself to respond to that question.
Mr. Chairman, we probably had five or six community meetings.
Well, since December.
I'm saying seven months.
I can't even tell you how many meetings we've had.
All right.
Hold on, please.
All right.
We're going to go to the next witness.
Hello?
Hi, I'm Alexandra Goss.
Please spell your full name.
It's Alexandra, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-R-A, and Goss, G as in girl, O, S as in Sam, S as in Sam.
You swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
thank you ma'am please proceed hi um and i want to speak only on behalf of myself i want to confirm
Thank you, ma'am.
Please proceed.
Hi, and I want to speak only on behalf of my...
that the zba has a copy of the petition against the granting of a zoning variance for proposed
development at 40th and chester on record we do all right and if you have seen that petition you
are aware that there are signatures there that's 591 near uh close by neighbors who are in opposition
83 of those near neighbors within 250 feet as defined by the cba yes i i believe so okay
incredible i want to um emphasize and confirm that everyone who signed this petition was aware
both of the cba that was being negotiated and the buy rate options as opposed to what
i thought you said you were going i thought you said you were going to speak and not testify on
their behalf absolutely no worries no worries i'm happy to continue i also would like to bring up
the southwest philadelphia district services letter which was you said you're going to speak
on you miss miss you said you were going to speak on your behalf so far you've mentioned two or
three RCOs or neighborhood groups? Speak on your behalf. Tell us what it is you're opposed to
of this project, why you're opposed to it. Okay, absolutely, Chair. Thank you so much.
There's a number of reasons why I'm opposed to this project, and I just was trying to emphasize
the fact that there is, in fact, widespread. We are well aware. And I know you're aware. I know
No, no, no. So one thing I opposed to the zoning variance, while the developer is proposing
additional parking, they have not explained how the inevitable influx of new cars alongside
current vehicles and traffic of nursing home employees, visitors, and EMTs will impact
traffic on Chester and 48th Street, two already heavily used streets in our residential neighborhood.
This development is directly along the 13th trolley line. The renters that these apartments
are meant to attract would use car and delivery services like Uber, Amazon, that will double park,
idle, and add to CO2 emissions. These vehicles would also physically block the trolley,
inconveniencing riders, particularly low-income and working-class residents who rely on public
transportation and do not necessarily have alternative options. Even prior to COVID-19,
car ridership and congestion has steadily increased as public transit use has declined
because of the continued diminishment of affordable housing and proliferation of
overpriced apartment buildings that tend to attract car owners. Our neighbors a few blocks
down on 42nd-43rd and Chester area are dealing with dangerous congestion thanks to
imbalanced density on their block. There is constant double parking by delivery and car services.
Trolleys are frequently stalled, which causes them to honk at all hours, and pedestrians and
cyclists are endangered by increased traffic and associated chaos. Jamie Gauthier's office can
confirm they have received complaints about this. The city planners who created our zoning were wise
in understanding how to create distributed density that does not overtast our infrastructure.
We desperately need a traffic engineering report to measure the impact of increased cars and traffic
on our neighborhood. Towards this effort, I'd like to urge the importance of thoughtful planning
rather than spot zoning. There have already been many auto accidents at this corner, and we fear
still more come along with trolley interference if this project is approved. Thank you and sorry
for the confusion. Mr. Chairman, I would just add there's actually no new curb cuts offered.
We're utilizing the existing curb cut. Understood. And I was going to ask the question.
In the first three plans, we had new curb cuts on Chester, new curb cuts on 48th Street. Part of
this amazing collaborative process was to this curb cut actually we got rid of the curb cuts on
on 48 and we got rid of a quarter curb cut on Chester and this curb cut here actually already
exists so that was you know again the amazing feedback that we got that made this project
better and better as we went. Thank you. Chair we do have 15 more witnesses is your part of your
Did you say 5-0 or 1-5?
No, 1-5, sir.
Oh, okay.
Well, let's hear what the next couple of witnesses have the same.
Hopefully, their testimony has something new and different.
Sure, Chair.
We have Michael Ross.
Please unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Michael Ross, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
Mr. Chairman, I have to object due to standing.
Mr. Chairman, I have to object due to standing.
R-O-S-S.
R-O-S-S.
Mr. Chairman, I have to object due to standing.
What's the nature of the objection?
The RCO notification for this RCO, that's the RCO addresses and contact information that's compiled by the City Planning Commission,
lists this, I believe the speaker and this RCO as having a home address, a mailing address,
a contact address in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, which is 30 miles away at 1557 North Valley Road.
And that's as of an hour and a half ago, that's where their mailing address, that's where their
notification address was, 30 miles away. I have to object to standing.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. Standing is not an issue at this stage. Anyone can testify at the
zoning hearing. It's an issue on appeal if the case is appealed to the court, but it only goes
to the weight of the testimony, given the testimony at this stage. Mr. Ross. Thank you,
Sharon. Mr. Ross, what is your current address? My current address, we're a registered
a community organization.
I have two addresses.
I have two addresses.
Where do you live?
I live 1557
North Valley Road,
Pottstown, PA.
My office is at 5213
Woodland Avenue.
I've been working in the community.
I grew up in the community.
I've been working in the community for the last
40 years.
Mr. Ross, your office
what is the nature of your business we are a registered community organization that's where
that's your full-time job no it's not my full-time job what is the nature of your
business you said you have your office yeah my that's where our that's where our registered
community organization office is located southwest philadelphia district services
what we do is we provide support we're going to move on tanya we're moving on thank you
this cassandra slover has been allowed to speak hello
i'm sorry you you probably have two two devices on just need to shut one
okay turn one off spell your full name and i'll swear you in okay my name is cassandra slover
c-a-s-s-a-n-d-r-a last name slover s-l-o-v-e-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed okay hi i've actually been to um the last sony
meeting about this and i went to the meeting and i now i'm listening this and i would just like to
say that i find it um kind of disrespectful to the community members that brett feldman has
taken up so much of the testimony time um and you know he said he would talk 10
ma'am could you speak to your opposition to this project i would speak to my opposition to this
project. So I think that this building really would amplify the gentrification that has been
stated by Brett Feldman that is taking place in this neighborhood. You know, if you Google
environmental racism, the third result is gentrification. Gentrification is the process
of changing the character of a neighborhood through influx of more affluent residents and
businesses, which I think even looking at the numbers provided by Mayor Galley and Brett Feldman
would qualify like we talked to land land um landlords in this area it's not speculation
that they would be resetting the rent like this has come from them and you know i think that
you know some of the witnesses have mentioned how the trolley lines are there are going to
take them to like the grocery stores things like that and i think that you know they're not going
to shop at the grocery stores located half a block away from them. They're not going to shop,
they're not going to patronize the businesses in this area because it's targeted at college
students. I feel like, you know, the amount of one bedrooms that are unaffordable for this area
being targeted at transient college students who will not make a community in this neighborhood,
they will not patronize the businesses in this neighborhood, they will not treat the homeless
people who live in our neighborhood that's all that's all that's all speculation with all the
respect let me ask your question would you be in support of the buy right project the duplexes
i feel like that has also been a threat kind of from ma'am ma'am ma'am slow down
kind of from ma'am ma'am ma'am slow down it is not it is not a threat yeah it is how harmful
it is not
it's going to be for this neighborhood and how ma'am can you show this how it works i'll ask
the question you answer okay would you be supportive of the duplex project that is a
buy right which is not a threat it's a buy right project no i am not in support of that
Okay. All right. Thank you.
All right.
Hello.
Hello.
I was muted. I would also like to say that there has been some issues brought up with how it was zoned and how, you know, they think that it's been incorrectly zoned.
But it has been a public open space since the 90s, which is at least a generation.
People around here, if you look at the Google reviews for the dog park that is now, like, just sitting there, like, not being used,
it's people using the ability to take their dog to the park.
I have a dog here.
I look out the dog everywhere.
Why are you opposed?
Why am I opposed?
I'm telling you why I'm opposed.
I'm opposed because you're taking away a public dog park.
It is not a public dog park.
It was, and the mayor took it away.
Also, I think we have the problem with Pottstown being 30 miles away.
Ma'am, ma'am, it is not a public dog park.
A public door, the public zoom.
It is a privately owned parcel.
And the reason it is vacant land is because a building was torn down and no construction was put in place.
which now we have construction project that's being proposed next witness please
Thomas you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
chair if you don't mind without being too fresh I would just like to state
that we are here for zoning hearing and please stick to the zoning thank you kindly we still
have a long list and a 330 list to handle thank you so much chair thank you and we keep asking
the same question that you just raised stick to the zoning please. Thomas you can put your name
on record and the chair will score you in. My name is Thomas Ewing 4721 Chester Avenue directly across
the street from the entry of the proposed building. Thomas will you spell your last name please?
It's E-W-I-N-G. Thank you you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
My wife and I submitted an argument by email, four pages of drawings based on the city's open maps, copies of certain city records, for instance, the purchase price of the land in question, and three pages of photos of the neighboring houses.
My first point is there is no hardship.
The applicant attorney's statement in the April hearing that the size and the configuration of the lots prevents development within the current zoning of the district is not correct.
I submitted my drawing SK-4 showing a total of 11 semi-detached duplex houses consistent with the RTA1 zoning of the district and requiring no variance.
Mr. Feldman today referenced he was able to get 14, I understand.
Note that I shared my drawings and my argument to the zoning board with Mr. Feldman prior to the April hearing.
That may have triggered comments by Jerry Roller in that April hearing that the layout I suggested would somehow require multifamily zoning as the basis for a plan unit development.
While that may be one approach, the SK-4 layout I submitted could be achieved by a subdivision under the RTA-1 zoning with cross variances among the owners for the parking access.
As well, my drawings may have triggered comments from planner Nancy Templeton that duplex semi-detached houses would necessarily require street front curb cuts at each house.
Unless a developer would act against its own economic interests and choose to make fewer lots, they could not fit the two parking slots required for semi-detached duplexes on the street front while maintaining the required side yard in RTA 1 zoning.
A rear driveway and parking would be more profitable as well as better suited to the neighborhood.
But should the board disagree with what I've stated so far and find.
Should the board disagree with what I've stated so far and find basis for a hardship, it must consider that both Title 14 and Commonwealth Court decisions disallow hardship created by the applicant.
In this case, Mr. Gelley purchased the land in question only eight years ago at a bargain price, 20% of what he originally bargained for.
That reduced price reflected the limitations of the land based on the zoning in the district.
I submitted references to the various court cases in what I submitted by email to the board.
As an indication of how much of a bargain Mr. Galey got for his $200,000 for the land or $1.74 per square foot,
A currently pending land sale for a house lot within one block of the site is at $76 a square foot, over 40 times as much.
The relief that the applicant requests, my third point is the relief that the applicant requests is the purview of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, not the zoning board.
There are two different sets of parcels here.
There are two different corporate owners.
Both are foreign to Pennsylvania, according to the city's land record.
Cedar Park neighbors had different states of incorporation in their document that they showed on screen earlier.
Where are we going? I'm a little confused. Where are we going with this?
Where are we going? They purchased it at a very affordable price, a bargain basement price, if you will.
It's worth a lot more now. I don't understand that.
what's the harm? I'm making an argument in case there is thinking that there's economic hardship
here. There is not economic hardship. But I'll ask you the same question I asked one of the
previous witnesses. Is a buy-right, and I think you sound like an intelligent person, is not meant
as a threat. There is a buy-right project that can be built. Would you be in favor of the buy-right
as opposed to what is being proposed today?
I'd be absolutely in favor of buy right.
Well, you're honest about that, and I appreciate that.
And, okay.
My fourth point is that the relief that the applicant requests
is not the minimum relief required to develop the lots.
The applicant has argued in its meetings with the neighbors
that the scale of the project, the number of units,
was based on the need to subsidize rents to gain approval of the district council person.
In this case, based on a statement that the council person, Jamie Gauthier, has issued on
the web, that approval is not forthcoming, undercutting the logic for the large number
of apartment units. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness.
Elizabeth can be sworn in please identify yourself full name and I'll swear you in
my name is Elizabeth Oakley last name is spelled o-a-k-l-e-y
we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth I do
um I'm a neighbor I live right down the street at 48th and King Sessing and I just want to say
as someone who's been involved in the community meeting process and has attended many of the
community meetings, I just want to say that I'm disappointed that there hasn't been an
acknowledgement by Mr. Feldman of the March 24th community meeting hosted by the RCOs,
hosted by the convening RCO, which is Southwest Philadelphia District Services, the president of
which is Michael Ross. I don't understand why he wasn't allowed to speak. He very graciously held
the space for that community meeting, and mediated it, and allowed community members to speak. And
at that meeting, there was a vote held, and there were 64 near neighbors in opposition, and only
six in support. And I find it very strange that that number has not been mentioned at any point
in this hearing. That is part of the due process of applying for zoning variance. And it is, I found
very strange that Mike Ross was silenced earlier on in this meeting. And I just want to say, as
someone who has participated in this process and is very opposed to this project, to bring that
number forward. And the zoning board should have that. It has been submitted to them in writing
multiple times. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Next witness.
now it's the glass i have jillian jillian you can open your mic and wait to be sworn in
thank you please identify yourself first and last name and i'll swear you in
jillian jitan spelled j-i-l-l-i-a-n last name j-e-t
Gillian Jiton, spelled J-I-L-L-I-A-N, last name J-E-T-T-O-N.
Where are from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
I am also a near neighbor.
I've been renting for five years in this area.
I'm just one block away from the proposed project.
There's been an incredible amount of new construction of large multifamily homes in West Philadelphia,
all supposedly for students and young professionals.
Meanwhile universities in the area have been building their own massive on-campus housing and
this year Penn is now requiring freshmen and software students to live on campus in an effort
to stem student gentrification. In addition student enrollments are going to decline for decades due
to a tumbling birth rate. In West Philly landlords have already begun to offer deep discounts around
Penn's campus and vacancies are on the rise. Philadelphia on the whole has seen an ongoing
population loss of affluent residents with more migrating out of the city than moving into it.
While there is a trickle of additional jobs in the biomedical sector, some have already chosen to live elsewhere because West has become too expensive.
Could you, sorry for the interruption, but could you talk to us about what it is you're opposed to about this project?
Absolutely. Yeah, I feel that this project will bring in, many people have, you've been asking the question to folks who have spoken,
in, are you in support of the buy-right? And I am in support of the buy-right because that
will bring in far fewer residents to this neighborhood than the proposed apartment building
who have purchasing power, who are going to add to the density, add to the parking issues,
add to many of the issues that we've brought up before about affordability. I believe that
the buy-right houses will have a far less of an impact on our neighborhood and the affordability.
Fair enough. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.
How many more do we have, Tanya? Or Jason, whoever's keeping track?
There were 10 now.
is uh all right we're not going to ever we're not going to be able to get through all this we have
numerous cases yet to be heard is there anyone out there who can offer something new and different
and please respect our request something new and different not that we don't respect the
time you've taken to be on this call today but uh we are challenged with a lot of cases yet to be heard
Okay, we have Robin, who can be sworn in, and she can unmute herself.
Good afternoon, Robin. Please identify yourself for the record, and I'll square you in. Spell your name.
Robin Markle, unmute yourself.
Hi, yes. Can you hear me now?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay. I don't use ma'am. I'm actually gender nonconforming. I use they and them.
My name is Robin Markle. Do you need me to spell it?
Yes, please.
Okay. R-O-B-I-N-M-A-R-K-L-E.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Okay. So I'm a renter. I live at 4812 Regent Street. I've been in the neighborhood for 13 years.
I live a half a block away from this site of the proposed project.
As I think others have mentioned, this project was listed in zoning as being at 4701 to 15 King
Sessing, but the actual building would be at 48th and Chester. And because of that misrepresentation,
I know that other neighbors and I have been disenfranchised in this process because the
address was not listed properly. I object to the zoning variance because it will damage our cohesive
stable community and character. One of the many ways that the applicant has misrepresented our
neighborhood, putting undue emphasis on the apartment buildings that were once on this lot
or nearby blocks. Those apartments were from the 1920s and 30s, and they predate the zoning code
and thus are irrelevant to the applicant's request for a variance. Our city planners did an excellent
job of zoning this area using community engagement and comprehensive planning tools. They determined
that it should be RTA1. There's a reason they made that decision. As the photos that we submitted and
a study of the density in the area reveals, the planners in West Philly did an excellent job.
They've created our neighborhood to be green, cohesive, stable, a mix of housing-dense apartment buildings, row homes, and single-family housing that has led to long-term renters like myself, many of the other people who oppose this, many of whom are low-income.
There are mom-and-pop landlords in our community, including some that, you know, oppose this project.
We all know each other, and we have a walkable, social, diverse neighborhood in terms of race, age, gender, and socioeconomic mix.
Spot zoning, a massive apartment complex will destabilize and destroy what the city planners thoughtfully zoned and created.
The zoning needs to look like what is here now, not what was once here before there was a zoning code.
Zoning needs to look like what is here now, not what was once here before there was a zoning code.
And the second thing I'd like to add is going back to what Cindy Miller brought up earlier,
the zoning notices were not posted accordingly. And we did reach out and tell the zoning board.
I sent a letter in April with a photo of the zoning and the postings for the zoning
showing that they were not legible. So many of us who did find out about these meetings,
it was not because of the postings that Brett Feldman put up. It was because neighbors reached
out to other neighbors and we organized amongst ourselves and we have told each other about the
meetings but if it was up to just people getting information from the postings I don't think
almost anyone would have known about this project because they were out of place and
illegible and I'm happy to send you further photos or hold some up to the screen right now
that show how illegible they are thank you ma'am thank you I'm sorry thank you Robin okay anyone else
we have mary mary unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
my name is mary mcgetican good afternoon please identify yourselves by your last name
mc g e t t i g a n you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed i represent the rco west philadelphians for progressive planning
and preservation this property lies within our group's boundaries we're asking the zoning board
to deny this request for variances at the numerous well-attended community meetings there was
overwhelming opposition to the current proposal those most affected by the proposal the near
neighbors voted 64 against and only five in favor they couldn't be sending the zoning board any
clearer a message. In addition, the owner has failed to make any convincing argument for hardship,
a condition which any serious request for variances must meet. Now the grounds for the
neighbors' opposition are substantial and speak directly to the proposal's negative impacts on
their quality of life. Among these, a net loss of green space, greater traffic congestion,
and increased parking difficulties. But neighborhood opposition is based also on the real threat
that this type of development poses to their largely low-income and extremely diverse community
of renters as well as homeowners. Now, supporters ask you to look at this current development as a
simple mathematical equation. Fifteen so-called affordable apartments are greater than zero,
right? Well, not really. This argument ignores the complex reality of the harmful effects of
new development such as this one on old and established neighborhoods. In the absence of
rent controls and other efforts to protect them, long-time members of the surrounding community
face the inevitable outcome of rising rents and involuntary removal, and most importantly,
more affordable apartments. The neighborhood loses more affordable apartments than new
development provides now i know it's not the job of the zba to solve this dilemma of gentrification
and displacement but it certainly should not make zoning decisions that encourage it preventing
displacement and stabilizing neighborhoods are important components of any effort to promote the
general welfare of all our citizens so please consider the harm this development would inflict
on this special neighborhood and deny these variances.
And I'd also like to address the community benefit agreement
to the extent that you would consider this agreement
that was submitted by the owner.
I would have to argue that one of the most difficult issues
surrounding CBAs involves the question
of who legitimately represents the community.
In this case, it appears that the owner commenced the negotiation of a CBA with a single local civic organization, failing to include other RCAs or to directly involve other members of the community.
How can this possibly constitute an argument in favor of granting variances when it appears that the majority of the community members most affected are not a party to the agreement?
And I would have to add that when I asked many months ago Mr. Feldman to share the details of the community agreement with me, he refused unless I agree.
That's not true.
No, that's true.
Unless, Mr. Feldman, please do not interrupt.
Please do not.
Please do not.
Please do not speak over each other.
I believe that that community benefits agreement was in the process of being developed.
and i think that may be the reason why mr feldman could you answer
So, unmute yourself, Mr. Thelma.
so unmute yourself mr feldman
May I finish my statement that I was interrupted?
No, Mr. Thelma, I would...
He has the right to object.
The provisions in the CBA, the 20% affordability at 40% AMI, the number of bedrooms, the number
of total bedrooms, the number of units has been known by everyone for, I don't know,
three months now.
The question was who was going to be the party that we entered into, and initially it was going to be – the idea was that this was going to be done through the city of Philadelphia in coordination with local elected officials.
When that did not become possible, Cedar Park stepped to the plate, hired an attorney to put this agreement, a lock solid agreement in place that we executed.
But the terms of that agreement have never been in dispute, and they've always been 50 years, 20% affordability, 40% AMI.
And it was supposed to be done with the city of Philadelphia. And when that fell through, Cedar Park stepped to the table and hired an attorney who put this together. And we've worked closely on this. So I just, I can't be more affirmative on this, that there's no new terms in this.
they've always been the same terms uh and and and someone stepped to the plate to make sure that
this this wasn't just the promises of a lawyer a developer or people you know but this was actually
going to be recordable and that's what it is okay thank you may i respond well just we're not going
to go back and forth you made a statement he's explained it you either accept or you don't so
So just move along with the rest of your testimony, please.
I would just object to the testimony provided by a number of the people who spoke in support of this,
a certain number of whom are members of the planning, real estate and architecture industries.
You know, I think that should be something that you should consider.
And many of them actually made strong arguments in favor of rent control and other neighborhood stabilization methods, and they should argue in favor of that instead of arguing about the inevitability of the further destruction and gentrification of our neighborhood.
And while I would support the buy right over this project, it would be as the lesser of two evils.
I think Mr. Gelley has a clear opportunity here to discuss both with the community and with our council member a different disposition of this neighborhood, of this property.
he could certainly uh sell the property uh at a profit to someone who would provide
meaningful affordability uh thank you very much board for allowing my testimony
but before we go any further um we've been at this for two and a half hours uh
i want to ask the board if the board has any questions as of right now no uh no chair
no no no all right uh the court reporter i assume you might need a break
no you're okay this is the court reporter chair i i would appreciate a brief break
uh it is now for
be back here at 4 35 thank you sir
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is our court reporter, has he returned?
Yes, Chair, I am here and ready to go.
Thank you very much.
No, no, again, remember, stop us anytime.
Thank you.
I think everyone else is here.
We'll proceed.
And I'm going to ask this question, which I probably asked a dozen times.
Please, to the witnesses, tell us what it is about this project that causes you to oppose it.
And I won't use the other issue about the alternative is a buy right.
We know what that is.
You know the number of curb cuts.
So tell us what it is about this project that you're opposed to.
We're going to hear from about two more witnesses and we're going to have to move on.
Thank you.
Next witness.
we have juliet way you can unmute yourself and wait to be
hello good hi good afternoon please identify yourself with the record spell your name and
i'll swear you in hi my name is juliet wayne w-a-y-n-e you swear a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed hi my name is juliet wayne i have rented
Hi, my name is Juliette Wayne. I have rented at 4803 Chester Avenue for two and a half years.
at 4803 Chester Avenue.
I believe that the developer used 4701-15 Kingcessing as the caption address to reduce
opposition by not notifying affected neighbors. For example, my house is less than a minute walk
to the building and yet they failed to include and notify myself and other affected neighbors.
But more importantly, this reeks of a zoning workaround to not have to rezone and make improvements on the nursing home that is very problematic.
As the first nursing home in Philadelphia to have a resident test positive for COVID, its handling of waste materials is problematic.
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, please, with all due respect, could you tell us what it is about the project that you're opposed to?
um i have and i have a question for you okay did you attend any of the meetings
yes okay so you were aware of this because you raised the issue about misleading i think you
maybe didn't use that word but you were alluding to a misrepresentation of where this project is
being proposed by creating a different address or using a different address yeah so i'm asking you
did attend meetings so you were aware of what is being proposed. Could you speak to what your
opposition to this project is? My opposition is that this is not an asset to the existing community
here and they're not taking into account the problems that are going on with the nursing home
and how it will be rezoned and they're not notifying people who are actually affected.
I was, I'm right across the street and I was left out of the zone of this thing.
And I don't think that this has, this doesn't reflect what the community here needs.
Thank you.
Next witness.
okay sorry chair um milan i can you unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in we're getting
duplicate hands if you already testified please lower your hand and those who have not you can
keep your hands up as the chair or board wishes will follow you at a later time thank you chair
thank you can you hear me yes please identify yourself first and last name
yes my name is mylan m-i-l-a-n my last name is marvelous m-a-r-v-n victor e-l-o-u-s
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed okay um thank you mr chairman thank you members of the board
um we've covered a lot of material here i appreciate your patience and your your work
in this matter uh i am a near neighbor in fact i'm the immediate neighbor uh if you can stay
on the view that's currently posted my house is the little gray house right next to number four
the building right to the below and right to the right of it um my house is gigantic about 4 000
square feet has an enormous backyard and in this rendering it looks like a little toy i i think
that the scale and mass of building number four has been misrepresented in the rendering that
we've had. And I think it's hard to really picture how big this building is and what
an unbelievably large impact it's going to have. Also on this map here, you can see all of the
twin housing. You can see all of the RCA1 zoning. The other highlighted buildings that the developer
is trying to compare their new developments to are all pre-war stately old buildings,
which are integrated into the fabric of the neighborhood.
I am in opposition to this project.
In addition to the impact that the massive building is going to have,
I'm profoundly concerned about using spot zoning on such an essential parcel in our neighborhood.
It is the largest and just of the only open space in between Clark Park and Cedar Park.
I have lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years.
In that time, we've had 10,000 new neighbors move into the neighborhood, according to University City District.
In that time, we've had 10,000 new neighbors move into the neighborhood, according to University of Michigan.
10,000 new people, but we have had no new parks, no new green space, no new transportation, rec centers, no new city services.
We ask for zoning variances to allow for more construction to benefit more owners, to benefit more landlords.
But we're never able to get variances for amenities or basic services for not only the people that live here, but for the 10,000 new neighbors we have.
So I think that this project has some merit, but it needs more thought.
One final thing, and I appreciate your time.
We've heard a lot about the community meeting.
As the immediate next door, 1121 South 48th Street neighbor, I was at most of those meetings.
I was in favor of this.
When they say it was 64 opposed and five for it, I was one of the five.
I was one of the six.
I am now opposed, and the neighbor at 1123 is also opposed.
So if there is 66 opposed and perhaps three in favor, I hope that speaks to the depth and breadth of the opposition to the project as it's proposed.
And I will add that I would prefer the zoning by right.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Marvelous, what is the height of your house?
Do you know, Mr. Marvelous?
I'm sorry, Chair, I removed him out.
If you can raise your hand again, sir.
No, no, that's okay.
Not that important.
It looks like a very tall house, that's why I asked.
It looks like it's 38 feet or more.
yeah that's why we that's why we reduced all the light blue is actually yeah i i get that
that's why i wanted to ask it and a lot of this came because the neighbor across the street on
48th street on the other side of 48th street um literally i sat with her for hours and hours
on this issue uh concerning height and we made these changes we added this
mr chair i'm back and if i could speak to that for a moment
i have a i have a question what is the height of your house
to be honest with you it's it's 30 ish it's um it's three stories of the mansard
and to speak to the size of this building if mr colvin shows the
i'm trying i'm trying go ahead you said it's 30 ish and a mansard yeah would you say it's at least
37 feet high forgive me i i i don't have that information about my house all right okay fair
enough but i will say that my this building the proposed building is so large that when you see
the view that the uh attorney has been showing of the corner of 48th and uh chester my massive
building is a hundred percent obscured you believe me if you see my house it's a massive house you
can't even see it behind this building. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. One
more witness and we're going to move on to the next cases. Antonio, you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in. Hello, thank you very much. Antonio Larson. Please spell your
full name? A-N-T-O-N-I-O-L-A-R-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please proceed.
Okay, a lot of my main points were covered, so I'm just going to say that I have been in
the neighborhood for 46 years. I have been a block away as a homeowner and a landlord for
15 years. I'm very opposed to the project, mostly on grounds of density that does not have any
benefit for lower-income residents, which are still a big demographic in this neighborhood.
So I think many people have commented on that, so I'll leave it at that. And my last point
is that allowing something like this to go through a capitulation to developers and their need to
make money is with no real benefits for the neighborhood besides some middle-income affordability
and luxury units for the residents that will inevitably come with gentrification.
Allowing this to happen with nothing set aside for low-income residents is a precedent that
I fear we will see repeated over and over again if we allow this to happen.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
So, Mr. Larson, you said you lived there 46 years.
Mr. Lawson, you said you lived there 46 years.
I don't remember.
I don't remember what Mr. Feldman said.
Were you living in a neighborhood when the prior building was at this site?
I grew up two blocks away from Clark Park, where my parents still are.
And I've been here 15 years, one block away from the proposed site.
And I've never seen Brett Feldman in my neighborhood.
I didn't ask about Brett Feldman.
I asked about the building, the prior building.
I just thought I'd throw that in.
was that was that building existing at the time you've been living there was it existing
40 something years ago
well 40 something years ago i was six years old and i was yeah all right that's that has nothing
i can't comment on that well it does because the massive if you know the answer to that i don't
you asked it okay thank you that's the last of the witnesses chair you can go forward as you wish
all right uh with all due respect we know a number of people who want to testify i think we've been
through numerous repetitive comments from both sides so with that i'm going to ask the board if
have any questions no no no thank you planning commission
good afternoon ariel de liberto with the city planning commission
the proposal is supported by the city's comprehensive plan which includes
recommendations for what mixed income housing developments and to prioritize the infill of
vacancies sorry i'm getting an echo yeah we're getting feedback someone has everyone mute mute
their mics please try again mr mr liberto chair would you like me to start over yes please
uh again ariel di liberto with the city planning commission the proposal is supported by the
city's comprehensive plan which includes recommendations to promote mixed income
housing developments and to prioritize the infill of vacancies we believe that the proposed development
will not create unusual burden on the local street network the automobile traffic pedestrian
activity and parking demand generated by the proposed development can be accommodated by the
existing network along with the proposed parking lot for the residents of the building we recommend
the board grant the variance okay thank you mi2020-003174 4701-15 kingcessing avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes revised plans three pages yes my vote is yes with revised plan three pages
approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
thank you everyone for your patience thank you for your time and consideration
Sure. Calendar number MI-2021-001089-5400, Rising Sun Avenue.
I don't know if that's Gussie O'Neill or Ron Patterson.
We still have hands up. Let me just check.
Ms. Augusta O'Neill has her hand raised.
Promoted to panelist?
Yes, you can, please, Jason.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
She is now a panelist, ma'am, Mr. Moore.
Thank you.
Ms. O'Neill, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
My first name is Augusta, last name is O'Neill, O apostrophe N-E-I-L-L.
My address is 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Thank you.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or
referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes to everything except that the RCO didn't provide
anyone in my office with a copy of their letter. I'm not sure if they sent it directly to the board.
I did try to call the RCO person that we've been in contact with during the previous hearing but
I wasn't able to get in touch with her. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you very much.
I'll be really brief.
I know that the last application went for quite a while.
I'm here this afternoon on behalf of SEMA Network.
They are here with an application to install and upgrade some signage at an existing Rite Aid at 5400 Rising Sun Avenue.
The current signage, as you can see on the page on my screen, is what I guess the quote-unquote old Rite Aid signage looks like.
The current signage, as you can see on the page on my screen.
Rite Aid has updated and modernized its signage so that it's not the pure blue and white signage anymore.
It's now a more modern blue, green, and white.
This property is currently zoned RSA 5, which means that Rite Aid is very limited in the type
of signage they can put up in this residentially zoned neighborhood. As a result, our application
received a refusal due to the size of wall signs that were proposed. As you can see on the refusal
that's on my screen, we are only permitted to have 15 square feet of signage. We are proposing signage
approximately 105.33 square feet. I'm going to take you to page 37 of my exhibit package,
so you can just see a rendering of what the signage will look like. This is the signage
as it currently exists. This is the proposed signage. The buildings southern and eastern
elevations are where these signs are going to be replaced. So this is the southern elevation
of the building. Take you to a picture of the eastern elevation. Again this is the current
existing signage. This is what we are proposing. Ms. O'Neill interrupt not to interrupt but it's
basically a redesign? Yes. So you can summarize that would be helpful. Sure absolutely. So we met
with the RCO on April 29th. The 42nd Democratic Ward is the RCO. They did indicate that they were
in support of the application. They thought the new signage looked great. They appreciated the
fact that they were going to have signage that was more modern, similar to what other Rite Aids
in Philadelphia have. With me this afternoon is Jerry Canavan of the SEMA Sign Network Company.
He's available should the board have any questions about the materials being used for the signs.
And with that, I would like to call Mr. Canavan forward.
So, Mr. Canavan, if you could raise your hand.
Good afternoon, Mr. Canavan.
Please identify yourself, spell your last name, first and last name, and I'll swear to you.
Can you hear me?
Okay, great.
Yeah, first name Jerry, J-E-R-R-Y, last name Canavan, C-A-N-A-V-A-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. O'Neill.
Thank you.
Mr. Canavan, did you have an opportunity to hear my testimony this afternoon?
I did.
And was everything I said true and accurate?
And do you wish to adopt my testimony as your own?
Thank you.
And Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note for the record that Hillary Emerson of the Councilwoman's Office did provide me a letter of support that did not come directly to me but was from the RCO.
So we do have a letter of support.
So noted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand.
Chair, I have a Ms. Cassandra Snover.
Was her hand raised?
I won't allow her to speak at this time.
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
If we could get Hillary next, please.
Okay, Hillary, Ms. Emerson.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, we can, please identify yourself.
Sure, good afternoon, I believe it is still.
mr chair members of the board um hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed yes um i apologize i may have some interns in the background
um the councilman is not opposed to the requested variances for signage at the site it is a
commercial property despite its residential zoning on the Rise and Sun commercial corridor.
I do want to note in the meeting that the RCO members did mention some concerns about the
exterior conditions of the store, that they had observed litter, overflowing trash receptacles,
parking lot needed to be cleaned, and the landscaping improved.
I think you're conflating this application with the application on
North 5th Street. These are the notes I received from my
colleague. There may have been discussion after
you left the meeting, and that's where these notes came from, but
these notes came from a colleague of mine who attended the meeting. I did not
attend the RCO meeting for this one. Just because I attended both
meetings that Rite Aid is presenting, I know these are all the concerns
that Rite Aid is presenting. I know these are all the concerns that a different RCO had raised about
that a different RCO had raised about
a different rating. Right, right. No, they were raised, they were raised, according to my colleague
who attended this meeting, they were raised at this, at this meeting as well, and she didn't
attend the other meeting, so, but I understand that there was, there was a note that, or some
communication that the RCO would be connected with the district manager, so I just hope that that will,
we'll move ahead um because there are concerns about the the exterior of the property
thank you okay thank you uh anyone else to testify no thank you planning commission
good afternoon ariel de liberto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
a zoning map change to commercial auto oriented one at this location uh ca1 zoning it does not
have a maximum number of flat wall signs permitted and permits one freestanding sign per lot we
believe the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship as this lot is the only residentially
zoned lot on the block we recommend the board grant the variance uh sharon are we okay if we
approve this without the uh rco letter based on testimony of the councilwoman's office yes thank
Thank you. Okay, MI 2021-001089, 5400 Rising Sun Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Chair, I should have added that Hillary did send me a copy of the letter, so we do have it for the file.
Okay, so noted. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. O'Neill.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you, members of the board.
Thank you.
Calendar number MI 2021-001110, 634 North 40th Street.
The attorney is Meredith Verliger.
There is a letter of support from the Belmont Alliance Civic Association.
And if approved, there's one page revision.
One revision.
One page.
Meredith, name and address on the record and spell your last name, please.
Sure, Meredith Ferleger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, of Dilworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite
3500E, Philadelphia, PA.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Do you also agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
Good evening, members of the board.
Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger of Delworth Paxson.
I'm here today with the owner of the property at 634 North 40th Street, Rami Shrine.
We come to you today with a request for a variance for a property on North 40th Street,
which is in West Philadelphia, that did receive unanimous support from the Belmont Alliance
Civic Association during a meeting held just last week. To orient you briefly to the particular
property, if you refer to the zoning map I have up on the screen and at Exhibit 7,
you'll see that the property is on North 40th Street between Fairmont Avenue and Wallace Street.
unusually the property is split zoned along with the entire block so half of the properties rsa3
the other half is rm1 as i'll explain it is the split zoning that brings us before you today
as you can see in the aerials that are at tab 9
the west the there are four structures on this west side of the street with the remainder of
block as vacant land. Again with the photographs you'll see that the existing structures on this
block are not uniform in their style or how they're oriented to the street. Now the lot
that's before you today is fairly large at just over 2,500 square feet. As far as the proposal is
concerned. The project is for a three-story structure that will have six units. The intent
is to sell the units as more affordable condominium units. The owner has also agreed at the request
of the councilwoman to work with the local housing counseling agencies when it is time to sell these
units. Two of the units are bi-level three-bed, three-bath units at around 1,500 square feet.
The remaining four are two-bed, two-bath at around 800 square feet.
Trash will be stored in the large rear yard and will be collected by a commercial hauler.
Now, the proposal was very slightly revised from when it was originally submitted to L.A.
Now, the proposal was very slightly revised from when it was originally submitted to L&I.
This was done in response to discussions with the immediate neighbor at 636 North 40th Street.
Ramy did agree to redesign the front of the structure to include a front porch,
which I'll show you in the renderings that we have of the project.
So this changed some of the zoning calculations very, very slightly.
the rear yard shrunk from 15 feet to 13 feet, and the open area calculations changed by half a
percentage point. So I did submit a revised plan proviso form, and if the board is inclined to grant
the variances today, that would be with a proviso one page. So regarding the refusals, we received
several that I did reference stem from the split zoning. Because the RSA3 zoning makes up 50% of
the property and is more restrictive than RM1, the proposal was reviewed as if it were entirely
zoned RSA3. I will note that if the property were reviewed under RM1, it would be by right.
Regarding the use, we submit for a hardship for two main reasons. This side of the block of North
40th Street includes 12 total lots, eight of which are vacant. Now of the four existing structures,
three contain multi-family uses at 642, 640, and 638 North Fortia. Across North Fortia Street,
on the other side of the block here, all of these are multi-family uses. So erecting a new single
family home in this location would be quite out of character with the nearly exclusively single
multifamily character of the street. Also, as you can see in tab 8 here that I'll show you on the
screen, and based on the discussion I had with the district planner here, the Planning Commission
actually contemplates this block for RM1 zoning, not for RSA3 zoning. They did indicate that their
desire here is to increase density along arterial and transit nodes, such as 40th Street. So,
at some point this entire block and the block to the north should be rezoned RM1. It's not
clear when that will be done. We did receive several dimensional refusals for proposing an
attached structure, insufficient side yard, and insufficient open area. Again, all of these are
based on the RSA 3 district, not the intended RM1 district. So on this point, if you briefly
refer to the zoning table that's on the plans, you'll note that although it was predominantly
designed to comply with RM1, the design team did make an effort to try and balance the requirements
as best as possible. So for example, although RM1 would not require an eight-foot front setback,
the proposal does include the full eight-foot front setback as well as the porch to align
with the adjacent structure at 636. The rear yard length and area is significantly more than RM1
would require, but slightly less than RSA3 would allow. Regarding the side yard, there is a side
yard proposed, however it does not extend for the full length of the property. So again the design
here was really intended to balance the dissimilar existing structures and the mixed zoning of the
property. So as always, we submit these are the least minimum variances and are in line with the
character of the intended zoning of the property in the surrounding neighborhood. We submit it
will not increase congestion, harm neighbors, or impair light and air. A full analysis of these
are provided in my memo of law submitted to the board at tab 10. Now with respect to the community,
Belmont Alliance's letter is in the packet at tab 14 and does reflect unanimous support.
I believe you did previously receive a letter of opposition from the immediate neighbor,
but Belmont's letter does seem to indicate that she did change her view in response to hearing
the presentation last week. Her original letter was sent before we even had the RCO meeting.
Rami has also indicated his excitement to work with the neighbors and area associations
seeking to address some of their concerns surrounding condition of rear alleyways and
neighborhood safety. Okay, baby. And at this point, I'm happy to bring Rami up just to
adopt my testimony real quickly. If the board has any questions, I'd be happy to address
them as well. Good evening, sir. Please identify yourself with the record, spell your first
and last name, I'll swear you in. We're looking for Rami Shrein.
We're looking for Rami Shreim.
He's been allowed to speak.
Hello, this is Rami Shreim.
R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And Rami, just your address for the record as well?
433 North 32nd.
Philadelphia PA 19104. Thank you. And Rami, have you heard all of my testimony here before the
board today? Yes. And would you adopt that testimony as if it were your own? Yes. Thank
you. I apologize for speaking so quickly, but I know you've had a long day. We appreciate that.
Thank you. Questions from the board? No. No. No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
if so please raise your hand. Mr. Chair I have a Ms. Cassandra Slover with her hand raised.
I can allow her to speak if that is okay. Yes sir. Good evening ma'am please identify
yourself with the record spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
d-a-s-s-a-n-d-r-a-s-l-o-v-e-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes thank you please proceed hi i just would like to say i was not allowed to
testify um the earlier meeting i was off can you ma'am please this is about a different case thank
you there is two people not allowed to speak here you can continue please thank you anyone
um anyone would like to testify regarding 634 north 40th street
seeing none planning commission
good evening ariel de liberto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends a zoning map change to residential multifamily at this location. Additionally,
the applicant's proposed property dimensions are consistent with the front setback of the
adjacent properties. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-001-110, 634 North Forthia Street. Is your revised plan, Meredith?
there is one page one page my vote is yes with proviso revised plan one page approved today
yes proviso sorry carol that's okay yes with proviso yes with proviso
thank you that concludes the two o'clock list does anyone need a break
i'm sorry jason i'll need a break a quick break
jason go ahead i'll continue chair we can continue i'll get it oh thank you all right
thank you all right so now we're in the 3 30 list uh good afternoon or good evening everyone
my name is frank de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating
at today's hearing, along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, 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, and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
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. 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. Finally, 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 that. 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'll remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat. All your
questions and comments should be directed to the board administrator. With that, I will now announce
With that, I will now announce on the 3 o'clock, 3.30 list, case number two, MI 2021-000589-1400 Wharton Street has been withdrawn.
on the three o'clock.
And there's a continuance I'll get to in a moment.
uh anyone and also i understand there are no exhibits at least we may not know of any exhibits
that have been submitted for 48 west upland street and no exhibits for 40 excuse me 6053-55
Caster Avenue. And there's also a continuance request requested by getting feedback. Oh,
I know why. I'm sorry. Requested by the North Central Philadelphia Susquehanna Community
Development Corporation. Anyone object to any of those continuances? Please raise your
hand at this time. Okay, RCO, ask if anyone is here on behalf of the RCO and Mr. Nockimson up
to respond. That's why I asked if anyone objects, yes. Thank you. Nockimson.
While we're waiting, is anyone else requesting any continuance or withdrawal, in addition
to those that have just been read into the record?
I promoted Clemenza, I believe she was here for this, but she can speak to it if necessary.
Good afternoon.
Good evening, and please spell your name for the record and I'll swear you in.
clementa amazon c-l-e-m-e-n-t-a last name amazon a-m-a-z-a-n addresses one two three
south broad street suite 1600 19109 sorry about that do you swear a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed we know there's been a request from the
rco do you happen to know whether there was an rco meeting um we are scheduled to have an rco
meeting on June 8th. We are honoring the continuance request and we just request that
it be a short continuance. There has been a lot of back and forth for this project and
it's a small business and we would just hope that we could get a date sooner rather than later.
Okay, Ms. Sunken, we'll work that out with you offline.
Sounds good.
Okay, unless we have a date, Tanya, it's not.
No, honestly, we have no short continuances, but if you want to reach out to me,
I can try to work out something.
Okay, I'll shoot you an email.
okay thank you chair if we could also confirm that no one is here for either
let me finish i'm sorry i'm sorry it's fine i meant did you ask for her email address
no i have it i said i was on her email she got mail feed though okay i thought she had it
okay i apologize on sam's and i didn't mean to interrupt you it's perfectly fine i understand
tactic. Anyone object to any of these continuances or withdrawals?
Seeing none, is there anyone who would like to request a continuance or withdrawal at this
time? Please raise your hand. I do have Tina Marie Russell. Ms. Russell, you can
Unmiss yourself
Identify yourself
Spell your full name and I'll swear you in
Tina Marie Bussell
North Central Philadelphia CDC
Address
1631 West Susquehanna Avenue
We're going to affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth, nothing but the truth
Thank you, please proceed
Just confirming and thanking everyone involved
For the continuance
And yes, we're here
As I think someone said we were around for the record that we are here.
And we will look forward to having a continuance, but also asking that we'll be included on that date and time because we do have other cases as well for the rest of this for the next couple of months.
Sure, Ms. Amazon will notify you or Ms. Sunkett will notify your RCO.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
i have charles richardson mr richardson you can meet yourself and wait to be torn in
good evening mr richardson please identify yourself
and i'll swear good evening mr chair charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy
Good evening, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 312 City Hall.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I just had a question because I missed something that was transitioning between the computer and the phone.
Is Upsil Street continued?
Upsil?
It's number eight.
not that we know of no one has asked for a continuance we do not have any exhibits that
i'm aware of i don't know if tanya or sharon has gotten any exhibits having to it's the first
listing okay first listing so most likely will be continued but hang in there wait till we get to
that case all righty i'll try my best we won't be that long anyone else
it's not
we have a connor connor you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
okay hi can you hear me yes please identify yourself first and last name spell your full
name my name is connor mcinerney c-o-n-n-o-r last name m-c-i-n-e-r-n-e-y
um i'm speaking about 48 west upsall street you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed so you mentioned that um documents weren't received
um we sent them last are you are you the owner sir excuse me are you the attorney or the owner
no not an attorney i'm a design professional who's been working with the owner timothy nipper
we appreciate your your testimony but we need to hear from the owner and or his or her attorney
okay he's on the call so i i'll ask him to raise his hand and then he could yeah
we'll go we'll ask him questions thank you
sitting with the chair whom i'm looking for oh is that mr mcdermott mcdermott
please identify yourselves by your full name and i'll last name and i'll swear you in yeah i'm with
Sabatina and Associates. He's raising his hand
but I guess it's not being recognized
Mr. Sabatina
That's a different case
Mr. Sabatina
That's a different case
Excuse me, we did call that case out
because it was
you called it out as having no exhibits
it's the second listing
The exhibits were sent on January 25th
The packet was sent on January 25th
Hold on, we're going to get to that case
this is about Upsil Street
Is there anyone here for UPSL?
The chair is Timothy Nipper.
I have allowed him to speak.
Good evening, Mr. Nipper.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Good evening.
My name is Timothy Nipper.
That's T-I-M.
Are they syllables?
Sorry.
If that was not fair.
okay it's spell your last name please k-n-i-p-e-r you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do uh we have notations that there were no exhibits submitted
are you aware of that yeah i believe what connor was trying to say is the design
consultant i've been working with is that we did submit those documents we um
sent an email so if you want to wait to talk about it when my case is on the docket then
that's fine but um if you have it all right just hang in there till we get to your case
thanks so much thank you anyone else continuance or withdrawal request
Do you know further answer this time? Carol, we'll go with number one. And there's a letter from the 51st Ward. Democrats in support.
Calendar number MI 2020 002343 1150 South 52nd Street. The attorney is Joseph Consul.
Mr. Consul has been promoted to penniless.
Mr. Consul, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Good evening, Board. Joe Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E. How are you doing? It's 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204, Media, Pennsylvania, 19063.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
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 uh i did and i do okay you may proceed
all right so i got my packet up here how's everyone doing joe console here for 1150 south
52nd street uh lane investments own that owns this property uh the owner cedric lane is here
with me on the call this uh is mi 2020 2343 property is uh 1150 south 52nd near 52nd and
springfield the area was zoned multifamily until 2019 this uh got rezoned to rsa5 this property
was in disrepair and had a vacant property license on it, so it lost its zoning. Here's
what the property looks like on the outside. A large majority of the properties on this block
are multifamily. It is a footprint of 1,536 square feet. My client is seeking to use the property as
a three-unit building, three two-bedroom units. That does not include, here's the layouts,
that does not include any bedrooms in the basement or any living space at all in the basement
and includes two units on each of the three floors. The footprint is changing only slightly.
There was no refusal issued for the addition on the rear.
The only refusal is for the three dwelling units that my client is seeking to reestablish in this property.
We met with the 51st Ward Democrats on April 12th.
We got their full support.
the only uh issue that came up was trash uh what we're going to do with that they asked that we do
something let's see if i can get this up similar to what the other uh recently approved variances
are which is create a fenced-in area uh where uh cans would be kept off the street um my client
of course agreed to do that um there's an example um from down the block and that seems to be um
what's going on up and down the block in terms of how folks are storing trash prior to trash day.
It's not much else for me to say here. I'm going to call my client to verify my testimony. Mr. Lane,
if you could raise your hand, please. So this trash cans are not going to be lined up against
the fence correct uh i think this was on trash day when this photo was taken
um but uh my client can can attest to the trash issue thank you
hi cedric hi good evening cedric lane here um mr lane please spell your first and last name
Sure. C-E-D-R-I-C-K, Lane, L-A-N-E.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Hello, Mr. Lane. Have you heard my testimony this evening regarding your property at 1150 South 52nd Street?
Do you adopt it as your own?
Could you speak briefly to the board about your trash plan and how you're going to outfit this property to gracefully handle trash?
Sure, no problem. So, yes, these are a few examples of what others on the block have been doing for multifamilies in terms of trash.
But these aren't the best two examples on the block, but essentially it's an enclosed trash closer to the front porch.
Mine will be concrete and the fence will be a wrought iron fence.
So it's pretty similar to this, but just closer to my property and closer to the porch.
and it won't impose on the sidewalk or on any neighboring properties.
We won't have any issues with trash in front of my property.
You're creating an area in front of the porch, a concealed area.
Is that correct?
correct yes okay thank you all right uh any questions from the board no no
Correct. Yes.
All right.
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no further hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission i think ron is on now
yes uh ron bednar uh that's r-o-n-b-e-d-n-a-r with the city planning commission
where from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you ron please proceed uh the property is indicated for residential use
on the city plan we recommend that the request of bearings be granted
calendar number mi 2020 does zero zero two three four three one one five zero south 52nd street
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you board
Thank you. Calendar number MI-2021-000621-1503 Ellsworth Street.
It's a letter of support from the East Point Breeze neighbors.
Right. The owner is Kevin Colling.
Mr. Colling has been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Colling, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, sorry. I'm trying to get everything squared away. My name is Kevin Colling,
last name is K-O-L-L-I-N-G, first name Kevin, K-E-V-I-N.
Did you just put your address on the record?
Oh, I'm sorry. No, I didn't hear that.
Sorry.
407 McKean Court, North Wales, Pennsylvania, 19454.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive?
Okay, you're not the attorney.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, the only one that I had trouble
getting was the tax compliance certificate. I tried to email them and I didn't hear back. They
said it would take over two days and it's been like over a week now and I haven't heard back. I
did download from the OPA the entire time I've owned the property for the past 15, 20 years and
it has a zeroed out balance. I did include that in my PDF, but as far as the actual tax certificate
compliance letter i did not receive one of those yet and i actually haven't heard back from them
either this is sharon we've always accepted just the opa uh printout okay that'd be great thank
you you may proceed okay um i also have my architect uh xin chen is also on the call
or you know should be another participant um share content sorry i'm not real familiar with this
sorry um shin if you can hear this would you be able to add the the packet onto there i'm having
a hard time sharing that that information um i'm sorry but i've i've owned the property since
about 2003, 2004. I bought it. It was a two-unit approved building. It's currently now in a zoning
area that's RSA 5. We were trying to get it approved for a three-unit. It would be adding
essentially one bedroom. It used to be a three-bedroom and a two-bedroom house. Now we were
looking for two bedrooms on each floor, so it would be six bedrooms total. And as far as impact
on the community we don't feel it should affect too much as far as there's the Ellsworth Federal
Street subway so it's a very transit transportation friendly house it's only about a block off of that
that stop there so we don't think there would be much of a impact on the parking and we did work
into the design some trash rooms to be able to hold trash until the appropriate day to take the
trash out and we did meet with the RCO back in March and I think they were
seven to one approval. Hi, this is Xin. I'm architect. Please allow me to share
the screen. Would you please spell your full name? Yes, first name H-S-I-N-G, last
ing last name chen chen you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
name Chen, C-H-E-N.
about the truth yes you can share that screen that would be helpful i just promoted him to
panelists, please allow them to come back in.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Oh, Mr. Chen.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Chen, you can unmute yourself, I believe.
Can you see my screen right now?
Yes. Yes, we can.
You can give us some floor plans and enlarge that a little bit.
would be helpful. Thank you. Yes. So this is the floor plan on the screen right now. So
the basement at the bottom is the basement and the existing building footprint. You can see
the dash line here and basically we do the rear addition in the back.
Is the basement part, is the first floor and basement one unit?
Or is that a separate unit in the basement?
That's it, that's the same unit.
Same unit, it's a bi-level unit.
Correct.
And on the top, this is the first floor, so the the building entry right here,
get into the unit one on the first floor and we have the rear patio in the back
and the stair going up to the second floor. So you can see the lines kind of
in the front is sitting and we keep the party wall and we redo the addition in
back. So the light gray tone is the existing wall and the white and the black line that's the new wall.
So at the bottom is the second floor the entry point in the living space in the middle and the
front bedroom and the rear bedroom. And the third floor is another unit so the same the living space
at the center and the front bedroom and the rear bedroom.
And this the front elevation from the elevation they are all existing.
we don't change the front elevation.
And you can see the section, the front are already sitting,
and then we do add the addition in the back.
All right.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No further hand at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Given its proximity to city transit, we recommend the request of variance be ready.
Thank you.
And it's behind the Great Hoagie Shop.
MI 2021-000621-1503 Ellsworth Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Calendar number MI 2021-000587-1633 West Huntington Street.
the one there's a request for continuance
no RCO letter and we're waiting to find out if the um RCO meeting ever ever took place
so this is already continued
Ms. Amazon agreed to the continuance to announce
okay um I'll move on to number five calendar number mi
Okay, I'll move on to number five. Calendar number MI-2021-000732-2200-50 East Somerset Street. The attorney is Adam Laver.
Could you call that with the next case so that they can be heard together?
excuse me pardon me chair uh this is john kelly the court reporter something happened i i was
kicked out allowed in back in as attendee and then back in again could you just begin
calling that one from the top yeah that was me that was me we can provide the recording no problem
oh thank you you want me to start from five and six just call the numbers five and six yeah
Okay, calendar number MI 2021-000732, 2200-50 East Somerset Street, and calendar number MI-2021-000734, 2152-58 East Somerset Street.
The attorney for both of those is Adam Laver.
Okay, Mr. Laver, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yes, Mrs. Tenere, members of the board, Adam Laver of Blank, Rome, 1 Logan Square, 18th and Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, 19103.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mrs. Tenere.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do, as to both refusals, yes.
Have you emailed the exhibit packets with proof of ownership tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the properties, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all, and we have a letter of support.
Thank you. You may proceed.
thank you can you just confirm that the board can see the photographs that are up on the screen
we can can you everybody on the board see it thank you technically as Ms. Saleta mentioned
this presentation concerns two applications however one comprehensive project across two
neighboring scrapyard sites this was previously presented to the community in this way and also
to the Civic Design Review Committee, and it's most expedient to share this single development
in this manner. So I thank you for that. Half of L&M Real Estate Developments, LLC,
and its parent entity, the Riverwards Group. Riverwards Group is the equitable owner of both
of these parcels. Mo Rushdie and Larry McKnight, managing partners of the Riverwards Group,
are with us. Also Rustin Ohler of Harman Deutsch Ohler Architecture. In addition, noted urban
economist Dr. Kevin Gillen, Senior Research Fellow with the Lindy Institute for Urban Innovation
and Professor of Finance at Drexel University is here. I've shared a lengthy exhibit package with
16 exhibits and also have shared revised proviso plans, which are rather minor in nature in terms
of the revisions, extremely minor, but we want to do everything appropriately. River Wards Group
has appeared before this board many times in the past. Larry and Moe are known for re-envisioning
neglected sites throughout Philadelphia's River Wards in particular and building upon core
strengths of proud Philadelphia neighborhoods such as this one. You can see in the photos before you
the existing junkyards. These cases concern the proposed repurposing of nearly 4.5 acres
of existing junkyard land, which you can see in the photos that I've shared with you.
To place the site into context, I'd like to move to this contextual map. You can see the site noted
here where I'm pointing to, you can see the relation to Center City, it's far away,
and to the Delaware River, and to some of the other sites that board members may be familiar
with listed on the right. And here you can see aerial photographs of this site. It is a site
that's yearning to be repositioned, and we'll get into that momentarily.
Here is the civil survey, the two blue areas show the two separate cases that together
The two blue areas show the two separate cases that together comprise the combined development.
As you can see, the properties are adjacent to the Conrail Railroad tracks, which are at the
bottom of the screen. The development site, however, fronts on Somerset Street at the top
of the screen and is bounded by Toolet Street to the right and to the far left, Martha Streets.
Moving to the zoning map, you'll see the site in purple that I'm trying to circle for you.
It's a combination of ICMX and IRMX, largely ICMX, and LNI in its determination has reviewed the development under ICMX.
here is a photograph that i've actually taken out of dr gillen's report which at the top shows
the existing site and at the bottom shows what we are proposing and i'll share many more renderings
with you shortly but the proposal calls to transform the existing junkyard to 535 mid-rise
apartments, replete with outdoor amenities, most open to the greater community, which I must
underscore. It's really a vision to bring the community in, to re-envision the walking way
along the railroad tracks in a safe and pleasant environment. Here is a letter of support from the
coordinating RCO, Somerset Neighbors for Better Living. In addition, Councilman Mark Squila
has issued a letter of non-opposition in this matter, and I've included this in the exhibit
package. I'm not going to share all of the detail right now, but the Civic Design Review Committee
completed its review of the project in one meeting, describing the, quote, overall building design and
material palette, end quote, as, quote, thoughtful and considered, end quote, and further commended
the team for the inclusion of affordable units in this project, this transformational project.
Civic Design Review also praised the project for its, quote, efforts to provide continuous
walkways through the phases of development and to distribute public spaces. There are only two
refusals before the board for such a large project number one the zoning district does not allow
multi-family from a residential perspective all that the zoning district would permit would be
caretakers quarters within the icmx zoning district and the second issue concerns the maximum height
in the district of 60 feet whereas 72 feet which is an irmx standard as the board knows
and 82 feet are proposed over the differing buildings.
I'd like to focus on the overall proposal,
and I've pulled up this zoning chart and highlighted a couple items.
Again, 535 residential dwellings are proposed.
179 accessory off-street parking spaces are proposed.
There's no parking issue here.
Three off-street loading spaces are proposed.
293 off-street bicycle parking spaces and beyond those bicycle parking spaces and extra 35 on-street
bicycle parking spaces on the sidewalk in appropriate areas are included. The development
would include three six-story multifamily mid-rise rental buildings, including 25 affordable housing
rental units. Building one proposes, which you can actually see on the right of the screen.
I know the detail is difficult on such a big project, but you get a sense of it. 187 residential
units and one commercial space. Commercial, by the way, members of the board was not initially
proposed. In discussions with the community, there was a belief that commercial as permitted
within the district would better the project and be to the community's benefit. So there is a
ground floor commercial in building one. Building two in the middle proposes 170 residential units
and one commercial space in building three, 145 residential units. Also, an important component
of the project you can see in the upper right-hand corner, it is 11 three-story townhome
triplexes, a for-sale component of this development along Somerset Street, a very nice transition
from the density of the re-envisioning of these scrapyards to the residential areas that surround
it on the other side of Somerset, etc. So owner-occupied condominium.
uh etc so owner occupied uh condominiums if you will three units per building 11 times 333
there along somerset slated for sale affordable housing purposes
uh as you'll see on the right hand side of the page we are meeting or exceeding most code
requirements in a positive way capturing the scope and spirit of the code um for example
an open area where none is required there is almost 100 000 square feet of open area
we are not maximizing uh far etc mo and larry found their inspiration in this redevelopment
through the philadelphia city planning commission's river wards 2035 district plan goals and
recommendations i shared extensive detail on that in my exhibits which i'm not going to pull up right
now unless the board wishes but i would like to note some highlights that guided their thinking
the subject properties were identified in the plan as recommended quote for reuse of industrial land
end quote additionally in the report's executive summary a stated goal was to transform sections
of the rail area into quote publicly accessible spaces end quote which are uh amply proposed in
the plans before you and underscored, commended by the PCPC's Civic Design Review, as I mentioned.
Additionally, the technical memorandum that accompanies the PCPC plan calls to, quote,
improve the quality and diversity of new and existing housing, end quote, noting, quote,
major opportunities, end quote, in several hundred acres of vacant or underutilized land.
This goes to the hardship of the site. There is potential for redevelopment to create employment
and tax-generating uses. The subject property itself, as you saw in the photos, has been
significantly underutilized as the neighborhood's industrial past has largely shifted and residential
living has expanded. I'm going to just briefly show you some elevations, and I really want to
highlight the renderings at the end, but you'll recall that I mentioned the six-story mid-rise
apartment buildings, and we'll get with the parking below. Lots of landscaping, you'll see
more detail as we go along. Some sections. There are only two curb cuts, which I'll point out shortly.
Here you see the townhomes for that transition from residential single family, mainly residential, to the density that this site calls for.
Here is a site plan which depicts the overall proposal, showing the access to the development off of the two curb cuts.
Here is one curb cut off of Somerset, 24 feet wide, and then also to the left, closer to Martha, is the other curb cut into the development.
The gray areas, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, are showing you the parking that's incorporated off street and very much out of the public eye.
The purple up at the top are those townhomes right on the street.
A very nice piece of this project is this corner right here at Somerset and Tulip, completely open to the public and labeled as such as Park Meadow, a nice neighborhood amenity where there was none.
All of these green areas are open.
The public is invited in to walk through to the trail, which I'll show you, the walking path, which I'll show you.
This is not a gated community, which I believe is a plus.
Here is another image or rendering.
There is a pool proposed here.
Of course, that will not be open to the public.
That is a safety issue.
That will be gated.
But just beyond the pool is the dog park, open area, and this wonderful walking path,
pedestrian walkway all along the conrail tracks with plantings along to really transform that
in a positive way the next slide here shows us the green roofing of all of the structures the
townhomes and the three buildings so not only do you have landscaping at grade but you have it at
the top and here is just some detail of the openness of the plan the neighborhood experience
This public plaza space is something that would be new, the dog run, the pedestrian walkway, etc.
This is very difficult to see. I understand that, but I just wanted to briefly touch upon it.
With the three mid-rise buildings, 206 studio apartments.
With the three mid-rise buildings, 206 studio apartments are proposed, 130 four one-bedroom
apartments, and 162 two-bedroom apartments are proposed. Then with the townhomes, the 11 townhomes
that I mentioned along East Somerset, each of those is two-bedroom, two-bathroom. This is the exciting
part of the presentation. You're looking at a view, a rendering of the three buildings
from the Conrail tracks, just to give you a sense of what it would look like from there.
I'll go through these quickly. This would be Somerset to have a sense. This is closer to the
trucks. This is a wide image look at our project, which is here on the right, and also other projects
that are in the works and existing. But this is a good image because rendering, it shows you the
three buildings and the Somerset townhomes. Here's another one more close up, which is very helpful.
Should the board wish, Dr. Gillen has issued an economic and fiscal impact study regarding
the proposed development. Currently, the site generates $8,451 in annual real estate taxes.
The proposed development would bring $248 million in total economic stimulus to the City of
Philadelphia in the near future, according to Gillen's report, which has been submitted to you.
The project would create 598 jobs during construction, followed by an additional 70
jobs during occupancy and operation. Over the course of five years, the project is estimated
to generate just over $22 million in tax revenue to the city of Philadelphia. Again, Dr. Gillen
is here and can speak should the board wish at the appropriate time. By the way, in the
rendering in front of you, we're looking at Somerset Street, and at the corner, there's
that open community garden that I mentioned. Just to take something that was nothing and
bring it to life, and make it a positive for the community. You're seeing eyes and ears on the
street of revitalization that hadn't been there before. Continued industrial use at this location
is not practicable, nor is it desired, not by the community, which officially is in support of this
project through the coordinating RCO, nor by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission's
2035 plan. A glance at the zoning map and the aerial photograph shows that the zoning
surrounding the property is solidly residential, and the actual conditions are solidly residential.
This site is not a single-family site, as can be seen at the 4.5 acres. It demands the density
that is proposed in the thoughtful, sensitive way that we're sharing with you. Common sense
would dictate that the proposed multifamily residential use is most consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood. The authorization of variance relief will not alter the character of
the neighborhood or district or be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal fits into the
surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the support of the coordinating RCO, non-opposition
of the district councilman, the 2035 plan, the commendations of the civic design review committee.
The proposed variance would represent the minimum variance that will afford relief
and represent least modification of the regulations at issue. There are two, as I mentioned,
Only two issues. The grant of variance relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare.
The incorporation of public amenities into the overall design of this development speak to a net benefit to the community.
And the transformation of a junkyard with hazardous substances into cleaned up appropriately residential living is a true positive.
In the interest of time, I have mentioned that the developers are here, Mr. Oller is here, and Dr. Gillen is here. I'll pause at this moment.
Mr. Laver, would you want to bring on your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes, please. Mr. Mo Rushdie, would you please raise your virtual hand so you may be sworn in?
And sir, please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
I've been allowed to speak, sir.
Mohamed Rushdie, 3020 Ripskenskreet, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19134.
Spell your first and last name, please.
First name is M-O-H-A-M-E-D, last name is Rushdie, R for Robert, U, S for Sam, H, D for David,
Y for yellow.
Thank you. Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
We'll be right back.
Mr. Laver?
Thank you, Mr. Rushdie. Have you been present during the totality of this virtual presentation?
Yes, I have.
And have you been able to clearly hear the statements that I've made?
Yes, I have.
And would you adopt and affirm my testimony as your own, Mr. Rushdie?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
This property is indicated for industrial commercial mixed use on the city plan.
The applicant completed the CDR process on April 20th, based on our letter of general support dated April 22nd.
We recommend that the questionnaires be granted.
Thank you very much.
MI 2021-000732, 2200-50 East Somerset Street,
and MI 2021-000734, 2152-58 East Somerset Street.
And Mr. Labor, you said there are revised plans?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are revised plans for each case consisting of one page each.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Revised plan for each application approved today.
Thank you.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso to both yes with proviso to both yes with proviso
to both thank you and good luck i wish i was still representing the district
thank you it's a great project a great project thank you very much we're excited about this
stay safe you too calendar number mi 2020 dash zero zero one zero one zero
2608 west dolphin street jeffrey young is the attorney
oh my god
So Young, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand, so you may be sworn in, sir.
Doesn't seem to be in the audience, so Mr. Chair.
All right, let's go to the next case, and we'll come back to that.
okay calendar number mi-2021-001147 48 west upsell street there are no exhibits and it's the first
listing
I think Mr. Nipper
Mr. Nipper if you are still in the audience please raise your virtual hand
Mrs. Nipper either one Miss Nipper or Mr. Nipper
there's another name
oh yeah Marcella Nipper
we started a conversation
about the
exhibits
Mr. Nipper I asked him to hang in
until we got to his case
alright let's go to number 9
and then we'll come back to that one as well.
Calendar number MI 2021-000-581-5966, Elsinore Street.
Francisco Radames, is that correct, Confessor?
something like that okay
uh no letter mr chair miss hillary emerson has her hand raised let us speak at this time sir
okay miss emerson you're still under oath please identify yourself for the record
uh good evening um mr chair members of the board hillary emerson here on behalf of councilwoman
sherelle parker um i i didn't hear this one listed as the exhibits not being called out the there was
i didn't hear this one listed as the exhibits not being called out the there was an rco meeting on
an rco
the 20th um and i did send the rco letter which i believe was also sent to the applicants um
to um to miss saletta so she does have that um but were exhibits received for this because
yes they were we did receive exhibits for this one okay yeah i wasn't aware the applicant isn't
present okay um yeah i mean i if they're not present then i believe this is the first listing
so it can be continued continued yep okay so mi 2021 that's 000581 5966 elsner street
is continued. Let's go to number 10. Calendar number MI 2020 00369 6053-55, Caster Avenue.
This is Sharon. Mr. Sabatina did forward documents that appear to have been submitted
on January 25th. Everything is included, so this can go forward. Okay, Mr. Sabatina.
Mr. Sabatina, if you're still in the audience, please raise your virtual hand, sir.
Sabatina has been promoted to panelist, sir.
Thank you. Mr. Sabatina, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
John, you have to unmute yourself.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
John P. Sabatina, S-A-B-A-T-I-N-A, address 1742 Emerson Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19152.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal referral photos under plans of this property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all you both okay thank you you may
proceed yes uh this this is a reapplication for a uh which we had a temporary
approval for two years. The two years are up. We're now going and there were no problems with it
and we met with the RCO and the various neighbors and they also had no problem with it.
We would appreciate it if we could move to a permanent situation rather than
having to come back every two years.
uh no sharon do we need drawings for this was a two-year tim and it's a reapplication i don't
think so no change in the size of the structure john no no change it's the same material changes
okay yeah all right wow so any questions from the board no no no anyone else to testify in
this case, please raise your hand. Mr. Folks, you're still under oath from earlier. Please
identify yourself as the record. Good afternoon, Chairman Chico. Can you hear me, sir?
yes yes we can okay thank you my name is sloan folks i represent the office of councilman
maria canola sanchez 508 city hall um in regards to this case um
having met with the coordinating rco and receiving a letter of non-opposition the
councilman's office offers no opposition to this request thank you relax you're running
here you're out of breath yeah i'm sorry i was in i was in i was in the kitchen making something
for my door so i heard you call the case i ran back upstairs hope you made something good all
right planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning uh the property is indicated for
commercial commercial use on the city plan given the documented history
we recommend the request for variance. Thank you. MI 2020-00
recommend the request for Vance. Thank you. MI 2020-00369-6053-55 Caster Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you. Sorry John for the delay. Have a good night. Take care. Thanks. Would that be for
forever yeah
that was a good answer right yes um do we go back to
Jeffrey Young did we find Jeffrey Young yet
Mr. Nipper has his hand raised uh well hold off on that one I'm going to number seven first
Dauphin Street. Jeffrey Young. Still can't find Jeffrey. No, sir. All right. Unless he comes back,
I'm going to make a motion that this case be continued. MI 2020-001010, 2608 West Dauphin
street my vote is to continue this case will be continued sorry all right let's go to number eight
carol okay calendar number mi 2021 001147 48 west upsell street timothy and marcella nipper
are the others and again i have no exhibits on this we don't have a deed we don't have any of
the information that you would need mr nipper
all right mi 2021 that's zero zero one one four seven four eight
yes yes i don't know if you heard our council
we have not received any any exhibits yeah we did submit them so apologies for the
miscommunication i'm not sure what happened there well did you copy me on them because i've gone
all through my email and i have nothing it you know it i know we were getting uh an email
bounce back for one address but i mean i have the email right here i don't know
Okay. You know, I need to look at it first because, again, we haven't seen the deed. We haven't seen anything. I haven't.
Did you submit a deed, Mr. Knipper?
I believe everything was submitted.
How recent was that?
About a week ago, last week.
Okay. Can you say what email address you sent it to me at?
my email address is S-U-L-E-T-A-Z-B-A at gmail.com. I think we had S-U-L-E-T-A-Z-B-A
at phila.gov. No, that's not my email address. It's not what's listed on the instructions.
And we can continue, Frank? Yeah, we're going to continue. Yep. I'm sorry. Can I ask a question,
please sure um did you send it to the rcl zba box as well i believe so because mr letter if you
recall there was an error on the disclaimer um so if we want here we could do a very short
continuous yeah why don't we yeah i think it was an error on the zba part with the email address
yeah i think it's a legitimate mistake and we're going to work with you mr nipper to get you a
hearing ASAP all right thank you we need the document we can't do without the document so
there is a mistake and we'll acknowledge that and we will continue your case so on the record
MI 2021-00114748 West Upsall Street will be continued Ms. Sunkett will notify you of the
continuance date sorry for the inconvenience thanks so much have a good evening you too thank you too
Thank you.
Did we ever get Elsner Street?
Or did we say that was continued?
I forget.
I don't think that you announced it was continued.
I'm not sure.
I know I called it.
No one answered it.
It's continued, correct?
I made it continued.
All right.
We can't find Jeffrey.
Can't find Jeffrey.
That case is continued, right?
all right i think that completes the list yes is there anyone who is uh
waiting to be heard and has not yet been heard regarding the cases on the 330 list
3.30 list only.
3.30 list only
I have a Mr. Connor McHugh
I have a Mr.
Connor McInery with his hand raised.
Do I let him speak?
He was on one
of these cases.
Mr. Carnivan?
Connor?
Connor McInerney.
I'm sorry.
Wrong name. I apologize.
Oh, that's all right. Yeah, it was just regarding 48 West Upsall Street. You know, we received an email that, you know, we sent it to the RCO at zba.phila.gov and then suletazba.phila.gov. And that's the email address that...
Yeah, obviously, not to interrupt you, there's been a mistake. We apologize for the error. We will do our best. Ms. Sunke will do her best to get a hearing ASAP.
okay no i appreciate it we just we we've been we're looking forward to you know getting it done
and we did split everything within the timely fashion so i guess um yeah sorry you know these
days are technical issues constantly so we apologize and as i said mrs sunken will provide
a date as soon as possible okay well i appreciate it guys thank you sorry about the inconvenience
Chair, can I please ask a quick question of Connor?
Connor, could you, did you provide the document to the RCOZBA box ahead of time?
And if so, can you email it to me so that I can confirm that you sent it timely and I can schedule you immediately?
The email address is tanya, T-A-N-Y-A dot sunket, S-U-N-K-E-T-T, at solar.gov.
and then i can send that to you i have your email address from prior correspondences um
yeah we were just getting a kickback from the suletta like you said there was an error but um
no problem if you send that we'll take care of you i apologize no it's okay yeah if you guys could
just try to get us back on because i know the homeowner is very uh we've been going through
this for like nine months now but i know everyone and i already tried to i'm trying to accommodate
so if you could just do what i have we could take care of you we'll take care of it all right for
for that discussion i just wanted to make sure we were clear thank you thank you thank you thank
you for your understanding sir yeah uh i think that completes the list
all done yes i'm totally that's it thank you everyone again thank you to everyone
especially the folks behind the scenes have a great have a good one everyone stay safe
thank you thank you thank you thank you everybody oh wait i'm sorry before we go shoot
um sharon the letters from the attorneys for 1526 packer are they electronically going to be sent to
us oh the written arguments yeah closing arguments they're supposed to be submitted by five
are they here oh i'm sorry i was muted that whole time
construction down my house so i have to keep them with me um yes they they were due by five i think
i got them all at about 455 i'll forward them to you electronically okay just want to make
sure we're on the same page thank you thank you take care