The tenants are already parking and piled up on Armstrong Street and Clarkson Street.
And one improperly parked car, which happens all the time, continues to block the entire street, hindered its access to the trash trucks.
I know he stated that they're going to have private trash pickup, but what you don't understand is that the trash trucks can't even get down the street.
There's no way for them to pick up their trash.
It's a hindrance to the maintenance and utility vehicles and police and emergency vehicles.
we've watched it time and time again where people have not been able to get access up and down that
road in the evenings when it's really packed and during the day when people are still parked
during there. Additionally random cars continue to park on our driveway and are disrespectful
when they're asked to move. They're illegally parked and cause significant damage to our
property. The proposed plan will only serve to further exacerbate an already untenable
circumstance. Last two things is congestion. The apartment development next door to us at 545
East Westminster Street has provided more than enough evidence that the area has reached its
breaking point. When developers continue to ignore the warning signs, oversaturated of
oversaturation of an already densely populated area results in chaos and long-term negative
impact on the community. And lastly, like I said before, misrepresentation. There has to be some
level of moral conduct when approaching matters of this kind. The untrustworthy conduct exhibited
by this developer has given us cause for major concern. As I stated previously before, he sent
his lawyer instead of a representative of his real estate firm to come into our home, and not only
after she did her work did she identify herself. The final result has been a dereliction of action
as it relates to any repair to our home's damages, which we have now paid for, how can it be inferred
then that this developer will fulfill his duty to protect our home during the proposed structural
changes? I'm sorry. I'm done. I'm done. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any cross-examination
questions. I think I could just give a stipulation to Mr. Brady, which would possibly make her feel
more comfortable. She said that, you know, I did not know there was a request for any kind of
engineered plan with regard to the demo or reconstruction. All of that, as this board
knows, is not a zoning matter. That's a matter for building permits. We will fully stipulate that
we'll show everything we need to all underpinning anything else to Mr. Brady and her family and the
owners of that 543 as this moves forward. It's going to be a hand demolition that has to meet
all the requirements of the city um and the last thing i just was uh while mr brady was
And the last thing I just was, while Mr. Brady was testifying, I did find for you, Chairman, the average unit size is 1,200 to 1,300 square feet per condo.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, Mr. Holloman.
Yes. Can we do a resumption on this case until the developer give us a plan of how he's going to resolve some of the issues of his neighbor?
I'm not opposed to that. I'm okay with that. That or we vote it, whatever works best for the board.
Do we know that the developer is going to do that?
I would represent that, you know, this case has been ongoing since 2019. As I showed, I presented over 66 pages of emails in which I tried to meet and call and get involved with the community and they had no interest in doing so.
So I'm not sure that holding this will address anything, but to Mr. Holloman's point, I will stipulate here and even make it as a proviso that we're going to give Mr. Brady every and every piece of information with regard to the demolition.
demolition in the city is extremely heavily regulated now there's a wait time even after
you get the permit to post the property you're then required to do a site safety plan you're
required to have a site safety instructor on in place at all times all of this will be presented
to mr brady and i'm happy to meet with her in an ongoing basis but i think any further delay
of this case is unwarranted as the rco has just shown an unwillingness and i think a personal
animus towards the developer i understand the thing counselor but this is the neighbor
not the community this is next door to the property that he wants to develop
she shouldn't have all of these issues
um if uh if the board would um i can certainly ask my client if you're if the board would hold
you know close the hearing and uh just hold the case to vote for two weeks and i could speak with
mr brady again if mr brady is acceptable i don't want to speak for her that she's willing to
meet or speak with me but we close the record we're not allowed to take any further testimony
or anything so i know where mr holliman's going i think he raises some good points and
And I know it's been a long time.
I guess, Chairman, if I could, one, hear when a resumption hearing would be, and two, if I could hear from Mr. Brady that she's interested and willing in meeting or speaking with me either in person or electronically, then that's fine.
I just don't want to agree to another extension where I get told nobody wants to talk to me.
Understood. Is Ms. Mr. Brady still on?
thank you mr brady there's an offer by the attorney for the applicant
to continue having further discussions with you uh related to your the issues that you eloquently
described to us uh having said that if that is something you're amenable to we can resume this
hearing to a date probably i think in june uh if i'm not mistaken tanya one would be a resumption
hearing june 16th at 2 p.m gives you about five six weeks six weeks or so i i will be open to
that but it also needs to include the community as well sir because as as mr willin has said he's
not reached out to me at all during this time since the last hearing so i mean i do want that
to be on the record as well I mean I am the home owner of course but I and there are community
members who are interested in having conversation I'm not the only person understood but you as Mr.
Holloman pointed out are the most impacted there's no you know your property's next door if you're
right next door if this if this were absolutely demolition is going to impact you and no one else
but you the other issues will impact neighbors traffic congestion and things that but the issue
of safety and the integrity of your home being compromised, that's more important.
So just to be clear for everyone, and Mr. Brady, I'm sorry that it was not relayed to you. I
understood from prior counsel that you were represented by a counsel whose name I no longer
remember. So I was not allowed to reach out to you directly. I did reach out to your counsel who was
in Bala-Kinwid, but that did not go anywhere.
um but you know did not uh that did not go anywhere so um if you're okay with me speaking
directly with you i'm happy to speak with you and i'm happy to you know speak or meet with
either on zoom or um you know personally with people that you are including uh unfortunately
at this time i just can't agree and i'm not willing to continue the charade of meeting with
the rco um why don't we why don't you do this mr well why don't you have that discussion with
mr brady mr chico is it possible and and i will i will have that conversation with him as well
is it possible that we can hear from the rco at this time
well we can and we don't want to you know silence anyone and not give them an opportunity but
if your issues are not resolved no i want to speak to mr wellin i'm i'm clearly i definitely
want to but i also would like we're going to resume we'll resume this hearing and at that time
the community will have an opportunity all right so uh chairman chico just to be clear so i can
make this fast for everybody uh mr brady uh my phone number is 215-622-7402
and my email address is s as in sean w as in whalen at vintage v-i-n-t-a-g-e dash law l-a-w.com
you can reach out to me however you feel comfortable and i'm happy to speak with you
at your earliest convenience um mr the chair um this is tanya um may i ask that um the council
representative be allowed to speak Mr. Richardson yeah I was going to ask if he was on right and
what was that date again Tanya 619 yes sir at 2 p.m. 2 p.m. okay thank you I'm sorry was that 619
or 616 619 at 2 p.m. 19 okay thank you 9 at 2 p.m. Mr. Richardson yes Mr. Chair hi please
identify yourself i'm so sorry chair mr wellin is correct it's 6 16 at 2 p.m 16 okay 616 okay at 2
p.m thank you mr richardson you're still on their oath please identify yourself charles richardson
office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall uh would you like me to actually wait until
the the uh next next hearing to read the councilwoman's opinion based on i think yeah because
that there may be some change we may or may not be so if you don't mind we'll hold off we'll hold
off until until the next hearing yeah and we'll ask everybody else who's been waiting to uh
no disrespect you'll have an opportunity at the resumption hearing to speak uh mi 2020-001171
541 east worcester this hearing will be resumed on june the 16th at 2 p.m at which time we will
consider any feedback from the RCO, Mr. Brady, and the Councilwoman's office.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can we go into 14? Yes. Calendar number 0636-6320
Stenton Avenue. Steve Bertil is listed as the attorney.
Hi, Mr. Bertil, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name,
please?
Good evening.
Good evening. Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, Claire Harrison, Harvey and Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
And you're still under oath? Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed. And your screen's already up.
Thank you very much.
Hello again. My name is Steve Bertil.
I'm here representing the applicant for 6320 Stanton Avenue. I'll try to make this as quick
as possible because I believe we have support across the board or non-opposition across the
board. As I stated, I'm here for 6320 Stanton Avenue, as you can see.
As I stated, I'm here for 6320 Stenton Avenue, as you can see from this area, basically the corner of Stenton Avenue and Washington Lane.
We're here seeking the special exception for the complete demolition of the existing building and the erection of a detached building for use as a takeout restaurant with a drive-thru window and five accessory parking spaces.
is a another area but just to get right to the site there's a better shot so you can understand
the the corridor that we're in um the property is on the cmx2 for commercial mixed use
um it's currently a vacant commercial building um right here if you can see my mouse um it fronts
As I said, right on the corner of Washington and Stanton.
You can see here, it's a shot from the street level.
The Stanton frontage, and here's the Washington frontage.
Just to give you a sense of the context, along Stanton Avenue, you can see that there's a commercial corridor with a mix of takeout restaurants, commercial storefronts, gas stations, and other commercial uses.
Here's another shot showing this.
The Pizza Hut and the Wing Street is now a Boston Market with the drive-thru.
Same, similar, takeout restaurant-type use.
KFC is still there.
There's the checkers of Pep Boys.
And then there's the plaza across the street.
So in terms of the previous uses, we're actually, the use that we're proposing is actually similar to what's been there in the past.
It's just in the past 10 years or so, it's been a Chinese restaurant, a pizza shop, a chicken eatery.
And there's been much more over the, or at least over my lifetime.
I actually grew up not too far from here, so I'm intimately familiar with this site.
And there's been many attempts for long-term use of this nature.
What we're proposing, as I stated, is a similar use of takeout restaurants.
except the difference is here we are the owners instead of the tenants, and also we have a national
chain or franchise that we're renting here. Before I get into that, let me just show you an area of
what the intention of the new structure is. Right now, as you saw from the photos, the structure is
kind of set back in the catty corner of the parcel here. We want to demolish that, erect this detached
structure with a drive-thru entering and exiting off of Stanton Avenue. The special exceptions
that we require for the drive-thru use because of CMX2 and for the take-out restaurant. If it was
just a sit-down restaurant, it would be by right, but because we want to do take-out,
we can see from the refusal, we require a special exception.
And so what's it going to look like? This is a rough sort of rendering. Because of the
uniqueness of the site, the building will be shaped a little bit differently. But we are
trying to put a Popeyes here, a national franchise, which we believe will have much more lasting power
than some of the attempts to utilize the site before. This actually will be the first site in
philadelphia um that's utilizing popeyes's new national branding um which we're excited about
here's some more shots of the exterior the rear
the drive-through styling and the signage and lastly here's sort of what the menu board will
look like we did we meet with the community uh we met with the registered community organization
the Cliven Hills Association on two dates. We had two meetings. The first one took place on March 11th
and the second one was on April 8th. I believe at the first meeting there were about 25 people
and the second meeting about 18 or 17 people. Ultimately the community voted to support the
project and I believe they sent in a letter of support pursuant to that. Our position is that
Because our intention, because we're the owners of this property, is to be lasting and good neighbors.
We've already made a commitment to work with the community on community events and work with them with their endeavors as an association in the community.
And because we are seeking a special exception for a use that is not only fistful in the context, but it's been utilized on this site and historically something that the community is accustomed to.
we asked this board to support
this special exception request
with me I have a representative
With me, I have a representative from the ownership.
from the ownership
Ed could you
Ed, could you raise your hands to be recognized, please?
It's Ed Bash.
Excuse me, what is the name again?
Mike Muppets, Edward, N-B-A-K-S-H, his last name.
Mr. Bass, please raise your virtual hand.
If you can't find him, I would ask the board.
Yeah, we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony.
Any questions from the board? No.
Anyone else like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The proposed special exemptions will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond
what might normally be expected for this use.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Zoning Board grant the special exemptions.
Thank you.
MI 2021-000-636-6320-Stetton Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
That concludes the two o'clock list.
Oh, boy.
Oh, boy is right.
Do we need to, Tanya, do I have to go through the whole presentation again?
i guess so huh um you can condense it if you wish all right how about if we take a five minute break
i know i need a five minute break all right thanks thank you anyway uh my name is frank
tachico good afternoon my name is frank tachico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment
i'll be participating in this evening's hearing along with our vice chair ms carol tennari