Thank you.
chair we have 45 attendees and we can start as you wish good please let's start
good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's meetings
Before we begin, I have an announcement. Beginning with the December 4th hearings,
any documents or other information that parties wish to submit to the ZBA for hearings must be
submitted through the ZBA's new online upload tool, ZBA Case Document Submission. Information
how to access and use the submission tool will be included with hearing notices and zoning posters.
Please note that the applicant's documents are due five calendar days prior to the hearing.
Documents submitted and any other party should be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the hearing to allow sufficient time for processing.
In addition, the following information should continue to be submitted through email only, not through the upload tool.
request for continuances, withdrawals, reconsiderations, and amended refusals,
as well as request by attorney to enter or withdraw appearances.
If you have any questions about the ZBA case document submission tool,
please contact RCOZBA at phil.gov.
Thank you.
And with me today is Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Tenetta Graham.
Chairman.
Board member Michael Johns.
Michael's here.
And board member Taya Witt.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director, Ian Haggerty.
Here's our virtual format.
Can you hear me?
We can, sir.
We hear you now.
We hear you loud and clear.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation agreed to be recorded,
a video will be available by contacting
zbaexecutivedirector at philip.gov.
For our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone,
press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement,
call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
Any inquiry should be directed to ZBAexecutiveDirector at phil.gov.
Let's look at today's schedule.
Number three, MI 2024, 000929, 2450 North 30th Street. That case has been continued. Mark must
be heard. Number four, MI 2024-002-446-1715 North 56th Street. That case is continued.
Number five, MI 2024-002-461-532 North 10th Street. That case is continued. Number nine,
M.I. 2024-004-304-2001 Kinsey Street. That case is continued.
Number 10, M.I. 2024-004-305-1323 South Hancock Street. That case is continued.
And number 13, MI 2024-004-357-4540 Ridge Avenue.
0043574540 ridge avenue that case has been continued are there any other requests for continuances
good morning mr chair this is jason hand i will be your close for this session
i have a hand raised from evan gupta i have enough them to speak
morning devon
good morning counsel good morning can you hear me i can't could you please state your name is
spelled for the court stenographer yes devin ukda u d e v i n u q d a h you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir devin what what case this is 50
5218 Art Street, MI-2022-007-458.
So, Devin, this is the fifth listing.
We still do not have exhibits, Devin.
Yes, Chair.
I'm having some trouble getting in contact with the owner.
Can I ask for a continuance, and I will contact the board once I'm able to contact him to
see if he wants to move forward, or I'll be withdrawing?
uh devon i i all right we'll do that but you you need to contact the board as soon as you hear this
okay yes because we just can't go on with this case i mean and we still don't even know what
the case is about because we don't have any exhibits all right so i want you to take care
of this within the next week do you understand devon
counsel
yes can you hear me i'm saying yes yeah yeah sure do you understand we need to get this done okay
yes all right so mi 2022 007 458 52 18 r street cases continued mark must be heard
thank you is there any other requests for continuances
yeah sean whalen had their hand raised i would want them to speak
Good morning, Mr. Whalen.
Good morning, Chairman.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly.
Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but defeat?
Yes, I do.
What case, Mr. Whalen?
Number 14, 5101 Folsom, F-O-L-S-O-M Street.
Yes, sir.
I sent him a letter earlier this week advising the board. I've not been able to speak to my client since late summer, despite numerous attempts. And I have withdrawn my representation in this matter and another matter that I've been handling with him and sent him documentation of that.
but i don't know what he wants to do and i didn't hear back from the zoning board about how you
wanted to handle it so i figured i'd just jump on out of uh respect for the board to not waste
your time if you call so this is the first listing we have no exhibits correct we we have not been
able to meet with the rco we've done nothing because my client i haven't had any contact
with him in probably three months mr chair can we just see if there's anybody here i most certainly
again, Baldev Sohanta, Baldev Sohanta. And I also see where the council person is requested
to continue because the RCO has not had a meeting. Baldev Sohanta.
Mr. Whalen, I'm going to continue this one more time. If it doesn't appear, then we'll dismiss it.
okay okay and thank you for calling we appreciate of course would you like me to appear at the
continued hearing or am i excused uh mr whalen can you provide whatever contact information
you have um for for mr sujunta to the zba staff so that they can send the next hearing notice
directly to um to them of course i'll do so i understand they haven't been responsive but
just so they will send it to him
that will send the next notice to them directly.
I hope that board has better luck than I do.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you so much.
So number 14, MI 2024-004-360-5101,
Folsom, case is continued, Mark must be heard.
Any other requests for continuances?
I do not see any further.
Okay, so number two, MI 2023-002-438-7701 Gilbert Street. Jason Long is the listed applicant.
438-7701
Gilbert Street. Jason Long
is the listed applicant. Boston
Homes is the listed owner.
No exhibits.
Fourth listing.
No hands.
That's for this matter.
No hands.
No, sir.
Thank you. So
MI 2023-002-438-7701-Gilbert Street, fourth listing, no exhibits. I vote to dismiss.
Michael Jones.
Oh, go ahead, Michael.
Sorry, Michael Jones, my vote is to dismiss.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Taya Wynn, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number 12, MI 2024-004-355, 1505 South 47th Street. Kim Yada Frazier is the owner,
applicant. No exhibits, first listing.
They've been allowed to speak.
good morning good morning um could you could you please state your name and spell for the
court sonographer kenyatta frazier k-i-m-y-a-t-t-a last name frazier f-r-a-z-i-e-r
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay so um we do not have your exhibits as of yet and we also notice there's been no
RCO meeting. Could you give us an update of where you stand? I'm not clear where I stand. I'm not
clear on the instructions. It's a residential property, which I have previously did long-term
rental, and I wanted to start doing midterm rentals. So here's what you need to do. You need
to contact the office. They will tell you everything you need and how to submit it, okay?
Thank you very much.
So MI 2024-004-355-1505-South 47th Street, case is continued.
Number 16, MI 2024-004-379-2100 South Broad Street.
Roger Perry is the attorney.
No exhibits first listing.
CCM LLC is the listed owner, Mr. Perry, we see his hand, I'm sorry, Mr.
Chair, we do.
I do not see Mr. Perry.
All right.
Thank you.
So MI 2024-004-379-2100 South Broad Street, case is continuing, Mark must be heard.
And number 17, MI 2024-004-380-1914 North Lithgow Street.
Henry Smart is the owner applicant, and it's a pro se.
No exhibits, first listing.
May have been allowed to speak.
Henry Smart, H-E-N-R-Y-S-M-A-R-T
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, sir?
Mr. Smart, this is the first listing and we have no exhibits from you
Yeah, so similar to the previous person
It took me a minute to figure out your systems and to follow the instructions
The same paperwork was submitted, I think, twice before
But you should now have most of it in your portal
So what I want you to do is to call, call the office, go over with them, see what else you need to send in, okay?
Thank you very much, Mr. Smart.
So MI 2024-004-380-1914, North Lithgow Street.
The case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Thank you.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
mi2024-004-287-5530 master street
i vote yes maximum two units no household living in basement michael johns my vote is yes
with proviso cheryl gaston my vote is yes with provisos
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos
Tywin, my vote is yes with provisos
We're going to go to our regular list
We're starting with number 7
We're starting with number seven, MI 2024-004-299-7143 Edmond Street.
MI 2024-004
Jorge Fallu is the tenant applicant.
Hello?
They'll be rejoining us as a panelist.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
Jorge Famu, please unmute and wait to be sworn in.
I'm here.
Good morning.
Could you turn your video on, please?
Yes, yes, I'm sorry
Good morning, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Jorge Falou
That's J-O-R-G-E
Last name Falou, F-A-L-U
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay, so this application is for use as artist studio and artisan industrial in an existing structure
The proposed use, artist duty, artesian industrial is prohibited in the RSA 3 zoning district.
So would you please start, share your screen and start your presentation, sir.
You say share my screen?
Yes, please.
Green button on the bottom.
i see i'm sorry share my screen documents uh what am i supposed to press
i'm gonna say share screen a little green dot
yeah it says share screen but that was excuse me if i may um please sir you would have to
have your documents open on your screen so once you hit that green share button it will ask you
what documents you would like for us to view. I don't see a green button in here. No after you
hit that green button that says share at the bottom of zoom it will open up another screen
and it will ask you where where your documents are so it will be good to have your documents open
before you hit that green share button.
The document right here?
I'm sorry.
Which one is the document?
I'm sorry.
You mean the documents we've sent into them?
Yes, correct.
okay so they're in in um they were submitted to zba yeah but but you have to have your documents
in front of you that you could make your presentation okay okay um can you really
continue this or because i don't have long yeah they're in here okay why don't we do sir why don't
do this i have a few other cases i'll go through the cases i'll come back to you if by then you're
ready to go we'll go if not we'll continue okay so i'll go to the next case and then we'll come
back to you, all right? Thank you. Number six, MI 2024, 004-298-2129 North 2nd Street, Joseph
Consul is the attorney. There's a letter of unanimous support from Norris Square Community
Action Network.
We were joining as a panelist, sir.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Consul.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Joseph Consul.
That's J-O-S-E-P-H.
Last name is Consul.
That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusals and agree with their accuracy?
it um and you have sent all your work in prior to five days am i correct yes i have okay please
proceed share your screen okay um or am i not seeing it here we go share screen all right we are here
all right we're not seeing it here we go share screen all right we are here talk about
2129 north 2nd street my client is jacqueline arias she is on this call she purchased this
property uh earlier this year and uh at that time um she sought to redevelop the interior of the
property and leave the exterior of the property the the way that it is set up uh so her goal
is to include two units in this property and to keep the exterior as it's set up as i mentioned
which creates uh refusals both dimensionally and for use it's zoned rsa5 so the two unit use
requires a variance in addition to that the previous owner or the owner before that owner
attempted to legalize in in the year 2000 let's see if i can find that here's an application
submitted in the year 2000 where the previous owners sought to legalize an existing rear yard
addition. And at that time, they also sought to create a one family with a five person rooming
house above. And that permit was refused. They appealed. And at that time, the RCO was against
it and zba was uh was against it and there was um an opposition to it which is in the file so i can
find that so that was notice the decision was refused and so that was you know 23 or 24 years
ago so that shows that at least the exterior of the property has existed in in the state that
that it's in now, I will show you the pictures of the property. There's the front. Here's what
the back looks like. As I mentioned, they created this bump out in the back of the property that
extends beyond what is allowed by Wright. There were plans, a full set of plans submitted in 2000
and she's got another set that she had submitted for this application.
We presented in front of the RCO, and as mentioned, we got unanimous support.
I think that there is a need on that street for more housing.
The RCO in the last three years has approved a triplex at 2110, a duplex at 2122, and then directly across the street, they approved the demolition and the rebuild of four properties, 2130, 2132, 4, and 6.
All of these zoned RSA-5, all of these with the exact same footprint dimensionally as the property that we're speaking to you about today.
Those were all approved by the RCO and then also by the ZBA.
So we're hopeful that my client's two units, and these are all three besides 2-1-2-2, which is a duplex.
My client's request for two units.
We're hoping that's not going to be too big of an ask.
There's the proof.
There was a letter with a proviso they want, and my client is willing to approach PHA's choice voucher program.
I don't know if that's a proviso that can be written in, but my client is not against this.
In fact, that's what her plan was from the beginning.
our proof of mailing
posters
here's some of the interior photos
this property as mentioned
needs TLC
and she's going to give it
Jacqueline
is a lifelong resident of
this area and this is her first
foray into an investment property
the proposed plan puts a two-unit apartment on the first floor
and then over the second two floors you've got the second floor with your kitchen and living area
two bedrooms and then your third floor with two other bedrooms so it would be one two unit or one
two bedroom apartment and one four bedroom apartment
one four-bedroom apartment see what's I got just the deed showing ownership as
of February of this year tax clearance property information statement and with
that I will call my client unless there's any questions from the board to
adopt my testimony that's the old refusal why don't we bring your client on first
then we'll open up for questions okay uh jackie can you raise your hand please
we see her
should be here i was communicating with her
I see your hand raised.
Jason?
Jackie has been allowed to speak. Please unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Good morning. Could you please state your name?
here. Maybe she's having technical difficulties. Jackie, can you click the unmute button? It should
be like a red, a red microphone on your, on your zoom.
counsel you're an officer of the court we will take your testimony questions from the board
can you go back to the the plans i just want to see yes
so uh the there's no
So it's just the first floor that has access to the basement?
That's correct, yeah, and that's strictly for utilities.
Okay, are the utilities for all the units in the basement?
Well, yeah, I mean, she's rehabbing the whole property, but that's the only area labeled as utilities.
Okay, and the ground floor unit is the only one that has access to the rear yard?
That's correct.
Correct. She was adding a, if you look on the second floor, access to a rooftop deck on top of that, on top of the bump out on the first floor through the kitchen.
So that's a roof deck for the second floor, for the second, third floor unit.
That's correct, Mr. Jones.
So it's a two bedroom, it's a four bedroom over a two bedroom.
Correct.
and trash how are you dealing with trash uh i mean there's a little bit of space out back
as you can had seen in those pictures um i'm not certain what her plan is for the second and third
floors again i wish we could we could hear to chime in on that yeah i can't see the i can't
see the third floor oh let me see what i can do there we go all right
All right. Thank you. Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Hillary Emerson? Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chairman, and good morning. David Defecto,
F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5,
Residential Single-Family Zoning at this location.
The city rezoned Norris Square in 2021 in a community-requested map change.
The dimensional variances for open area and rear yard setback appear to be existing conditions.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their proposed dimensional variances, but deny the use variance for two dwelling.
MI 2024-004-298-2129 North 2nd Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tenetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ty Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Board.
Thank you, counsel.
Number eight, MI 2024-004-301-2213 North 7th Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
There is a letter of support from APM.
applicant also provided a petition of support with 32 signatures
good morning
good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
yes my name is zen jin z-h-e-n last name j-i-n
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client's ABC, UALC. They're the owner of the property. We do have representatives from the company with us today as well.
Stipulate to the reading of the refusals and agree with the accuracy.
um have you uh forwarded all of your documents within five days prior yes we did please share
your screen and start thank you i'm going to share with the board the documentation previously
submitted can the board see my presentation on their screen yes yes sir thank you so we have
submitted a copy of the refusal uh the letter of support from apm a petition of support which we
obtained during the process of meeting with the community, photos, plans, and related documentation.
This is an application for a property to be constructed in a CMX2 district. The variants
we seek, there are two variances primarily relating to what was previously required commercial use on
the property floor. We are asking to have the commercial unit to be converted to a residential
unit, but the layout of the property leads to a total of four units, which I will show through
the plants. The property also is slightly deeper and covers the maximum occupied area slightly
more. Again, this is part of the due to the design of the property. APM and the neighbors were
reached out to. We had a meeting. Generally, after we have shown the neighbors that the property
itself is accessible to the back by all units, the trash storage and collection was not as much
of a concern after that discussion. Parking is always of a concern. However, that block and
surrounding area is CMX2 and RM1. So on-street parking is the standard in the area. And
ultimately, parking was not considered an issue sufficient for the community to have
opposition to the proposal. So the vote was five in support, one undecided. However, in addition to
that, we also have reached out to many of the neighbors in the area with the proposal, and we
did obtain additional feedback from neighboring properties in support. Overall, the feedback is
that these properties being located here on North 7th Street, being across from an RM1 development,
there are really no ongoing commercial corridor existing in this area. This is our space. We're
basically filling a space between buildings, which is a lot, and building a building very
similar to what is already existing next door. In fact, the use the proposal size is very similar
to what is already there and consistent with what is already up and down the block as well.
So here's the posting. I'm going to go ahead and show the board the layout based on the plans.
So this is a proposed plan to have a building put in place on this lot.
there's going to be an existing easement access side alley to this building, which allows access
to the rear yard by all occupants. The design is to have an entry in the front, but also a shared
entryway on the side. What this leads to is an entryway to the side that has a stairwell that
allows exiting from the building from a shorter distance. That is a preferred way of design
because of the overall travel distances. This allows shorter travel distances for all units
in the case of an emergency. The layout is bi-level designs front and back for the entire building.
The layout is bi-level designs front and back for the entire building.
The first floor and cellar has the two front and back bi-level unit.
And then the second and third floor also has two front and back bi-level units.
These being two bedrooms with the living space, kitchen, access through the center stairwell in the front and similar design in the back.
We have on the first floor and basement, again, the bedroom is placed on the first floor, a flex space in the basement, and kitchen and living.
Of course, the basement can be used as additional living space, storage, recreation area, et cetera.
So that is the overall design.
there are two small roof decks on the top, which is within code requirements that permits the upper
floors to have exterior space as well. But again, all of the units have full access to the rear
yard for trash storage until such time trash will be picked up. The primary hardship to putting a
commercial space here is that the area this block has really no commercial activity. So that is our
presentation to the board. I'm happy to direct to any part of the presentation if the board has any
questions, and I should have a representative from the company ready to verify my testimony.
Thank you. Can you zoom into the brief so we can see all the floors at one time? Sure, sure.
Not a problem. I will zoom out. Is this what you're looking for? Yes, that's better. Sure.
jen could you please also tell us what the rest of the block is just multi-families all over the
whole block it's it's basically all multi-family on that block correct because across the street
is actually rem1 multi-family so those are multi-family okay the cmx2 none of the buildings
built has any commercial everything built on that block so far is residential
can you go back to the site plan sure so everything yeah if you can zoom into that so
what's the side yard width what's that side width sure um there's yeah let me zoom here
so it's a they each have a uh courtyard side so between the two ours is three foot
and then this side also has a space in addition.
So the total width might be closer to five, six feet.
So what's the double, the shared out?
So there's a two-foot shared alley?
That's, there's a two-foot shared on the deed
and the width here would be one foot
plus the two foot would be three foot side yard space,
open space.
so the actual access space will be wider
and the
and this
so I'm trying to understand
so the initial plan
was for the commercial on the ground
that's the required
so the required is that we must have
a commercial space for at least
the first 30 foot of the ground level
can you zoom out again to the hold so I can see
I don't know. Maybe it's my screen. I can try to hold the plan a little bit more.
Try to keep it centered.
Okay. And then who has access to the rear?
Everybody. Everybody from this building has access to the rear.
Because there's actually, here's the core entry for the center stairwell that accesses all units.
Even though the front does have its own separate entrance, the primary entrance is here on the side that allows everybody to come in. Of course, both the alleyway, the front will be lit. There'll be lighting and cameras installed for safety reasons.
That's the only question I have.
Thank you.
Now the questions from the board.
is the basement going to be finished i know you said that it could be used for additional living
space or for storage yeah it's um so so it's gonna be the utility some of the utilities will
be down there uh including the hot water heater um the so for all units or just for no just for
the first uh the first two okay yes yeah but is the is the basement going to be finished
it'll be a it'll be a open finished space at at the um at the time of construction okay
but not proposed for a living no
it'll be okay never mind
is that one window in the front the only window to the basement or has the plans
not been updated so so the this window is the only window in the basement for the front unit
and the back units only there's two i'm sorry there's two in the back oh there's two in the
back I'm sorry yeah let me zoom in actually it's so yes because of the court the back actually has
two windows the front because of the access alley and and the way the court is designed only has the
window in the front yeah but my question was is it planned to be finished because you said it could
be used for additional living space and if it's finished it should have egress even if it's not a
a bedroom. And right now there's no egress.
Oh, I understand what you're saying. The egress window here for, for.
That is an egress window.
I'm not sure on this plan. It doesn't seem to be.
It doesn't. Yeah.
I can confirm.
Why don't you bring your client one?
Please.
So Andre or Igor, if you're here, please raise your hand virtually.
I know that the, the account should be based on a phone number.
It is 267-701-3132 might be the number that would be my client.
And then, Mr. Jin, can you go back to the elevation?
Let me go back to...
yeah i'm just trying to see how high sure and how high is the first floor so it's five feet three
okay yeah so this is the total height is uh 36 3 42 feet to the parapet um and do you know what
the height is of the neighboring buildings same they're we actually try to my client try to match
to the next door building's height.
But that's
to the top of the parapet, not the top
of the pilot house. Correct.
Top to the parapet, correct.
Do we see his client?
Does he have his hand raised?
I have a number with
3131 at the end that's going to allow him to speak.
Hi, could you
please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good afternoon.
board. My name is Andre A-N-D-R-E-Y. My last name is D-E-B-A. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Counsel? Thank you. Andre, did you hear my
testimony and see my presentation before the zoning board? Yes, I do. Other than the question
about the egress window, can you verify everything I represented is true and correct? That is
correct. So I believe the board member had a question about the egress window in the basement.
I know that the plan right now is to simply have it as open rec space. Is there an egress window
originally designed there? I'm sorry, can you please repeat that? Sure. For the basement,
the front unit, particularly the front unit basement and the back unit basement, are those
windows in the basement going to be egress accessible, meaning people can get out?
Okay, but they're not marked as such on the plans.
Well, yes, correct.
But they are.
Okay, so you will be putting in egress windows there?
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
I have no further questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands at this time, sir.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from CMX2 commercial mixed use to RSA5 residential single family at this location.
The zoning in this neighborhood dates to 1933.
The proposal for not including a commercial ground floor brings the property closer into conformance with the proposed RSA-5 zoning.
The proposed occupied area is de minimis and in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the zoning code.
However, the appellant has not shown that four units is the minimum needed to...
However, the appellant has not shown that four units is the minimum needed to afford relief versus the three that are allowed.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant their proposed dimensional variance for open area and their proposed variance from the ground floor commercial use requirement, but deny the use variance for a fourth dwelling.
Mr. Jinn, do you have comments?
So I want to point out that the, I'm not sure the RSA 5, why the RSA 5 is being proposed. These are extremely large lots that have currently next to us are two or three, four unit buildings already.
on the other side there are three and three unit buildings as well those were built i think before
the four units that are already in place the across the street are also three to four units
in design so it the the four unit design actually makes a lot of sense with regard to the size
and the affordability of the units themselves within this area that is why my client proposed
them as such with the layout, calling for by level, which actually is a nicer overall design.
If we were to have to go down to three units, the entire building would have to be redesigned.
And if anything, the units would end up larger and might end up with more bedrooms because
it'll stretch out further into the unit.
So we would still ask the board's favorable review for the four unit in this case.
MI 2024-004-301-2213, North 7th Street. I vote yes with proviso. Maximum three units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Canada Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2024-004-307-2329 South 12th Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There's a direct recommendation of opposition from Lower Moimensing Civic Association.
The RCO noted that there were approximately 16 members of the community present for another matter.
The applicant provided 20 form letters of support.
Joseph Consul will be joining us as a panelist.
Hello.
Mr. Consul, you've already been sworn. Just for the record, please state your name.
Joseph Consul.
Mr. Consul, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Candelario. First name, hold on one second.
is valenti um do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and do you agree with its accuracy
i do have you provided all your documents with it five days prior uh we received last night a
letter of non or i don't know what you call it from councilman squilla um which is on the screen
now i believe it was copied to everyone is that in your file i see it sir thank you not we don't
have it but make hillary you don't have it do you um i have to double check i don't recall seeing
this um but it may it may have come in later but i'll just double check now yeah it came in last
night um and uh he notes the opposition and he notes the support and he's leaving the decision
to to the board so the council person is not is not against it uh okay so uh my uh client
valente candelaro purchased this property in 1997 it's 2329 south 12th street
uh historically this property has never been a single family home uh you go back as far in time
as you want but the most recent approval was i'm not even sure what year this is 1987 and it was
for a single family home on the second floor plus a retail and variety store on the first floor.
So it's always been one unit above, one unit below, and that's it. When my client purchased
the property, he'll attest to the fact that the property had been put into three units and he's
been operating it as three units since 1997 we're here to legalize those three units
that's our proof of mailing here's the exterior of the property
Here's the exterior of the property.
Go through the plans in a minute.
It's the corner.
There are entrances on the direct corner.
There's an entrance on the side, and there is an entrance above on this deck area, which I believe I've got a closer photo.
that obviously needs some love but there's three entrances to this property that's the side
here's the interior i'll show you the plans in a minute to show you how it's set up
some of the other interior photos i believe this is all the first floor
this is the first floor studio the the property closest to the corner is set up as a studio with
a kitchen and one bathroom that at the moment is the only occupied unit my my client
as he realized that he needed to legalize this did not allow the other units to be occupied
once his tenants moved out
Here's the second floor.
I'll note that in almost 30 years there's been no complaints about the property.
No L and I violations on the property or anything like that.
some more photos there's a second floor kitchen
steps leading to the basement here's what the basement looks like
the meters water heaters
um a client provided uh 20 petitions all of near neighbors in support of the property
you know as mentioned uh we had there was a a lot of people at the rco meeting however for some
reason the rco only counted three votes there was one non-opposition and three in opposition which
included the board um although i did speak with the rco chair and he said that he was
not going to show up to verbalize any opposition tax clearance there's that
showing zero dollar tax balance again squilla not against it that's the old
archive which we have showing all of the previous uses and then here's the layout this is let's
let me start the first floor start the basement basement is storage mechanicals washer dryer
the first floor as it's set up now is a one bedroom unit and a studio
unit, and then the second floor is a two-bedroom unit. And so my clients are asking to legalize
this. We understand that it had previously been two units, one being commercial. We will
defer to the board to what they see fit here. We're hoping an outright denial is not
um where the appetite is but um we understand that if you know if the number of units are
questionable then then we'll deal with that but um sizes of the units 475 520 and the second floor
is 962 square feet uh with that i'll call my client to adopt my testimony
Mr. Candelaro, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Candelaro Valente.
Okay, do you swear or could you spell your name, please, for the court stenographer?
Could you spell your name, please, for the court stenographer?
C-A-N-D-E-L-O-R-I-O.
Let's see.
Where affirmed the tilde?
I'm sorry.
Could you spell your last name?
Valenti.
P-V-L-E-N-N-T-I.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Counsel?
Good morning, Mr. Valenti.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property at 2329 South 12th Street?
Yes, thank you.
When you purchased the property in 1997, is that the way the property has been set up and that's the way it's set up now?
Okay. Is there anything you wish to add?
Nothing further, board.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.
How many people
that lived on 12th Street
are on the petition that was signed?
I know there was other streets that were noted.
How many 12th Street
residents were?
Yeah, let me just scroll down
to my petitions.
That's Fitzgerald.
that's behind it, that's
the South 11th, that's again Fitzgerald, which is behind
it, Durfer Street
let's see, 141
there's a 12
or 2372
south 12th that's on the block
1123 Rittner
street
2327 south 12th
street
1132 Fitzgerald
street
Fitzgerald street
1125 Fitzgerald 1140 Fitzgerald 1120 Fitzgerald 1116 Fitzgerald and Durr 4 which I believe both
of them are um two back streets yep they're the two back streets that back up to the to the property
and are as close as any of the 12th street properties okay thank you you're welcome
Other questions for the board? Yes. Can we see the how we're doing this three units? The first
floor is going to have the efficiency in the one bedroom unit? Yeah, so the first floor has an
entrance to the efficiency on the corner that that entrance that's right on the corner where the
streets meet and that uh the entrance on the side of the property uh gets you into the first floor
unit i mean the the one bedroom unit and has steps up to the second floor unit the second
floor unit has two means of entrance and egress that exterior deck entrance as well as the interior
or stairs from the first floor.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning.
David. With the City Planning Commission, Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the RSA 5 residential single-family zoning at this location. This property has a
documented history of ground floor commercial use and one apartment. At some point, an owner appears
to have converted the ground floor commercial unit to a residential unit without the benefit of
permits and added an additional dwelling unit, again, without the benefit of permits.
through no fault of the appellant.
The City Planning Commission recommends
the board grant a proposed use variance
for three dwelling units.
MI 2024-004-307-2329 South 12th Street,
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Iowen, my vote is yes.
Iowyn, my vote is yes.
Thank you, board.
Number 15, MI 2024-004-375-2130 Tasker Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of unanimous support from Point Breeze Community Development.
Vote was 9-0.
Chair, Mr. Harry Cook will be rejoining as a panelist shortly.
Good morning, Mr. Cook.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Let me just start my video.
Sure. Thank you. Could you state your name and spell up for the court sonographer?
Sure. Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y-C-O-O-K, Anastasio Law. I am filling in for Vern this morning. He's on medical leave.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Absolutely. My client is here today with me, Heshi Posner, who is the managing member of the ownership entity, who will be adopting my testimony at the end of my presentation.
Stipulate to the reading of the refusal and do you agree with its accuracy?
I stipulate to the reading of the refusal and the accuracy of what it states.
And all of your documents were in prior to five days?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Why don't you share your screen and start your presentation, sir?
Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen?
Yes, sir.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good morning.
I'm here for 2130 Tasker Street.
As discussed, this has unanimous support from the RCO.
Some of the folks who were at the meeting and on the vote tally expressed the need for multifamily in the neighborhood.
This property has a long history as a two-unit dwelling.
I'm just going to pull up and ask the board to take judicial administrative notice of the length of time that this property had a rental license for two units starting back in 2003 at a minimum.
My client purchased this property in October of 2023, and at that time, it had an active rental license, excuse me, let me go down one more, that would have expired in February 2029 of, excuse me, the last day of February 2024.
So all indications of this property from the way by which it was marketed as a two unit city records showing that it was a legal two unit would have put any reasonable person into a reliance phase that this was, in fact, a legal two unit dwelling.
I'm going to take you through some of the photos of the property.
You'll be able to see that it is, in fact, the original photos of the interior.
You'll see older construction.
Here's the common stairwell that does not look new.
It does not look newer than 40 years.
The way it's demised is a two-unit.
This is a common area from stairwell to door.
take you to the kitchen. All of the heat, all of the utilities appear to be rather original
and extended in time in their existence. For example, here's the first floor kitchen.
First floor unit kitchen does not appear to be newer than 40 years in terms of the aesthetics
of it and the use and, uh, and where, uh, the same goes for the bathroom on the first floor,
but I'll take you to the kitchen of the, uh, second floor unit. And it is, and we'll go back
to the basement and I'll show you the, uh, the meters that have been there for quite some time.
Um, the second floor kitchen, same situation, the cabinetry, the flooring, very traditional,
vinyl of the period for a kitchen. So we're dealing with a property that has an extensive
history as a two-unit dwelling. Folk on the block who were in attendance and voted noted
on their vote that this had been a long-standing two-family dwelling. Here are the plans just for
here are the plans just for review. You come into the common entrance, you go to the left,
review. You come in.
there is the first unit, first floor unit. It has a bedroom up front, a bedroom in the rear
that has access to the rear yard, existing kitchen, existing living room. Coming in up the stairs,
up to the second floor unit, kind of a similar layout. You have existing bedroom in the rear,
bathroom, kitchen, bedroom up front, and all parties have access to the basement, which is
accessory for utilities and storage. And I just want to take you down so you can see
the existing meters in the basement.
Okay. These are the existing utility lines. We have, again, it's an unfinished basement. There's
no plans to change anything here other than storage and cleaning up. Here is the first and
second floor meters, apartment one, apartment two, as you can see these are
not new meters, these are the older gas meters, electrical meters, again older
meters, not just installed, so on and so forth. Again this property marketed as a
two-unit, had a history of a two-unit. Client went to go renew rental licenses as a new owner
because rental licenses don't run with the property like the zoning permit and was advised
that there was no history of a zoning permit on file, making this a two-unit. A lot of back and
forth between our office and LNI regarding the reliance of interest, regarding the fact that
you know, for 20-plus years, rental licenses were granted, and it brought us to this board
to make a final determination on the pre-existing non-conforming aspect of this property, which
again was proved up at the public meeting by residents. And with that, if the board has any
questions of me, otherwise, I'd like to call my client to adopt my testimony and answer any
questions the board may have why don't you bring your client on please uh mr posner are you available
raise your hand
hosner could you please state your name and spell for the course sonographer
e s h y e o s n e r
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes. Proceed counsel. Mr. Posner did you hear my presentation to the board today? Yes. Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and understanding? Yes. Do you adopt that presentation as your own testimony? Yes. Yes.
Questions from the board.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location. This is a
primarily single-family block face. However, a prior owner appears to have added an additional
dwelling unit without the benefit of permits through no fault of the appellant. The City
Planning Commission recommends that the board grant or propose to use variants for two dwelling units.
MI 2024-004-375-2130, Tassier Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
I'm going to go back to number seven. MI 2024-004-299-7143 Edmond Street. Jorge, follow, please.
They will be coming back in.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, sir.
Hear me?
Good morning, sir.
Turn on your video, please.
It says you cannot start your video because the host has disabled it.
Yes. Our host, our host, please.
The co-host asks you to start your video, start your video.
All right. Just just for the record, state your name. You've already been sworn.
Yes. George Falu.
Yeah, sure. Where do you stand? Did you find your documents?
Now, the documents I have is the same document I have.
But the landlord, because I hear y'all talk about blueprints and stuff like that.
So I think I need to continue to get the more.
Fine. All right. OK. All right. Thank you, sir.
And so no, no, you're not to be sorry.
M.I. 2024-004-299-7143 Edmonton Street.
Cases continued. If you have any issues, call the office and they will tell you how to proceed.
OK. Thank you very much.
No, thank you.
Number 18. MI 2024-004-384-1918 Tater Street. David Orfanides is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from South of South neighborhood. Vote was 13 in support, 7 opposed. A letter of partial support from North Washington Avenue Coalition, NOAC.
Good morning, Mr. Orphanides. Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
Certainly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. David Orphanides. Last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Jacqueline Andriosi. She is the owner of the property 1918 Cater Street. She's on with me today.
Sure. Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
I do. It was originally submitted, yes.
And all of your documents were sent in within five days?
We had everything ready, and then we submitted everything along with the letter from SOSNA that we received after Friday.
So everything has been received.
That's a minute. Watch, share your screen and start your presentation. Certainly.
You see my screen? Again. Okay. Again, my name is David Orfanides with the law firm of Orfanides
and Toner. I'm here this morning on behalf of Jacqueline Andriosi, who is the owner of 1918
Cater Street. I also have with me today the architect for the project, Sam Turner, as well
as the contractor who will be building the proposed addition. What you have in front of you is a
rendering of the subject property with the proposed addition that was submitted with their zoning
permit application. It's a third and fourth floor addition that goes on top of an existing two-story
structure. There were two refusals that were originally issued back in June, on June 20th,
having to do with the proposed addition. One was a height refusal, and I've drawn a red line
through that because we have eliminated that refusal with the revised drawings that were
provided before today's hearing, along with the revised proviso plan form. As you'll see,
the original plan had the height to the top of the second level addition, which is the fourth
floor, being at 39 feet, six inches. Since that time, we've brought the height of that down to
38 feet, which is the permitted height in the underlying RSA 5 zoning district by reducing the
floor to ceiling heights or the floor to floor heights at the third floor and fourth floor
addition, one foot six inches. We still have the setback requirement. As you, I think this board
well knows, as you'll see from the photographs that I'll provide to you, that it is pretty,
we know that there's a requirement when buildings to either side of a property
in the RSA 5 zoning district are two stories or less, that anything above the second floor must
be set back eight feet. And you see that requirement set forth on the notice of refusal.
in the um on the notice of refusal um as you can see on our rendering what we've chosen to do
instead of setting it back eight feet is we've done a lot of properties and not only in this
neighborhood but in other neighborhoods as well have done which is provide maintaining the existing
cornice and um and then providing a mansard roof at the front of the third floor which extends above
of that. What we have right now is you can see here, my client went out and took pictures
in the neighborhood. And you can see just here alone, and I've included zoning archives
for these properties. These are properties located on our block and in near vicinity of
our property where variances have been granted by this zoning board for this similar third floor
addition with the mansard at the front in the eight-foot setback where variances were granted.
In fact, as you can see here from the aerials that I have, here's our property here at 1918.
You can see that they're in green, circled in green, one almost directly across the street from
us. There are three properties that were granted variances by the zoning board over the last couple
of years. 1929, which is the one almost directly across the street from us at MI 2021-000448 was
granted a variance in 2021. You can see in this aerial that what I've clouded in blue are other
three-story structures that don't have the mansard. What you end up there is you end up with
the structure with the flat faces you'll see in the photographs I'm going to show you in a minute
that don't honor the cornice lines of the two-story structures
that make up the lion's share of the block,
but just go straight up three stories.
And here you can see, let me just zoom out a minute.
And again, here's a picture of the subject property.
You can see right here.
Then we have two stories to either side,
which again triggers that eight-foot requirement, that setback.
but you can see as you go down the block we have largely two stories as you go down the block
until you get to a third floor and then you can see the other properties that have been granted
variances for the setbacks for the setback requirement with the mansards including the
property that's almost directly across the street from us honoring the cornice line as opposed to
this, which just goes up three stories straight up.
And you can see another one, another three-story structure here.
These are the properties that are located down the block and across the street from us.
This is the one here.
And as you go eastward, and those properties were to the west, as you can see, here's one
that was also granted the variance, as I showed in the aerial.
And then here you have a difference where you have the two-story structure, and then it goes up where buildings were built straight three stories going up at the east end of the block.
You can see here there was actually a variance granted for this one, just to go straight up.
um what we did um the architect put together a um the difference between what we're proposing
and um what would happen with a buy right so to the right is what was originally
proposed and if i need to zoom in a little bit it will and this shows the 39.6 again
we've reduced the height to the top of the fourth floor to 38 feet which now eliminates that refusal
Here you can see the mansard, which is in the setback.
We've only provided the addition to nine feet from the rear property line.
The zoning code, because the lot is only 40 feet deep, the zoning code allows us to go seven feet, two feet deeper.
My client is not looking to be greedy here, provided nine foot, which is what you typically have in RSA 5, but when lots are more than 45 feet deep.
to the left, you have what you'd be left with if you were building something by right. You'd be
eight feet back. You'd go up. You could have a roof deck, pilot house, which would be about 51
feet, six inches above grade. You would have a parapet only eight feet from the front property
line that would be approximately at 41 feet, six inches. You could also have a small deck in front
the setback at the third floor. You could also have something projecting off the front of the
fourth floor as well. This also shows the fill-in not only underneath what's existing right here,
which we're leaving open. So there's an existing bay at the second floor. We're leaving all this
which we're leaving open. So there's an existing bay at the second floor. We're leaving all this
open, so light.
open so light can still come into the rear windows underneath of the proposed addition,
which you're seeing here, but also then takes the property two feet deeper to seven feet.
So this is a far less dense proposal than what could be done as a matter of right.
We'll shadow the abutting properties far less than a buy right project would. Just as a note,
one of the properties to the rear of us. There are two properties to the rear of us, 1925 and
1923, Bainbridge Street. And 1925 Bainbridge is not a conforming property. It was granted
variances for rear yard area and open area. And I have those zoning archives included with the
package that I submitted. And I raise that because if, in terms of the impact on air and light on
abutting properties um it's upon uh conforming abutting properties or adjacent properties
um but i think it's interesting to look again at the the buy right there's a rendering of what a
buy rate would look like and then here we have a comparison between again what we're proposing
and then what a buy right would look like and our client my client feels that um the buy right or
The by-rate proposal is much worse for the neighbors, both in terms of shadowing and in terms of aesthetics, than what she is presently proposing.
In terms of the letters that we received, Sosna's letter was a letter of non-opposition.
Let me just zoom out.
And you'll see that they have no concerns with what we're left with.
The only variance that we have right now, which is that Mansard in the front setback.
All their concerns are regarding the fourth floor, and the fourth floor is no longer at issue now that it's been dropped to a code-compliant height.
No-axe letter that was issued.
Actually, they speak highly in support of the mansard, and you can see at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page.
Their opposition all has to do with the fourth floor, which, again, is not before this board because that refusal for the height for the fourth floor has been eliminated.
So their concerns are really, just as if this was a completely by-right project, would not be one that could be appealed and one, again, that here could not be considered by the zoning board.
I have included in my package a copy of the deed for the property showing my client owns the property, our tax clearance at tab 12, copy of the hearing notice for today's hearing that was posted at the subject property,
conformance with the requirements of the zoning code at least 21 days in advance, along with the
copy of the notice of refusal. My client even went so far as to note that the height variance has
been removed, which I thought was very thorough of her. And then our 14-303 notice. So the hearing
was, I think it was August 20th, and then, oh, sorry, September 18th, and the notice was sent
out on August 20th, so well in advance of the proceeding before Sassana, and you can see here
the Certificate of Service with 157 letters going out to members of the community. So with that,
We feel that given the prevalence of these mansards, not only on this block, but in the immediate vicinity, I think overall, my clients provided over 40 photographs of properties that are located in the neighborhood with either the mansards, granted by variants, as you can see here, others that are a little further away.
many of which I've brought to this board and secured variances for, and then other three-story structures as well in the neighborhood that you can see here.
So these are 40 pictures, 40 properties alone that are just within a couple blocks of our subject property.
So with that in mind, and given that we only have the refusal for the front setback above the second floor,
And that's only about the third floor, because one thing to note again with the by right is that we are even setting our fourth floor further back than what would what it could be set back as a matter of right, which it's eight feet.
We're setting our fourth floor back 14 feet, five inches.
So our fourth floor is actually six feet, five inches further back than what a by right fourth floor would be at the permitted height.
So for those reasons, we feel that the granting of the variance complies, the proposal complies with the criteria for the granting of the variance in this situation.
And we're here to answer any questions that the board or members of the audience may have.
I do have my client present and the architect present who can adopt my statements.
who can adopt my statements.
Bring your client on to adopt your statement.
Take your client on to adopt your statement.
Sure. It's Jacqueline Andriosi.
Morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi. Do you hear me?
Yes, I can. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
first. Sure. It's Jacqueline, J-A-C-Q-U-E-L-I-N-E, Andreozzi, A-N-D-R-E-O-Z-Z-I.
Fair or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do. Please receive counsel. Thank you. Good morning, Jackie. Did you hear the statements
that I made to the board today? I did. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. And are they true
and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes, they are. And would you adopt them as your own?
Yes, I would.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
You want to bring on your architect?
Samuel Turner.
Sam Turner.
Hey, Ben and I, please speak.
Mr. Turner, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, Sam Turner, S-A-M-T-U-R-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
please proceed counsel certainly good morning sam um do you hear the statements that i made to the
zoning board today i did and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes and would you adopt them as your own yes i would thank you and then mr chairman just to be
clear we do have revised plans that are included at tab 4 4a which reduced the height of the
structure from 39 feet, six inches to 30 feet. And I've included, I've also provided a revised
proviso plan form that states as much. Thank you. Questions from the board.
Did you show floor plans? I have floor plans if you'd like to see them, certainly.
I guess just quickly. Sure, sure. Here are the floor plans. So, and I can show photographs as
well. So the existing floor, first floor, as you can imagine, it's not particularly deep. It's
living. It's actually kitchen in the front and then a living area to the rear. And then let me
zoom in a little bit so you can see this a little better. And again, we're not pushing the first or
second floor back even to the nine feet away from the rear property line, let alone the seven feet.
So the first and second floor are remaining. And you'll see right now there's two bedrooms and a bath and they're going to be creating, you know, some extra space here.
There's the stairs that are going to be going up. And then what you have is you essentially have a master bedroom at the third floor and then a family room.
They call it a four season room up at the that I'm sorry, the master bedroom is at the third.
i'm not sure if i said fourth and then here you have uh kind of a family room up the fourth floor
level with a deck in front of that and the deck meets the setback requirements five feet from the
front other questions for the board i have a question is does this building not have a basement
it does have a basement it does have a basement is the basement finished no jackie this basement's
not finished, correct? Jackie? Jackie. Okay. Yeah, so the basement is not finished. It just has like
the water heater and, you know, the HVAC and storage. Was there ever a consideration to finish
the basement and only add a third floor instead of adding two additional floors? I mean, can I
I just say, first of all, that obviously the third and fourth floor are a matter of right,
but I actually, I did for myself for a property that I resided in two blocks away on the 2100
block of cater. So I lived in a house exactly like this and that seller is so far below grade
and with the foundations and the underpinning that has to be done, you lose a tremendous
this uh amount of space um trying to finish that aside from having them to put in a bilco that
goes to the back and then hopefully goes to an alley and there isn't an alley behind this property
so the bilco would go to the front and that's the sidewalks are pretty narrow um and that
i don't even know if streets would approve that because you'd be outside of the uh the building
zone other questions ty i have no other questions questions or comments from our attorney hillary
emerson not at this time mr chair this is your comments from the virtual audience
This is your comments from the virtual audience.
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have Madeline Shacumba with her hand raised.
I will help you speak.
Good morning, Chair.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Madeline Shacumba.
It's M-A-D-E-L-I-N-E, Shacumba, S like in Sam, H-I-K-O-M-B-A.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Are you a neighbor?
No, I'm not a neighbor.
I'm part of the RCO.
Okay, please proceed then.
Coalition.
Please proceed.
Okay, we are co-coordinating RCO with Sassana area.
We are having, becoming difficulty with these four-story buildings.
We're not opposed to the third story.
And the one that we were opposed to the fourth, they have found a way to build the fourth despite our opposition to it.
We feel that these buildings are detrimental to our neighborhood and the fact that so many different designs of them are coming around and affecting the aesthetic beauty of our neighborhood.
and uh we we don't mind a third story she said she needed it for uh her expanding family what
we are opposed to was the fourth because there's not living hoarders up there that is just something
for them to entertain and we are we live in the graduate hospital area the number of housing
that we have that are two-story or numerous and with this uh ability to build a third
uh we cannot stop that we're not trying to it's the fourth story that we would in the future
likely not to consider because uh it's not living quarters it's just for something for aesthetic
beauty uh what they consider aesthetic beauty we're hoping to uh curve the additions of these
for fourth floors because it's killing our ability to keep our seniors and our middle
class people in the area. Many of these buildings are being sold now to developers who are only
seeking to increase the height so that they can add more value to the house, but it's
putting out our middle class and our senior citizens. So as I said, we're not opposed
to the third floor and we can't stop in this particular case the fourth floor because they
are within the right of 38 feet but we'd like for uh you in the future to uh look at these things
more carefully and uh help us to retain our middle class and our senior citizens who live
in our area who are now being pushed out thank you thank you very much for your um for your time
and calling us we appreciate it um mr orphanages you want to respond before i go planning yeah i
mean just a first couple things first again the fourth floor i appreciate um you know i've worked
with miss uh chicago for a long time and uh there's um you know a lot of respect for her and what
she's done in the neighborhood and i understand her concerns um in this case first of all it's
not a developer. First of all, now with the height being reduced, the fourth floor is not before this
board, the issue of the fourth floor. This is not a developer developing this property. It's a
homeowner. She did reference the homeowner's personal needs. And while I wouldn't present
that to the zoning board, it's not a basis for the granting of a variance. It is a reason here.
It's not to increase the value of the property to then flip it, and she's made a sacrifice by maintaining the lower floor-to-ceiling heights at the lower level to create, have the opportunity for this space, this additional story above the fourth floor.
With that being said, and looking at the floor plans again, you know, that staircase is going to come up into the master bedroom and then go on up to the upper floor.
That space is, it's not entertaining space, it's personal space.
It would have been great if the basement could be finished, you know, to maybe to provide that, although it'd be completely below grade and very dark.
this is going to be a very nice light um positive space but it's it's not you know you're generally
not going to bring guests you know traipsing through your bedroom to get to this this area
up here um and then if you look at the existing photographs uh where do I
And then if you look at the existing photographs, where do I have them?
I mean, you can see, I mean, the ground floor is just, it's just not, it's not, it's not very big.
I mean, here's in the back and here's the front.
So there's just, I mean, these buildings are very small.
Again, I lived in two of them in this neighborhood over the years.
And, you know, it's very difficult, particularly as you grow a family.
And I think we want families to stay here in Philadelphia and not to move out as soon as they have kids.
And I think this is a great opportunity.
Again, the fourth floor, she's not extending it back as far as she could, as far as the depth of the structure.
She's not extending the fourth floor forward.
I mean, even by right, she could bring this up another, like I said, what is it? Nine and nine feet, five inches to bring it closer to Cater Street.
And she's not. She's keeping it back away from Cater Street, not extending even as far back as she could to impact if there's any going to be any impact upon the properties to the south of her on the north side of Bainbridge.
So for those reasons, you know, it's, I mean, it's, even though we're not even looking for
a variance for the fourth floor, it's incredibly de minimis.
She's not trying to be greedy here and take every square inch that she could possibly
It's very tastefully done.
I think you would, most would agree, hopefully you will agree that when you look at this
rendering, particularly when you compare it to what might be done, you know, by maybe
some other developer, even if they don't get the variance, but even as a matter of
right just to maximize if they were not to increase the floor to ceiling heights at the
first or second floor and keep them a little lower at the third and fourth floor just to get the
square footage that's going to show up on Zillow or wherever. I think that what we're proposing
here is much more tastefully done than what could be and what the concerns are. I understand the
concerns, but those concerns do not apply in this situation. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning. David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5,
Residential Single-Family Zoning at this location. The appellant's proposal for not
setting the third floor back from the front edge of the property is in keeping with the character
of the block the city planning commission recommends that the board grant a proposed
dimensional variance from the required eight foot setback at the third floor excuse me mr chair
yes sorry there was one more uh hand raised it was sure sure
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes good morning mr chairman my
My name is Brianna Wakefield, B-R-I-O-N-N-A, last name Wakefield, W-A-K-E-F-I-E-L-D.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I work for Council President Kenyatta Johnson, and he does not oppose this property at all.
Thank you very much for your call.
We appreciate your time.
Thank you.
David, did you finish?
Yes, I'm done, unless there are any other questions.
No, no, no.
Planning, planning, planning.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Right.
So MI 2024.
One comment, though, just a point of clarification.
The plan doesn't show that you have to walk through a bedroom to get to that fourth floor.
Just a point of clarification.
You are correct.
Sorry about that.
All right, so MI 2024-004-384-1918 Cater Street, I vote yes with Proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA on November 20th, 2024.
Michael Johnson, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes with Proviso.
We have the vote. Is Cheryl on? Okay. Counsel, you have your votes.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Oh, sure, sure, sure.
My vote is yes with provisional.
Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. May be excused.
You can.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
no hands mr chairman thank you very much okay
No, it's Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks everyone. See everyone at 2 PM. Thank you all.
Thank you.
Everyone, my name is. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's meetings.
I have an announcement first, beginning with the December 4th hearings, any documents or other information that parties wish to submit the ZBA for hearing?
must be submitted through the ZBA's new online upload tool, ZBA Case Document Submission.
Information about how to access and use the submission tool will be included with hearing notices and zoning posters.
Please note that the applicant documents are due five calendar days prior to the hearing.
Documents submitted by any other party should be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the hearing
to allow sufficient time for processing.
In addition, the following information should continue to be submitted through email and not through the uploaded tool.
Request for continuance, withdrawals, reconsiderations, amended refusals, as well as requests by attorneys to enter or withdraw appearance.
If you have any questions about the ZBA case document submission tool, contact RCOZBA at phil.gov.
With me today is our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston, present Mr. Chairman, our board member, Tenetta Graham, present Mr. Chairman, our board member, Michael Johns, our board member, Taya Nguyen, I believe Taya is here.
Oh, good. Thank you very much. Also, here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Ann Haggerty.
These proceedings are being recorded. With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting ZBAexecutiveDirector at phila.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
200 appearance statement call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All questions should be directed to ZBA executive director at phil.gov.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number one, MI-2023-006-059-5604 North 5th Street. That case has been withdrawn.
Number two, MI-2024-002-258-2315 West Cumberland Street. That case has been continued.
Number three, MI 2024-005-135-2401 North 32nd Street. That case has been continued.
Number four, MI 2024-005-385-116 South 11th Street. That case has been continued.
Number 8, MI 2024-005-631-5226 Chester Avenue. That case is continued. And number 15,
MI 2024-005-928-2353-59 East Haggard Street. That case is continued. Attorney moving party.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
This is Jason Hand.
I will once again be a co-host for this session.
I have a hand up from Darwin Bowden.
They've been about to speak.
Hi, Mr. Bowden.
How are you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board?
I'm calling regarding...
Darwin, do me a favor first.
Could you state your name so I can swear you in?
I know what you're calling about.
Yes. Darwin Bovee. That's Darwin, D-A-R-W-I-N. Last name Bovee, B-E-A-U-V-A-I-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Is your case 8301 Tarsdale Avenue?
Yes, it is.
And can you give us status of that case?
Yes. We're requesting a leave to amend. We're looking to update our landscaping plan.
And I think we've done it in such a way that this may not need to.
And I think we've done it in such a way that this may not need to go before the board.
So this, but particularly I am requesting that the board staff look into some sort of nuance because we received approval from the board on November 13th.
However, LNI is still saying that the ZBA has to do something internally in order for our request to be recognized by them.
Mr. Bouvet, this is Hillary. I did receive your email. I will respond. I think there's a little bit of confusion here with what's going on because you're requesting to make changes that would eliminate refusals and have the permit issued by right.
So I think there's I think there's just confusion between the in the amendment process versus the permit issuance process.
So I will I will respond.
So, Darwin, this case is continued. So you're saying to continue this case?
They continue to make a moving party because we did.
Yeah, we did request to leave to amend.
All right. Very good. Very good. Thank you.
MI 2024-005-729-8301-Tarsdale, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
number one mi2024 001 167 1333 south 9th street i vote yes to reconsideration and rehearing
a vote yes to reconsideration and re-hearings uh cheryl gaston my vote is yes to reconsideration
and rehearing no i'm sorry uh my vote is just to reconsideration and rehearing iowen my vote
is yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Number two, MI 2024, 001-511-1601 North 27th Street,
I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing. Barbara Johns, I vote no to reconsideration
and rehearing. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Snedda Graham, my vote is no for reconsideration and rehearing.
Tywin, my vote is no for reconsideration and rehearing.
Number three, MI 2023-007-016-1750 McKean Street, I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing.
My vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Neda Graham, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tywin, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
For four, MI 2024-004-131-2520, North Front Street, TE-117074, I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johnson, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Senator Graham, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Number five, MI 2024-004-350-2821 West Lehigh Avenue.
The vote in this matter has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 29th at 2 p.m.
The record will only remain open for letters from coordinating and affected RCOs, along with a response from the applicant.
Number six, MI 2024-005-511-1128 O'Neill Street.
I vote yes for temporary variance.
That expires 11-21-27.
I vote yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number seven, MI 2023-005-047-209 West Chestnut Hill Avenue.
I vote yes per amended refusal dated 11-3-23.
revised plans five pages stamped by zba on november 20th 24 all people voting after this will have to certify
on November 20th, 24. All people voting after this will have to certify
that they have watched the video. Michael Johns, I certify that I have watched the video
and my vote is the same. Cheryl Gaston, I certify that I watch. Excuse me, Mr. Johns,
can you just put your vote on the record as yes with provisos if your vote is the same?
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes with proviso, sorry. My vote is yes with proviso. Cheryl Gaston,
I certify that I watch the video, and my vote is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, I certify that I watch the video.
My vote is yes with provisos.
Iowan, I certify that I watch the video, and my vote is yes with provisos.
We're going to go to our regular list, and we're going to start with number 13.
MI 2024-005-735, 900-38 East Washington Avenue.
David Guest is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of unanimous support from the Albury Arboretum Neighbors Association,
and Council Member Bass has expressed non-opposition through an email.
Good afternoon.
sir can you see me mr guest good afternoon good afternoon could you state your name please and
spell for the court stenographer yes david guest d-a-v-i-d-g-e-s-t you swear a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client the relationship
to this property yes my client is the aubrey arboretum association which is the duly authorized
operator and manager of the Aubrey Arboretum.
Partipulate to the readings of the refusal and agree with its accuracy.
I do. And have you had all of your
documents in five days prior? Yes, I have.
Please share your screen and start your presentation, sir.
Thank you very much. I will share my screen.
Thank you for hearing us. This is the cover
page of our exhibit book. Once again, my name is David Guest. I'm with Squareside Law and
Consulting here on behalf of Aubrey Arboretum. Here with me today are Sarah Stevenson, the
Executive Director of Aubrey, as well as Erica Spengler of ProSigns, who will be available to
answer questions at the end. I'll do my best to keep this brief. We have submitted all required
exhibits, including the zoning application, refusal, relevant photographs, evidence of
neighbor notices postings and meeting with the coordinating RCO which is Aubrey Arboretum
neighbors as you stated as you say as well we're happy to report that we receive the unanimous
support of the neighbor group for what is a very straightforward signage application for you today
and we also receive non-opposition from the council office so what I'm going to do is I'm
just gonna flip down to a visual for you that's in our exhibits this is what was
submitted to the LNI into the community just to orient you so I'm guessing a
lot of you are familiar with Aubrey Arboretum we're talking about the
portion of the Arboretum on this side the basically east side of Washington
Lane and so you can see it's a very irregularly shaped property that has
been in active use for uh over approximately 100 years um and uh it's a free public garden
and farm that has served northwest philadelphia for that time and so really in essence aubrey is
seeking to replace four existing somewhat dilapidated signs that around their property
with new signage that's designed to be easier to read more welcoming and informative and more
weather resistant. And Aubrey, as part of this process, has developed a close relationship with
near neighbors and has been meeting with the community in detail for well over a year to get
their feedback on the design of the signage and wayfinding at Aubrey. And so because Aubrey, as
I said, is such an old institution, it predates the establishment of zoning districts and is now
located in a residential RSD3 zoning district, which, as you know, has limited signage permissions,
approximately 15 square feet per frontage, which obviously causes an issue for Aubrey here with all
of its multiple frontages. So even with that limitation, the signage that I'll show you
shortly is still very minimal. It's approximately 60 square feet along Chew Avenue for three signs
and approximately 17 square feet along Ardley Avenue for one sign. And you can see the locations
here. So some of you may have been to this property. So we have an entranceway here on
chew avenue and you'll see a couple signs momentarily there one on ardly and one near
the washington lane regional rail station so i'm just going to flip down very straightforward this
So I'm just going to flip down. Very straightforward. This is the existing welcoming signage at one of the entrances on Chu. And then you can see this handsome new proposed signage that's been discussed in detail with the community. And you can see, you know, I'm not going to zoom all the way in, but you see sort of a map of the property and information about how to navigate it.
is the existing
and it's the it's the idea is to welcome people to the to the arboretum and make them feel
comfortable coming on the property because it's open to the public and so to that end these more
simple um uh identification signs uh you can see the existing imagery here you can see the
key plans with the locations on the map and they just say i'll bury arboretum and they specify
which entrance and it was a point um for aubrey in the community to make sure they said free and
open to the public on these signs to make that as clear as possible and then you can see right here
is the small sign designed for the uh washington lane station area so um that's it in a nutshell
i'll just briefly say in accordance with the requirements of the zoning code that aubrey
arboretum is a unique property of over 40 acres with many grade changes irregular borders multiple
entrances and compliance with the code signage requirements would in this case represent an
unnecessary hardship the proposed signage represents the least modification possible of
the relevant code provisions to allow our freedom to improve weight finding at the property to
benefit the community the proposed signage will not increase congestion will not harm neighbors
use of their properties or create any environmental issues to the contrary it will improve the ability
of the public to use the space and is in character with the surrounding neighborhood so that's the
conclusion of my testimony if i if i may just very briefly introduce these uh two witnesses to have
them adopt my testimony sure thank you um so sarah stevenson um the executive director of aubry
are you can you unmute yourself and able to answer my questions i am thank you could you
please state could you please state your name and spell for court senator yes my name is sarah
stevenson s-a-r-a and stevenson is s-t-e-v-e-n-s-o-n where or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you um miss stevenson did you hear my
testimony today yes is it true and correct yes do you adopt it as your own yes thank you and is there
anything you'd like to add regarding this appeal oh we just appreciate everyone's time and you know
we're thrilled to hopefully create more welcoming entrances at the arboretum where we welcome over
60,000 visitors a year, primarily our neighbors. So thank you. Great. Thank you. And the second
witness is Erica Spengler. Ms. Spengler, are you able to unmute yourself?
There we go. Can you hear me? Yes. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Erica Spengler, E-R-I-C-A-S-P-E-N-G-L-E-R.
Tore or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
So Ms. Spengler is a project manager with ProSigns, the company that's put together these materials for the signs.
Ms. Spengler, did you hear my testimony today?
Is it true and correct?
Thank you.
And would you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, members of the board, that concludes our testimony.
Happy to take any questions from you.
Questions from the board.
um i'm sorry did i see four signs i'm sorry maybe i missed one yeah so they're
yeah i'll reshare my screen sorry about that thank you yeah it is a little it was a little
bit confusing i'll show you one second so i'm going to go back up a little bit
it so it's this one sign which has three parts it's larger okay that's one and then there's
two that are this sort of free and open to the oh okay all right yeah and then there's one more
the smaller one yeah that's by the train station all right but you're in essence just replacing
the signage that was already there with just some updated correct and more modern science actually
yep okay thank you yep thank you the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands at this time
do you see him jason no sir no hands
Do you see a hand, Jason?
No, sir. No hands.
All right. Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission, AMY, B-O-Y-D.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends a changing and zoning at this location from residential single-family RSD3 to special-purpose parks and open space SP.
POA, the proposed signage would be allowed under the proposed zoning.
Moreover, the proposed signage is consistent with previous signage.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their request to appearance for accessory sign controls.
MI 2024-005-735-900-38, East Washington.
Lane, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
I win.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thanks very much.
Appreciate your time.
Have a good day.
Number five, MI 2024-005-576, 2619 to 21 East Huntington Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from Old Richmond Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
they'll be coming back in as a panelist
good afternoon
good afternoon counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yeah rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
are affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes yeah could you identify your client in relationship to the property
Yeah, the client is 2100 Hamilton, LLC, who is the owner of the, sorry, Hancock, LLC, which is the owner of the property.
Recipient to the reading of the refusal and agree with the accuracy.
And all of your documents have been in within five days.
Please proceed.
Share your screen.
okay so this is 2619 to 21 east huntington street as you can see from the refusal this
property is owned rsa5 our application proposes a lot line uh adjustment to create four lots
from one existing lot which is 2619 to 21 east huntington street the only refusal we have is
zoning refusal as we are not meeting the 960 square feet that's required for RSA 5 and proposing
960 square feet for each new lot. As you can see from our appeal, what we're providing is actually
in character with the existing lots on the block. This is one of the only intermediate middle
street-to-street lots. It's about 3,040 square feet. It fronts on both Huntington Street and
East Herald Street. And although 960 is what the code provides, all the adjacent,
already previously subdivided lots adjacent to this lot are all less than that 960. So we're
just looking to kind of conform with what's already there so that we can put four single
family homes. That would be by right, which is not part of this application, but this is just
for the lot land relocation.
We're at 760.
They fluctuate on this block between 545, 800, 780, 816, 720, 740.
And these are on the adjacent blocks,
and sorry, directly adjacent parcels
in line with what we're proposing,
which would provide for in-character lots on this property.
I will show, oh, we've got flipped around there.
There you go.
um showing no tax balance this is a copy of the deed
um as you can see on my screen zoom in a little bit this is a intermediate lot all the other lots
as mentioned have been subdivided or not as large and wide as this one is and so again we're just
providing something that's in character with the adjacent properties and this is the only vacant
lot on the block. This is an existing warehouse structure. Again, same thing. Zoning posters
on the property.
Part of the code that requires the 960. As mentioned, we did a
requires the 960. As mentioned, we did a in-person community meeting on November 13th at 7 p.m.
I think there was three people from the actual near neighbor block that were there and they
took a position of non-opposition to and support one opposed. There's a very low turnout for this
meeting um but they issued us a letter of non-opposition and then um as you can see
non-opposition from old richmond civic association which was the coordinating rco
and as such non-opposition from councilman squilla's office as well i did include um
the lot lane relocation plan in the hearing package just so that the board could see
um what we're proposing as mentioned just four lots um which will contain single family homes
um so no changes to any of that and again they're meeting the 16 feet in width which is in character
of the code but the depth um it's just 47 evenly spread across so almost 50 but 47 5 um spread
across um have the lot line information and then just this isn't part of this application but we
did provide for the community kind of just an idea of what we would be proposing um you know
just in my experience it's important to show kind of an idea of what we would be proposing when
you're getting community groups to agree upon a subdivision of anything because they want to know
what might be there um this has not been submitted to the city or anything but they would be single
family homes that would meet all the dimensional requirements. And as mentioned, and as this board
as well, where if there was anything that would need additional variances, we'd be right back in
front of the community and right back in front of the board. But just so you have a sense of what
we did show the community, single family homes. And again, we had no opposition to this application.
So my client is not here today. He is in the hospital with his wife. So I had let Hillary know that I wasn't sure if I needed any kind of documentation or if the board would allow me as an officer of the court to have my testimony included.
The officer of the court will gladly accept your testimony.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, just what.
okay okay uh what what sizes i couldn't tell from the uh from the uh plant but uh
about what size lots are these going to be 760. 760 each yes oh okay all right yeah 16 by 47 and a
half gotcha okay thank you yeah on the on the elevation it it it mentions an alley between two
of the units what is what is that yeah again these are um just proposed yeah i was trying to figure
out why but why they would be enough see on the right the elevation my understanding is for egress
purposes because there's no alleyway that runs in the middle of this block so for egress purposes
um that was just included okay so that would be a shared between the two lots that are well
shared between all the comment would be common access for all the properties i believe just for
the east herald street side um okay okay because there's no alleyway that runs to the rear of the
property. And obviously these will be single family homes. So there'll be front doors and
egress through the front of the property as well. Right. Right. That just, that, unless it's a shared
alley that I guess the width of the units become really narrow, right? Yes. As opposed to 16 feet
wide. Correct. These properties are all 16 feet in width. So that's typically what's permitted
in RSA 5 by rent. It's just the depth of these properties is shorter to meet the required 960.
Right. I'm just trying to figure out why the alley. But that doesn't show in your subdivision
plan. Correct. These are just proposed zoning plans, but they're not submitted to the city
because we wanted to deal with the lot line relocation first. But as you can see, this is
the stamped a lot line relocation plan and this just shows the division of the lots oh so this
was a previous alley is that because i'm seeing that on here too you know what i mean it looks
yeah it looks like it was a previous three-foot alleyway okay
but because it's all the properties all owned by one entity you can strike it it's yours
right exactly right okay that's exactly right all right yeah thanks
Right. Exactly. Right. That's exactly right. All right. Yeah. Thanks. That was it. Any other questions from the board?
Yes. Ms. Pritzker, can you confirm the depth of each of the new lots? It's really tiny, so I can't.
Yeah. Yeah. Is this better? It's a little bit. It looks like it's 47.
47 and a half okay 47 and a half and so i get i understand the the subdivision is there
a reason that this was subdivided into four lots instead of two um it would just be 32
feet wide by 47 it's just for single family homes and or be 16 by 114
team? I mean, I just think if you look at the makeup of the block, most of the lots are 700
square feet, 800 square feet. They're not this large. So it just would be kind of out of character
for what's already there and for it's only vacant lot on the block as well. So for new construction,
it would just be more out of character than providing what's in character now, which is
we're just trying to comply with what's already there in the middle of the block. I did have that
discussion as well if it was a corner i think maybe it would be a little bit more um would look
a little bit more normal if the lots were differently shaped but for the middle of a block
like this kind of wanted to fit in character with everything else um and i don't know if when i went
through the list before if i did it i know i talk fast so i didn't know if i went through that too
quickly but just wanted to provide you as well with the square footages of the adjacent lots
just so that you can see it's in character
or is in character with what is there as well.
Okay, thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands at this time, sir.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no changing zoning
at this location from the existing single-family RSA-5. The lot areas resulting from the proposed
lot line adjustment would be 760 square feet. This is in keeping with other properties in the
block base, which have sizes of approximately 540 to 890 square feet. The Planning Commission
recommends that the Board grant the variance for minimum lot area. Thank you. MI 2024-005-576-269
19 to 21 East Huntington Street, I vote yes.
Michael Jones, my vote is yes.
Carol Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Iowa, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Number six, MI 2024-005-579-9745R, East Roosevelt Boulevard.
David Tusty is the attorney for the owner.
There's a letter of support from the Northeast Community Civic Association.
There's a letter of non-oppositions from the council member's school.
Chad, they will be coming back in as a panel.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Council, could you please state your name as spelled for the courts?
David Shuddy, spelled T-S-H-U-D-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
My client is Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, and it is the owner of the property.
Participulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
And has all your paperwork been in five days prior?
Yes, and it was updated yesterday to include the support letter from the RCO and to include photographs that were requested by the board council.
Thank you very much. Please proceed with your presentation.
Good afternoon. I'm David Schutte with Chapman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP. We represent Walmart Real Estate Business Trust.
Just with me is Kelly Halstead. She is a lead counsel in Walmart's legal department.
We were before you in, I mean, in August on this same property.
And due to an administrative oversight, at that time, a variance was granted to allow for the auto care facility to be there.
But due to administrative oversight, we had neglected back in January when we first filed the application to include a request to also have the tire sales used.
The tire sales use permitted as well, which is in your ordinance, as I believe, auto equipment sales.
And so similarly, this property is already approved with a 147,000 square foot Walmart store with an auto care center that, again, was approved by you at the last meeting.
I just, since we're probably familiar with a lot of this, I'm just going to scroll down to share my screen if I can here and figure out how to do that.
And green button at the bottom.
Yep, I got that.
And that's right.
Yep, share.
Can you see it?
Okay. I'm just going to scroll down to a couple of photographs that we included in the application showing the location of the tire sales service area.
And the tire sales is generally done online where a customer will order tires online or tires in the store, and then they will be delivered to the store at a later time.
This is the display area within the store.
And then the tires, after they're ordered either from the store or online or then, that's showing somebody ordering tires, and then are then stored in the auto care area for pickup by the customer or for delivery by Walmart.
And the reason for this request is we need to obtain a business license permit, a tire sales business license permit from the city.
This property is located within the CA1 zoning district, but it's also located within the Far Northeast Overlay District.
While auto equipment sales is permitted in the CA1 zoning district as a special exception, it is not permitted in the Far Northeast Overlay District.
However, this property is part of a larger shopping center area that not all of it is located within the far northeast overlay district.
And included within the submission package, we included the special exception that was granted to, I believe, an auto zone nearby within the same shopping center that was granted a special exception for similar use.
And it is consistent with the commercial zoning area.
And it's also bounded to the north by an industrial district.
Counsel, you do no tire work there? You just sell tires?
Just the tire work that would be done is is as part of the auto care facility that has been that was approved by the board in August.
OK. OK. Yeah. That would be the only tire work that would be done.
And customers are not permitted to replace their tires in the parking lot or anything like that.
Rather, they pick up the tires and either take them to a different shop or replace them at home.
Do you want to bring your client on?
I will.
Kelly, are you there?
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Kelly Halstead, K-E-L-L-Y, Halstead, H-A-L-S-T-E-A-D.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Proceed, counsel.
Kelly, did you hear the presentation that I made to the board this afternoon?
I did.
Was everything that I said true and accurate and correct?
And would you adopt what I presented to the board as your testimony?
Do you have anything in addition to add?
I have no further questions.
Just from the board.
So let me make sure I understand this again.
Your customers order their tires either online or there at the Walmart.
Correct.
And then they pick them up and take them elsewhere to have them.
They either take them elsewhere to have them installed or they or they're put on the car at the.
uh installed or they or they're uh put on the car at the auto care facility at the walmart itself
which was approved by the board in august oh okay so according to the previous variant then yes
and put the tires on the car correct in the auto care center correct yes all right sorry for any
confusion on that all right questions questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr chair since your comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission
amy board with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends a changing and
zoning at this location from the existing split zoning, commercial auto-oriented CA1
and the light industrial I1 to commercial auto-oriented CA2. Under the recommended zoning,
the proposed use would be allowed by Wright. Planning Commission recommends that the board
grant their experience for equipment and sales, equipment and supplies, sales, and rental.
Thank you. MI 2024-005-579-9745-R, East Roosevelt Boulevard, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Okay. Number seven, MI 2024-005-586, 800 North 23rd Street. Henry Clinton is the attorney. There's a letter of unanimous support from the Fairmount Civic Association. An applicant also has a petition signed by 130 people.
Chair, they will be rejoining as a panel.
That's short.
yes mr chairman mr clinton could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer
sure my name is henry clinton h-e-n-r-y clinton c-l-i-n-t-o-n you swear a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do um could you identify your client a relationship
their property? Sure. My client is Brandy Davis, B-R-A-N-D-I Davis, D-A-V-I-S. She's the principal
of PlaySchool, Inc. You stipulate to the reading of the referral and agree with its accuracy.
I do. Please start your presentation, sir.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman?
It is.
All right.
Good afternoon again.
My name is Henry Clinton.
I'm here on behalf of the owner, Brandy Davis.
This is my presentation package containing Exhibits A1 through A10.
We are requesting a special exception for a child care center at the corner 23rd and
Brown.
and Ms. Brandy Davis is the owner
and also she's one of the two teachers at the school.
This is the refusal and as you correctly stated
at the outset, Mr. Chairman,
this is a referral, not a refusal.
So the threshold that we have to meet
is far less for approval for a referral
than is for a refusal.
And we were proposing a child care center
on the second floor of an existing structure
and no change to the previously approved club on the first floor.
So the child care center or daycare center for preschoolers is on the second floor of the Ukrainian club.
It's actually the Ukrainian League of Philadelphia.
It's been there for many decades.
We had a very well attended community meeting where the vote was 62 to 0 in favor of Miss Davis's daycare.
The outline of what was discussed at the meeting, basically we're right across the street from elementary school, which I'll show you aerial photographs of.
The existing structures on the second floor of the Ukrainian club, you can easily accommodate the less than 16 children, ages three to five, that are there Monday through Friday, nine to five.
These are the signatures of the neighbors that you mentioned at the outset, Mr. Chairman.
in support of this use.
Some photographs to give you a perspective.
So this is the Ukrainian League of Philadelphia Club.
They occupy the first floor and some of the second floor,
they occupy the first floor and some of the second floor but mainly the first floor
but mainly the first floor.
across the street is an elementary school and a lot of frankly a lot of the graduates of the
Across.
preschool end up attending the school directly across the street
another perspective one of the questions we got at the meeting was about traffic well
Ms. Davis typically meets the children and the parents down right at the corner, not in the Eastern State Penitentiary, but outside the Eastern State Penitentiary.
There's a little playground on the northwest end, and that's where the children usually are dropped off.
And then Ms. Davis and the other teacher walk across the street down in front of the elementary school up into their second floor of the daycare.
Some interior photographs of the daycare.
I really should call it child care. This is the entrance and there's notice of our posters.
And then we have a floor plan. So I'll start on the right hand side. This is the first floor where
the Ukrainian League club is located to enter our facility on the second floor, come through the
side door, walk up the switchback steps and enter. And this is the area of the classroom.
There's bathrooms, a small area here to congregate, and also a closet.
The remaining documents are what you would typically see in an application such as this.
Project information form, our tax clearance.
When we asked for the tax clearance, it came up as a $500 balance, but this balance is for 2025.
So that's why we attached this document as well as this document,
indicating that we've paid for 2024.
Why it appears as an outstanding debt, I really don't know.
This indicates also that we're paid up to date as of today
and as of the end of December.
Zoning map, I didn't say at the outset, but this property is owned CMX1.
This is a lease that's in place between my client, which is PlaySchool, Inc.
You really can't say it, but it's all one word, PlaySchool, Inc.,
And the Ukrainian Lake of Philadelphia, we also have an addendum to the lease indicating that as of February of this year, it's been renewed for a two-year period.
Notice letter to the community, we mailed out 224 pieces of mail.
As I said, the meeting was well attended.
So I outlined the hours of operation, 9 to 5.
There's nothing on the weekend. Indicated less than 16 children, the ages between three and five, two teachers.
There's regular inspections by the Department of Human Services.
And with that, I would like to conclude my testimony, ask my client to unmute herself, and also just point out to the board again, this is a referral, not a refusal.
We're not altering the essential character of the neighborhood.
We're right across the street from elementary school, which is advantageous for parents
dropping off children either at our daycare or across the street, and the community group
even mentioned that in their letter of support.
We are in harmony with the code.
It's a good use for the neighborhood.
Just an outstanding turnout at the meeting.
People are very much in support of Ms. Davis, what she does, and how she goes about her
business.
And with that, I'd ask my client, Ms. Davis, can you unmute yourself by hitting the button?
I know she's on the call.
Brandy.
What is the name again?
Brandy Davis, D-A-B-I-S.
Hi, can you hear me?
I can.
Again, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Brandy Davis, B-R-A-N-D-I-D-A-V-I-S.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Clinton.
Ms. Davis, were you on the call when I presented your project, your application to the board?
And one thing I forgot to mention, you do have a BS in child development and family studies from Ohio State?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Henry, is this an ongoing operation?
And why were you referred?
We were referred because it's a CMX1 zoning district and child care centers not permitted only by special.
only by special how long has this been in existence well it's as a long history uh the
How long has this been in existence?
well it's that's a
child care center has been in existence for over 10 years my client got involved and purchased the
child care center in 2021 and unbeknownst to the landlord as well as her when she purchased it
the zoning was never properly in place and so thank you thank you questions from the board
not questions but comment i've seen you know this is in my neighborhood it's actually
right across from the uh uh bus stop that i use so um i've seen you know the children there and
uh you know it's been around for a while uh i didn't know about the zoning issue or anything
But it is, it has been there for a while.
And it looks like, you know, I see the children sometimes when they're outside or whatever.
I think they're being taken someplace.
They're not just out or whatever.
And it appears to be a very well run and, you know, integral part of the neighborhood.
So that's just my comments and my views from what I've seen.
Thank you.
Anyone else from the board?
Comments are from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Just briefly, Mr. Clinton, should, if the board grants, should they include a proviso indicating that this use is limited to the second floor only because the prior use is remaining?
Correct.
thank you thank you mr emerson questions or comments from the virtual audience
um yes chair i have a hand up from conlon crossley i have allowed them to speak
how could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
uh good afternoon chair conlon c-o-n-l-a-n crosley c-r-o-s-l-e-y you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do please proceed um thank you
for uh giving me a moment to speak chair um at first i'd like to uh the councilman has a position
of non-opposition for this okay thank you i'd also like to include uh if i may i'm a near neighbor
and i'm okay with this as well thank you very much god we appreciate that thank you thank you
Okay. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I have a Jamie Sutton. I've allowed them to speak.
Could you please state your name? It's spelled for the stenographer.
My name is Jamie Sutton, J-A-I-M-E-S-U-T-T-O-N.
Where or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
uh so my name is jamie sutton like i mentioned and my son my older son went to uh play school
and brandy has been such an incredible teacher she has changed our lives the lives of our son
and our daughter i'm hoping we'll be able to go there in the very near future when she
becomes the right age to join um i'm also a very close neighbor i'm just one block away
and I'm also a local business owner in the Fairmount neighborhood and I think having play
school continue to be a another small business in the neighborhood is vital and she's done such a
wonderful job I only know everyone who has sent their children to her has loved her and the
teachers that she also works for and we will continue to utilize her services and her play
school as long as she is allowed to continue so just wanted to put that out there that everyone
I know in the surrounding area that has used her services has been very happy with her setup and
where she's at. Thank you very much for taking the time to calls. Anyone else in a virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a Feliz Ley. I've allowed them to speak.
Could you please state your name? It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Absolutely. My name is Feliz Ley. It's spelled F-I-L-I-Z-L-E-I-G-H.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Are you a neighbor?
I am. Yes.
Okay. So are you in favor of this?
Absolutely.
Thank you very much for being in favor.
Is there anything you could offer that we haven't already heard?
I would like to just add that I do have a student who's currently involved in this child care center.
So I would just like to echo the support of this wonderful school in Fairmount and also just add that it.
this wonderful school in Fairmount, and also just add that it does fill a void in the community,
and I'm in support of this wonderful asset to our community, and that's all for me.
All right. Well, thank you very much for calling. We appreciate you taking the time. Is there anyone else, Jason?
Yes, George Holden. I've allowed them to speak.
Jason, how many more hands do you have?
two more hands okay thank you please please proceed sir sir state your name and spell for
the court stenographer uh hello my name is george that's spelled g-e-o-r-g-e-o-l-d-e-n
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do or sir are you a neighbor yes i am are you in favor of this project
Yes, I am.
Is there anything that you could offer for us that we haven't already heard?
I would just like to add, I'd like to support the comments from the previous people.
I would like to add that my son attended this school from the age of three to five,
and the benefit to him was quite extraordinary.
And he did then progress to the elementary school across the street and is succeeding there.
And benefits greatly from the ongoing community that this play school provides.
It is beyond the classroom, and it is exceptional.
Thank you very much for taking the time.
next hand please yes chair i have a kathleen conlin i've allowed them to speak
why could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
kathleen kathleen kathleen kathleen kathleen he's a mutant way to be sworn in
could you state your name please yes hello my name is kathleen
all right state your name is spelled for the course stenographer
i'm so sorry i think i'm having audio trouble okay all right are you in favor of the project
i am absolutely in favor of the project thank you thank you so much for calling we appreciate it
and next hand jason okay last hand is from a jennifer treyer i have allowed them to speak
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
jennifer
Jason, did we share?
I missed. They're still there. I will allow them to speak, but they may be having technical difficulties. Hold on a moment.
Jennifer Trier, are you available to speak?
They may be having technical difficulties.
Okay. All right. Good. All right. Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing commercial mixed use CMX-1.
The appellant had demonstrated that the forroads used would not cause detrimental impacts beyond what would reasonably be expected.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed special exemption for child care center.
MI 2024-005-586-800 North 23rd Street. I vote yes. Proviso, use limited to second floor.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Oops, Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Have a great day, everybody.
Thank you.
So number nine, MI 2024-005-634-16 South 51st Street.
Alan Nocklinson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Walnut Hill Community Association
and a letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
Okay, they will be rejoining
as a panelist for all of a sudden.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Nockmson.
Good afternoon.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonographer?
Yes, Alan Nockamson. A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, their relationship to this property?
Could you identify your client and their relationship to this property?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
My client is Hewitt Realty, LLC, the owner of the property.
And in the virtual audience is its member, Kamara Chumet.
Do you swear or do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
And if all of your paperwork and agenda has been in five days prior,
Please proceed, sir, and share your screen.
All right. Oh, wrong one. Get the right one up.
All right. So I'm here to present 16 South 51st Street.
What we're trying to do here is make this into visitor accommodations.
It's currently a two-family dwelling. It's an RM1 property.
What we would ask that if the board feels so inclined to grant this variance,
that there would be a proviso stating two units, maximum two units, because there's two units in
this proposed visitor accommodation dwelling. So during our presentation, we'll first review
the notice of refusal, then a letter of support from the Walnut Hill Community Association and
Coordinating RCO. The members of the community in attendance voted unanimously in support of this
matter. We also have even another letter from another RCO in support. Given my client's
longstanding history of good use of this property as a two-family dwelling and that she's a
commercial operator as well in this community, we would ask that the board grant a five-year
temporary variance, giving her longstanding reputation and community. We also have a petition
that's pretty extensive as well. And we'll review that as well. My client tried to use this for
long-term accommodations and was very unsuccessful finding good tenants that would stay. And it's not
uncommon to have Airbnbs here. And we'll show you some of the Airbnb listings nearby. We're also
near public transportation, which is very helpful in terms of Airbnb use.
We do have a rental license for the two unit dwelling just to show that my client always tries to do things the right way,
including obviously seeking the board's approval to allow her to use it for Airbnb or visitor accommodations.
Maps to the area. Again, this is an RM1 property.
Given the size, the lot, we can actually have four units here.
My client does not want to go through a massive construction project, and we're just asking to allow her to have short-term accommodations for the two units.
Photographs of the property in the surrounding area.
In her photographs, you'll see that she takes very good care of the property inside and out.
Her plans and drawings, just simple floor plans.
There's an entrance for each of the units, an exterior entrance, so that's a good use of the property.
Our RCO meeting notice, again, we had a well-attended meeting.
Everyone who attended the meeting as a community member voted in support of this project.
Our applications for appeal that we filed to the ZBA, our deed to the property, showing that Kamara is the owner of the property and her personal name.
And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance, showing that she's in good standing with regards to real estate taxes.
Notice of refusal.
So again, this is an RM1 property.
So four units is technically allowed as a right, but currently this is a two-family dwelling.
We met with the community.
Again, as you can see, 10 people from the community voted in favor, zero against, and then their zoning board voted three to one in favor as well.
It was a very well-attended meeting.
And then in addition to coordinating RCO writing a letter of support, the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council also independently wrote a letter of support for this project.
And then my client did an extensive petition of surrounding properties.
Here she is, you know, on the corner of 51st and Ludlow, but you can see all these properties nearby within essentially a one-block radius signed letters in support of this proposed visitor accommodation use.
And then this is the signatures along with their information.
And then nearby Airbnb listings. So it's not out of character to have Airbnb listings nearby. Here we are, corner 51st and well, and there's probably almost a dozen instances within a two block radius of similar Airbnb use.
And then nearby Airbnb listings, so it's not out of character.
And then rental license, again, just to show that my client is doing everything the right way, even though it's an RM1 property, you still need to get a rental license, and she has an active one.
And then maps of the area, again, we are an RM1 property, given the size of a lot, which is 1,507 square feet.
We could technically have four residential units.
We just want to keep the two residential units that are there.
We just want them as short-term accommodations.
And then, again, when we're near Commercial Corridor 2 on Market Street, near Subway Station, as well as multiple bus lines as well.
Photographs of the property. Here's the entrance to one of the, for the upper level unit.
And then here's the entrance to the lower level unit. Again, everything above grade.
are orange notice posters on each public street showing that we properly posted the property for
today's hearing. 51st Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property,
Ludlow to the right of the property, and to the left of the property. And my client really takes
great pride in keeping the property in nice condition. So unit number one is a four-bedroom,
three bath and unit, which is really nice.
And then unit number two is just a studio.
And then we did simple floor plans to kind of, again, they're not perfect.
and not to scale but we try to like help you understand you know what you're seeing here from
the pictures so again not architects here we try our best though um you saw that that side door
that was um on Ludlow um this is you know that side door you have a kitchen a living room and
a bedroom and they have a bathroom you have trash stored here um you know then you flow 51st street
upper steps. The first floor, again, open floor plan, living room, dining room, kitchen, go up a
flight of steps. There's three bedrooms on this floor, and then the third floor would be another
bedroom. Then we met with the community on October 15th at 7 p.m. We emailed what we mailed out
to the community, to the coordinating RCOs, RCO and relevant parties, we mailed that notice to
148 addresses. This is the list of addresses. This is proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of a corporate client,
along with the notice of refusal on the project information form,
deeds of property, showing that Hewitt Realty LLC is the owner of the property,
and then finally certificate of tax clearance showing that they owe no real estate taxes to
the city of philadelphia as it pertains to this property uh with that being said i'll share my
screen we can always go back to it i would ask uh that camara uh virtually raised her hand
and be sworn in and i'll have a few questions for her
they've been allowed to speak
okay do you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
kamara machu k-a-m-a-r-a-m-e-h-c-h-u
they're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed council oh yeah kamara you heard everything i had to state today about
or is there any matter yes is it true and correct yes and do you adopt as your own testimony yes
thank you mr knockamson how long has she had the property and been running it in this way
oh she hasn't she's owned okay since 2018 um and it's headlong she's owned it and run it as a two
unit dwelling for long-term accommodations she's looking to make it for short-term accommodations
and we're hoping to have a five-year temporary variance given her long-standing good use of
the property as well as her being a commercial operator that's well known in the community
for a different property questions or comments from the board question
for a different property questions or comments from the board question the the uh rco meeting
what was the outcome again uh it was 10 people the 10 community members that voted was 10-0 in favor
okay and do you had what about the uh directly adjacent neighbors were they present um i have to
see i have to see like the petition um uh i think let me let's just go over the petition
let's see why don't you show the but why don't you put the map up with the petition
yeah let's just look at the petition and see what we have here
was there council support or no opposition
we have not received anything from council with regards to this matter
so it looks like our it may not be next door but two doors down on 51st street and right behind us
on ludlow but you can see we try to stay within a one block radius of the property that means a
little bit scattered here, but for the most part here, you have a ton of support.
Question, is this your client's first time doing Airbnbs?
I do believe she may have another operation, but I would ask, Kamara, do you have any other
Airbnb properties in the city of Philadelphia? No, I have done it before the pandemic. So before
this was required as far as getting a license and everything like that at another property.
So just wondering why you feel like five years, the goal for the five years,
instead of a little bit less, if you haven't had experience writing this out as an Airbnb yet.
Well, the reason why I'm asking for it, board member Graham, the reason why I'm asking for it
is typically I know this board's more inclined to grant three years. It's a very expensive process
and time-consuming process.
And again, given the support that she received
from the community
and her longstanding relationship within the community,
I would ask that the board consider granting
a greater variance or temporary variance of five years.
If the board, again, feels that it's more appropriate
to do the more typical three-year temporary variance,
we would obviously appreciate that as well.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Are the adjacent properties, are they multifamily or single family dwellings?
Kamara, can you answer?
There are in one.
I don't know how they're being used.
I know how we're being used.
So they're all RM1?
If you go, oops, the other way.
We're RM1.
we're also like a half a block away from market street where you see a lot of cmx two and a half
and such so we're at the corner of low low and 51st gotcha okay questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emerson um just briefly um mr knockerson and if you mentioned this before i
apologize that i missed it so it's my understanding this is currently a two-unit dwelling and the
the request is to change the use for both of the units to visitor accommodations?
That is correct.
And given some of the issues we've had with permitting after the board has granted variances,
I think it would be helpful to show L&I and confirm that both of those units are being used as visitor accommodations.
That's why I'm asking for proviso for both units.
I mean, it is my understanding still that we shouldn't need to do that.
But I mean, I know what I know you've you've been you've been dealing with, Mr.
Chair, in this in this particular case, if you would if you would like to, you can add a proviso just indicating, you know, use of you supplies to both both existing dwelling units.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no further hands mr chair unique commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in
zoning at this location from the existing residential multifamily rm1 the appellant
has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances that
would prevent the property from being used in conformance of the zoning code the planning
Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for visitor accommodation.
MI 2024-005-634-16 South 51st Street.
MI 2024-005-634-6346
I vote yes.
Temporary variance expires 11-21-28.
Also, use applies to both properties.
Both units.
Both units, Mr. Chair.
Both units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisor.
Sheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Iowan, my vote is yes with provisos.
Number 10, MI 2024-005642-4401 Holden Street.
Meredith Trego is the attorney.
Letter from Pautens, Saunders, RCO, describing no position indicated.
Councilmember Gauthier has taken a position of support.
Michael Johns will recuse himself for this particular case.
all right council could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer yes
good afternoon chairman and members of the board my name is meredith trego that's t-r-e-g-o
with ballard spar at 1735 market street 51st floor i'm here with my colleague matthew mclure
M-C-C-L-U-R-E as well.
Fair or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in the relationship to the property?
We are here on behalf of West Park Community Partners, who is the applicant for the project
at 4401 Holden Street.
They have a pre-development agreement and option to lease with the Philadelphia Housing
Authority, who currently owns the property.
Could you relate to the reading of the refusals and agree with their accuracy?
I do. Proceed. Thank you. Like I said, my name is Meredith Trego from Ballard's Bar here with my colleague, Matt McClure. We're here on behalf of the West Park Community Partners, the applicant for the project at 4401 Holden Street.
This is a public-private partnership between West Park Community Partners, which consists of LMXD and M-squared, along with PHA, and involves significant coordination with the City of Philadelphia.
Could you start sharing your screen, please?
I'm sorry.
That's okay.
Excuse me, could Matt McClure be elevated to a panelist as well?
Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen?
We can.
Great. Thank you.
This is a public-private partnership between West Park Community Partners and PHA.
It involves significant coordination with the City of Philadelphia.
And the project that we're talking about today will be one of the largest mixed-income communities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania once complete.
I'm also here with our project team, including Drew Kometz, our architect with Erty McHenry Architects, and our engineer, Dan Slavin, with Langen Engineers.
We have submitted all of our required exhibits, including our proof of neighbor notices, tax clearance certifications, and we've also included a letter from the West Palton Saunders Park RCO, and we understand that the council person's office has provided a letter of support to the board as well.
um we're here today with a request for a minor variance for placement of the property's proposed
new buildings which will be set back from the market street street line the transit oriented
development overlay which we are in requires all new buildings to be located at the street line
at ground level of the primary street frontage and in this case due to circumstances that we'll
discuss, Market Street was selected by the Planning Commission as the primary street frontage.
And as we will show, due to the very limited amount of frontage on Market Street, it would
be physically impossible to locate all of the buildings proposed at this Market Street
street line.
And primarily, as we'll get into, that's due to the elevated Market Frankfurt line, which
emerges from underground just east or just at the eastern edge of our property.
and runs westward along the southern edge of our property
until the very, almost the very western border
and therefore divides our site from Market Street almost in its entirety.
So this is a case where we have a true hardship related to the land,
But it is important to note that the project still aims to activate this limited Market Street street frontage that does exist.
but it is important to note that the project still aims to activate this limited market.
And as we'll explain, and we are striving to still meet the spirit of the transit-oriented development overlay.
Just going through a little bit about the project.
The West Park project will transform a 12-acre vacant public housing campus in West Philadelphia into a thriving 1,000-unit mixed-income community.
It will provide critical affordable housing and social infrastructure.
We are going to be reintroducing a street grid to this parcel and providing a direct
connection to the 46th Street SEPTA station at Market Street, as well as incorporating
four acres of new public open space.
More than 50% of the units will be reserved as affordable housing, which is a significant
percentage at this location for this project.
We provide this information as both background to the project and also to emphasize the importance of this development to the city.
We want to note this project is located in the CMX4 zoning district outlined in purple.
Here is the entire property and that as well as the TOD overlay.
And that's the overlay, as I mentioned, that requires that all new buildings be constructed at the street line.
And so we do want to I want to briefly just show. So this red outline looking at a existing site plan for the for the property that shows the existing street network.
So what's in yellow here is the existing frontage along Market Street, which is only 115 feet of this entire 14 acre parcel.
These streets right here, Busty Street and Holding Street, they technically exist today,
but they've been approved by city council ordinance to be stricken as part of the redevelopment of this site.
So that's the reason that Market Street was chosen as the primary street frontage by the Planning Commission,
because ultimately these streets that exist today will not be there as the project gets constructed.
So these streets, again, showing here in this aerial image, these will go away.
and a new street grid will be reintroduced.
Part of that street grid is shown here
in this aerial rendering of the proposed project.
But because those will not be public streets
until the project is completed construction,
they will be dedicated after completion of construction.
For right now, the only public street
that fronts on the property
is this very limited market street frontage.
So that's the reason we have this very, you know, unique condition here as it relates to our public street frontage and the reason why we can't comply with this requirement of the code.
um and so um as i mentioned the you know it's really the market frankfurt line that um comes
out of the ground right here you can see where my cursor is on this uh aerial proposed site plan
um comes out of the ground here at the eastern edge rises along the southern boundary of our
parcel and then um veers into market street just at the edge of our parcel um and so uh you know
this is phase one. So we're here today really talking about phase one is this aspect of the
application. We have five new buildings. Building A is a mid-rise building. That's new. Other new
buildings include C1, C2, C3, and C4. And those are more of a row home type structure. And then
an existing building B, which is an existing high-rise on the site. And phase two will come
at a later date that will be part of a future application. We want to note that with phase two,
we will also be extending the street grid into phase two, and we'll provide a northern connection
to Lancaster Avenue to the north. And so while we cannot physically locate all five new buildings,
Building A and Buildings C1 through 4, at this very limited Market Street frontage,
what we have done is tried to essentially extend Market Street into the site. And that involves
the construction of a new ADA accessible, very heavily landscaped and beautified path from
Market Street. We're also going to be opening up the, there's a retaining wall on Market Street
that currently exists. We're going to be opening that up as much as we physically can to increase
kind of the site lines into the property. And then, like I said, provide that ADA pedestrian
and connection from Market Street into the site, which allows both residents to access Market
Street directly, as well as the public to access the public amenities that will be part of the
West Park development as well. Additionally, the project adds new retail at the ground level of
Additionally, the project adds new retail at the ground level of Building A, which is located right here. So the retail will be 2,000 square feet of retail at this southernmost portion of Building A. So really trying to draw, you know, the public into the site as much as we can and provide that direct connection.
built.
As you will hear from our witnesses, the Market Street frontage that does exist along this edge is only 115 feet, but that 115 feet of frontage is still very close to the elevated Market Frankfurt line because it's only kind of just starting to veer off of the property and into the right-of-way at that point, so it sits still very close to our parcel line.
um and so as such given the condition of that market frankfurt line um and its location and
proximity to our frontage it would um simply be impossible to locate all of our new buildings
at the street line as required by the code um but as i mentioned we do have this very important goal
to connect the project to market street um so we are doing everything we can to facilitate
that connection and that beautification of this Marcus Street frontage.
And additionally, we'll note that once the new streets that will be constructed as part
of the internal portion of the site are dedicated back to the city and become public streets,
the majority of our buildings will front at the street line on a public street.
We want to just note for the record that the proposed project satisfies the criteria for
of variance, because there are unique physical circumstances to the property, that if we
were to develop in strict conformity to the zoning code would create an unnecessary hardship.
We know that there's no detriment to public health, safety, and welfare, and that the
request for relief represents the least minimum variance.
If we can confirm that there are no parties on the line in opposition, we're happy to
do an offer of proof if that's the board's desire, or we can put on our full case with
our witnesses, whichever the board prefers. We'll have to see who's on the line when we get to that
point, okay? So if you have to, you can go back and put on additional witnesses. Okay. And I just
want to note for the record that we are not aware of anybody seeking party status in this case
at this time.
Thank you.
In that case,
we'll do an offer of proof
and if somebody comes forward,
then we would like to reserve
our ability to go back
and present our witnesses.
So I would like to elevate
Mr. Daniel Slavin,
our engineer with Langan Engineering
as a panelist.
Counsel, could you just go over
one more thing?
This is for the erection
of five buildings.
Am I right in saying that?
Correct.
Could you show them?
Oh, absolutely.
let me walk through. So the new buildings, and these are some existing site conditions.
So just to jump through, as you can see, there's a retaining wall, very close structure. So again,
another rendered site plan. And here's the existing three towers that are on the entire site.
This is the proposed building B. So this is what will be closest to Market Street.
And the retail will be located here at the ground level.
This is the existing tower that's located within the phase one boundary that will be reclad and renovated on the inside as well.
And the entrance will actually move to the southern portion of the site so that when the new streets are dedicated, the entrance to that existing building will now be located right on a public street after dedication.
And then these are the townhome-type buildings that I discussed, although they are still on one lot, so considered multifamily.
Hey, Meredith, just for the record, confirm that all the drawings that you're showing are on Exhibit 10.
Yes. Thank you, Matt.
Matt, just for curiosity, could you state your name and put it on record, and I'll swear you in?
Sure, Mr. Ricken. Matthew McClure, MCC LURE, Ballard-Spar, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, told you it's nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Please proceed, Meredith.
Yes, as Matt said, all of the renderings and images I'm showing are part of Exhibit 10 of our exhibit package.
And just out of curiosity, the vacant buildings, is that the former 401 North Bus Day?
is that was that called 401 4401 yeah okay well so this is 44 old holden street busty street does
come into this site uh or formerly it did um but that that's one of the streets that will be
stricken all right thank you want to pull your witness great i'd like to uh call daniel slavin
Great. Thank you all. I'd like to call Daniel Slavin with Langen Engineers.
Morning, sir. Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Hello. Yes, it's Dan Slavin, D-A-N-S-L-A-V-I-N.
Where or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Slavin, did you just hear what I said regarding the project and the current conditions of the site and our proposed application?
Yes, I did.
Can you affirm what I said is true and accurate and adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Any other witnesses?
Yes, I'd like to call Drew Kometz with Ernie McHenry Architects.
they've been allowed to speak
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
sure it's drew kmetz k-m-e-t-z
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel thank you uh mr kmetz uh have you heard what i said today regarding the
application and the project and the existing conditions of the site? I have, yes. Can you
affirm that what I've said is true and accurate and adopt it as your own testimony? I can with
one very minor caveat. The new building we refer to as Building A, just in case you're trying to
follow along in the presentation. Oh, did I call that Building B by accident? You did, yeah. I
apologize. Building B is the existing high-rise tower. Building A is what will be located at
closest to Market Street. This is building A. Apologies. Thank you. Otherwise, perfect.
Any other witnesses? That's all. Questions from the board? Yeah, I have a question. So phase one
has a thousand units total? No, phase one has 327. The thousand units, it will be the total
combined unit count roughly once phase two is completed. Okay, so you're here for phase one,
Right. We're here for phase one only. Right. So my other question about phase one is because you can't come all the way up to the head of Market Street.
Where is the parking in phase one? So phase one will be accessed by off of Holden Street.
We will have a new street grid that comes here off of Palton and then comes in.
Parking will be located east of Building B and then behind the Building C's down here.
And what's the total number of spaces for that?
The total number of proposed new spaces for Phase 1 is 61.
Okay, thank you.
The question is from the board.
Can you confirm what percentage of the existing retaining wall will be going away?
That's a great question.
I think I might have to confirm that with our engineer, Mr. Slavin.
Or Mr. Kometz, if either one of them knows that specific number.
So let me go back to some of the renderings of the.
So this right here is a rendering of how we're opening up the retaining wall.
Can I call Dan or Drew, do either of you know that that specific advantage?
Sure. Yeah, this is Dan from Langan.
So. So, yeah, generally the this corner of the site that abuts Market Street,
there's about 115 linear feet of retaining wall and that's all going to be taken down
for this connection here and then as far as you know as you go further east you can kind of see it
in this image that's kind of septa's wall that's directly adjacent to their
market frankfurt line so that's actually going to remain for you know the whole stretch from that
point to the east so we're just taking down the wall that's um it's more of a a privately owned
wall uh in this corner of the site and then is any changing happening to the primary grading
that already exists at the site?
Yeah, so this corner, so Market Street's about 15 feet below the site in this existing condition.
the site in this existing condition, in the existing condition in this area. So this whole
corner of the site is kind of being lowered. So it'll connect to Market Street at the sidewalk
level. And then it kind of slopes up to meet the existing site elevations that are higher than
Market Street. Okay, yeah, no other questions. The ABA
accessible path winds through this sort of opening from Market
Street. The other questions from the board? Yes. How many parking
spaces are we going to have here? There will be in phase
161 new parking spaces new yes are there existing parking spaces or there are existing parking
spaces that exist on the site today uh we will all of the parking eventually will be uh you know
re redone um so all the existing parking will eventually go away but as part of the application
today. We do account for the existing parking spaces, but the 61 meets the requirement for
the zoning code for the proposed units in phase one. And again, because of our proximity to the
Market-Frankfurt line here, you know, we're only less than two blocks away from the entrance to
that SEPTA station.
And Board Mayor Gaston,
I may, there's also two other
items that reduce the parking
count. One is the TOD
overlay, and then the other
thing that reduces the parking count
is the min, mixed income neighborhoods
overlay, which obviously
we're complying with in space.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Hilary Amerson.
Just briefly, I did, going over the documents, I noticed that the refusal didn't list 4419 Market Street, even though that is clearly on the plans as one of the lots that's being, lots are stricken streets that are being consolidated into the parcel.
So I do have a proviso written for the board just to make sure that is included and doesn't cause a problem later.
I'm not sure why that. Thank you. Yes. As I think, Ms. Emerson, we've discussed the there's a little bit there's one big parcel that has been treated as one parcel by the city, even though it wasn't technically consolidated.
So part of our application actually goes through that consolidation process as well. So to to clean this up, there were there are a few additional deeded parcels, even though it's been treated as one large parcel for tax purposes and everything else.
Thank you.
Lemons from the virtual audience.
Yes, Chair.
Ali, you are allowed to speak.
You can unmute yourself.
Good afternoon.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board.
My name is Jihad Ali, and it's spelled J-I-H-A-D-A-L-I.
We are a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Good afternoon.
One thing that I saw, I'm an employee of the Enterprise Center, which is about 60 feet across the street from where this entrance is.
And I know that our corporation, we have a cleaning contract for both the north and south side of Market Street from 45th up to 52nd.
So one concern we have is, you know, you're going to increase that population of residents going back and forth.
So, you know, that's a concern for us.
And I think that that parking that's underneath this L that's shown on the board, you know, we rely on that parking when we have events.
And I'm sure some of you have attended some of our events.
So we're going to probably have to have some continued conversation.
Maybe Matthew and you could talk to our chair, Della, or either Jeff.
But we need to talk about those issues, about the cleaning, ongoing cleaning, and about
that parking.
Maybe we'll have to agree to have some type of restricted parking for that.
But overall, we support the project.
We think it's a change from what's there now.
But I think that those little details we need to work out.
Thank you.
Mr. Ali, is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No more hands, Chair.
Any commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
This proposal completed Civic Design Review in November 2023.
This proposal completed Civic Design Review in November 2023.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation
or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exemptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
This proposal supports the Comprehensive Plan Recommendation 1.2.3 to promote new affordable housing developments.
The appellant has shown that due to the shape of the parcel and the location of the elevated train line, in relation to the street configuration, the property cannot be used in conformance with the TOD setback requirements in the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested...
Well, that's there. But that's another conversation, too. But if you're talking about how we're trying this all together and we may not...
They're talking. Who's that talking?
We've been fighting this in 2020 for...
Okay, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance for setback and the TOD overlay.
MI 2024-005-642-4401 Holden Street.
I vote yes, would proviso.
Lot line adjustment includes 4419 Market Street as per lot adjustment plan submitted to L&I.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Diane Wynn, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. McClure.
Thank you.
Number 12.
MI 2024-005-733-2225 West Norris Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
So there was a meeting held on November 18th, 2024, by Strawberry Mansion Community Concern.
Parties agreed to have case heard and held by the board so that there can be further discussion.
Mr. Nockamson.
He's rejoining now as a panel.
Mr. Nockamson, just for the record, could you state your name?
What would have been sworn?
Alan Nockamson.
Could you identify your client and your relationship to this property?
Yes, my client's Alvin Property, LLC.
In the virtual audience is Vincent Padula, as well as Alex Hemelbacker, who are in the virtual audience.
You stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with the sacristy.
Why don't you start your presentation, sir?
The only thing I request, I think I was when I was being transitioning in, I heard about like, you know, we're going to hold the vote.
There was a meeting held on November. This is what my notes say. Meeting was held on November 18th, 2024 by Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. Parties agreed to have case heard and held by the board said that there could be further discussion. Were you part of that?
So, you know, and we agree with that. We just want to make sure that we have a certain time frame. Is there a possibility of scheduling the hearing, the resumption hearing now for like maybe for the week, maybe of the second week of December, so December 11th?
Why don't we do this? Why don't you start your presentation? We'll look to see what we can do. And if not, we're going to get back to you, okay?
I understand what you're saying.
Yeah, Mr. Nockmson, please, please reach out to the staff on that. I know our schedule is very tight for December, so please reach out to the staff and they can let you know what could be accommodated.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
So we're presenting 2225 West Norris Street is in the Strawberry Mansion section of Philadelphia.
So first, we'll, you know, show you the notice of refusal.
So while this is an RSA 5 property, it's rather large in size that as of right, if this was an RM1 property, three units would be allowed as a right.
The reason why I mention that is you'll see later in the presentation that Philadelphia 2035 plan, the Lower North District plan, indicates that the zoning of this property should change to RM1.
So that's why I'm mentioning that.
So we originally proposed four units.
We did meet with the Strawberry Managing Community Concern, and based on the comments
that they have, we're now proposing to have a maximum of three units, and that's part
of Exhibit 3, which is our Zoning Board of Adjustment Revised Proviso Plans form.
Not out of character to have RSA 5 properties have multiple.
Not out of character to have RSA 5 properties have multifamily use and variances have been granted on many occasions nearby.
And I think that's why the 2035 plan is proposing this multifamily use.
And we'll review the properties nearby, which this board has also granted variances in the past under similar circumstances.
And again, the Philadelphia 2035 plan indicates that this property should change to RM1 zoning, which would allow three units as of right.
Aerial view of the property, you'll see that, again, on our block, there is not a lot of development going on.
And you'll see from pictures that this property has been vacant for some time itself.
The zoning map of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings.
Again, we reduced the unit count to three to kind of go more in performance to this RM1 zoning.
Our RCO meeting notice, I guess another issue that we had is we did send out the notice, and I think only one community member showed up.
So, you know, from our experience, usually if there's an issue with a project, you would definitely have more than one person show up.
I don't know how they voted, but it doesn't matter.
We're going to meet with the community again, but I'm just indicating we only have one community member at the last meeting.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Alvin Property Group, the deed to property showing that Alvin Property Group owns the property as well as the certificate of tax clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that either Vincent or Alex virtually raise their hands, be sworn in, and then they can adopt my testimony as their own.
And, of course, we would be more than happy to take care of the questions.
So in the notice of refusal, yes, we are an RSA 5 property.
We are requesting to have a variance to allow for now three units.
Originally it was four.
We have a few refusals here.
First, the use of the property.
This is RSA 5 property, so any multifamily use is not allowed as a fright.
We have a small de minimis dimensional variance requests.
We want to have a nice floor plan.
So we need our building structure to go a little bit further than would be allowed as of right.
So we have a rear yard setback refusal where nine feet is required for rear setback.
And we're asking for seven feet, six inches.
Same thing with the occupied area where 75% is allowed as of right for occupied area.
We're asking for a de minimis variance of 86.3%.
Again, we met with the, you know, community by way of Strawberry Mansion Community Concern on November 18, 2024.
We had this, you know, as a placeholder, you know, we're waiting, you know, to meet with them again, obviously.
And then, again, just based on the commentary, you know, or the comments we did receive, you know, we think it's more appropriate to be three units rather than four units.
We're ultimately, from a use standpoint, looking to do this project as of right, based on the 2035 plan, which would allow this property to be an RM1 property and three units would be allowed as of right.
And then these are our revised drawings based on that.
And then, again, not out of character to have multifamily nearby for RSA5 properties.
So 1938, North 22nd Street, four units.
1940, North 22nd Street, five units.
1832, North 22nd Street, six units.
1836, North 32nd Street, also six units.
1914, North 22nd Street, four units.
1800, North 22nd Street, six units.
Again, North 22nd Street is adjacent to us.
Not a lot of development on this block, though.
Now, the Philadelphia 2035 Lower North District Plan indicates that this property on West North Street should be RM1.
And then again, it actually indicates in the 2035 plan that the reason why they're looking for this conversion of RSA 5 to RM1 is to encourage development adjacent to Strawberry Square and encourage reuse of vacant land and buildings, which we fall into that category.
Aerial view of the block, as you can see, there's a significant portion of our block other than these two homes, which are vacant lands.
And even nearby, you can see there's a lot of vacant lands nearby.
So we're hoping to encourage this, you know, development of our property and nearby properties as well.
And then maps of the area, as you can see, you know, we are surrounded by multifamily zoning classifications of RM1.
You know, we are surrounded by multifamily zoning classifications of RM1, RM2, CMX2.
And again, the proposal is to change our property to RM1 as well.
And then as you can see here, where we are, we're between Diamond and, let me put this down, accurate.
NARS, right?
Well, at Norris, but we're between Diamond and Burks on Norris Street right here.
And then photographs of the property.
So this is a vacant lot, well-maintained.
And then this has been a lot, you know, again, we get these pictures from Google Street View.
This property, as far back as we can see, Google Street View has been a vacant lot.
So from a hardship standpoint, you know, it's clear that it's really hard, if not impossible, to develop this lot as a single family lot or single family dwelling.
And we're asking to allow us to put a triplex here.
Here's our orange notice posters, you know, to show that we posted for today's hearing.
This is West Northern Street to right of the property, to left of the property, our plans and drawings.
Again, we're not asking for a height variance.
We're asking for de minimis dimensional variances regarding rear yard setback, as well as lock coverage.
Floor plan, first unit one is a two-bedroom, two-bath.
First floor and lower level is one unit.
Unit number two is on the second floor.
That's also a two-bedroom, but one-bath.
and Unit 3 is a two-bedroom, one-bath.
The Units 2 and 3 are approximately 860 square feet.
Unit 1, which is a bi-level, is 1,690 square feet.
As part of our presentation, we are also proposing to have a proviso for commercial trash pickup as well.
Also, just so you know, this developer does affordable housing. They do vouchers through PHA. And my understanding, based on the two bedrooms out there, that while the rent is marked a rate of 1,830 square feet, from the voucher perspective, the tenant would pay currently $512.
dollars obviously it was 830 dollars they would pay 512 dollars based on the voucher program so
we sent out notice of the community meeting uh for community uh meeting uh of november 18th
we emailed that notice to the uh coordinating rco and other relevant parties we showed that
we mailed it to 119 addresses.
These are the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal.
We filed on behalf of Alvin Property, LLC.
The notice of refusal,
the project information form,
the deed to property showing that Alvin Property, LLC
is the owner of the property.
And the certificate of tax clearance.
With that being said,
i would ask that uh you know either uh vincent or alex virtually raise their hands
they've been allowed to speak
well could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
yes good afternoon alex hamelbacher a-l-e-x-h-a-m-m-e-l-b-a-c-h-e-r
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Alex, you heard everything we had to state today about your zoning matter.
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt this as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
what's the um what's the height of the the basement below grade uh the height of the basement let me
see oops then you can go back and find elevation i think the elevation is section that has one
let's see and uh if the if the architects on board on the
I should say the depth of the basement below grade.
I'm sorry, what did you say?
I should have said the depth of the basement below grade.
Let's see.
It looks like we're almost eight feet below grade.
It looks like.
Yeah, it looks like that's the case.
That's right.
That's quite below grade.
And you're at 35 in the maximum.
We've got 38.
That's right.
I definitely have a concern with it.
that amount that depth of the basement below grade it's like lower than a grave
all right thank you well i guess my question is this i mean you know you typically have
properties below grade of this sort to give height for the ceiling so we can you know i
can talk to the architect is there well you've got you've got 30 you've got a maximum height of 38
feet and you say you've got a three three more feet you know it could be three more feet out of
out of the ground okay is that instead of the entire unit i mean for all but what a foot
below gray below gray underground gotcha so i can bring that up to the architect and obviously
discuss it with them what what is uh planned for that uh basement was it the the part of the
bi-level a unit yeah it's the living room it has the living room and dining room and kitchen
yeah it's a it's a bi-level unit that's right
i mean if the board i'm sorry if the board has any other comments i can definitely bring it back
to the architect as well i mean yeah i have a question about the the rear yard depth so
So, I mean, you were given a refusal for being, like, one and a half feet short of the requirement, and I'm trying to figure out what was the hardship that kept you from keeping that nine feet.
I think we're just trying to get nicer size bedrooms, living room, and such.
It doesn't sound like much to one and a half feet, but in the grand scheme of things, it does matter.
I mean, I can also talk to the architect about trying to be in conformance with that as well,
but we're trying to give larger bedrooms and living areas to the tenants as well.
Can you explain what was the, so I know that there were revised plans.
What was the main shift from the original submitted plans to the plans that we saw today?
The only shift was going from four units to three units because our site plan stated that
there were four units on there we as a matter of course always submit give a resubmission of the
site plan to say three units instead of four so that's the that's the only change it's technical
in nature but that's what we did sure so the depth of the building is the same even with the reduction
in unit yeah exactly we thought that having like units of a you know size of over i think it was
like 860 square feet for the for the two bedroom on the same on one level and then having over
1600 for the bi-level was a good size for the tenants so if i could if the board is saying
that they you know if if i'm hearing from the board that there may be an opportunity to reduce
the variances and the board would not object to the smaller units we can definitely i can talk
to my client i don't know that that's what i'm saying i i just was asking questions i
other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair strawberry mansion committee concerns has a hand raise i have allowed them to speak
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman and the board.
My name is Bonita Cummings, B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, Ms. Cummings.
I just wanted to state my presence.
We were the coordinating RCO due to some of the difficulty in reaching some of the other RCOs as well as some being added back.
So with that and looking at this development, with some of the questions of concern that were even raised today, we asked to be able to reach out again to those RSCOs and community to really make sure that
to those RCOs and community to really make sure that the decision on this very complex property development, you know, was going to be, you know, clear to the community, you know, particularly due to several dimensional refusals.
And the property, as discussed on that day, was about four units that people are actually on the same floor as each other.
So the way that this bi-level project is put together, they're living on the same floor as each other.
And then there are these window wells that are thrown in in between hallway levels.
So it was just to mention, you know, but today, you know, they're saying that they now are considering three, which was not discussed at the public meeting.
So we will reach out. However, we won't be able to do that in December.
I know that they're reaching for a December date. There are other, you know, matters going on within the RCOs that those dates for us, you know, we can't meet those dates for this, to bring this back. And we do have to reach out to other RCOs. Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further answer, Mr. Chair.
Okay. So, Hillary, I don't think planning should vote on this. I mean, we're not sure what's going to be left and things like that. Am I correct?
That is fine, Mr. Chair. We can schedule a resumption hearing, and if there are any additional changes, we can take additional public comment, and we'll take the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Planning, is that okay with you?
Yes, thank you.
Okay, thank you. All right. So, Alan, we're going to hold the vote on this, and we'll see what we can do about when this can be scheduled, and we'll get you back in as quick as we possibly can as concerned with the RCO2.
I appreciate it. I'll reach out to Ms. Cummings and copy the CDA and see if we can get a date that works for everyone.
All right. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you. Have a great day.
All right.
Number 14, MI 2024-005-736-7300-Frankfurt Avenue.
Stephanie Boggs Magna is the attorney.
No RCO letter, but notice was sent to the neighbors with proof.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I believe Andrea Solomon will be filling in for Ms. Magana this afternoon.
Thank you.
Andrea Solomon will be our attorney.
We don't have an RCO letter as of yet.
Meeting was held on the 18th before the Mayfair Civic Association.
Good afternoon, Chair Andrea Solomon from Claire Harrison.
On behalf of Lieutenant Fulton Bank and the sign company, Effective Signworks.
Counsel, could you just spell your name for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Andrea, A-N-D-R-E-A, Solomon, S-A-L-O-M-O-N.
Where are a firm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Fulton Bank, the tenant of the property, and Effective SignWorks is a sign company.
You stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy.
And all of your documents were submitted five days prior?
Yes, with exception of the current lease, which was submitted to the board on Monday.
Very good.
Thank you.
Could you share your screen and start your presentation?
I may.
And as an initial point, Chair, I do believe the RCO, our meeting was on Monday, and they submitted their letter of unanimous support yesterday to the board.
We don't have that, do we, Hillary?
I do not believe so.
So if you can, we'll double check, but if you can please show it as part of your presentation, that would be appreciated.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'll get right to it.
This is a fairly straightforward reduction of sign area.
As you've seen, Fulton Bank has taken over quite a few of the former Republic Bank spaces around the city.
This is a similar change from the Republic Bank to a Fulton Bank in the Mayfair community in what was formerly the Mayfair Theater.
It's been a bank for over 20 years, but we're reducing the signage and updating it to Fulton Bank from what was formerly the Mayfair Theater.
reducing the signage and updating it to Fulton Bank from what was formerly 152 square feet
to a cleaner sign that's a little bit smaller, 114 square feet.
We've submitted the package to the board. I'll start with the notice of refusal. It's a CMX 2.5
property and the refusal is due to the fact that the cmx 2.5 allows for maximum square footage of
25 square feet when the proposed signage is 114 um there's a lot of tenants on the site and so
the zoning archives are unclear until what was permitted um we're not really sure why but
Illinois asked us to come before the board in order to get this reduction of signage
before the board and approved by the board.
As I mentioned, this is a CMX 2.5 property along the Frankfurt Avenue business district.
It is quite a unique site in that it's triangular in nature and fronts Cotman Avenue,
Bryan Avenue, and it has this small frontage on Frankfort Avenue which is
where the proposed sign is going. This is an aerial image of the site where you
can see what I'm talking about. This is the proposed location of the sign, a
different aerial, and the street view of what's existing at the property. Some of
these signs have already been updated to Fulton Bank,
as you can see in the window.
Some more images of what's existing at the property now.
And the sign package, the proposed location,
let me zoom a little bit out,
just above the main entrance
on the Frankfurt Avenue frontage.
these are the plans for the sign again it's a reduction to 114 square feet from what's existing
statically illuminated wall sign um these signs are are by right but they're also being updated
to the new bank to be in line with the new bank um branding
We've also posted the property with the zoning notices on all three frontages.
This is the Frankfurt Avenue frontage, the Cotman Avenue frontage, and the Ryan Avenue frontage.
We have our application for appeal.
the project information form
are noticed to the RCO with the certificate of mailing to 38 properties within the list.
Sorry, the list is longer, but they're all mailed.
The zoning code with the variance that's requested, the current lease of the property with the
current addendum for the lease premises.
We have also included as part of our package the prior signage that was approved by this
board and find the proof of tax compliance. And finally, I have here the meeting summary from the
Mayfair Civic Association, which we're glad to report received unanimous support. The community
is really show that they're appreciative
that this tenant space is occupied
and they really see the bank here
as an asset to the community.
And with that, with me here today
are Mike Sonlin of the sign company,
Effective Sign Works,
and Mark Medicola on behalf of Fulton Bank.
And I just ask that they be promoted as panelists
so that they can adopt my statements.
so let's why don't we take the person from the bank first
okay so um mark madicola can rate can you raise your hand mark so you can be
Okay, so Mark Maticola, can you raise your hand, Mark, so you can be promoted?
I'm going to have to speak.
Mark, could you please state your full name and spell for the stenographer?
Mr. Maticola, are you available?
hello let's go yes hi could you please state your name and spell for the
all right could you state your name and spell for this uh
first name is mark m-a-r-k last name m-a-t-t-i-c-o-l-a
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counselor
Thank you, Chair. Mark, can you briefly tell us your title and what you do for the bank,
for Fulton Bank? Yes, I am the facilities manager for Fulton Bank. I've overseen this position for
26 years, and I've worked on a lot of signed projects throughout my career here, and I fully
support all of Andrea's statements regarding the signage at Mayfair. Thank you, Mark. So you saw
my presentation to the board that that is correct and it's true and accurate yes it is and you would
adopt it as your own testimony i would thanks so much i bring on your um sign person um mike
sondland if you could please raise your hand so that you can be promoted as panelists
i can speak i could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
or mike sonlin uh s-o-n-l-i-n where a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do please proceed councilman mike and you work with effective sign works is that correct
And can you tell us your title for Effective Signworks?
Sure. I'm a consultant for Effective Signworks. We work on design and branding for projects like this.
And you've been working on a few of these signage updates from Republic Bank to Fulton Bank?
26 of them over the last six months or so, yes.
And this one in particular, it's a reduction in the square footage of the existing sign.
Correct.
And you heard the rest of my presentation to the board?
And it's true and correct?
It is.
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Absolutely.
Thanks so much, Mike.
You're welcome.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Two brief things as a chair.
One, we were not able to locate a copy of the letter from the RCO.
So if you could please forward that to us for our records, that would be great.
The second thing is you mentioned that there were two wall signs that were included in this application.
They're not, I see the plans there, but they're not listed on the refusal.
So if the client wants them included in the application, the refusal would need to be amended to list both of them.
Even though they're by right, it just isn't included in the scope of the application.
I mean, alternately, you could file a separate application for them.
But I just wanted to note that the scope of the application of support of the board is just the one sign that needs a variance.
Yes, thank you. So, yeah, we just need the variance for the sign that others are by right.
I'll review, I believe they were applied for separately, but we included them as part of the total sign package.
But if it needs to be amended, we'll certainly do that.
so we'll just move we'll just move forward today as as is as the scope is and you can if for some
reason a new application needs to be submitted for the buy right signs you can do that separately
and that'll be the easiest thing okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing commercial mixed use CMX 2.5.
commercial mixed use cmx 2.5 the proposed science is consistent with existing signage
The proposed science is consistent with...
the planning commission recommends that the board grant their requested variance for maximum sign
area mi 2024 00 00536 7300 frankfort avenue i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
thank you counsel
thank you very much
is there anyone in the virtual audience whose
2pm case has not been called
Mr. Chair I have a hand up from
I will allow him to speak briefly
Mr. Sockenloff
Mr. Sokolov, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Chair Oleg Sokolov, O-L-E-G-S-O-K-O-L-O-V.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What case do you want to talk about?
I was actually retained at the last moment on 2353 to 59 Haggard Street.
It's an appeal of an administrative adjustment.
We had Mr. Ward listed at that, and we have it as a continuance attorney-moving party.
My understanding from Mr. Ward, who sporadically communicated with the client that it was continued to today, and I saw it on today's.
Yeah, but I'm saying today there's a request for a continuance attorney-moving party.
Further.
Into the future, right.
Yes, and Mr. Ward did make that request. So if there is a change in council, we do need some formal documentation of that, like letters indicating withdrawal and entry of a parent.
Okay. Understood. Is there any chance that I can request that the board continue this matter in the short term, perhaps to next week's hearing?
this is a it's kind of a fluctuating on the spot situation and i mean there's construction ongoing
so um because this is an appeal against lni um there needs to be an attorney from the city and
i do not we don't have hearings next week um the following week i i not sure the availability of
city attorney at this point so please please contact um the the board um board administration
and we will determine when when we are able to hear this case okay i appreciate your time thank
you thank you anyone else in the audience no further answer mr chair all right all right
everybody we're going to take a five minute break we're going to come right back thank you thank you
Thanks, Chair. Okay, Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's hearings.
First, I have an announcement. Beginning with December 4th hearings, any documents or other information that parties wish to submit to the ZBA for hearings must be submitted through the ZBA's new online tool, ZBA Case Document Submission.
Information about how to access and use the submission tools will be included with hearing notices, zoning posters.
Please note that applicants' documents are due five calendar days prior to the hearing.
Documents submitted by any other parties have to submit at least 48 hours prior to the hearing to allow for sufficient time for processing.
In addition, the following information should continue to be submitted through email and not through the upload tool.
Requests for contingencies, withdrawals, reconsiderations, and amended refusals, as well as requests by attorneys to enter withdrawal appearances.
If you have any questions about the ZBA case document submission file, please contact RCOZBA at phil.gov.
With me today is our board member Sheryl Gaston. Present, Mr. Chairman. Our board member Kenetta Graham. Present, Mr. Chairman. Our board member Michael Johns. Present, Mr. Chairman. Our board member Taya Nguyen. Present, Mr. Chairman.
here's our virtual format the proceedings are being recorded with your participation
you agree to be recorded the video will be available by cocked on contacting
The video will be available by contacting ZBA Executive Officer at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter and appear in a statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question-answer screen is not for testimony. All comments or questions should be referred to zbaexecutivedirectoratphil.gov. Let's look at our schedule.
Number one, MI 2024, 004-386-170 East Sterner Street. That case is continued.
Number two, MI 2024, 004-395-2628 North 17th Street. That case is continued.
Number seven, MI 2024-005-345-1014 South 25th Street.
Maria Myers-Sethes and Pauline Pethes-Stockdale are the owner.
There's been a request for a contingency received from South of South neighbors.
They state that there has not been a meeting occurred yet.
We also do not have any exhibits.
Are the owners present?
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chair.
This is Jason Hand.
I am co-hosting this session.
Do we see anybody's hands today?
No, sir.
I do not see either hand in the virtual audience this evening.
So MI 2024-005-345-1014 South 25th Street, cases continued mark must be heard.
Number three, MI 2024-004-403-289 East Walnut Drive, Operation Islamic Center Al-Amin Real Estate is the listed owner.
No exhibits first listing.
How about Atabia Elhattin?
I'll tell you about Elhassan.
Please raise your virtual hand and wait to be sworn in.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer, sir?
They've been about to speak now, Mr. Chair.
All right, sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Jason, is their hand up?
They haven't signed up, but they've been allowed to speak.
And who is it again, Mr. Al-Hassan?
Yes, I'll tell you about Al-Hassan.
Al-Hassan, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
They're either having technical difficulties or they may not be present at all, so you can continue to proceed.
All right. All right. I'll go back to that one more time after I go through.
Number four, MI 2024-004-411-4911 North 6th Street.
E.B. Alalbaz is the owner, pro se.
No exhibits, first listing.
I have a handout from a number ending in 0146.
This may be the person representing this matter.
I'll allow them to speak right now.
Hi, could you please state your name, sir, and spell for the court stenographer?
just waiting for him to speak
sir could you please state your name
phone number ending in 0146 can you please speak state your name yes my name is yes my name is
maria meyer c5 and i was trying to talk earlier and i someone was speaking while i was speaking
and I couldn't hear anything regarding 1014 South 25th Street.
Can you please tell me the status?
I could barely hear what was said earlier.
That's number seven, Mr. Chair.
That was already, that was continued, no exhibit.
That case is continued.
We have no exhibits and no one showed up.
So we're going to continue that one more time, okay?
Okay, so what do I have to do on my behalf? This is all new to me, and I thought it would be resolved today.
Are you someone who's against the project?
No, I'm the property owner.
I'm here because I'm trying to get visitor accommodation. Maria Myers-Ceases.
Okay, all right. So...
Maria?
I know, I know, but listen to me one minute.
Um, we do not have any exhibits from you.
Right.
And, um, and you still have not went to, um, the RCO meeting.
So here's what I think you need to do.
I need, I think you need to call the office.
They'll tell you what you're going to need and then tell you like who the RCO is and
things like that, that you're going to have to go to because the RCO requested a continuance
too because they haven't heard from you okay okay uh thank you very much right thank no thank you
i appreciate i'm sorry you had this inconvenience all right jason so number four all right you too
thank you jason number four mi 2024 004 411 49 11 north 6 do we see anything
there's no hands raised but um if this is for lj
and al hausanne they are um in the and they're in the virtual audience i don't know what's going
on oh hausanne's in the virtual audience too this is here they're there but he's got an answer
right i mean he's not speaking uh mr chair did you call number four because that um
No, no, listen to me. I called three and he didn't answer.
OK, so after he didn't answer, I went on to four.
Oh, OK, so we never got a response for four. And I don't think we concluded that in the record.
But I said there's three there's three and four of them. I mean, I'm.
Yes. No, Mr. Jerry, just just to clarify for the record.
There's nobody here for forty nine, eleven North Sixth Street.
That was E.B. Reyes, a loisable.
Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. So, so MI 2024 004 411 4911 North 6th Street. Cases continue and mark must be heard. Right. And we have number five. MI 2024 004 415 5338 Walnut Street. Mildred Brooks, task business consulting and management. No exhibits first listing.
I have a hand up from George Gossett, Jr., Esquire.
Sure, if he's involved, that's number five, yep.
You better not to speak, George Gossett.
Sir, could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
is he there
yes he's here he he has his hand raised
mr gossett if you're available you may now speak
can you hear me now i can sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Yes, George Gossett, Jr., G-E-O-R-G-E-G-O-S-S-E-T-T, Jr.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And, Counselor, you're involved in 5338 Walnut Street?
Yes, I'm the attorney for Brick by Brick, LLC, the owner of the actual property.
The original application was filed by a Mildred.
The original application was filed by a Mildred, I believe Mildred Brooks, but the actual owner is Brick by Brick, LLC.
So, so counsel, we do not have any exhibits from you.
I emailed exhibits over there today.
I know that was, was, was late, but I did email it to the.
So, so I think what you're going to have to do is we're going to have to continue this because it takes us a while to go through all the exhibits to make sure what we have.
So I'm going to continue it and we'll make sure that you, you know, you're notified of the next time.
If you have any questions or what you need, just call the office.
OK, I will. Thank you.
So am I twenty twenty four zero zero four four one five fifty three thirty eight Walnut Street.
Cases continue. Thank you, sir.
Thanks.
Jase, we have no more hands up, right?
Right.
Mr. Alhassan, Mr. Alhassan.
So there.
I'm basically still in a virtual audience.
I'll see if I can get him to speak one more time.
Altayib Al-Hassan,
if you are in the virtual audience,
please raise your virtual hand and wait to be sworn in.
Okay, they've been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name?
Could you please state your name, sir, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yeah, Altayib, E-L-T-A-Y-E-B, last name E-L-H-A-S-S-A-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you the owner of this property?
Right.
So we don't have any of your exhibits.
Yeah, yeah.
That's why I stayed on the line.
I was hoping for a continuance.
I also recently emailed Lakeisha and the RCL.
Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to grant you a continuance, okay?
Thank you.
And Mr. Chair, sorry, if I could interject briefly.
Mr. El-Hassan, the property is owned in the name of LM Real Estate LLC.
Is that correct?
Okay, so then you will need to be represented at your hearing by an attorney.
It's a family office.
I understand that, but that is the rules and the code and the regulations.
If the property is owned in the name of a business entity, you need to be represented by an attorney.
So please, please have an attorney represent you for your next hearing date.
MI 2024, 004-403-289 East Walnut Park Drive.
Cases continued.
Number six. MI 2024-004-450-10790 Busselton Avenue. Sean Rexroad is the attorney. There's a letter of support from Somerton Civic Association, 35-2, and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member O'Neill.
Sean Rexroad will be rejoining as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, counsel.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the course sonographer, sir?
Yes, it's Sean Rexroad.
That's S-H-A-W-N-R-E-X-R-O-A-D.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Ruben Estaya, who's doing business as Usta, Ruben Jewelry. He is the tenant.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
Please share your screen and make your presentation.
Thank you, Chair. Bear with me here one second.
can you see my screen we can yep thank you good afternoon mr chairman and members of the board
um we're here today seeking a variance allowing the applicant to operate a jewelry store from
10 790 busselton adams c which is in the rsc2 residential zoning district as we will show in
our exhibits premises my client leases was represented to him as a commercial property
at the time he entered into the lease back on april 1st 2024 indeed by all objective observations
the premises appears to be commercially zoned the building uh within which the premise is
The building within which the premise is located is a commercial structure and includes other commercial tenants, such as a dentist, an optical center, a vein center, and a beauty salon, and a chiropractor.
located is a commercial structure and includes
In addition, the entrance to the building fronts the commercial corridor of Busselton Avenue, and the property upon which the building is located is adjacent to a property that is, in fact, zoned CMX1.
It was only after the applicant's use permit was denied that he became aware that 10790 Busselton Avenue was zone RSA 2, which does not permit wearing apparel and accessory by right so that he can operate a jewelry store from the premises.
Although we were unable to verify it with the city, in looking at a 1962 land use map at 10790 Busselton Avenue, it appears that the property was zoned commercial and that sometime thereafter the parcel was rezoned RSA 2.
That said, we believe the parcel has always been used as a commercial space.
In any event, once the applicant received his refusal and appealed L. Nye's decision to this board, he met with the Suburban Civic Association, the coordinating RCO, on September 10, 2024.
The meeting was well attended, and the applicant received the overwhelming support for the RCO for the relief he now seeks in his application for appeal.
Indeed, the final vote was 35 in favor and two opposed.
I note that as a condition of the RCO's support, the applicant agreed that so long as he is the
tenant at the premises, he would not display any storefront signage at the property for the
purchase of gold. This agreement has been memorialized in a good neighbor agreement
with the RCO and executed by my client on November 14th and the RCO on November 13th,
which I think was submitted to you by the RCO directly. Also, before I get to the exhibits,
I just want to note that my client is a small business owner. He's owned three jewelry stores
since he immigrated to this country in the early 90s, so he's well-seasoned in owning
and operating jewelry stores. It's not his first endeavor. With that, I would like to turn quickly
to our exhibits, but demonstrate, among other things, that we've complied with the requirements
of the Philadelphia Zoning Code to be before you now, and that we've submitted evidence sufficient
for the ZBA to grant the relief request in the applicant's appeal. With that, I'll just turn to
my exhibits. This is a copy of the notice of refusal. This is our application appeal which
was filed timely within 30 days after the refusal. This is the project information form.
This is the vesting deed that shows that Yang 88 Realty LLC is the owner of the property.
and this is the exhibit that shows that my client is in fact the lessee of the property
this is a letter of consent and authorization from
from the owner for us to be here seeking this variance
this is also a letter on behalf of my client authorizing me to be here
This is a certificate of tax clearance. This is for the owner, valid through the end of this month, and this is a certificate of clearance for my client, valid through the end of this month.
This is a zoning notice showing that we posted as applicable with the code. We posted more than 20 days before this hearing at the frontage of the property. This is just another angle showing that it was on the store frontage.
this is our letter to the rco requesting a meeting within uh timely uh this the next exhibit will
should be our uh this is our uh our letter uh to the near neighbors which was sent timely and prior
to the rco meeting attaching the refusal notice uh this is our proof of mailing to the near neighbors
this is just a picture generally of the outside as you can see it is is it's not a residential
uh property it's certainly commercial property is currently being operated such
this is bustleton avenue which is busy and you know is a commercial corridor
this just shows where this another again another angle this is a google maps angle
of the property uh from street view which shows there's commercial to the right although that's
also RSA too, but to the south, CMX1, which this would actually, the use that my client is seeking
would be permitted by right. This is the old zoning map. I know it's very hard to see. This is my
client's property here, and it actually, this is the key, indicate this, and again, it's very hard
to see, but if it's shaded without any lines or anything, it says commercial use.
uh if it's if it's shaded without any lines or anything it says commercial use and as you can see
it's it's not it's not shaded so it was commercial use 1962.
this is just exhibit showing that cmx1 is by right wear and apparel which is what my client
is seeking this is a copy of the good neighbor agreement where my client agreed uh to not display
uh purchase of gold signed by my client as well as the somerton civic association
And this is our letter of support from the Somerton Civic Association.
Yeah, that is all.
At this time, I'd like to bring my client on to adopt my testimony as his own.
I'm asking that Ruben Yostaev raise his hand at this time.
May I have been on the option to speak?
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
U-S-T-A-Y-E-V, my last name and my first name, Ruben, R-U-B-E-N.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Steyer, did you see my presentation?
Is it true and accurate representation?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to open for questions, I think, to make my client available for questions from the board or any other questions you might have.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
um just a quick question um it appears on the lease that this is in this is for suite c
if the board grants is that something that should be included in the provide though
we're fine with that yeah we're only looking for the variance at suite c
thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience
No, let's see any further answers.
Planning Commission.
So, Ron Bednar, City Planning, first name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, Ron.
This property is split zone residential on the city plan, given the site's history and
physical circumstances, we have no objection to the Brownian appearance.
MI 2024-004-450-10790, Busselton Avenue. I vote yes. Proviso, Sweet C only.
Michael Johns, I vote yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Taya Wen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. Appreciate it. Have a nice evening.
you too. Is there anyone in the virtual audience
who his case has not been called?
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, everybody. And remember, we're off
next week. Everybody have a nice
Thanksgiving. Sit back and relax.
I'll try not to bother Hillary
at all next week. I'll give her the whole week off.
So everybody enjoy next week
and have a good time. Staff, too.
Make sure everybody has a good time. See you,
everybody. Thank you very much, Chair.
Have a good night.
Have a good holiday.
good good night great job everyone