representative from the RCO has testified previously. But I don't believe any neighbors
have yet testified. So I'd be concerned about limiting any testimony from neighbors.
I could be wrong, but I thought we had some neighbors testify, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I knew the RCO, head of the RCO, but I thought there were other folks that testified.
Yes, we had neighbors as well.
I'm sorry, Tanya?
Yes, we had neighbors as well.
But it wasn't everyone because we said we were going to return and they will continue to provide testimony.
Thank you for refreshing my memory.
Thank you.
Yes, I'm sorry.
I don't recall other neighbors.
Yeah, no offense.
But I do remember there were a number of people who testified.
I just wanted to note about the meetings the last time that this case was scheduled, our office requested a continuance because we had learned a few days prior to the hearing that some members, some of them, your neighbors, had changed their minds where there had been previously unanimous opposition to the project.
So we asked an additional continuance specifically so our office could speak to the neighbors because the councilman's position rested largely on the position of the near neighbors.
So that is why the last meeting that was held was between our office and the neighbors, because we were trying to understand their position, not because we were trying to exclude the applicant.
so i just wanted to be clear there there have been a couple meetings by the rco where neither
the applicant nor our office um were included in in the meeting um and you know that that is what
it is um in terms of the the councilwoman's position um while she is um generally supportive
of uh development in the ninth council district she is opposed to the proposed auto zone at 6301
North Broad Street, because there is not support for this project among the majority of the
near neighbors. As I mentioned before, at our last meeting, we did hear that there were some
changes in position of some of the neighbors, which is why we wanted to talk to them further.
Upon further discussion, there is not a majority of support among the near neighbors for this
project which is why the councilwoman um as opposed is it remains opposed to this project
um there is a there appears to be a split among the neighbors um and there's um concerning that
there is little to no support for the project from the neighbors on the midairi avenue side
of the property which the auto zone would face that's the south side of the property
um concerns that have been consistently raised to our office
Concerns that have been consistently raised to our office about this project include the
Thank you.
presence of illegal mechanics in and around the property if the AutoZone opens, as well
as resulting trash, parts, and mechanical fluids littering the neighborhood.
Residents have mentioned negative experiences with an AutoZone at another location in our
district and also referenced the presence of other automotive businesses in close proximity
to this location.
other mentions from residents of concerns include an increase in traffic on the surrounding blocks
from people circling to get to the auto zone honey hold on I'm sorry as well as a lack of
parking we do recognize and appreciate the efforts of the applicant to address matters
raised by the near neighbors particularly as it relates to hours of operation curb cuts and
particular access and fencing we also greatly appreciate the engagement of the near neighbors
throughout this process and i believe that some of them are here today to share their perspective
on this project in closing the council and wishes to incorporate her prior statements that she made
to this board regarding the lack of hardship in this case um because it is because the zoning
does allow for a number of other buy right commercial uses uh the board has any questions
i'll be happy to answer them thank you thank you hello mr creaky i don't have i'll call up other
witnesses but i know if you had any comment uh we can you want to wait until i get the other
witnesses yes thank you okay uh anybody anyone would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand and i would ask in advance uh as you speak please give us something new and different
please do not keep repeating the same issue of your if it relates to your opposition
give us something new and different please we have
several other cases and it's already 10 of six
anyone would like to testify please raise your hand we have frida williams frida you can um
mute yourself and wait to be sworn in good evening miss williams please identify yourself
with a record name and address and i'll swear my name is frida williams i'm at 815 asbury terrace
19126. I'm the chairperson of the RCO for OCA. We're in a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
Okay. Can you spell your name, please? Oh, never mind. It's on the screen. Sorry.
I forgot the S. Sorry. That's okay. I just wanted to make the chair and the board aware that
there was a directive to OCA as the RCO in the previous hearing that we meet with the
neighbors to go over and go through all of the elements of the community benefits agreement.
We did send you back a report. We had three separate meetings with the community as a whole,
as well as with the near neighbors each one of those meetings a report was submitted to the
zoning board and to the council office and so we just want you to be aware that we were in
compliance with your directive and that even with the community benefits agreement going through
each one of those uh discussing alternative uses of the property if possible and also that the
community was aware that in the event of a buy right, they may not have the opportunity to have
an input, that they still were unanimous at that time in their opposition. I also would like to
note that I did speak directly to the owner of the property who stated that he would be willing
in the event that the variance was not granted, he would be willing to meet with members of the
community to discuss uses of the community as far as appropriate.
Objection as to what the owner said.
Yep. Okay, continue, ma'am.
Okay, so essentially, that's basically it. The RCO is in opposition. We stand with the
community, and we do understand that there are some residents who may have changed their
minds on an individual basis, but it is not our understanding that a substantial number
of the residents near or far have changed their opinions and therefore we are in opposition to
have changed their opinions and therefore we are in opposition to the request for zoning variance.
the request.
That determination that has made you said there may be some people who have changed their mind
do we have any way of identifying where they where they live in proximity to this application?
I do not I received and again because I don't know about the objection status
I received a direct email from one of the near neighbors on Park Avenue indicating that she remained opposed.
So she was a near neighbor. There has been some discussion and there has been some identification.
I won't identify who that is, but there certainly has been some discussion that there was a near neighbor who was who at one point had been adamant and now has changed that position.
that's a single resident that i am aware of no one else to my knowledge has been named
as having changed their mind but there has been some general discussion
so our last hearing was there a petition circulated
to notify people of the follow-up meetings that you were having
the follow-up meeting was not held by oka that was held by the council office right so i'll
i guess i'll ask that question of hillary okay i'm just trying to get a sense of where
if there's still opposition where that opposition is coming from because apparently you have one
neighbor according to your testimony who was vehemently opposed does that mean the others
are not opposed or does that mean they are i'm not trying to get a sense of that all right where
this opposition is coming from okay given that hillary hillary yeah this is hillary and
councilman parker's office um when we had um we had a meeting on november 19th with about a dozen
um near neighbors um and subsequently one of them submitted a petition with four names on it for
people who supported it. When we looked at the people from that meeting who were on the 1300
block of Maderi Avenue versus and the 6300 block of North Park, we had a split of five and five
who supported and um to oppose so and the the support the people who um supported were on park
avenue um we um we are not aware of any particular individual um by name who has is supporting on the
1300 block of midairie avenue that we've only heard opposition from the individuals we have
had contact with don't might correct and you said there were in that meeting you had there were five
yes so there yes and then whether but there were four yes from immediate neighbors so so sorry let
me let me because i i so we had about 12 neighbors at our meeting um the two and subsequent to that
meeting, we received a petition with four neighbors in support, one of whom was at that
meeting. And we're advised of support from two other neighbors as well. At the initial
meeting on the 19th, only one neighbor indicated their support. So looking between that meeting
and the petition that we received later showed that there was support by five households on
park avenue but there was opposition by two households on park avenue as well as three
households on the dairy avenue that attended the meeting pretty much a split exactly and there
was a couple other addresses around that um we heard from either at the meeting or by petition
and that was a two oppose, one support.
You're on mute.
Either way, it appears to be a split vote, but okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, just a couple of clarifications.
After the October 6th meeting before this board, hearing before this board,
OCA did meet that Saturday on October 10th.
And in fact, they had asked us to be available for that meeting.
My clients and I made ourselves available for a meeting on that date, and we found out later in the day that a meeting was held without us.
So we had been on call for a meeting, and the meeting took place without us even knowing that the meeting took place.
In addition, as far as the opposition, I do believe...
In addition, as far as the opposition, I do believe that Ms. Joanne Eggleston is on the call tonight, and she's in support, and she's on the appearance list from the October 6th hearing, which we have a copy of that appearance list.
However, we've continually asked who's in opposition to this so that we would be able to speak with them and find out the concerns to talk to them.
And only two names from the councilperson's office were given to us.
Those names were Ms. Joanne Eggleston, who is on this call tonight in support, and Barbara
Coffey.
Barbara Coffey attended the virtual meetings in this case.
The main concern that Barbara Coffey raised in this case had to do with a curb cut on
Madari Avenue.
We've addressed her concern.
My client removed the curb cut on Madari Avenue.
So those were the only two names. We've been in communications with OLCA, with the council person's office since May, and those two names were given to us. So if there are additional names and discussions here, they're behind a curtain that we have no idea who they are or what those concerns are, because any concerns that have been raised throughout this case have been addressed by my client.
And that's evidenced by the CBA in this case.
We've addressed hours of operation, fences, curb cuts.
We've addressed all kinds of issues.
And in fact, the community group was pleased enough to sign that CBA and support this project on October 6th.
So what happened after that, I'm not really sure.
Thank you.
All right.
I want to move this case along as best we can. So is there anybody who else would like to comment
on this case? Please raise your hand. And we would ask that whoever's speaking. I'm sorry.
Ms. Joanna Eggleston, she's on the call. She's been about to speak.
Good evening, ma'am. Please spell your full name for us.
Sure. It's Joanne Eggleston, J-O-A-N-N-E, Eggleston, E-G-G-L-E-S-T-O-N.
Your address?
6302 North Park Avenue.
Thank you. You're swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I just wanted to know, because my name has been bounced around a few times.
initially I was opposed to the auto zone and then after having discussions with my neighbors
we have agreed a few of us that I'm now not opposed to it and I had neighbors on my block
who are also not opposed to it I just wanted to my name was being bounced around so I just
wanted to let you know that I was on the call I appreciate it but we can only testify on your
behalf. Okay. Okay. But thank you. Thank you for hanging in there. Thank you.
If I may, just one question for Ms. Eggleston. Ms. Eggleston, can you describe for the board
how close you live to the property? I'm sorry, I was muted. My property is directly behind
the auto zone. So my property butts up against their property. Thank you. I forgot to ask that
question. Thank you. Hillary, did you want to speak? Yes. Yes, I did, Mr. Chair. Just two points
of clarification. I wanted to note in terms of the community benefits agreement that that was
signed by the RCO without the knowledge of the near neighbors, which is why they had to have a
meeting afterwards um and then that was revealed that the neighbors were opposed which is what the
rco's original letter said to the board um i also want to note um council for the the applicant
has brought up oh we're not giving names
lori we lost you
miss emerson
you have to unmute i'm trying to control everybody because everybody's speaking out of
terms so i'm just keeping you all muted so unmute yourself that's fine that's fine um i think you
heard my point about the community benefits
agreement, about how
was signed by the
community organization. I would object to this.
I mean, I don't think that she can speak
on behalf of the community group,
the RCO, to say whether or not that was
signed without authority.
The neighbors told me it was
signed without their knowledge.
Well, except that she worked for the council.
And that's that's why there was an additional meeting. So and Frida, I believe, just spoke to how they had an additional meeting at the board's request to discuss the community benefits agreement.
That's why
there was an additional meeting.
And Frida, I believe, just
Secondly, I just wanted to note that it is not our office's policy to give out names and addresses of constituents in zoning matters.
The applicant can certainly canvas the neighborhood, knock on doors, send mailings out as they are required to.
We have been very forthright with the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors, and the applicant has done their best to address them.
But unfortunately, the neighbors still remain in opposition to the project, which is why the councilwoman is as well.
I do have one question for Ms. Emerson.
Ms. Emerson, can you tell us the address of the auto zone that you mentioned that was of concern?
Yes, it's one at Stenton and Washington Lane.
that was specifically referenced by a couple members a couple residents rather at um our
november 19th meeting okay and that address is 1.7 miles away from 6301 north broad are you are you
familiar with that don't know the exact mileage but that that sounds right this is east oak lane