Thank you.
okay okay chair we have 25 attendees you can proceed as you wish thank you
good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's zba hearings
with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed president mr chairman our board member
Cheryl L. Gaston. Present Mr. Chairman. Our board member Tanetta Graham. Present Mr. Chairman.
And our board member Taya Nguyen. Present Mr. Chairman. Also here is our attorney Hillary
Emerson and our Deputy Director for Planning and Zoning Kathleen Grady. Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded. With your participation you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady 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 win an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and also the address of the prompting question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for testimonial.
All comments or testimonies should be directed to our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule for today.
Number five, MI 2023, 006909, 1443 Tasker Street, cases continued.
Number 10. MI 2024-002-310-7346 West Pachonk Avenue. That case is continued.
Number 12, 20, 24, 002, 343, 5259 Jefferson Street.
That case is continued.
Number 15, MI 2024, 002, 357, 1924.
25, North 25th Street. That case is continued. Number 17, MI 2024, 002, 424, 822 Barlow Street.
That case is continued. And number 18, MI 2024-002-515-1725 Jackson Street, that case is continued. Are there any other requests for continuances?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. This is Hillary. I know we have Mandarin interpreter Mike Wang present. Mr. Wang, the case that we needed you for this morning, that has been continued. It was unfortunately not ready to proceed. So we no longer need you to stay on, but thank you for coming on and identifying yourself to let us know that you were here.
Good morning, Chair. This is Jasmine. I will be your co-host today. I see all of you at this time.
Okay. So we want to go over some cases that we do not have exhibits.
Number one, MI 2023-000633-1307 West Susquehanna Avenue. Devin Upton is the attorney. We have no exhibits. This is the third listing.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
MI 2023-000633-1307 West Esquina Avenue.
This case is continued.
We'll be heard the next time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2023-002-867-1775 Bridge Street.
Number two.
MI-2023-000633-1307 West Esquina Avenue.
No exhibits, third listing.
No one appeared on 5A24.
And there was a written request from the applicant on 12-13-23.
Kaz Ben Habtikabar is the listed applicant.
i see no hands at this time tier okay so no one appeared the last time for this case
this is the third listing so mi 2023 002 867 1775 bridge street i vote to dismiss
jill gaston my vote is to dismiss
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss
Taya Nguyen, my vote is to dismiss
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss
Thank you
Number 4, MI 2023-004-829-2600 West Clearfield Street
Hannon Biggs is the listed applicant
No Exhibit's third listing
No one appeared on 626-24
i see no hands at this time chair so no one appeared the last time um this is the third
listing so mi 2023 004 829 2600 west clearfield street i vote to dismiss
Senator Graham, my vote is to dismiss
Aya Wynn, my vote is to dismiss
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is to dismiss
Thank you
Number 14
MI 2024
002 355
1238 South 31st Street
First listing, no exhibits
Rikisha Bavez Patel is the listed owner applicant.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
So MI 2024-002-355-1238 South 31st Street.
As cases continued, Mark must be heard.
And number nine, MI 2024-001-450-3502-208-Scotts Lane, this case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I got pushed out.
Okay, we hear you now. We hear you loud and clear.
Thank you.
Our add-on list, MI 2024-004-827-3402 Sampson Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, September 18th at 9.30 a.m.
We're going to start our regular list and we're going to go to number six.
MI 2023-007-016-1715 McKean Street.
Carmen and Anna Marie Vona
are the applicants
there's a letter of unanimous support from East Point Breeze Neighbors
and two other letters
email letters of people who have concerns about the project
Carmen is coming in as a penalist
good morning Carmen could you please state your name
It's spelled for the courts in Augusta.
All right.
My name is Carmen Vona.
It's C-A-R-M-E-N-V-O-N-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
So this application is for use as a single-family household living in a suite 201 of an existing structure.
No changes to other previously approved uses.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
good morning sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please
proceed and share your screen give me a second we're trying to share the screen
it should be a green button says share screen
All right.
What are we doing now?
What is it?
So I think what you do is you open your documents first and then you share your screen.
Am I correct?
Here we go.
You're good.
It's coming up.
All right. I can't see where you guys at. You're over there on the right. Okay. All right. So what do you need from me now?
All right.
I can't see where you guys at.
All right.
You're over there on the right.
So, first of all, tell us what you want to do.
All right. So we have an industrial building, zoned I-2, and we want to turn the second floor of this building, which is a 3,000 square foot space, into a family apartment, single family dwelling.
Okay, so we, why don't you start going through your documents? We see your, your notice is up. Go, move on. Okay, show us all your documents. And then get that we see that. Yep, we have that.
All right. So that's a notice of appeal. All right. Yeah. Got the, here we, the Neighborhood Association gave us a thumbs up on the position. Okay.
nine to zero okay this is the particular space of the building um the pink area is the space
in question that's suite 204 that's the second floor of the building let me ask you this are
there any other residential in the area in the building in this building no yes okay keep going
on you got photos of the building yes so this is the building here um and you can see next door to
us there are uh single family houses right now we we see certificate of occupancy so we we don't
see what you're showing why do they not see that you see that now no we see it we do now we do now
Okay, so the Abbott's Older-Nage Dairies building is a commercial building, and the first floor is a dog park, and the second floor is a single-family residence, and there's all-street parking right there.
That courtyard is also part of the property.
The tenant who's living up there also gets a parking spot as part of their lease.
Next door to us, there are other properties right there to the left, if you can see them, that go down the whole street there.
they're all zoned I-2 as well, but they're all residential. So you're in the Abbott's Dairy's
apartment, right? That is correct. And that's been rented for several months and it wasn't
zoned? Is that what we're saying? No, it was rented since for several years. And we had a
rental license and we had it as caretakers quarters and we had a rental license with the
city. And in 2022, they just revoked it when we went to apply for a new, we went to renew the
license. And they didn't tell us that it happened. We only found it by accident when we were in
Eclipse looking for something else. And we saw that the license was revoked. Now they took our
rental payment and never refunded it after they revoked it. And they never sent us any paperwork
whatsoever um up until today i still have no paperwork that says that this license was revoked
do me a favor show us the inside of the apartment
all right do you see the pictures right now yes we see the outside building
so we're going to work our way through them now
okay yes give me a second here
I'm trying to fix the next one.
Bear with us.
Technical here.
We're going a little faster.
The apartment is vacant now?
No, there's still a tenant in there
who's not paying us any rent right now.
And that was it.
It's a three-bedroom apartment.
with two baths 3,000 square feet yes okay questions from the board
no chair
he's muted does that mean something charlotte on mute unmute charlotte good i'm sorry i do uh you
You said that you classified this as caretakers quarters, and that's how you got the rental license?
Originally, that's what we did to get the license to put that in there.
And we received a rental license based on that classification.
And the caretaker was supposed to be for what?
It was just the way that we were able to situate this back then when we did it.
so the caretakers quarters was just basically um one of the means that allowed us to put a
residence in there i see okay thank you
we see okay thank you any other questions to the board
questions or comments from our attorney
hillary emerson um just to i just want to look at this
see me so this is unit 201 in this building is that correct that is correct okay just wanted
to clarify that 201 occupies the whole entire floor of that space okay all right i wasn't clear
from the the plans if there were other other uses to look like there are other potentially
suites in the building so is it just the so it's just the apartment on the second floor and then
is it the first floor is all i think it's a doggy daycare and boarding facility
that is correct okay so those are the only two uses at the property that is correct okay thank
you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Yes, Chair, I have a hand up by the
name of Hope Heider. They have been allowed to speak. Hi, could you state your name,
please, and spell it for the court's an article? Yes, my name is Hope Heider, H-O-P-E-H-Y-D-E-R.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes are you a neighbor i am an interested party because i am yes i'm here today to bring it to
the board's attention that the zoning notice um ray appeal zp 2023 row one one six one five which
is the appeal for 1715 mckean street um was posted improperly in violation of the zoning code
the zoning notice itself reads warning if signs are not properly posted in accordance with the
requirements of the zoning code the board will delay action on the matter and require reposting
this is something that was brought to the zba's attention and lni's attention
because the zoning notice was posted
without the notice of refusal or referral?
However, on the description for the refusal is present.
The description from the refusal is present
on the zoning poster.
So we believe it was appropriate.
Thank you.
What's the last question, sir?
The description from the refusal is present on the zoning poster, so we believe that it was appropriate.
Okay, so that warning.
Thank you very much. We do appreciate your comment. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have two hands remaining.
Brianna Wakefield has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, yes, my name is Brianna Wakefield, B-R-I-O-N-N-A, last name Wakefield, W-A-K-E-F-I-E-L-D.
I work for Council President Kenyatta Johnson.
Hold on, hold on, hold on a minute, please. Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do swear.
Please proceed.
Yes, I work for Council President Kenyatta Johnson. He supports the variance at this time.
Thank you very much for calling in. We appreciate it. Any other hands?
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Kiana Markham. They have been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon. Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Sure. Good morning. Can you hear me?
I can.
Yes, thank you.
My name is Kiana Markham.
It is spelled Q-I-A-N-A, and the last name is spelled M-A-R-K-H-A-M.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am the current tenant.
Okay, please proceed.
Yes, thank you.
I'm here today to share the reality of living in an I-2 building in a single-family dwelling
that prioritizes the activities and practices of commercial tenants over the residential tenant
and why I believe the Philadelphia Code is right to prohibit single-family use in an I-2 district.
When I rented the unit, subject of a space, almost 32 months ago,
I had no idea about zoning, permits, and variances.
I was excited to simply find enough space to accommodate my unique living work situation.
Not long after moving in, I started to experience the realities of why single-family use
in an industrial district commingled is not appropriate
and appropriately prohibited by the Philadelphia Code.
I will only choose to share a few of my experiences.
I will only choose to share a few of my experiences in respect for time, but Bark Park, which is the Animal Boarding Services building located directly beneath my unit, has been a big part of what has impaired my right to enjoy my home.
Bark Park is a high-traffic, multi-location chain with plans of expanding the 1715 McKean Street location.
significant construction hazards bar park has undergone and continues to require significant
construction to maintain the animal services spaces and provide animal boarding grooming day
care cat care adoption service and regular pickup and drop off they're open seven days a week
constructions have been scheduled outside of business hours not to disturb their patrons
as a result i've had to deal with unsupervised contractors ripping out and replacing flooring
just underneath my living space beyond 8 p.m on saturdays and sundays without notice these choices
were not made in consideration that a resident lives on site. Semi-truck delivery noise. Daily
noises and deliveries from semi-trucks, which emit fumes and loud beeping noises, trying to
back up and turn on a very narrow residential South Fetchley Street like Colorado, has disrupted
my ability to work from home on numerous occasions. Industrial activity hazards. On June 13th of 2022,
one of the commercial tenants in the building was attempting to unload large sheets of plywood
from a semi-truck when a forklift accident occurred as I was walking to my car. I was
almost injured by the plywood sheet that were dropped only a feet from my mother's small
convertible Mazda Miata. Thankfully, I was able to physically dodge the accident. Had my 76-year-old
mother been there, she may not have been so fortunate. Abandoned dog feces. Regularly having
to report dog feces just left outside of the main entrance. Dog feces trailing through the building
are a serious hazard and may cause concern because of microorganisms and pathogenic problems to
humans that are resisted to several classes of antibiotics. Patron disturbances and verbal
assault. The doorbell for Bark Park would be routed to my doorbell when Bark Park didn't
respond right away. This became a nuisance, and as a result, I requested to have my name removed
from the directory. Unfortunately, this never completely solved the problem because when
bark park did not promote or respond to patrons ringing their doorbell patrons would become
impatient and bring my home demanding access additionally patrons would regularly park in my
assigned parking spot and become agitated when i would ask if i could park in my own spot i even
had an employee from bark park verbally assault me because i asked one of their patrons if i could
park in my spot unsecure building leaving the main entrance open during business hours left me
feeling unsecure as a resident with people freely roaming through the building just because the door
automatically locked at 7 p.m. did not provide peace of mind. The building was free of unauthorized
visitors, unable to receive scheduled packages, constantly having packages, work-related packages
for me, delayed due to delivery exception animal inference by USPS. I am here today because the
activities that are appropriate for the commercial tenants of 1715 McKean Street and I-2 district
are at odds with single-family use. I believe that the code is written appropriately. I do not want
anyone else to have to endure what I've had to endure. The I-2 district was not designed to mix
single-family with industrial use, nor mixing single-family use with animal boarding services.
Living in this apartment has disturbed my ability to rest and enjoy quiet time in my home and also
conduct business as a professional. I will not be able to get my time or money back, but I would
like you to thoroughly consider whether the existing code should be called into question
just because someone wants to bend the rules.
Please do not grant this variance.
All right.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no more hands at this time, too.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from medium industrial I-2 to industrial residential mixed-use IRMX.
Under the recommended zoning, household living is allowed.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the requested variance for household living.
Thank you.
Mr. Vona, I'm going to hold this vote until next Wednesday morning at 930.
I'm going to sit with the board members and go over some of the testimony that we have, okay?
So we will vote on this next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Number eight.
MI 2024-001-189-1515 Westmoreland Street.
westmoreland street binash and julie samuel are the owners
Banash and Julie Samuel are the owners.
binash samuel is coming in as a panelist okay thank you
good morning sir
sorry i was on mute good morning i could you please state your name and spell for the court
stenographer sure it's uh binash samuel b-i-n-o-s-h last name is samuel s-a-m-u-e-l
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay so i do have a letter of support from allegheny west civic association and this
application is for use as a visitor accommodation in one unit of an existing multiple family
dwelling three dwelling unit. The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the RSA
5 zoning district. Our vice chair has a few questions for you sir. Sure. Good morning sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
okay okay okay all right can you see my uh screen we can sure okay great okay so this is uh basically
what i'm trying to do is get a variance for visitor accommodation for my property you know
this is the refusal um l and i refused it because um it's prohibited in the zoning district
um and this is the appeal application can i share what floor you want to do this one
uh second floor so it's a three-unit building uh there's already a tenant on the third floor
um there's no um first floor is vacant i'm trying to do it on the second floor okay thank you yep
and then this is the project information form
this is the deed
tax clearance certification
so this is the property, this is the zoning poster
also this is outside of the house
another picture of it
and this is the interior of the second floor
it's fully furnished
and it's two bedrooms
and this is the letter from the association for approval
um and the other reason uh i want to get this visitor accommodation i was surprised it was not
approved because um when looking at it if you go to airbnb or verbal one of the websites you can
see there's you can see airbnb listings all around my property my property is right here in circle
in red so you can see um this property is already being rented out as a airbnb like short-term uh
tenants this is just one example of airbnb listings uh next page this is a verbal listings
so all the blue ones are already uh properties that are listed and mine is the red one right
there that i'm looking to get approval for uh and then i had a send out notification to all the 120
residents. This is the proof of that from the UPS, United Postal Service.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Any questions? Questions from the board? Yeah, I have a question.
I didn't hear you. Is this an owner-occupied property or no? No, this is visitor accommodation,
so no, it's not an owner-occupied. Question. How many bathrooms for this
second floor unit each unit has their own bathroom so they're not going to be going in
it's not a shared bathroom the unit has its own bathroom no no i'm just asking you said that there
were two bedrooms but you didn't say how many bathrooms oh sorry one bathroom and this is only
for the second floor you want this for yeah yes all right um and then uh i guess my other question
is what you mentioned that there are other um listings for airbnbs around you yeah so you're
You're not currently doing this, correct?
Yeah, I was not. When I applied for it, Ellen, I said yours. I'm not approved for it as per the let me go back to the exact wording. The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the zoning district. That's what the refusal was for. But when I go to Airbnb's listings, you can see there's multiple listings all in that area.
Yeah, I was not.
When I applied for it, Ellen, I said you're
Okay. Thank you.
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?
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Charles Richardson. They have been allowed to speak.
Morning, Mr. Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. The Councilwoman has no
opposition to granting the barriers for this use. Thank you very much for calling.
We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
at this time chair planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change the
rsa5 residential single family zoning at this location there are no unique physical circumstances
or conditions of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance to the zoning
code the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for visitor
accommodation. Thank you. MI 2024-001-189-1515 Westmoreland Street. I vote yes with Proviso.
Temporary variance expires 9-12-27, second floor only.
This is Cheryl Gaston. My vote is yes with Proviso.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Taya, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Sir, you have your votes. Thank you.
Oh, good question.
Okay. Number 16, MI 2024-002-372, 1151 South 19th Street, Arthur Gimenez and Sonietta Muhammad.
Arthur Gimenez is coming in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Jimenez. How are you, sir?
Good morning.
Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Arthur Jimenez. First name spelled A-R-T-H-U-R. Last name is Jimenez, G-I-M-E-N-E-Z.
I'm Sanayi Mohamed, spouse and co-owner. Sanayi Mohamed spelled S-O-N-E-Y-E-T, Mohamed, M-U-H-A-M-M-A-D.
Thank you. Do you both swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So this application is for the erection of a third-story addition with roof deck, accessed by a roof deck access structure over an existing two-family dwelling.
The proposed addition lacks the required eight-foot setback at the third floor due to the adjacent structures having two stories.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning.
have you have you both emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes yes we have thank you please
Please proceed and share your screen.
Let's share them.
So, we live in Philadelphia the past 10 years, and we both work for local nonprofits here
in Philadelphia.
This addition would allow us the flexibility to address our growing family.
We have two children of different genders. And also my mother-in-law, his mother, sometimes visits from the Philippines and giving her a place to stay.
And also evolving to, you know, allow us to continue to work from home as well.
So that's why we're pursuing this variant. Are there any questions that we can address for y'all?
i'm talking more because he had a no surgery deviated septum so um all right let me ask you
No surgery, deviated septum, so.
All right. Let me ask you this. Do you have any other photos you want to show us?
I'm sure of the property.
Where did I put it? Right there.
So this is the property here. This is our home.
I did take, sorry.
These are photos with the zoning notice on the window.
We posted that about, you know, more than three weeks ago.
So neighbors know that we have this case, this hearing.
Yeah, we're not, we're only seeing your first document you put up.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
You can move it.
Share your screen.
You can share that one.
These are the photos of the property with the zoning notice on it, and then you wouldn't
actually see the exhibits, and then here's a notice of refusal, here's our site plans,
here's the application of appeal
here's our deed
both our names on it
here's the
we presented it to our local RCO
the Point Breeze
the Community Development Coalition
and received
four votes all the support of our project
here's
a project formation form
And also the tax clearance.
So here would be the issue.
Your refusal has to do with your didn't set the addition backage fee.
Could you explain why?
Why don't you explain that?
So one of the reasons I want to forego the setback is to allow for more livable square footage.
So right now we have three bedrooms and our son and daughter currently share a bedroom.
And the challenge with that, again, our son is he'll be 10 in a couple of weeks.
There's going to be a need for them to separate. And we do have flexibility to work from home.
There have been occasions when his mother, she's 80 years old, visits the U.S.
every now and again she mostly resides in the Philippines and having space for her to be
also with work from home needs our children's bedroom needs having that additional livable
space that the setback eliminates is really important to us to be able to remain here in
our community our kids go to the neighbor the local neighborhood public school we've really
settled in here we moved in when I was pregnant with our first and bought this home then and we
want to remain here. And so this additional living square footage gives us the flexibility to buy and
maintain this home until we eventually retire. Thank you. Thank you. Questions or comments on
the board? Yes. Oh, go ahead, Cheryl. No, go ahead. I was going to ask if we could see a zoomed in
image of the floor plans. I feel like, you know, the eight foot setback, especially on a block
where all of the other properties that are not at the corner and are not zoned cmx are two-story
like this is something that's going to be very visible from the street and i just want to see
the floor plan to sort of understand the layout sure can you find the floor plan i guess that
would be helpful is this what you're talking can you see our screen no this is a site plan
in an elevation okay can you pull up the floor plan well he finds that i'll share that we are
across the street from a
three or four story church
and that is
quite high. There are
three story buildings
kitty cornered from us, not just
at the corner from our property
which is approximately four doors down
the three story building that you're referring
to. Just as an FYI, that
wasn't already made clear to the board.
So you're asking for the inside
lands? Yeah, the floor.
The architect.
um also i'll share that um i forget what you call it our architect has described it but the
the window is pushed back a bit um on a slant it goes back on a slant yes
Right. And on a slant, it goes back on a slant.
A man's side roof?
Say again?
Did they define it as a man's side roof?
Yes. I think that's what it's called. Yes.
And there is another third story across the street from you. There's a church, and is there any other one?
There's a there's a large church that takes up in a funeral home on the ground floor.
And then there's a there's a church next door to the funeral home.
Are there any other buildings on the block? I have a third floor.
Yes, there are. There are buildings on our block that do have three that do have three stories, both on our side of the street and also across the street.
Were those three stories add ons or were they already there?
They were there when we moved in
10 years ago. I don't know
until they sent a finger add-ons.
And my other question, my question is
do you happen to know if
your neighbors that are on both sides
of you, were they part of that vote
at the
RCO meeting?
I know at least
one of them lives across the street from us
the on Annan Street. So they're familiar with our property.
So the neighbors on either side of you were not present.
Not in the RCO meeting, but we have told that the project and both are in support of the project on our on both sides of our house.
Yeah, so we know our neighbors well on both sides of both aware of the project.
Thank you.
And I guess my question is, how many notices did you send out for the RCO meeting?
I think it was 200.
I think the requirement is 200 for the Point Breeze Community Coalition requirement.
I don't remember anymore.
It was this past summer.
Have you found the drawing shot?
Yeah, sorry, we didn't know we had to have the side drawings.
Could you explain what are you putting on the third floor?
Two bedrooms and one bath.
How deep is your property?
It's on a side glass.
Go ahead.
Hold one second, the depth of the property we have.
It is, well, the, well, the lab width is 16 feet, and then the depth is, make sure I'm
thinking it's out.
Hold on. Go back up for a second. So the lot width is 16 feet. We are at 15 feet with no variance requested. Building height is 38 feet. We're at 35, too, with no variance requested. Does that help address the question?
I think what we're trying to figure out, how much space is this and what would eight foot be? If you did the setback at eight feet, what would the third floor look like?
If we did the setback, we don't have a site plan or a floor plan for if we did the setback.
Is that if we don't do the setback, we can still try and find those floor plans.
Why don't you show that with the setback?
Can you pull up what you just had? Go down.
No, go down. Yes, show that.
Maybe that helps.
this is with the third story without the setback
we don't have site plans for with the setback yet
so there's the mansor roof one back there is that correct
yes yes that's the idea
Ty does that answer your questions at all
it would be better
yeah I mean floor plan would be better but I mean
I mean, I knew, I understood it was a man's house.
Yeah, potentially it's going to be two bedrooms up here.
And there's no roof access?
That's just a pilot house?
Well, yeah, I mean, we still haven't budgeted out,
but the plans would call for a roof deck,
access to the roof deck with a pilot house.
In the future.
And do you know right now,
does this height include the parapet for the roof?
height include the parapet for the roof? Yes. Other questions from the board? Oh, I do have
one more question. Do you know if this mansard roof is in line with the standards that some of
the South Philly RCOs have been setting for mansard roofs? Yes. The Point Breeze Development
Association, one of their board chairs, has been an advocate of this type of roof. And there are
two properties on the neighboring block on Annan Street that have this same roof for their third
story of developments that have gone up. They're not directly on our block, but they're at the
corner street where our block, where our house is. Those roofs have been developed in the past
10 years since we've been here yes and just so you all know is like the reason i'm asking these
questions is because mostly your block is mostly two-story and your house is sort of in the middle
of the of the line so it would really like yes there are other three stories on your block but
they were new builds they're also at the end of the block yes one of them is the two that are not
at the corner are zoned differently so this would be sort of the first time one of the rsa5 properties
on your block is being
transformed, which is why I was
asking the questions.
Understood.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Question or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands
at this time, Chair.
Question.
Amy Wood with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 single-family zoning at this
location.
There are no unique physical circumstances or conditions of this property that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code, and it would be out
of character with the majority of homes on the block base.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed dimensional variance
to eliminate the third-story setback.
Mr. Jimenez, what we're going to do is we're going to vote on this next week after we have some time to talk among the board about where we want to be on this.
So next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m., we will vote on this.
Would it be helpful for us to share the floor plans in advance of that meeting or no?
Hilary, can we have them send them in?
I don't want to.
It's up to the board.
Otherwise, the record is closed.
records close if you want you could send that in okay that would be the only thing that we would
that we would accept um to add to the record is the floor plans okay thank you thank you
go back to the beginning of our
Number three, MI 2023-002-909-2651-7T Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
We do not have a letter of summary, but notice was sent to near neighbors with proof of mailing.
Meeting was held August 13th before all in the family.
The applicant also has 31 signatures from neighbors on the block.
Vern Anastasio has been promoted to penalist.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Counsel, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court sonographer?
Sure, it's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, representing Ms. Chantel Johnson, owner of the subject property, and Robert Harris, her husband.
okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
our vice chair has a few questions for you sir
good morning counsel do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to exactly
good morning yes have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you very much
Please proceed and share the screen.
Thanks.
I've already started sharing my screen.
I have a 97-page exhibit binder that I'm moving into evidence this morning, along with my client's testimony.
Here is the letter that was mailed, the meeting that was held, and the proof of mailing.
I just received an email from another RCO.
I think it was Swamp Poodle, something about another meeting.
Something about another meeting. Wasn't aware of that, but we're willing to meet with anybody, of course. But we did meet with all in the family.
I wasn't aware of that, but we're willing.
well the application is this is a rough block uh to say the least there's uh about 10 vacant lots
on our side of the block alone there are several multi-family dwellings on the block and
as you're going to see here this application is for a three-family dwelling
uh the property is zoned rsa 5 but this would be a complete rebuild um renovation and to do a
complete rebuild renovation of a single family home on this block uh it would stay empty for
a very long time unfortunately it's just not marketable we've got
a two-bedroom unit on the first floor we have a rec room in the basement with utilities that's
attached to the first floor unit we have a one-bedroom unit on the second floor
and a one-bedroom unit on the third floor this does say two bedrooms here but this room would
be the living room as part of the eat-in kitchen okay attorney uh astacio could we make that a
little bigger please yes ma'am a little hard to see i apologize i apologize for that it's hard for
me to see okay there you go again the only two-bedroom unit would be on the first floor
everything else would be a one-bedroom unit on the second and third.
And was that a bi-level? I'm sorry.
The only bi-level, it's really not much of a bi-level, but it would be the first floor
would have access to the basement.
Where there'd be a washer, dryer, a powder room, like a TV room.
as i said
this is the property in question here the red painted home next to it is a a vacant property
loan vacant there's several vacant homes on the block and if like as i said there's more than 10
vacant lots on the block, and several of the single-family homes have, in fact, been converted
to multifamily.
Let's take a look at the interior.
So you see that it's in major disrepair.
It's been in pretty bad shape for quite a long time.
Get you some interiors here.
The property has good bones, though, and some really nice architectural features that my client has expressed an interest in maintaining.
Of course, my client is aware that they'd be subject to the International Building Code with a three-family dwelling, so it'll be the only sprinklered, fully sprinklered building on the block,
which is important and imperative especially considering the fact that a long vacant home
is right next door that has been subject to squatters in the past
let me give you a feel for the interior
We also show you the, as the chairman mentioned, we have, sorry, 31 signatures of immediate
neighbors all in support.
They were very excited that this long-neglected property would, in fact, be rehabilitated, and they're hoping additional properties, including the one adjacent, will someday be rehabilitated as well because of the condition of the property, because of the longstanding vacancy, and because it would be impracticable, impossible to rehabilitate this property as a marketable single-family home as it currently exists.
on this block. We respectfully request the granting of the variance in accordance with
the support of the 31 immediate neighbors. And with that, I'd like to call Ms. Chantel
Johnson to the stand to be sworn in.
To the stand, to be sworn in.
Chantelle Johnson has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, Chantelle Johnson, C-H-A-N-T-E-L-L-E-J-O-H-N-S-O-N.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Johnson, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Why shouldn't your comments from the board?
Do we know if in the RCO meeting, and I know you just said Swamp Poodle wanted another meeting,
if there's any kind of discussion on the number of units, like a duplex versus a triplex,
is that one of the issues that came up? That did not come up at the meeting, no.
If it were a duplex, we would have to make one of those units a very large
bi-level unit. And I think we would run into the same problem with, can we get, after the
complete rehab, can we get a family in there at an approachable price point with something
that large other questions for the board yes can you share the square footages of the second and
the third floor apartments like the total square footage of each individually yeah let me see if
it's on the plan yeah i couldn't see it when you shared it this particular architect usually puts
it on i'm applying just give me one moment
I don't see it on here.
It's usually in the notes box.
Yeah, it's not in here.
That said, the lot itself is 960 square feet.
A little less than that, 915.
I would venture to guess that the second and third floor units, which will have identical footprints, are in the 700 square feet range.
And the first floor unit would be a little larger because it also includes some of the basement.
Other questions?
I had one more question.
Do you know if there's any other multifamily conversions on that side of the block?
Oh, there's several.
More than more than a half a dozen as the properties began to deteriorate, deteriorate in condition, some families have decided to divide them up in order to keep them going.
Are they visible triplexes?
And more.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emberson.
Two quick things.
Mr. Anastasia, did you receive a letter from All in the Family?
Not to my knowledge, no.
We have not either.
And I noticed that on the plans, there was a reference to an addition.
I just want to note, this is a change of use application only.
all of that's already been approved okay all right sounds good thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have a hand up phone number ending in three five five two they have been allowed to
speak okay hi could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer
hello hello hi hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
um yes my name is adrian fernandez my last name is spelled f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z for swamp
little neighborhood parcel association rco and we're one of the affected rcos do you swear or
RCO and with one of the affected RCOs. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
for him to tell the truth, the whole truth.
nothing but the truth? Yes. Please proceed. Okay um there's a number of misstatements and
possibly mischaracterizations that Mr. Anastasio is um putting on a record. Um first um there
there are approximately five or six affected RCOs with its address um one of them was all
on the family RCO, and they originally were assigned as the RCO coordinator.
On the family, RCO notified numerous RCOs in our affected area, not just for this address,
but also in the Strawberry Mansion area, that they no longer can serve as RCO coordinators
per address when assigned by the council office, and that was because of some other work they
were going to do that was going to be in conflict.
So all in the family no longer holds meetings, so I have no idea who we had a meeting with.
There were no notices sent out, and the 16th, I believe it's the Executive Democratic
Ward, sent a letter out a while ago saying they were opposed to this variant.
Swamp rule is also opposed, and ZBA has denied variances on the same side of the street at 2649 on four different hearings, four separate notices of refusal, and 2651.
Any multifamily, there's been one granted, 2617, which has illegally turned the multifamily into a rooming house.
there are no other approved legal multi-families on that block because we've done all the meetings
they were all done by Swampoodle and also by North Central Philadelphia Susquehanna RTO over
the past 10 years the block captains are they have two co-block captains that live on the same side
But they are opposed to more multifamilies.
There are single-family rentals on the block, but they're opposed to more multifamily because they've had a large problem with mismanagement of the multifamily variances that were approved, and there are not many that are legal.
There was no meeting.
All-in-Family holds no more meetings.
They notified many parties, including DBA and Planning Commission, earlier this year.
I don't have the exact email, but I could find it and send it if necessary.
We send it, because they sent it out to everybody.
They, and I think some applicants, did request the District Council 5 to reassign addresses
that all in the family RCO was the RCO coordinator for.
And on different occasions, different things happened.
For this address here, for some reason,
Allegheny West Foundation thought they were holding a meeting
for this property on September 17th.
Absolutely no required legal notices were sent out
by the law office of Vern Anastasio for either RCO
to any affected RCOs, and we are requesting that this be denied or dismissed, either one.
As far as any additions, that was also on the block.
They don't want any additions.
They say it affects the light in their yard.
Some of them have gardens, some of them don't.
And we have no knowledge of approval for additions.
We have no knowledge of anything.
We have no plans.
We have no information.
We had no legal notice of any public meetings, but Allegheny West Foundation is still under the impression that this applicant party was going to attempt to come to the September 17th meeting.
I don't think they received a response back, though, but they did email a request.
They did request this applicant party.
Are you going to come to the meeting of September 17th?
And they requested a while ago.
On 7-29-24, Mr. Anastasio's office wrote an email saying that they were waiting for All in the Family to show up at a Zoom where their applicant party was there, but no one else was there.
That's because no one received any legal notice, and All in the Family RCO does no longer coordinate RCO meetings.
So we're asking that this be denied so this applicant party can start this process all over again.
Also, the house was not vacant for a long time.
The family that lived there, we know them.
They actively participated in our meetings since 2014.
And our meetings since 2014, they retired to that home, and then they moved back to their original home because they have a church in the 1944, I believe, or 19119 community.
They retired to that home.
So they sold the house and moved back.
The home was the family home of the husband.
So that house was not abandoned for a long time.
And they were adamantly opposed to multifamily on the block.
So that's the summary of what we know about the most important things.
And we're asking that this be denied and that this applicant party start over and follow the Philadelphia Code to protect our rights.
Because what they're doing is not fair.
We have no communication about this property.
All right.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Is there anyone else in virtual?
And Vern, I'll give you a chance to respond.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up by the name of Robert Harris.
they haven't been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, good afternoon.
My name is Robert Harris.
That's Robert, R-O-B-E-R-T,
Harris, H-A-R-R-I-S.
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am a neighbor
because I own a business.
I run a business and own a business
that is maybe 900 feet from the property.
Okay, please proceed.
Some of the statements that Ms. Swampoodle has made are false.
I also know the owner, that previous owner who we purchased the property from,
she was an RCO member and she was in agreement
and she gave our support with this project, her and her husband.
okay sure and in addition um the yard space there's there's no garden in these
yards the three homes the home immediately next door is is a rooming
house the next home and home next to that home are currently vacant and prior
to a fire that occurred maybe 11 months ago um there's no real activity happening
at the the three houses uh right next door to this property um
and in addition to that we we planned on uh extending the property so even the second and
third floor goes all the way back so the script so there would be no there wouldn't be any yard
space. Vern, is this one of the owners? Yeah, unscripted, but yes. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Chair, I need to go on the record to clean up this mess. First, I need to object to
Adrienne's testimony, especially when she's testifying to other people's positions.
All of that is nonsense and hearsay, and none of it can be considered by this board.
Also, she says no one met with us, but then in the same breath says that they all oppose us, which makes absolutely no sense.
The only way they would be able to oppose or support is if they actually knew the plan and this was presented.
Secondly, the addition that she claims everyone is against, that's done.
Been there, done that, by right, no input needed.
So that's the permit in hand.
So, Verne, let's concentrate on, tell me what happened August 13th.
Mr. Chair, we've been through two different mailings on this.
And at the first meeting, we showed up, no one showed up to hear us.
Second time, we showed up and did a presentation.
Adrienne may not have been present, but apparently that hasn't stopped her from coming out in opposition to a plan that she claims she didn't know anything about, but she knows enough in order to be against it.
Was it all in the family there when you made the presentation?
Yes, of course. I think there was a change later on in RCOs. But as far as I know, again, we're happy to meet with anybody else. But to suggest that this be denied or dismissed is silly.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I'm sorry, Mr. Anastasio. Can I just interject? I was just doing a little bit more digging on this case, and I found that all in the family actually sent in a letter back in December on this case. It was based on a meeting that was held in November.
um on this case it was based on a meeting that was held in november um that's what they said
they indicated that they were in opposition however they would support um a duplex
with certain provisos so i just wanted to just wanted to put that on the record and
mr anesthesia i'll forward that to you it looks like it was sent um to to your colleague mr cook
but not to you i see thank you yeah so i will send the letter but it was it was back in in
december i don't know if there was additional meetings since then i don't know if there's
been any change to their position so but we're we're looking at a meeting that was october
august well august was the last one that's right we've had several meetings on this project
i'm sorry do we have the letter and the notices
from this august oh yeah everything is in my 97 we don't we don't have a letter from august
we do not have a letter a letter i mean the letter that the applicants sent out about the
we have an rco notification letter pursuant to the code all the addresses and proof of mailing of
course how many people were in the attendance at the last all in the family session i don't remember
Ms. Graham, I'm sorry. I do about five RCO meetings a week. So I can't, I just can't recall that. I usually rely on them to tell us, you know, what the letter, when they submit their letters.
But nevertheless, again, we also went door to door on that block and in the immediate area and secured 31 signatures. There's a legal rooming house on the block. There are several multifamilies on the block.
and again more than 10 vacant lots on that side of the block so here's a property that's
laying empty and my client would like to do something with it in order to revitalize it
I went on between the RCOs is sort of above my pay grade I can't get involved in that and
However, if Swampoodle wants to meet with us, I'd be happy to do it, and the board can hold their vote until then.
But it seems as though they claim they've never met with us or reviewed our proposal, she claims that everyone opposes it.
So I don't know what to say to that.
So let me go. Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the RSI-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The City changed the zoning maps in this neighborhood in 2014.
The Appellant requests three dwelling units.
Planning staff are aware of 16 houses on this block base with multiple dwelling units with the majority as duplexes.
Three units is not the least minimum.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed use grants for multiple units with RISO-2 dwelling units.
I can live with that, Mr. Chair.
So MI 2023, 002, 909, 2651 North 17th Street, I vote yes, maximum two units.
So, go ahead.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with the two units.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
with the proviso, two units
Iowen, my vote is yes
with proviso
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
with proviso. Thank you
Council, could you please stay on? Yes, sir
And by 2024
001-167
1333 South
9th Street
OCR let no RCO letter summary or notice with proof of mailing letter of
opposition from council member Squilla in reference to a letter that he says
passion governor square civic association wrote the applicant provided a
letter's support from manual chapel nine letters of support from neighbors to
from the block and also um an applicant a petition signed by 29 neighbors
mr anastasio so mr chair let me just add to that because we did in the meantime receive
from the council office a copy of the letter from pass young square mr anastasio i can forward it
to you if you've not received it um it indicates um opposition as um council member squilla
As Councilmember Squilla indicated in his letter, they mentioned that the pre-existing conformity on the first floor clearly provides no justification or hardship for the addition with no rear yard.
indicated in his letter.
And that was the extent of their comments.
Sir Anastasio, just for the record, state your name.
Vern Anastasio, on behalf of Sarita Yip.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate with
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you, counsel. Please
proceed. And I think you've already shared your screen, please. Yes, at least one of them for now.
Mr. Chair, the RCO meeting was held. No one from the block was present, just the members of the
zoning committee but none of whom live anywhere near this property uh and their position was based
on this addition that we're trying to put back here uh during the meeting they said that it would
the addition would block light and air mostly light to the most immediate neighbors so we
did a shade study that shows here's the existing
shadows at 9 a.m. and here are the
shadows with the proposed addition. As you can see
they're identical as far as the shade at 9 a.m.
is concerned. Now let's look
at the 1 p.m.
Existing condition
with the addition.
Again, negligible.
As you can see, the shade for the church is exactly the same.
We have some minor shade here to the adjacent property.
It's still just a portion of that rear yard.
Negligible.
And then 4 o'clock,
the only difference is that this little tiny corner of the church
that has no windows by the way will have additional shadow at 4 p.m
everything else is identical so the basis for the committee was just the rco committee
zero neighbors. RCO committee, whole basis of not supporting this addition is based on the shadow.
And as you can see, there are no shadow impacts at all. And what's further,
excuse me for a moment while I pull something else up.
In my 90-page exhibit, I'm going to move that shadow study into evidence, and my 90-page
exhibit will also show 30 signatures of immediate neighbors.
Brian, could you show photos of what it looks like now?
But I just wanted to make sure you saw that we also have letters from the church, the very church.
I mentioned that in the beginning.
The very church that the RCO committee was concerned about.
Altogether, we have 37 letters and signatures of support.
and I'll show you there's the refusal and we'll get to the photos
should show you some plans as well
this is existing and this is the addition back here
here's the front and here's the rear
as you can see it would just go straight up
and the only reason why of course we're you know the footprint doesn't change in the building
You know, the footprint doesn't change of the building.
You know, the first floor already has the building.
You know, the first floor already has the build-out.
When the first floor is built-out, you're going to build on top of that?
That's correct.
That's it.
It's a multifamily by right.
So the only reason why we're here, and by the way, it's the only three-story building.
On that side of the block.
So it has absolutely zero negative impact on anyone with regard to light or air.
Did this project start already?
Not that I know of.
No, I don't see any violations or any sort of, nope, maybe some interior work, but that's about it.
No addition has been started.
So the footprint in the rear does not change?
Not at all.
It just goes up.
There's proof of posting.
And again, I think the shade study tells the story that there's really no negative impact to any of the adjacent neighbors, which is why they all support it.
You bring your client on.
Thank you. Ms. Serena, yep, if you could please, yep, if you could please raise your virtual hand.
Serena Chan has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Serena Chan, S-E-R-E-N-A, last name is C-H-A-N, and Yip is my married last name, why I'm seasoned Paul.
Sure. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Jane, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Did you personally secure the letters from all the immediate neighbors, including the Emanuel Church in the rear?
And do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have nothing further questions from the board.
I'm just curious, does the roof deck, is that still included in the plan?
This application does not have a roof deck.
The questions from the board.
actually i'm sorry i want to this application does have a roof deck yeah my apologies i took
this case from another council so i um i did not make the application myself but yes there is a
roof deck on the plan and a roof
deck access structure.
So that's on top of the
on top of the
addition would be the roof deck
and roof access.
I didn't see that in the
in the in the diagrams or
drawings. So yeah, well, I think
it's on most I think the
access structure will be
on the part of the addition
itself
will very likely be
in the existing
because that addition is not very large
okay so you're saying
the roof deck will not extend all the way
back to the addition
no it will be the roof deck
access structure I think
will be laying on
part of the addition
but the actual deck
itself
will be part of the existing
condition
of the
of the property
is there a plan that shows that
I'm looking I'm not sure it does
hold on
the deck is not subject to the refusal
though it is
so what the refusal says is that
the rear wall
is already non-conforming
because it doesn't include the
setback and that extension of
that wall which
the basis was for the roof deck so until we can see that the roof deck
is not touching that wall then they are related
okay I'll take a look can we can we see the elevation
yeah hold on maybe that could help
maybe that could help
there we go
so the roof deck access structure is in the rear
and the deck the decking starts in the rear and moves west
there's the roof deck access structure
and there's the deck but the refusal is pursuant to the second and third floor wall
that will be extended from the first floor wall
if i'm making any sense with that yes but that's where the roof deck is this these two one here
and one here this wall correct and it includes the barrier it includes the fall barrier for the
roof deck yes but even absent the roof deck we'd still have the variance correct yes yes
i hope i answered your question other questions from the board and i can i see the
next drawing there with the elevations the side elevations thank you that one yes okay
so again hard to see all right um
so the
all right
this is the addition back here yeah and this is why we're here
these two floors that's because this is already built out
this is the subject of the refusal right here am i putting my cursor on it yes okay
All right. Thank you. Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Only that we did receive a letter in opposition from an adjacent neighbor. It does look like he's still here on the Zoom to present, but if he has to leave, I just wanted to know we did receive a letter in opposition from an adjacent neighbor.
All right. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Alexander Herman. He has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Herman, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Alexander Herman, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R-H-E-R-M-N.
right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yep mr herman are you a neighbor i am the adjacent neighbor on the right hand side if
you're facing the building 1335 south 9th street sure please proceed sir um so i did miss the
original i think earlier meeting for this uh property um i know serena we have each other's
phone number um there's unrelated stuff involving leaks that were poorly addressed but it's kind of
unrelated to this uh grievance that i have uh this characterization that like everything's hunky
dory with the neighbors seems to obvious uh conveniently occlude myself so you know i didn't
receive any contact from her about input about this or anything like that i was basically radio
silence about it so i think that speaks to the characterization of this and also like
honestly like i don't see why this is a hardship to not have this edition um it's literally going
to be right next to my yard it's going to be an invasion of definitely light and air regardless
of what this study that was shown shows and um like an invasion of my privacy of my use of my
yard honestly um and the building is already a three-story triplex with plenty of space to make
three units so i'm not going to belabor this point that's like my refusal and also just like
on the grounds of like sort of disingenuous presentation of oh everyone in the neighborhood
is in support why wasn't i asked whether i support it or not why wasn't i even asked for
or not why wasn't i even asked for my input as the direct adjacent neighbor and someone who has
my input as the direct adjacent neighbor and someone who has
literally like we have each other's phone number you know um i don't even want to get into the
issue of the property damage that was caused by that property which i did detail on my letter
that i sent to the board but i think that speaks to how this construction will be conducted and
Sir, let me ask you. Did you go to the RCO meeting?
I did not. I could not make it.
All right. Anything else you want to add?
No, that's really all I have. I don't want to take up too much people's time.
Do you have any questions?
I have no questions for Mr. Herman, but I do want to, for the record, make sure that it's clear.
Crystal. He was
mailed the notice
and as I already referenced
there is a very long history
contentious history between
the neighbors that have absolutely nothing to
do with the second and third floor
addition. Questions or comments from
anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands
at this time, Chair. Planning Commission.
Board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSI-5, residential single-family zoning at this location.
The proposed financial variance is consistent with documented conditions.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance for a re-eared setback.
Several other properties have the addition already, Mr. Chair.
That's why 37 immediate neighbors support it.
MI 2024, 001-167, 1333 South 9th Street, I vote no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanada Graham, my vote is no.
Tayewin, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
MI 2024-002-326-735 Sampson Street. Joseph Consul is the attorney.
It's a letter of non-opposition from Society Hills Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla
and a letter of unanimous non-opposition of Washington Square West Civic Association.
Mr. Consul.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Joseph Consul.
That's J-O-S-E-P-H-C-O-N-S-O-L-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is Mr. Barry Sable, and he's the owner.
Okay. Our life share has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes. This morning I sent in proof that he had paid off his real estate taxes because that came up last night, but we're clear on that.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed. You've already shared the screen.
All right. Good morning, board. Joseph Consul here for 735 Sansom Street.
Owner is Barry Sable. Property has its own CMX 5.
And the reason we're here is because while the first floor is compliant commercial space, the next two floors have one unit each.
And in CMX-5, you are not allowed to have either one or two units.
You can have more units than two, but not two.
So what we're asking for is approval to use the first floor as commercial and the second two floors, each as one apartment.
My client will testify that this property, to his knowledge, has been two units with one commercial space on the bottom for 35 years.
he's uh fixed them up and um with approval to today we'll be um submitting uh the the plans
further for the alterations permits that are required to get the co that will need to to
close all all of these out so the refusal to family household living is prohibited in cmx 5.
again this is a type of down zoning but the property itself is you know you'll see in a
second, but it's a small property. We went in front of Washington
Square Civic, non-opposed 11.
They told us they don't really ever go
support, so we felt like that was the best we were going to get.
Councilman's not against it non opposition from Society Hill Civic Association as well proof of our mailing because this is a, you know, in the middle of the diamond district, there's not a ton of properties.
Councilman's not against it, non-opposition from Society Hill Civic
Association as well.
So we only had to post or send out 86 pieces.
our letter, proof of posting. Here's the exterior. The first floor is a continuously functioning
diamond and jewelry store. It's right on that 700 block of Santham Street. I'm sure everyone's
familiar with it. We submitted interior photos to show everyone what the units look like.
The second floor of the property is two beds, two bedrooms.
The third floor is two bedrooms as well.
Here's the deed.
Showing that Mr. Barry Sable owns the property.
I already showed you those.
And we submitted the plans, like I said, that will be used for getting the CO.
Each one of these is two bed.
They're nice-sized properties, two bedrooms, living room, bathroom.
I believe that's the extent of it.
Good call.
Mr. Sable, do you want to adopt my testimony or answer any questions the board has?
Mr. Sable?
Barry Sable has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Sable, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Barry, B-A-R-Y, S-A-B-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Sable.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property at 735 Sansom Street?
I did.
Do you have anything you'd like to add, or do you agree what I said and adopt it as your own?
No, I think you're accurate, sir.
Thank you, Barry.
You know, that that testimony, this has been like this for 35 years.
Mr. Council.
Barry, can you speak to the history of the residential units?
Excuse me, I didn't hear that question.
Oh, Barry, can you speak to the history of the residential units?
Yeah, there's been residential units there for since the existing.
this building is uh i booked this building in 1983 and other than cosmetic uh the layout and
everything else has been the same thank you questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillier emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no he's at this time chair leaning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the conference of plan recommends no change to
the existing commercial mixed use cmx 5 zoning at this location there are unique physical
conditions or circumstances of this property that are consistent with the proposed use and
would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant their proposed experience for two-family household living.
Thank you. MI 2024-002-326-735 Samson Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes. Sonata Graham, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
All right. Thank you. Thank you, counsel.
Number 13, MI 2024-002-354-4422 Locust Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Spruce Hill Community Association.
Zin Jin has been promoted to
Penalist. Good morning.
Good morning, Counsel. Could you please state your name
and spell for the court of stenography?
Yes. My name is Zin Jin,
Z-H-E-N.
Last name is J-I-N.
1617 John F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia
PA 19103 here on behalf of the
applicant. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? I do. Do you identify your client, the relationship to the property? Yes. My client's
Yes, my client's name is Hui Feng Xie. She's the owner of the property.
name is Hui Feng Xie. She's the owner of the property.
Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to attack this?
Good morning, and I do waive and stipulate.
Thank you. Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted. Let me go ahead and put that up. Can the board see my exhibit on their screen?
Thank you. So we submitted a copy of the refusal, the letter, RCO letter from Spruce Hill, photos, plans, and relay documentation.
This particular refusal is due to our request to use this property on 4422 Locust Street as a triplex.
This is refused because the area has been redistricted to RSA 5.
However, Spruce Hill provided non-opposition to our request, partly because the area is heavily multifamily.
In fact, this row of properties, which are large houses with very distinct front facades, are generally multifamily on this block, including the twin right next to our own.
In fact, there's three doorbells. Even when my client purchased the property, there was already three doorbells on the doorframe itself.
Now, we work with Spurs Hill primarily over the issue of the facade.
Because of the nature and the unique designs of these buildings, I'm going to show the board photographs, which will better explain what we were discussing.
thing is that while it's not specifically a historical district, there are historical
touches to these buildings that are very important to the neighborhood. And we work with the
neighborhood on a remedial plan to make this building look far more presentable. And in
addition, what the normal concerns are with the multifamilies in the area are trash being placed,
recycling, not being done properly. We have actually an indoor trash storage on the plant,
which I will show the board. We also have an access alley on the side that is shared with
the other property and that allows all units to have access to the rear of the property for trash
storage. In addition, because of all the existing multifamily in the area, the use would not
negatively impact any other uses that are already on the block, certainly also not impact really
the commercial use that is right next to us. As a result, after working with Spurs Hill on a
remedial plan for the front, we received their non-opposition in this particular use. I do want
to point out we had a meeting with them, and the one issue that was never really brought up or was
really raised as a concern was, in fact, the multifamily use. Everybody around the property
and the board of Spruce Hill was well aware that this block is full of multifamily units.
So from a layout standpoint, the plants here are color-coded per Spruce Hill's request, but
essentially it's one floor. Each unit is one floor. Basement is for utility, and here is the trash
That actually has a direct lead out to the backyard. And again, the backyard itself also has a sideway access to the front. We're going to remediate most of the front facade to make it look much more classical to what was there before and therefore making the entire block more uniform, which is one of the requests that the community asked as part of our discussion with this property.
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have.
And again, I do want to reiterate that when my client purchased the property, the interior
was already laid out with multiple kitchens.
And even though it's very run down and needs a lot of work to make it fully habitable at
this point, the building layout, essentially, there isn't much change here.
We are basically leaving a lot of the layouts that was already inside the space, and we're attempting to remediate the damage and also legalize the use.
Again, I'll be happy to answer any questions, and if the board members want to see any specific part of my presentation, I'll be happy to redirect to that.
And is the adjacent property, is that multifamily unit next door?
Yes, it is. In fact, most of the block is multifamily, even though on the city records, if you were to search, it doesn't come up that way.
it doesn't come up that way. The community and what we've seen of the neighboring properties,
The community and what we've seen of the neighboring property.
we know that it is, in fact, multifamily. Can you bring your client on, please? Sure.
Ms. Shea, can you raise your hand to be identified? Sure.
Could you please state your name and spell for the course stenographer, please?
Sure. My first name, H-U-I-F-A-N-G, and my last name, X-I-E.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Sheik, can you verify that you saw the presentation I made to the board and heard
my representation?
For this property right now.
Did you just see my presentation and hear my testimony before the board?
Thank you.
Can you verify what I have represented is true and correct and adopt it as your own
testimony?
Yes, correct.
Thank you.
Thank you.
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 see no hints at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
amy boyd with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing single family rsa 5 zoning at this location the proposed use is in conformance
with the documented previous use as three-family household living the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the proposed variance for three-family household living
Thank you. MI 2024-002-354-4422 Locust Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes.
Tanetta Graham, I vote yes.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called from the 930 list?
i see no hands at this time chair um thank you everyone see everyone at 2 p.m
thank you thank you
good afternoon everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this afternoon's meeting
meetings. With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston. Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member Tynetta Graham. 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 contacting kathleen.grady at phila.gov.
For a court stenographer, attorneys and witnesses should identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 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 box on the screen is not for testimony.
All comments should be directed.
All comments and testimony should be directed to our Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Kathleen Grady.
Also present here today is our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Let's look at our schedule for the Saturday.
Number four, MI 2024-004-144-2255 North 22nd Street. That case is continued.
Number 11. MI 2024-004-239, 900 North 41st Street. That case is continued. Are there any other requests for continuances?
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Jasmine. I will be your co-host this afternoon. I see no means at this time.
And number 10, MI 2024, 004-238-225-73, Geiger Road.
No exhibits, first listing.
The attorney is Sean Ward and BS Associated's enlisted owner.
Attorney is Sean Ward and BS Associated.
I have a hand up by phone number ending in 3552.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court's phonographer.
adrian fernandez swamp little neighborhood process association rco and my last name is
spelled f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z adrian you've already been sworn you you have a case you're interested
in here i mean i have a question for 2837-39 west lehigh avenue um it's on the 330 list
Will the continuance that Strawberry Mansion Concern, RCO, sent in be announced now or at the 3.30 hearing?
I'll do it before the 3.30 hearing.
Okay, so we have to listen for the 3.30?
We have to listen for the 3.30 hearing?
It will be a continuance.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuance on the 2 o'clock?
And MI 2024-004-238-225-73 Geiger Road, no exhibits, first listing.
Sean Ward is listed as the attorney, and B&S Associates is the listed owner.
I see no hands at this time, Tia.
That's the first listing.
So MI 2024-004-238-225-73, Geiger Road, that case is continued.
Mark must be hurt.
And number one, number one, MI 2023-005-769-2628 South Street, that case has been withdrawn.
Number six, MI 2024, six, I'm sorry, MI 2024-004-191, 4664, Castro Avenue, that case has been withdrawn.
And then number 12, MI 2024-004-242-1027-29 Spring Street, that case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
Number one, MI 2024-002-044-612-S 57th Street, I vote no.
Tanada Graham, my vote is no.
Iowyn, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
i don't think i can vote on this one okay thank you that's fine thank you great
and number two mi2024 001 511 1601 north 27th street i vote yes with proviso
Maximum four dwelling units, maximum height of 35 feet, no roof decks or roof deck access structures, no household living in the basement, commercial trash pickup.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, same proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with those provisos.
Tywin, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
and number three mr chair can we go back to number one was that the request for reconsideration that
you voted on yes okay yes i said no okay yes we need to put on the record that that is no
okay sure thank you so i'll read the number again one more time
i-2024-002-044-612 south 57th street i vote no to reconsideration and rehearing
so that i agree my vote is no i win my vote is no to the reconsideration and
Mr. Shahid, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
My vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Number three, MI 2024-003-915-4040 Wall Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, September 18th at 2 p.m.
Number four, MI 2023-003-159-3942 Wall Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, September 18th, at 2 p.m.
We're going to go to number two.
MI 2024-004-052-1820 Everett Street.
Helen Nockmson is the attorney.
We also have a Russian interpreter for this case.
Alan Nockamson has been promoted to
penalist. Actually, Mr. Chair, we weren't unfortunately able to secure
a Russian interpreter, but I understand from Mr. Goldberg
that the client will be able to adopt Mr. Nockamson's
testimony without the interpreter. Okay. Mr. Nockamson.
Yes. Good afternoon, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
My client is Wattimore Prime, the owner of the property.
And for point of information, we do have a letter of unanimous opposition from Ron Hurst Civic Association,
but we also have a petition of support signed by 19 neighbors 12 from the block our vice chair has
a few questions sir good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
or stipulate to a taxi i do i've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh yes okay uh can you please
share your screen and also turn your camera on yeah i'm having problems i'm i'm like actually
i see myself still i don't know what's going let me turn it let me do this stop video
start video yeah we saw you in the beginning alan oh there you go you're back i never work
from home i should not do this um so i apologize it's sort of freezing up alan you're freezing up
too. I know. Of course it is. But can you hear me?
We hear you now. Yeah. Okay. You're moving once in a while
and then you stop. Okay. Sorry about that.
Okay. So I'm here to present
1820 Everard Street.
Here we go.
My client's not a developer. He is a homeowner.
who honestly didn't know better. Like he put a small addition to the side of his property for
extra storage of 117 square feet. You can't even see it from the front. And he reached out to his
neighbors who were most directly impacted, including the person right next to him. And
everyone's in support. So I understand we have a letter of opposition, but as you'll see from the
letter of opposition, only one member from the community showed up. But we'll review the notice
of refusal, and I want to indicate that we just received an updated refusal this morning, and we
forwarded it over to Ms. Emerson, so it's part of our packet of materials. We do have correspondence
from the Ron Hurst Civic Association, and we'll review that quickly. Our petition, and again,
with a map showing all the people on our block essentially are in support of it. We're 1820,
1818 and 1822 have no opposition and 1818 would be the most directly impacted by this variance
request regarding the side yard we'll review maps of the area and you know from a zoning perspective
and and just a google maps perspective but again we're not increasing density in any way
we're just asking to legalize this small addition to the side of his house and you know again if
If the board feels, you know, grants this variance request, obviously we're going to need to get a CO as part of that process as well.
Photographs of the property in the surrounding area or interior photographs of the addition.
Again, it's a small addition.
It's just for storage.
Our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice.
And again, only one member of the community showed up to that meeting.
The deed to the property showed my client owns it in his personal name.
in his personal name and the certificate of tax clearance at the conclusion of my presentation
and the Certificate of Tax Clearance.
At the conclusion of my presentation,
i would ask that mr pond virtually raise his hand and be sworn in and i have a few questions for him
I would ask...
so the notice refusal again this is an rsa3 property we're proposing to keep its use as a
single family dwelling we have a small addition uh to the right of the property in the rear
And you'll see it from the photographs, but it's 117 square feet. It's 18 by six and a half and it's 17 and a half feet high. We have two refusals. The first one, actually, I do object to the refusal in this way. Sorry about that.
They talk about the surface parking spaces where proposing is prohibited given, you know, there's an issue then with the rear yard depth. Those in existing parking spaces, everyone else has those parking spaces. So I'm not sure why we have that refusal. So I think that's, honestly, that's a mistake in the notice refusal.
The second refusal has to do with the width of the side yard, eight feet required where one feet, six inches. Again, because of the addition is six and a half feet wide on like a small portion of it. We, you know, we're closer to 1818. We have a letter, we have a petition signed by them in support of that.
And again, you'll see from the petition in the map, there's no one really against this project or project more like a, you know, a homeowner trying to just get some extra space for themselves.
So as you can see here, while the board was against the project, only one member of the board showed up.
I mean, excuse me, one member of the community showed up.
I mean, when we spoke to, you know, the board, we were actually, you know, to the member of the community, the representative, we were surprised that we were going to get a letter of opposition because it seemed like this was just a project, you know, a request that was benign in nature.
So, again, only one member of the community showed up.
Apparently, they were against it.
But that's it.
But if you look at the petition, I created a map based on the people who signed.
But if you look at this, this is the person who would be most directly impacted right here.
That's 1818 Edwards.
You'll see it in the pictures.
We're a twin.
Our twin is in support of this.
And basically nine other individuals on our block are in support of this.
And then behind us on Tustin Avenue, again, these people would be directly impacted by this building structure that kind of jets out right here.
They're all for it.
So, again, it's unfortunate that my client hired someone and he didn't know better and he got, you know, a permit, you know, got work done without permits.
And then this is him.
He got people to sign a petition.
He personally solicited these signatures.
And then maps to the area.
Again, we're an RSA3 property.
We're not trying to change the zoning use in any way.
Still single family.
And that this is where we are from a Google Maps perspective. And again, we're in the Northeast Philadelphia. And then just want to show this as an aerial view. So this is our building structure right here, like just in the back. And again, it's 18 feet long by six and a half feet wide.
the person here at 1818 signed a letter or a petition to support everyone else back here who
would be like who would be directly impacted by this increased massing in the building or in
support of this and then the refusal has to do with our parking in the rear as you can see this
is the quintessential northeast type of development where you have a common driveway
and then everyone has parking
pads in the rear.
I don't understand. Maybe
there's something missing of the public records
regarding the off-street parking, but
everyone else has the same off-street
parking. I don't know if it's
just limited to us having
an issue, but everyone else...
Alan, could it be because most
of them only have one pad?
I don't know.
You have two pads, basically?
You see here, there are two right here.
That side of the street, look at
the patch yeah well there's a pad here this big oh you're saying your block look at your block
yeah i don't i don't not saying it but most of them have one pat yeah no i hear you i hear you
um i don't think we extended the pad out no no i'm fine yeah so i just think that's how we bought
that um so but that could be the reason why but there's enough room for that we're not getting
refusal given the width of the parking spot or the length of the parking spot. Photographs of
the property. Here's the front of it. Again, the typical Northeast twin home. And then this is our
orange notice posting. And then this is Everts to the right of the property, to the left.
And then this is adverts to the right of the property, to the left of the property, and then interior photos.
This is the building structure that's 18 feet long and six and a half feet wide.
And all he does is just keep some of extra materials here.
And then this is just our site plan.
As you can see, here are the two parking spaces, and it could be that maybe someone somewhere extended the parking pad in the way.
And we're just, I guess, asking for that additional parking.
But here's the building structure here.
And you can see it over here.
This is the 18 feet long, six and a half feet wide.
That means our side yard is one feet, six inches.
Again, the person right here who would be most directly impacted at 1818 Evarts signed our petition in support.
and then again oops
we met with the community on august 8th at 6 p.m and maybe it's because it was an august meeting
and it's really tough sometimes from you know many people on vacation but we we emailed that
notice two weeks beforehand right to the relevant parties giving them you know the notice that we
sent out and proof of mailing of that notice. And it only went to 67 people. And maybe that's
the reason why. But again, we got a lot of signatures on our block and behind us. The
people would be most directly impacted and they were in support. And then these are the addresses
that we went to. Proof of mailing to those addresses. And then there are applications
for appeal. Again, these people are not developers. They're just homeowners. They didn't know any
better. It would be really financially devastating if they had to rip that
addition to their property, which
has extra storage.
And then this is their deed to the property.
And he's lived there for since
2018. So this is his home.
And a certificate of tax clearance. I would
ask that that Mr. Prawn virtually raise his hands and and I have a few questions for him.
Vladimir Prawn has been allowed to speak. Sir, could you please state your name as
spelled for the court stenographer? Vladimir Prawn. Please spell your name for the stenographer.
v-o-l-o-g-y-m-y-r p-r-o-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes please proceed counsel uh yes mr prine you heard everything i had to state today
yes is it true and correct yes and do you adopt as your own testimony
correct thank you questions from the board
okay um i'm going to ask this and i'm not sure what the answer might be i seem to recall that in
the um administrative code uh there uh are exceptions to zoning and one of them is for
um like a shit kind of and i know this isn't the same as a shit but um and there were dimensions
that uh you had to meet but so i guess my question is has anybody looked at it from that standpoint
is that something that you ever discuss with ellen i know because it's attached to the
building structure so i think it differs from a shed but i mean if you look at it that way
it's it's it's not structural in nature like it's you know there i think it's more more akin to a
shed it's it's separate structure but it's attached to the building so that's why we could not
about ourselves with that okay just just asking because again um the size and what have you and
And I guess if we're in a catch, we might be talking something a little different.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Demers?
Not at this time, other than just to note that there is a revised refusal in this case.
I see on the bottom.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N.
Last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential use on our city plan or adopted district plan.
recommends no change, existing zoning, single family zoning
at this location. Applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence
of unique physical conditions of the property that prevent it from being used
in conformity with the code. Therefore, we recommend the rest of the
variance not be granted. Mr. Chair, can I
respond? Sure. This is a de minimis variance.
We are asking for one, essentially one
refusal to be adopted by this board. I don't count
the parking, but that's for the board to decide if that's more of a
technical refusal or not. But in terms of the side
yard, it's de minimis in nature. There is a side yard
to a degree, and the individual who'd be most directly impacted at
1818 Edwards has no issue with that.
MI 2024
824-004-052-1820, Everett Street. I vote yes. Proviso, per amended refusal, dated 9-11-24.
Joe Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
thank you thank you council number nine mi 2024 004-205-828-240 north 2nd street
Catherine Misner is the attorney
letter of support from the northern liberties neighbors association
katherine mismer is coming in as a penalist
good afternoon hi counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
of course katherine mismer it's m-i-s-s-i-m-e-r at 1835 market street suite 1400 19103
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to this property?
Yes, I am here on behalf of CCD 110, LLC, owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the written letter of refusal or stipulate your
diagnosis?
I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing.
yes sir i have thank you council please proceed and share your screen
great thank you are you seeing my screen yes great thank you as mentioned i'm here on behalf
of the owner of property ccd 110 llc the property is located at 828 north 2nd street in northern
liberties we're here today with an application for two accessory flat wall signs with me today
is owner's rep, Tyler McNeil, and I'll have him adopt testimony at the end of our presentation.
As you can see, we do have a letter of support from our coordinating RCO, Northern Liberties
Neighborhoods Association. This property is located at the corner of 2nd and Poplar Streets,
and I'll just scroll through some photos to give you an idea of the property and its location.
The property currently hosts 55 multifamily dwelling units, as well as commercial space
on the ground floor in connection with the multi-family use today's application is to add
two flat wall signs one reading no and the other reading libs in a nod towards the common nickname
for the neighborhood of northern liberties they will wrap the corner of the building
from poplar street on to second street and i'll pull up the zoning plan just so you can see um
smaller for you here's the no and then that's on the poplar street elevation
and this is the libs on the second street elevation
proposed signage is similar to what you may see in larger buildings known as building
identification signage building id signs are limited to the logo name address or number of
building this site is on cmx 2.5 in this zoning district building identification signs aren't
building identification signs aren't permitted.
As a result, the proposed flat wall signs do generate a refusal because they are located above the second floor window sill.
That's the sole refusal generated by this request.
Both the neighborhood, as evidenced by their letter of support, and the property owner agree,
while similar to building ID signs permitted in other districts,
this signage is appropriate given the commercial character of 2nd Street
and the proposed signs identify the building and consequently the neighborhood for pedestrians and
vehicles that are traveling second street and poplar street the size scale and design of the
signs is consistent with the aesthetic of the neighborhood and the signs as you can see are
tastefully simple and sleek i think we do our detail there we met with northern liberties
coordinating RCO to review this proposal. We also continued our conversation regarding signage with
their zoning committee to address any concerns they had about the proposal, and we were able
to come together on a community benefits agreement as well. As a result, you have a letter of support
in your packages from them. We believe this project will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood. In fact, it is consistent with the commercial character. As you can see in
some of the photos, there are other signage along Second Street that is above the second floor
window sill. We do think it complements the surrounding existing uses. It obviously will
not impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. While backlit, the signage is
not flashing, it is not obscenely lit, and will not be a distraction to any other properties.
And lastly, this project will not be detrimental to the public welfare, as evidenced by our letter
of support. At this point, I would just like to have Mr. McNeil promoted to accept my testimony.
Counsel, do you see the proviso? Yes. Okay. And you're okay with that? Yes. That's part of our
community benefits agreement. We've agreed to limit the sign to be accessory to the apartments,
the multifamily. I think the concern was that potentially it could be used for another tenant
in the building since there is ground floor commercial space. And we were on the same page
that it would remain accessory to the molding family.
Thank you.
Tyler McNeil has been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you please state your name
and spell it for the stenographer?
Hi, Tyler McNeil, T-Y-L-E-R McNeil, M-C-N-E-I-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Tyler, did you hear my testimony today?
Would you agree it's true and correct?
i do and would you adopt it as your own yes questions from the board questions from the board
okay am i uh am i missing the projecting something there is a projecting sign it didn't generate a
refusal um it's this small all right address reading sign yeah all right okay
any other questions from the board yeah i have a question about it and so in the renderings it
looks like it's backlit but in the actual elevations there doesn't seem to be any of the
like electricity that needs to support it is it lit or not it's backlit it is backlit okay
but again that's something we talked about with nlna and we made sure they were comfortable with
the level of lighting and hours and all those details other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary embers
not at this time mr chair question or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have a hand up by the name of larry friedman they have been allowed to speak
good afternoon mr friedman could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer
Larry, L-A-R-R-Y, Friedman, F-R-E-E-D-M-A-N, 700 North 3rd Street. I'm the chair of Northern Liberty Zoning.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Friedman.
I'm just here to reiterate that we were, and the Board of Northern Liberties, okay with the no-lib sign.
Our concern was because its accessory could turn into something else down the road, and we wouldn't have any control.
Thus, our CBA and also the reason for the proviso.
and wanted to thank Claire Harrison and Catherine
and the development team for working with us on this
to assure us that this wouldn't change.
Thank you. Mr. Freeman, thank you for your call. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Freeman, thank you for your call.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
I run Bednar City Planning.
The property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of any physical circumstances or condition of the property that was prevented from being used,
informing with the signage requirements of the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request for granted to not be granted.
MI 2024-004-205-828-40, North 2nd Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Signs accessory to multiple family household living use only.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Thank you.
Great, thank you.
All right, thank you, Council.
Number 14, MI 2024-004-286, 2052 Blair Street, Daniel Markowitz and Anna Rindos.
This is a pro se, letter of support from East Kensington Neighbors Association, letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla, and letter of authorization from the co-owner from Mr. Markowitz to proceed alone.
Daniel Markowitz have been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Johns has joined us. You can make that on the record.
Thank you, Michael.
Hello.
Mr. Markowitz.
Hello.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Daniel Markiewicz, D-A-N-I-E-L-M-A-R-K-I-E-W-I-C-Z.
Mr. Markowitz, please, one more time.
spell it one more time please yeah d-a-n-i-e-l and markevich is m-a-r-k-i-e-w-i-c-z
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do this application is for the erection of an attached structure with a roof deck deck
at the rear and interior accessory parking spaces for use as a single-family household living,
whereas the proposed rear deck is located in the required rear yard at the second floor level
and within three feet of a rear lot line serving two lots, which is prohibited,
whereas the proposed roof deck has an enclosure 11 feet high and 42 inches, and in some cases 60
inches is permitted. In addition, the enclosure is 100% opaque and 50% opaque is permitted.
Whereas the All Street accessory parking is prohibited unless it can be accessed from a
shared driveway, alley, or rear street. The access for the proposed parking space
is on Blair Street. Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have
thank you sir please proceed and share your screen
um i'm sharing my screen now hopefully starting to come up it's coming up yep
um thank you all for um hearing our case again my name is daniel i am the owner of this property
along with my wife, Anna Rindos, who's here as well.
We are looking to build a home for ourselves at 2052 Blair.
This is a photograph of the vacant lot, the building in our rear,
and the buildings neighboring us on Blair Street.
I am an architect, so also have drawn these drawings,
which is also why i'm um uh defending this uh the variance uh myself uh this is the exhibit package
that i uh shared um more than five days in advance uh i'll just go through um what i have uh in terms
of uh the contents and then the the various refusals um so we have the original drawings
the letter of refusal, application of appeal, project information form, deed, et cetera.
And I will go through all of this.
All of this, we do have also a letter of support from our coordinating RCO for the project. It was a 13 to 1 vote with Proviso, and I'll explain what we did to adjust the plans after discussion with all of the neighbors.
We do have also a letter of support from our.
um before i get into well i will go through um you mentioned the letter refusal this
project has uh four refusals associated um with it one uh is the the garage which is access from
the front and not a shared in the back two is the height we are just a little bit over the 38 foot
um maximum and then the the last two have to do with the the decks um deck second floor deck in
the rear covering our backyard which we've actually adjusted um and the guardrail the
opaque guardrail at a deck on the top floor uh but i will go through all of those in detail
and share some some visuals uh for it um just to run through everything in the application or in
in the exhibits that I shared, we have the application for appeal, the project information
form. This is the deed with myself and my wife on it. I have, we made a spousal letter of
authorization. She is here, but so that I can speak on her behalf as well today. We have the
tax clearance. I have the revised plans, which are the adjustment to the deck. So one of the
refusals that was mentioned. We've pulled that into compliance. The plan forms. This is our
zoning or photographs of our zoning notice that were posted on the site. We mailed this letter
and had, I think, a well-attended meeting on August 14th. This is the proof of mailing
to 115 of our neighbors, and then the letter of support that I mentioned, which was a 13 to one
vote with proviso. And that was, again, the proviso was one of the neighbors, and I'll get
into it, was interested to see if we could do it a different way in the back with one of the
refusals associated with the death um but to go through the the refusals and to share
kind of general information about our project this is um blair street uh looking uh west and then
and then east uh ish east northeast um this is our uh lot uh which is a um irregularly shaped uh
a trapezoidal lot that is 45 feet deep on one side, not an enormous lot in that respect.
And then this is just a diagram of the house that we hope to build for our family.
The first refusal that I was going to talk about has to do with the garage and is part
of the reason that a lot of the other refusals were produced in the design.
parking in the neighborhood is um extremely difficult and becoming more and more difficult
our side of the street has um no parking and and therefore we have less less opportunities
to park on the street something that my wife and i rely on um for uh our our jobs um and so we were
hoping to have uh be allowed to have a parking barrage and curb cut as part of our project um
We also feel that, you know, being that there's no parking on our side of the street, that we would be alleviating congestion in the neighborhood by taking at least one car off the street without taking away parking from anyone else in the neighborhood.
So we hope in that respect that we're improving the congestion and something that the public can appreciate, hopefully.
uh this is just to show again on our our block that um there are a number of curb cuts
uh already so it's not out of character for the block to have uh curb cuts um these are actually
here on the more southern side of the street um when where there is parking again we are on the
side that has no parking so we wouldn't be taking anything away uh from the from the community but
There are a number of curb cuts, I think some that have even recently been granted
quite close to us in the past year or so.
So again, not out of character for the rest of the block
because we were hoping to have the access, the front access for a garage.
Because we were hoping to have the access, the front access for a garage, things became shifted in the design, and so we are right at the limit for the height.
This is on the left, a diagram of what is allowed 38 foot maximum roof height, but also with a roof deck and roof parapet and pilot house to access that.
We don't have a roof deck and we will never have a roof deck on top of our house, but we're only
asking to use that space as part of the house. We have a six inch parapet just to control drainage
and we're right at 41 and a half feet that the project is. Similarly, we're not out of character
for the immediate surroundings in terms of this height request.
The building that we back up to, which was the photograph,
the first photograph in the exhibit package, well above that.
And then the other building that we actually faced through a vacant lot here, also above that.
So on the block and in our immediate vicinity, there's a number of buildings that are already
significantly above the 38 feet and above what we are requesting at the 41 and a half
feet. The last two refusals have to do, as I mentioned, with the depths in the rear. This
is a diagram of the building from the rear. So Blair Street and the front of the building would
be here this is our rear lot line um and this is a corresponding plan that that shows that as well
um one of the refusals has to do with we're hoping to have opaque uh and full height guard rails at
a deck at the top level again we don't have a roof deck but this deck at the top level
um we hope to have in some location uh full height and opaque uh there are a number of
tall buildings in the area and this is just for um privacy but um and we think it's also
not a safety issue certainly would be improving safety nothing's going to be falling off of this
deck um uh into anybody else's um space and then the last refusal has to do with the deck
at the second floor, which is encroaching on our nine-foot rear yard setback by six and a half
feet. And this was the refusal that the only refusal that the community had questions about.
We had a neighbor that had recently done a beautiful renovation of their own backyard
and asked us to consider if we would change this design and be less above them.
We met with them. They invited us to their backyard, which was fantastic.
And we consequently made revisions to the design.
And so this is the revised design that we shared with them on August 24th, 10 days after the meeting.
we've pulled the deck back completely into compliance so nine feet from the rear yard
it's more of a balcony at this point so we hope to have be allowed to have a stair down
to a deck which is at the level of the first floor that is above grade we've spoken to
all of the neighbors in the addresses listed here surrounding the property
in person a number of times after the community meeting we shared this with them and they're all
happy with this adjustment to our design and um we hope that the board uh agrees and allows us
these variances we're excited to join this this block and become neighbors with all of these good
folks um and and you know build this house for our our family uh i will that's i'll leave it at
that i'm happy to answer any questions if there are any um uh and i hope that the the board um
will uh agree and vote in favor of our of our project questions from the board
yes question question for you what's the width of the street and did uh you get any pre-approvals
from streets for your uh proposed curb cut for your driveway we did get uh approvals from uh
streets for the curb cut um so we have that that's on record i'm just going back to the uh
the plans to give you the answer on the width of the street, which is here. So it's a 20-foot street.
which is here so it's a 20-foot street um 10 and a half foot sidewalk there's the parking lane which
is um seven feet and we drew the um the curb cut as well as the turning radius is for the for the
garage okay so that seven feet is are those the cars that are parked across the street that's the
parking lane exactly yeah okay so the street is 20 feet yes yeah okay and 10 foot six
of sidewalks. Okay. Thank you.
The other questions from the board? Yes.
Can we go back to the picture that you had
showing the, I'm not sure if I understand
the deck on the
what's that, the second floor or the third floor?
So you're saying that
this is going to be opaque you said uh this so this deck here yes this would be a uh just a full
height wall with an opening in it um and then a transparent guardrail here um what is not allowed
by zoning and to be completely frank i'm not sure what the reason for this is i actually asked
zoning members why they're this is not allowed and they couldn't tell me but you're not allowed
to have a solid guardrail but a solid fall protection from a deck it has to be open or
transparent um so that that's the that's what the refusal is but we're just asking that everything
that i'm drawing over here and in red be allowed to be uh a solid wall this is still a deck because
it's open to the air above but um yeah that that is that refusal i don't know if that was the
question um yes yes it was okay and then uh the uh uh deck that you're talking about which is more
like a balcony now um on the what's that above the first floor right so it's more like a juliet
kind of balcony yeah it's only um it's three and a half feet wide uh so here it's three and a half
feet wide so we wouldn't be using it uh you know we're not going to be probably out you know it'll
be a if you can put a chair out there and sit out there we'll do that um but it's that's more to just
allow us to open up this and and then walk down the stairs and use the deck uh below um and this
would be transparent um guard rail so not kind of incurring any additional um refusal and and this
again was the plan that we shared with the immediate neighbors and they were very pleased
with you know our adjustment to our original plan and um i'm happy to to hopefully see the project
through and did you show this revised plan here to lni uh i've included this is this and filled
out the updated proviso uh form uh so these this uh plan is is um this is the revised plan here
which shows
the deck being pulled back
okay and
did this generate any
additional refusals
did you tell them about the
stairs that's my concern
I'm not sure about
the balcony but decks are supposed
I think not have
a permanently affixed
roof or stairs
yeah um the answer is um uh no this has not been uh vetted by l and i um given the time we have
just um we just came to this proviso plan okay just just an issue that may come up if you want
to have the stairs, you know, generate a refusal about the stairs. Okay.
Any other questions from the board? Yeah, I think my question is more around hardship. I understand
the desire for the opaque roof deck, but have you considered doing 50% or less opacity
um to get rid of that i mean it seems like you you had three refusals
and it seems like you've tried to at least address one of them yeah um we did not consider other
yeah um we did not consider other um uh changes to the to the guardrail to make it transparent
uh we certainly would it didn't when we talked about it with the community and the 14 members
uh that joined for the meeting um nobody had uh any issue with that and um they were they were
certainly fine with it, so we didn't make the adjustment
to that, given that there wasn't
a question about it from the community.
The questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I was just looking
um because i had this the same question um as miss gaston regarding the exterior stairs um they
they may generate an additional refusal um i needed an official confirmation from ellen i
but they having the stairs from the ground level to the deck is typically prohibited except in the
uh actually this doesn't make sense oh sorry no they're permitted except in the case of attached
buildings where steps from the ground to the deck are prohibited i'm not sure whether this
was classified as an attached structure or not but if it's attached the stairs would be prohibited
it had to say an attached structure so this would generate another this would the stay
the addition of those stairs would generate another refusal
hillary aren't they wouldn't they also get a height refusal or they could it's 10 feet
for the height as well isn't it for height for what stairs on an attached structure
um i do not know there's a height there's a height restriction as well
yeah and the the only thing that i'm seeing in the one section that i'm looking at is that the
the stairs are prohibited if the building is attached
so but the board can certainly decide to to grant that the board can request an amended refusal
based on the revised plans.
It is up to the board.
So, Hillary, if we wanted an amended refusal,
do you have to go back?
Well, if we wanted an amended refusal,
we probably just want to do a resumption hearing
or depending on what planning wanted,
if they wanted to give their opinion today,
you know, or if everything else was done today,
we could just hold it for an amended refusal
that reflects the revised plans
that have been presented to the board today.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Ron, do you want to comment today?
Yes, we will.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. The properties indicated for residential use on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to existing zoning at this location. Applicants' hardships are not supported with evidence of any feasible circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used informally with the code. Therefore, we recommend request for variance not be granted.
So, Hilary, we want to hold this until we see an amended refusal?
Yes, Mr. Chair, we can hold for an amended refusal and close the record otherwise.
Close the record otherwise, have an amended refusal, and then you'll come back in, okay?
And Mr. Markowitz, if you're not sure about how to obtain an amended refusal, you can contact us.
You do need authorization from the ZBA in order to do that.
Does that mean that I will present this again at another hearing?
No, we are all done with presentations and testimony for this matter.
You just need to submit the amended refusal and then the board will vote.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Thank you very much.
number three mi 2024 004 131 2520 north front street t-e 117
2520 North Front Street, T-E-117074.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nockmson is coming back as a panelist
Nockmson
Mr. Nockmson, you've already been sworn
there's a letter of unanimous support from NARS Square
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada
our Vice Chair
first of all, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, so my client's the owner of the property. It's VP 2514-2516 Front LLC. And in the virtual audience, it's member Roy Aronovich.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
yes thank you council please proceed i share your screen
all right so this is a very straightforward uh project 25 14-20 north front street
currently this is an 18 unit residential project uh with uh two commercial units on the ground floor
This is actually in the minimum income overlay. So there's an affordable aspect in that respect. Also, my client availed themselves also of the affordable housing bonus program where they got two additional units.
So right now there's five affordable units in this project.
So they've had the hardest time renting out these two commercial units.
And even though we're on North Front Street, which, you know, further, you know, closer to Fishtown, that would be a commercial corridor.
This is not. We're not near the L.
And we're just having a hard time renting out these units.
And in the virtual audience, along with my client is Joe Clary, our broker, who's going to testify that they've been unable to rent these units.
So we're looking to essentially swap out these commercial units with residential units.
So during my presentation, I'm going to be reviewing the notice of refusal.
Then, as the chairman stated and verified, we have correspondence both from the Coordinating RCO, which is the Norris Square Community Action Network, as well as District Council Member Lazada, who are in support and non-opposition to this project.
Then I have a copy of our zoning permit showing that we have 18 legal units in residential units in this building, and we're looking to increase that to 20 residential units by swapping out the two commercial units on the ground floor.
Then just, you know, just saying what we've been doing with this project, and I think that's why the goodwill we have.
We do have our affordable housing marketing plan, and we are entering into separately a community benefits agreement with the coordinating RCO with regards to some affordability for those two commercial units for a short period of time.
Then we will review maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings.
We took some of the site plan that we had for the general project, and then I just honed in and we created our own floor plans for those two commercial units that we're swapping out, hopefully to make them residential.
Our RCO meeting notice, it was a well-attended meeting.
There was unanimous support.
Our application for appeal that we filed to the ZBA, deed to the property showing that my client is the owner of the property, and then the certificates of tax clearance.
Again, I would just ask that Mr. Clearly virtually raise his hand before I go to Mr. Aronovich, and he can testify about the hardship we have in trying to use these units as commercial.
Our refusal simply has to do with the fact that we're adding two residential units, which would exceed the amount of residential units allowed.
residential units allowed. I do have an issue with the refusal. It says that 12
I do have an issue with the refusal it says that 12
units would be allowed as a right. Really, it's 18 because we are part of the MN as well as we
availed ourselves of the affordable housing program. So it's really we're 18 legal units
and we're asking for two additional residential units by way of this variance. And then the second
refusal has to do with the fact that we're having no commercial
units on the ground floor for the CMX2 property. At least we're
proposing that. Letter of support.
There were nine community members. There were 10 board members, a total of
19. They all voted in support
of this endeavor. And then council member
and then there's some provisos. I don't think
where there was conditions. I don't think they're enforceable, but we did separately
enter into a community benefits agreement with the Norris Square Community Action Network.
And then separately, we got a letter of non-opposition from the council member.
And then this is our zoning permit showing that we do have 18 legal units. So, you know,
the refusal is off in that respect. And all we're doing is asking for those two commercial units to
to be converted into residential
for a total of 20 residential units.
And then this is just our affordable housing marketing plan
for this project.
Our zoning map, which shows that we are a CMX2 property.
There's a mix of zoning between multifamily across the street
as well as CMX2.
maps of the area. As you can see, we're not
really on a commercial corridor. We did
an inventory of the 2500 block of
North Front Street, according to what we saw, 2504,
12, 22, 26, 38, 42,
and 44, while all CMX2
are exclusively residential, which means a ground floor
units are not commercial in nature photographs of the property
our orange notice poster this is north front street to the right of the property there are some
like commercial but you know there are units on ground floors of some of these
properties but it's there are a number of ones where there's none and you can see for more from
this direction to the left of the property on the north front. What I'm seeing here is mostly
residential units on the ground floor. And then our plans and drawings. We're just taking these
two commercial units on the ground floor. They both have direct access. So the residential
units would have direct access from the street. So that's unit A and unit B.
And then these are just the elevations. This is already built as of right.
And what I wanted to do is just simplify it. So we zoomed out, zoomed in and created our own drawings, which mimic, you know, the floor plans here. But there's, you know, they're basically both one ones, you know, you both walk into, you know, front door for each of these, you have a living room, a dining room, and a kitchen, and a bathroom, a half bath, and then you have a full bath down there on the lower level.
Also can see it as maybe a studio where maybe someone rather just have a bedroom up top. So it's flexible. But, you know, again, what's going to be helpful here is that the housing program that my client is using for these two units are people who are in transition, who really don't need a lot of space.
And that was something that was, you know, very viable to the community and a desperate need for the community, people who are in transition.
So these two residential units would be very helpful for those people in the community.
Our RCO meeting notice, we met with the community on August 26th at 6 p.m.
We emailed that notice two weeks ahead of time to the relevant parties.
And in that email, it included that notice and then proof of mailing of that notice, 190 addresses.
These are a list of the addresses.
These are proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of our corporate client.
Our notice of refusal.
Our project information form, our deed to the property.
Our project information form.
All right.
So we consolidated these properties.
I believe the reason why we're going to have three tax ID numbers, I think this OPA is still working through that issue.
So tax ID, certificates of tax clearance for each of the parcels.
So I would ask that, I guess I have Mr. Aronovich first adopt my testimony as his own, and then I can have Mr. Cleary testify as the broker of records about the commercial units.
So Mr. Roy, can you virtually raise your hand?
he's been allowed to speak sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
roy aronovich r-o-y-a-h-a-r-o-n-l-v-i-c-h swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel yeah uh roy you heard everything i had to state
today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct correct yes and he adopted his own
testimony yes and i know we have joe who's going to testify but you did try to rent out these
commercial units right correct we try to rent them yeah and despite your best efforts you've
been unable to correct and you have entered and i know this is not zoning but uh relevant to zoning
but you did enter to a community benefits agreement with the coordinating RCO to designate these units for youths in transition.
Is that correct? Yes. All right. Thank you. Mr. Clary, can you virtually raise your hand?
Mr. Clary. He's been allowed to speak. Sir, please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
all right yes can you hear me uh uh joseph cleary j-o-s-e-p-h-c-l-e-a-r-y
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir please proceed counsel yeah mr cleary uh you're a licensed uh salesperson
in the commonwealth of pennsylvania right yes that's correct all right and and you're familiar
and experience in renting out commercial units
in the city of Philadelphia?
And, you know, your office has attempted
to rent out these two units on North Front Street, right?
That's correct.
Yeah, we've been trying to get these rented
for a little over five months now.
And, you know, again, just to give the board
some flavor as to location,
This is just off of the L on North Front Street, right?
Correct.
And you have had no interest from anyone, essentially, to rent these commercial units?
Yes, no interest.
It's a very tough area for a commercial property like that.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the board?
I have a question.
Are these two bi-level units with the lower level being in the basement?
That is correct.
And did I see window well prints on the drawings?
There are window wells in the front for each of them.
Alan, that was on the drawings?
I think so.
Let me take a look.
Let me share.
It wasn't.
It were not.
I believe that, well, if there's living down the basement, there would have to be an installation of window wells.
So, and that would be a building code requirement.
So, my understanding, I didn't provide the full packet of materials because, again, what we're trying to do is merely swap out the commercial unit for residential units.
I can look at the full, I can provide the full packet.
That was the construction drawings.
And just for commercial, did I hear that they were just on the market for five months?
They were on the market for five months, but before that, they were marketed as well.
This is a building that's in construction, and there's been no interest in terms of commercial, which is not uncommon because there are at least a half a dozen instances of CMX2 properties similar to us, which have full residential on the ground floor.
on the ground floor.
this was
Was this a buy-write project?
Oh, this was a buy-write.
Yes, the 18 units plus two was a buy-write project.
Again, we're also in the MN,
which as the board probably knows
is a really difficult proposition
for many developers to build in.
So they built there
and it's been a challenge
with construction costs and interest rates.
They have also added to that with respect to adding affordable units under the Affordable Housing Program for 50, you know, it's moderate income, so 50% AMI.
So they have right now, they have, let me make sure I'm accurate here, they have three units at 40% AMI and two units at 50% AMI.
And they made it a deal with the community organization to have these units affordable for a certain period of time.
Questions?
I don't know if it's a question, but what we're looking at here, I guess, is once you
did the payment in lieu, we have a density issue here where you're asking for 20 units
in effect, when according to the lot area, you'd only have permission by right to have 12 units.
So, I mean, you did a significant change in the project by doing this payment in lieu.
Well, we didn't do a payment in lieu. We added the units themselves. So, again, I disagree with
the refusal i think because we're in the the men we're allowed um we're allowed 15 16 units i'm
sorry 16 units and then because we are you know we also availed ourselves to the affordable housing
bonus program we're additional two units so really we're we're allowed 18 units that's why i provided
the zoning permit um as part of my exhibit packet so we're not it's not a a variance request to go
from 12 residential units to 20 it's going from 18 to 20 and we have 20 units here it's just two
commercial units and you know because of our location we have been unable to rent them and
we feel no confidence given our marketing experience with this property that those
commercial units are going to be able to be rented. That's why we're looking to add those
two residential units. Okay. And that's what it says in the refusal?
Well, the refusal says for the expansion of the previously approved multifamily household living
18 units to occupy at 100% of the proposed structure, no permits for construction have
been issued and increase the unit count to 20 dwelling units. So in the refusal itself,
the description states that we were approved for 18 units just based on the affordable housing
programs, both the overlay and the bonus program. We're allowed two commercial units and well,
we're not allowed. We're supposed to have two commercial units on the ground floor
as a CMX2 property, and we're asking for a variance to
essentially convert those two commercial units into residential units.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Questions or comments
from our attorney? Hillary Emerson.
Just to, I think where I was
confused is the examiner on the refusal included a note that said you had you changed to payment
in lieu for the min overlay so that's where it seemed like um there had been a change but yeah
it sounds like you you went through two programs and so do you you still have affordable units
based on the mixed income housing bonus,
but you've done the payment in lieu
for the mint overlay, is that?
No, I would ask Mr. Aronovich
if he can virtually raise his hand.
I think he would confirm my understanding,
but maybe I'm wrong.
My understanding is that we're providing the units,
but maybe we're not.
So I think it would be helpful.
mr ronovich yes we're we're providing all the units
Mr. Aronovich?
Yes, we're providing all the units.
both the overlay and the um and the extra bonus ones
and that's why i thought too that's why i i forgot to object to the uh refusal because
it's incorrect in in that we're not going from 12 to 20 we're going from 18 to 20
okay and we're providing all we're we're not doing any payments under those programs we're
doing the we're providing those additional units as affordable okay so for clarity you said there's
currently five affordable units two at 40 percent ami and three at 50 percent ami
well i think 43 at 40 percent ami and two at 50 did you say that no i thought i thought you
i said the opposite which is what i thought you said when you presented earlier maybe i mistake
mistakenly said that and the two new units have been agreed upon in an agreement with
north square civic association to be affordable undefined for a period of time undefined no not
Undefined. No, it's actually, we have a community.
We didn't hear it yet, so.
Yeah, and I believe, and it's the Norris Square Community Action Network. It's not the alliance.
I think it would be helpful. I think my understanding is that some representative from the group is going to appear at the hearing.
So maybe if they're there, maybe they can confirm, you know, our understanding.
And then I can also look for the benefits agreement to define it a little better.
Alan, so basically on top of the affordable units that we already have, the three and the two,
we agreed on two additional ones to partner with Valley Youth, which is a transition program for young professionals.
So in total, you'll have seven affordable units.
Yeah, I think they want to know the exact requirements. Let me just take a look.
So I want to, I'm specifically asking around AMI because per the min overlay, 20% of the units have to be at 40% of AMI or below. At 18, you were at 20, you were barely at 20% at 40. Well, you were hitting it. But at 20, you would need one more unit at 40% AMI to meet the overlay.
Which is why I was asking.
I think
you have to round up to the nearest unit
which would be
4 at 40%
yeah I'm having
problems unfortunately with my computers
circling around so I'm having problems
getting onto my
drive with the client drive
hold on a minute is there anyone in the
virtual audience
from the Norris Square Action Network.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Chair, I'm sorry, Chair, we have Nilda Pilmantel
from Norris Square with their hammers at this time.
Yes, I believe that individual is high.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Nilda, N-I-L-D-A, last name is Pimentel, P-I-M-E-N-T-E-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Would you offer some insight into this project?
Sure thing, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon to you and the members of the board.
Prior to the Sony meeting that we hosted on the 26th of August, we met with the appellant and
his attorney on actually two occasions, which is a practice that we have when we receive an
application in order to gather more detailed information about the project, about the proposal.
And at that time, we provided some feedback and also made some recommendations.
We also toured the building, which is also a practice that we have.
And one of the requests that we made was to establish an affordability period
for the two units subject to one of the refusals today.
They agreed.
They also agreed to other recommendations that we made, including mentoring a young person in the areas of real estate development and construction, and also support for a number of community projects.
project. This application was approved unanimously. Actually, it was by 20, a total of 21 residents
This application was approved.
that attended the meeting. With the proviso that the appellant satisfies, the terms agreed.
We also feel that from a zoning perspective, this project is not going to fundamentally alter
the current zoning context.
In fact, we believe that the proposed changes
of the conversion from commercial to residential,
if approved by your board,
will help enhance the block,
populate a block where we need more residents.
And that's one of the reasons
why we have a very low demand.
At the moment, we have had that problem
over the past two years for commercial space.
The demand for commercial space is very low and we need more residents in that block.
We also feel very strongly that the public benefit awaits any risk or any other weaknesses
because setting aside those two units, affordable units for two young adults that are transitioning
from the foster care system is going to really provide a benefit to people that may be locked
out of the housing market, the market. So the overall benefits, we believe, are considerable
in our view. And because they also were very receptive to engaging our group, our RCO, and
other groups in the area in terms of the marketing of the affordable units and referring income
eligible families we decided to endorse this application. So do we have anybody who has
questions of Nelda? Alan? No I don't. I mean I think she's stated you know the extensive
discussions we've had in the community benefits agreement.
And again, I didn't bring up the other stuff because, again, it's not Sonya related, but
we have entered into a comprehensive community benefits
agreement that's thoughtful.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Thank you, Nelda, by the way.
You're welcome, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Okay. Any board members with any other questions?
Planning. Yeah, this is Ron Bednar, city planning.
Properties indicated for commercial mixed use on a city plan or adopted district plan
recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location. Recommend that the requested
variance for any additional residential units not be granted.
um alan i i don't want to have to hold this but i'm going to hold this because we had so much
input from different board members so i'm going to wait to hold this till next week
and i'll vote on this at two o'clock yeah i just would like to comment that it's not out of
character to have residential living on the ground floor of a cmx plot property on this block
Just to reiterate, 2504, 12, 22, 26, 38, 42, and 44 are, my understanding, all CMX2 properties, which have ground floor residential use.
Thank you very much.
We will vote next Wednesday at 2 p.m., okay?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024-004-189-8244 Somerdale Avenue.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney. There's a recommendation of support from the Braunholtz Civic Association, 32 to 4.
Meredith Ferliger has been promoted to penalist.
Mr. Chairman.
Counselor, can you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Could you please identify your client, a relationship to this property?
My client is officially A.G. Riverside in Philadelphia, Inc., which is the owner of the property,
but is more commonly known as the Faith and Hope Ministry.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
I do agree to wave the reading. I do not agree to stipulate to the accuracy as I will address
during the presentation. Understood. Have you emailed them all the required documents
and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of the hearing?
I did. Thank you. You've already shared your screen. Please proceed.
Fantastic. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The property before you today
is 8244 Somerdale Avenue in Northeast Philadelphia, more specifically the Ron Hurst
neighborhood. Today's request exclusively concerns parking and requests one minor
dimensional variance concerning the location of proposed parking in relation to this building.
The results of our community engagement are shown on the letter at Exhibit 17, as Mr. Chairman summarized at the beginning, showing that this applicant received unanimous support from the RCO board and resounding support from area residents that attended the meeting.
We did also receive a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Brian O'Neill. I did not hear whether or not you had included that on the record, but I did include that in the exhibit packet at Exhibit 17 as well.
With me today, I have Nay Vaz, who is a representative of Property Ownership and the Faith and Hope Ministry, which is the religious congregation that occupies this property.
In total, the exhibit packet that was submitted to the board contains 17 exhibits, including tax clearance at Exhibit 2 and the deed at Exhibit 3.
We do request that these exhibits be moved into evidence following conclusion of our presentation.
As shown on the zoning map on the screen at Exhibit 5, the property at 8244 Somerdale Avenue is located at the corner of Somerdale Avenue and Hofnagel Street.
The property is zoned RSA 3, as are basically every other property surrounding this, with the exception of a few that are zoned RSA 2.
although it's not necessarily entirely relevant to today's request for additional context the
board may be interested that this corner property was historically a part of a larger lot that
extended all the way back to Emerson Street but was subdivided years ago to facilitate the
construction of many single-family homes on Emerson Street and you can see those individual
lots that were created here up on this map. Aerial views are also included at Exhibit 6,
where the board will see the context of this immediate area. The property and the structure
on it have contained a religious institution for many, many, many decades, previously housing a
synagogue and since 2020 housing the Faith and Hope Ministry. The Faith and Hope Ministry serves
many Brazilian residents in the surrounding neighborhood, particularly Brazilian youth
looking for a safe and trustworthy after-school outlet. In the rear, you will see the single
family homes that were constructed when the former synagogue leaders sold off the land in the rear,
although in this view, it's to the top of the page. Directly across the street here, you'll
notice there is a large apartment complex. Since it is relevant to today's request, the board will
notice that the apartment building's parking extends all the way to the sidewalk here along
Somerdale Avenue and provides no setback. As you can see, the bulk of this neighborhood contains
mostly single-family homes, which are shown on the additional aerials. And again, this is
Hofnagel Street here. And again, looking across the street here, you have the large apartment
complex directly across the street from this particular property. When the Faith and Hope
Ministry Congregation purchased this property in 2020, they quickly discovered that on-site
parking at this location is quite difficult, which I will establish in the next couple of photographs
at Exhibit 12. I'll start first with a view from Hofnagel Street, where you'll
see the front of the building. Moving along further up Hofnagel towards Algon
Avenue, you'll see an existing paved area here to the side of the building that
has some very old striping. However, a careful look at this parking area will
reveal the various conflicts that this area has, including the long-standing existing detached
including the longstanding existing detached structure, trash storage areas, and various points of ingress and egress on this side of the building that's shown in this image.
structure
Parking in these older striped spaces requires drivers to pull in and back directly out onto the street, and not all of these spaces evenly align with the curb cut.
You can see here that the curb cut is not evenly aligned with some of these end spaces.
It's quite honestly somewhat surprising that this parking even existed, but it's been here for many, many, many decades.
For the congregation's older population, this has created considerable challenge.
If I move back up to the top of the photographs, you'll note that the congregation laid some gravel along the side of the building to assess whether this would be a feasible solution to the parking challenges that they have faced.
This instant application before the board today seeks to formalize this area as a permanent parking area that would contain a permanent curb cut and proper stripe.
I've included additional views of the property in the next couple of photographs. So again,
you can see here from the side on Somerdale Avenue, the side of the building where they are
looking to add additional parking. And again, this is looking across Hofnagel Street at the
apartment complex across the street. And that is again where we started. If I move a little
further in the photographs. This view faces all the way up towards Algon Avenue, so you can see
Algon Avenue is just over 450 feet away up at the end of Hofnagel. We did also include photos of
these zoning posters that were timely posted on the property on August 19th, and they were posted
as required on both of the frontages of this property.
This congregation was granted a zoning permit and certificate of occupancy in 2023 and 2024
for their use as religious assembly, and they're both included in the exhibits at Exhibit 10.
For full reference, we did also include a survey at Exhibit 11.
I'll point out a few measurements that are relevant to today's request.
Along Somerdale Avenue, you will see, let me zoom in a little bit so you can see these measurements,
you'll see that there's only a maximum of 33 feet from the eastern edge of the building to the property line.
At the north side, there's only about 19 feet from the edge of the building to the property line.
The right-of-way in this location is quite large and unique with a 16-foot wide sidewalk right-of-way area that includes a grass buffer on either side.
And again, you can see the measurements here on this plan that the right-of-way here is 16 feet wide, which is really quite wide in comparison.
So you'll see there's a grass area that's along the street, and then there's the concrete sidewalk, and then there is also an additional grass area that is a part of the city's right-of-way that is not a part of my client's property.
So it's really quite a large right-of-way area.
You may have noticed in the photographs that a portion of that grass buffer along the property line was inadvertently covered with gravel, but that will be restored upon completion of the work contemplated by this application.
I have reflected generally that the area of that grass buffer that will be restored on the aerial that I'll bring up here.
And you can see here, this is roughly the area of that grass buffer along the sidewalk that will be restored with this application.
The zoning site plan is shown now at Exhibit 7.
Let me zoom in a little bit better on the parking here.
As you can see, this proposal contemplates the creation of an accessory parking area for six vehicles,
including one ADA accessible space, which is closest to the entrance of the building.
A 24-foot-wide curb cut is proposed along Somerdale Avenue, which will be constructed to Streets Department standards.
Streets did review this application during the application process, and their zoning level approval is shown at Exhibit 8.
And you can see here, it says they take no further exception to the most recently submitted version of the civil site plans.
If I zoom in a little bit, you'll notice again that this zoning plan here includes the nearly eight-foot grass buffer that is required to be restored with this application.
if i zoom in a little bit you'll
You can see it's just under eight feet here. It narrows a little bit up towards Hofnagel, but it is just under eight feet in total.
This particular aspect of this application and the existing condition of the right-of-way is important, as the Rothhurst community that was in attendance at the meeting was most concerned with ensuring that the parking is adequately buffered from the sidewalk.
Here, because of the width of the right-of-way, that buffer will range from 7 foot 8 inches to 7 feet 11 inches.
And again, those measurements are shown on this plan.
The exhibit packet at Exhibit 9 does also include a floor plan of the congregation's interior, but that is not subject to today's application, so I will skip over those floor plans, unless the board has any particular questions about the interior layout of the building.
As I noted earlier on, the application before the board today only concerns a small dimensional request, which is important as the board's review of this application is subject to a looser standard in accordance with case law that I've referenced in the Memo of Law at Exhibit 13, since this application does not entail any use-related requests.
This is one of the two errors that L&I made in issuing the refusal, in that it characterized this as a use refusal.
Having accessory parking on this site in this side location proposed is not prohibited by the zoning code.
Instead, this parking is allowed, but it would be required to provide an 8-foot yard.
This is where the refusal contains a second error.
The refusal notes that parking is prohibited in the required side yard.
However, since this property sits at a corner, again, at Hofnagel and Somerdale, both of the frontages are considered to be property fronts.
They are not considered to be property sides.
Now, practically speaking, whether you call it the front or whether you call it the side, it doesn't make a difference because the zoning code would require the eight-foot setback in either of those cases.
Now, again, the next image I'm going to show is purely for representation purposes.
It is not to scale, but it should show the board the clear hardship this applicant faces in providing a code-compliant eight-foot-wide setback.
And before I get there, again, these are just an image of the plans that the streets department did review and sign off on.
So, again, this is just a general markup that we put together to generally show the location of that eight foot required setback.
With the setback from Somerdale Avenue, the property is left with only 25 feet of usable space between the building.
These conditions stem from the long-standing conditions of this property and the building that was built in the 1950s and was not created by this applicant.
The impact of the eight-foot setback along Hofnagel Street is even more pronounced, which would leave only 11 feet between the building front and the property line.
Visually, you can see this hardship reflected clearly on this drawing, with an eight-foot
setback from Hofnagel and from Somerdale essentially rendering the parking conditions
not viable.
Even if one or two spaces could be squeezed in, it would not allow for the ADA space,
which is important to have for the elderly population of this congregation, for which
this parking is really intended.
Fortunately, this property is uniquely situated to fulfill the intent and the spirit of the code.
As we discussed earlier, there is a grass buffer that is just under eight feet that buffers the parking from the sidewalk.
That buffer is going to be restored, effectively fulfilling the goals of this section of the code.
As I pointed out earlier in the presentation, the apartment complex across the street also has accessory parking that similarly violates this particular code requirement, with no documented history of any negative impact on anyone in the neighborhood.
The applicant submits that this proposal is the least minimum variance.
The refusal here does not stem from a zoning code prohibition against parking.
The refusal here does not stem from a zoning code prohibition against parking.
On-site accessory parking is allowed on this site, subject to the dimensional requirements that we've established cannot be met.
This site already has a non-conforming parking lot on the opposing end of the building, which has been in existence for decades,
but is no longer viable to accommodate the needs of a growing congregation without creating impact to surrounding residential homes and potentially to the congregants who are attempting to use that parking.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air.
Adding additional parking to this site will mitigate on-street parking challenges while religious activities are in session.
And again, I would remind the board that this is a religious institution, so the parking use on this site is going to be based on the regular hours of operation that you would expect for a religious congregation.
A lack of code compliance setback will not pose any danger to the public, particularly in light of the nearly eight-foot grass buffer that will ensure this project aligns with the zoning code's intent.
The proposal will also ensure that access to this parking is through a streets-compliant curb cut instead of any formal access points that may exist today.
This parking will also allow drivers to exit the parking area looking forward, creating a much safer parking condition than exists currently on the site.
This particular dimensional request will have zero impact whatsoever on any neighbor, given that these setbacks are along the Somerdale and Hofnagel frontages and are not bordering nor affecting any residents.
Along the south end of the site, there is an existing fence that will continue to buffer this property from the residences on Emerson Street.
A full and more thorough analysis is provided in the memo of law that I've included to the board at Exhibit 13, and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
As mentioned earlier on, we did meet with Ron Hercevic Association and presented this proposal.
Their support was resounding.
So at this point, I would like to call up my client, Ney Vaz, to adopt my testimony.
NAVAS NAVAS, IF YOU ARE IN THE VIRTUAL AUDIENCE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
MAYBE NAIDEN NAIDEN NAVAS HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEAK, PLEASE MUTE YOURSELF.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Nathan, last name Vaz, N-E-Y, last name V-A-Z, Vaz.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Nay, can you just identify your relationship to the property owner and Faith and Hope Ministry?
We first purchased this property in 2019.
I've become a religion institute, help a lot of the community, a lot of teenagers.
I am the treasury and also the administrator and vice president of this institution.
Thank you.
And have you heard all of the testimony evidence that was presented to the board today?
Yes, Mrs. Ferlin.
And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate?
And would you adopt that testimony as if you had given it yourself?
Yes, ma'am.
And is there anything further that you'd like to add before we turn it over to the board for questions?
No, we all good.
Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
No question.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
um not at this time mr chair although um i have received some information from the planning
commission that there may have been a landscape uh review by planning commission missed in this
application so that may be something that we want to look at
all right let's see where we stand with the rest of it questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have a hand up by the name of terry miller they have been allowed to speak
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Hi, Terry, T-E-R-R-Y, Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R.
Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Am I talking to Terry Miller, right?
Yes, and my husband, Richard.
So why don't you testify first, and if we need him, we'll call him later, okay?
Are you, Ms. Miller, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
Okay, so they are proposing this facility holds 250 people, and they have been parking all over the neighborhood.
um they as far as gotten even people with orange jackets to park people everywhere
do not have um standard religious hours they are there sometimes from nine or in the morning
11 o'clock at night
they hold
hookouts
on the pavement
parties
they host parties
we see people
so Ms. Miller
let me say this
the only thing we're looking at today
is putting six parking places
in that lot
and the question would be
are you in favor of that
or against taking six cars off the street
and put them on a lock? I'm against it because it doesn't happen.
Okay. Ms. Miller, thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments.
My husband would like to comment.
Please state your name. My name's Rich Miller.
I live at 8301 Algonne Avenue. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Is there anything you can offer
that your wife has not offered sure i can a lot okay this parking lot down here at the synagogue
they stoned it in and they said we only want six parking spots okay i'll go along with that but
there is a culvert there there is a handicap ramp there use that as a driveway there is also
but they destroyed that.
There was a tree there.
They cut that down so they could park there.
And then they stoned it in.
Now, the section there is roughly about 80 feet by 45 feet.
They packed 18 cars in there at a time or more.
They use the handicapped
Brant Bear
And behind their building
In the other part of the parking lot
They have six parking spots
So Mr. Miller
Listen
Listen to me
Mr. Miller listen
This is about
They want to put legalized six spots
On that lot there
Are you for that or against that
We're totally against it, and so is everybody else.
They did not have 100% permission from the Ronhurst Civic Association because I was at that meeting and voted off because they weren't members of the Ronhurst Civic Association.
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Thanks for taking the time.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Mr. Chair, may I just briefly respond before you have planning commission? I think I have just one point that I want to make.
So, first of all, the letter from Ron Hurst is very, very clear that most of the meeting attendees were in support of this and they were residents that live in this neighborhood.
And again, you know, the entire purpose of this application is to try and mitigate some of the impacts that, you know, some of the residents have seen and to try and take some of that impact off the street.
As board members know, religious institutions these days are very, very active in their communities.
So, you know, the use of this property is not in question.
And again, this is really just trying to mitigate some of that impact and pull it off the street.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Are we, did Hillary actually check if we want to go with a refusal on this?
because if so then hillary where do hillary where do we want to be with
Because if so, then.
Hillary, where do we want to be with?
so i think we could do one of two things it sounds like planning didn't get to review
these plans and the landscape trigger right plant the okay the trigger for review for
landscaping is four or more parking spaces um we could send this back for an amended refusal
for landscape review or um we could just have planning review and defer their testimony
till a resumption hearing in a couple of weeks um indicating if they notice any additional
refusals why don't we do that later mr chair i have a third suggestion i mean the the plans
themselves if if there's a landscaping requirement which i i don't dispute that there may have been
one that was missed in the review but the plans don't they clearly don't show any landscaping
uh and and the board generally speaking can acknowledge the fact that there may have been
a missed refusal without having to delay the application or or require an amended refusal
so i'm just wondering if that that may also be an option just to sort of acknowledge the fact
that the plans clearly do not show compliance with the landscaping requirements that may or
may not exist under the code for this application uh and yeah i think where i want to be is hillary's
second suggestion let planning take it review it am i correct hillary hillary um yes we can we can
do that and i will just i will just double check with the appropriate procedure to make sure
right l and i and planning are all on on the same page and maybe that it's better to amend the
refusal or l and i can just take a look at it i mean planning can just take a look at it so i will
just I will just check and we can schedule we can just schedule a resumption for for planning
testimony within the next couple weeks all right you're okay with that Ron yes okay okay thank you
thank you Meredith thank you
for seven MI 2024 004199 2036 Fairmont Avenue Henry Clinton is the attorney
Letters of support from Spring Garden Civic Association.
Letters of non-opposition from Councilmember Young.
Henry Clinton has been promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Mr. Clinton, please state your name.
It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Henry Clinton, A-T-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Clinton, could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Gabriel Cohn, and he is a tenant in the building at 2036 Fairmount, or intended tenant at the building.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate your exact mercy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have, Mr. Shahid.
Thank you, Mr. Clayton. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, sir.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman, of the cover sheet?
Yes, it is, sir.
Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clayton for Gabriel Cohn, who is on the call.
This is a pretty direct request for a record shop on the 2,100 block of Fairmont Avenue,
which is lined with other commercial uses.
We happen to be in an RM1 zoning district.
This property has an apartment above with retail below.
It has historic retail over the last 50 years, which I'll recite based on my discussions
with people in the neighborhood.
This is my presentation.
Contains exhibits A1 through A10.
Refusal RM1 Zoning District. Again, we're requesting a record shop, literally a record shop with vinyl records.
There will be some CDs and cassettes, but mainly vinyl, which is becoming more popular nowadays with the younger crowd.
Refusal indicates that the record store in the bottom floor, an existing structure, is not permitted in this zoning district.
As you mentioned at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we do have a letter of support from Spring Garden.
The key point is property is located on a block of Fairmont Avenue that already has a number of compatible commercial uses for which variances have been previously granted.
In fact, that was before the board in June of this year on a wholesale goods shop on the first floor of 2026 Fairmont.
and we were successful in obtaining relief for that application.
And we were successful in obtaining relief for that application.
Photographs, this is the Eastern State Penitentiary to the north.
My client's tenancy is where the black line is.
The fare restaurant, F-A-R-E, is to the east.
And there are other commercial establishments.
And it's kind of a blend of RM1 as well as commercial uses on the 2100 block of Fairmont Avenue.
So a closer view of what the front of the building used to look like.
The first floor has been redone.
It's quite striking when you see the photograph.
And I'll show you that.
This is the interior of the building.
Currently, it's vacant.
And as I said, historically, it's been used.
Last usage was an office prior to that, hair salon, then a takeout restaurant before that.
They sold power tools in this location about 25, 30 years ago.
And way back in the day, it was a clothing store.
This is the front of the building now.
Again, it's been really spruced up.
We think because of the traffic on Framon Avenue and the number of visitors that visit the Eastern State Penitentiary on a regular basis,
that Gabriel is going to have a successful business here.
He is a sole proprietor.
He has no employees at this time. If the business takes off, he may. His hours of operation are basically 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., but probably he's more likely to be open at 11 o'clock to 8 or 9 p.m.
This is the layout of the property.
Entrance is in the front.
Bins of records and cassettes.
We do have listening stations.
I mean, basically, the way it will work is similar to what you would see in some of the larger record stores or CD stores where clients come in and put headphones on.
So the noise level is relatively low.
Additional bins of records and cassettes throughout the property.
Back is a work area.
And also to store trash.
The only trash really he'll have is cardboard for delivery of records and cassettes, and that's going to be really recycling.
He also has access to the basement where he can keep excess cardboard as well as excess inventory, and there's also a full functioning bathroom.
The rest of the documents are the typical documents you would see in an application such as this.
our tax clearance.
Zoning map, again, indicating RM1.
But as the photographs indicate,
as the historical usage of this property demonstrates,
there really is a lot of first floor commercial uses
on the avenue.
And Fairmount Civic really encourages that.
This is a copy of the lease.
My client has gone ahead and signed the lease,
the landlord for the property.
and he's looking forward to hopefully a great run
in this neighborhood.
Proof of mailing, this is the letter that was sent out.
Proof of mailing and all the addresses
that were contacted about the zoning hearing
and as well as a community meeting.
So just in conclusion, we are requesting
a variance for a use, which is again, historical in nature,
never a record store, but similar uses.
We're not going to impact anyone's development of their adjacent properties, nor impact the
latent error of any adjacent properties.
It's in conformity with the general use of the 2,100 block of Fairmont Avenue, and it's
in conformity with the wants and desires of the community group.
With that, I'd like to conclude my presentation, ask my client to unmute himself, and see if
people will adopt my testimony and entertain any questions from the board or the public.
Mr. Cohen.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Gabriel Cohen, G-A-B-R-I-E-L, last name is C-O-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cohen, were you on the call when I presented your project to the board?
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as sure and correct?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
I'm just trying to get an idea where this is exactly.
It's right across from the prison.
I know.
I'm just, because this is my neighborhood.
So you said it's a couple of doors away from fair.
I can't clear that.
Right here.
see the umbrellas in front of fair yep yep and so we're just so this is like an open area here
See the umbrellas in front of fair.
others right uh retail and then we're here in this location but again it's spruce stop now
ah okay i think that other retail is pottery if i'm not mistaken you are correct right because
they they did then they um do a whole restoration of that property too the the one on the other side
I believe they did too. My photograph doesn't show that, but I,
I believe that was also spruced up.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other, any other questions from the board?
Mr. Clinton, I have a question. Like I know just having lived in that neighborhood fire,
that that has always been sort of an unassuming commercial space.
And I've noticed that the application didn't seem to have anything to do with any signage.
are they planning to come back to zoning or is everything going to be by
right or applied to the windows question. And that,
that's something I did talk to Gabriel about any sign that he's going to have
will be just in the window and would probably be a by right application.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Leslie Lovejoy. They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, I'm Leslie Jerome Lovejoy. It's L-E-S-L-I-E, last name Jerome, G-I-R-O-N-E, Lovejoy, L-O-V-E-J-O-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
I am. I live in the unit above. I've been a resident there for 15 years.
Okay, please proceed.
I'm excited for the new opportunity for the neighborhood. I do have some personal concerns.
In the 15 years I've lived there, it has never been open to foot traffic. You know, the hair salon was just a one chair by appointment only.
the previous office had very little non-staff coming in. So I am a little bit concerned
just opening that up to the public. And my biggest concern is now that there's been a
renovation, there's no clear distinction with the doors. So I would just request that any signage
would be considered that we don't want anyone to be mixing up my door because even before the
renovations. People will get my door mixed up with the retail space, despite clear and distinct
signage. And people would actually try to walk in my home thinking it's the business. And I'm just
concerned that now with this updated facade, that might even be more of a concern. And I'm very
happy to hear that there'll be headphones because I'm a little bit concerned about the noise.
So I just want to state those concerns and hope that they'll be considered.
Thank you for taking the time to call us. And I'm sure Mr. Clinton will deal with that.
I agree. Am I correct? Yes. Ms. Lovejoy, we'll make sure that the signage is appropriate. We
want people to come into our store and buy our records. So that definitely was something
that Gabriel will do. And I know that he will talk to you about that and make sure we're all
on the same page. Thank you for taking the time to close. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else
in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Justino Navarro.
they have been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O-N-A-V-A-R-R-O.
Right, do you swear, Fern, to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
You're with the Spring Garden Civic, right?
That's correct, Mr. Chairman, so thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
As you know, perhaps by now, my name is Justino Navarro,
And I'm here in representation of the Spring Garden
Civic Association as a member of the board
and member of the zoning committee.
You received a letter of support from us,
date of September 5, 2024, indicating
that the community was in support of this proposed zoning
variance subject to the signing of a community benefits
agreement.
So I am actually pleased to report that as of yesterday
afternoon, we have a fully executed CBA signed
by the property owner, the store
operator and myself, and representation of the Civic Association.
As a result, I would like to reiterate the Spring Garden Civic Association's support
for this variance and welcome the proposed retail store for the sale of vinyl records
and related items.
We welcome the addition of this unique store, which we feel is fully compatible with the
Fairmont Avenue Commercial Corridor and the Spring Garden Historic District and the development
in efforts that for years we have undertaken to make Fairmont Avenue a preferred commercial
to make fairmont avenue a preferred commercial card in the city of philadelphia
card in the city of Philadelphia.
and we also think that it will be a destination for many vinyl files if that's the word
or rather vinyl and record enthusiasts throughout fairmont avenue throughout spring garden throughout
fairmont throughout franceville and actually throughout the entire city of philadelphia
i would like to thank mr navarocides the property owner and mr cone the sewer operator
for their collaboration with the community during the RCO process.
We welcome Mr. Conan as retail vinyl store to Spring Garden
and the Crammond Avenue Commercial Parter
and wish him the best of success in his operations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for calling, and we appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
There are no more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission, this is Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
While the property is currently indicated for residential on the city plan, given the site's documented use history and its physical condition, we recommend the request of variance be granted.
MI 2024, 004199, 2036 Fairmont Avenue, I vote yes, Proviso, limiting use 21F.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
And Shmuel Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Have a great day, everybody.
Okay, thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024-004-201, 701 South Broad Street.
Broad Street, Stephanie Boggs and Magna is the attorney.
There is
unanimous support from the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
Good afternoon.
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Stephanie Magania, Stephanie, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E, Magania, M-A-G-A-G-N-A.
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 this property?
My client is Hightop Broad Acquisition LLC, and they are the owner for this property.
Brian Lobauer from Hightop Development is here on their behalf today as well.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading.
I have comments on its accuracy, which I'll get into in the presentation.
Thank you.
I have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
So this property is 701 South Broad Street. It's located at the corner of Broad Street and Bainbridge Street within the CMX3 zoning district, occupied by an existing seven-story building on this site that has medical offices and a takeout restaurant on the ground floor that was recently approved by this board.
And the above floors, second through seventh floor, are entirely occupied currently and permitted for use as visitor accommodations.
There are also 16 off-site parking spaces that are reserved for use by the occupants of this building off-site at 1441 South Street.
Which here's a map showing kind of the distance between our building and the parking.
When this building was originally envisioned and before it was developed, the concept was that it would flex between a multifamily building as well as a short-term rental building in accordance with allowing multiple principal uses on a lot in the CMX3 zoning district.
So it was initially approved for both uses for multifamily, as well as visitor accommodations, while we look to secure a particular tenant to determine how that use would be portion between the building.
So the offsite parking at 1441 South Street was originally reserved in connection with the multifamily component of this building.
And again, there are 16 parking spaces to meet the code requirements that have been reserved since that time when the building was originally approved.
After we got our initial approvals, we executed a lease agreement with an apartment hotel operator to operate the entirety of this building as visitor accommodations and short-term rentals.
It has continued operating as such for the last couple of years.
and it has continued operating as such for the last couple years we've maintained our off-site
We've maintained our office.
parking agreement at 1441 south street for those 16 spaces despite the change of use and its current
operations as an apartment hotel because we did want to maintain the flexibility option that was
inherent to the original concept for this building however we do not own as high top development does
not own 1441 South Street, where our offsite parking is located. We don't control it. We
recently received notice from the property owner at that location that they intend to terminate
our parking agreement as of next month, October 2024. So we will be losing accessory parking
reserved offsite in connection with this building as of next month. Under the existing zoning,
that doesn't create a problem. But this comes at the same time as we've had some difficulty
any uncertainty with the existing tenant of the building on whether they will maintain their
lease through its term or whether they will discontinue operating all or some portion of
the building. So because we are losing parking and there is some uncertainty about the existing
tenant here, we want to continue the flexible concept for this project as it was originally
conceived to allow for multifamily and visitor accommodations depending on the need at the time.
So we're filing this application now to allow this building to operate either as multifamily or under the current lease as visitor accommodations.
I mentioned that the refusal is accurate, or I would waive its reading, but wanted to confirm its accuracy.
So the refusal correctly identifies that the variance that's needed in connection with this application is one for parking.
We are seeking approval for a multifamily use in the CMX3 district that requires accessory parking, and we are losing our off-site parking at this location without the opportunity to replace it.
So we are seeking a variance to remove those parking spaces on site.
I'll note that the refusal specifies that there are zero parking spaces in connection with the project, but this building was originally approved with one ADA parking space located on site, and that space will be maintained through this change.
So I do want to clarify that.
More importantly, and more on its face, the refusal describes this application as one to allow for multifamily use exclusively of this building.
Whereas, as I explained, we're looking to have this building permitted for use either as 54 multifamily dwelling units or visitor accommodations.
We do have the active lease for the apartment hotel operator ongoing, but we do want to have the ability to repurpose units as they come without a significant period of vacancy, either between the apartment hotel use or a longer term rental use.
So should the board be inclined to grant relief, we would just ask that the board stipulate or clarify the nature of this application with a proviso to clarify that this is seeking approval for use as either 54 multifamily dwelling units and or visitor accommodations without accessory parking required in connection with any residential use of the property.
This application, the nature of the application, as well as the existing ADA parking on-site, the bicycle spaces that are provided on-site, and its original placement and orientation as a transit-oriented development, being that we're only located two blocks from the Broad Street line, was presented to Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition at our meeting on August 14th, and I'm happy to include their letter of support in our packets.
there's a copy of their letter for reference
um with that i'll ask brian lowrout from high top development to identify himself and raise his hand
ryan has been allowed to speak
hi sir could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer
Ryan Lohbauer
that's spelled R-Y-A-N
B-A-U-E-R
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel.
Hi, Ryan. Have you heard the statement that I made
to the board this afternoon?
I did. Are they correct and accurate?
They are.
Do you adopt them as your own? I do.
Thank you.
We're happy to answer any questions the board may have.
So I'm going to give it to the board.
So basically you're saying you want to still have the 54 units used either as multiple family or short-term rental without parking.
Correct.
So the units are fit out for use as an apartment.
It's operated as an apartment hotel.
So the only distinction between a multifamily use and the visitor accommodations would be the length of the rental stay.
so because of some uncertainty about the lease and the original concept for this building
So, because of some uncertainty about the lease and the original concept for this building, we want to have the ability to flex the use of each unit based on its lease term, which is the only difference.
Questions on the board?
And you're still going to have the restaurant and the group health practice?
Correct. So, there's no changes to the ground floor use of the building as they've been approved.
And then those, the folks who frequent the restaurant or the group help practice, where are they going to park?
There's never been any parking associated with the commercial uses of this building.
So there would be no effect in terms of this application to that parking situation.
So they weren't using these accessories?
So the parking has always been, it was originally reserved in connection with the original multifamily use that was approved for this site.
And it has remained for use in connection with the principal use of the building, which is now visitor accommodations, which we're seeking to revert back to the original approval of multifamily and visitor accommodations.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
If I may just to clarify to it, I may have forgotten to mention.
So we are two blocks from Broad Street Line here at Broad and Bainbridge.
There are also 25 off-street bicycle spaces located at this site.
And as I said, there is one ADA parking space located on site, and that will be maintained through this application.
It's a comment from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Yes, so I'm just a little concerned that what you're asking for is not what's actually on the refusal.
Because the original permit, and thank you for including these in your exhibit packet, was for visitor accommodations, I believe, on the second floor only.
and then the upper floors were multifamily and then there was another permit issued in 2022
that changed the use um from the second to seventh floors for visitor accommodations
the way this refusal is written it sounds like it's changing everything back to multifamily and
i don't know for sure that you would be retaining the visitor accommodations right exactly so that's
what i was hoping to clarify so the refusal doesn't accurately explain the uses that we're
seeking a connection with this application. So our request would be that that be clarified with
a proviso because we are seeking to have two principal uses at the building. Two principal
uses of a building in CMX3 is permitted by right. The variance remains exactly the same as it's
written on the refusal, which would be to have accessory parking not required in connection with
the multifamily use. So the actual refusal itself remains the same as it's written, but the
description of the project is incorrectly reflected on the current refusal okay um yeah so i think
the board because the use was previously you know previously granted by right you're not seeking to
um to abandon that use i think the board can add a proviso that just indicates um previously
approved visitor accommodations use to remain and we can put that as a proviso did you get that mr
chair quite all of it previously approved visitor accommodations used to remain
okay but do we mention do we mention there's no parking
that's already clear on the refusal okay all right thank you any other questions from the board
any questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time to your planning commission
so ron bednar city planning that property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city
plan given the physical circumstances of the site recommend the request for variance be granted
MI 2024-004-201-701-South Broad Street. I vote yes, Wood Proviso. Previous, say that again, Hillary.
Sure, Mr. Chair. Previous visitor accommodations.
Yeah, previously approved visitor accommodations use to remain.
Previous use visitor accommodation use to remain.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Councilman.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number 13, MI 2024-004-250-2441 North 19th Street.
Number 13, MI 2024.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from all in the family CDC.
Alan is coming back in as a penalist.
Thank you.
Alan Ockamson, could you identify a client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Khalil White, the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing uh yes we have thank you council please proceed and show
the screen thank you all right so i'm here i'm just trying to get this full screen i'm here to
present 2441 north 19th street uh in the virtual audience is clear white uh the owner of the
property. What he's looking to do here is put a duplex on this property where he's going to
live on one unit with him and his daughter and another unit he's going to rent out to be able
to help afford the mortgage payment for this proposed duplex. So first we'll review the
notice of refusal. This is an RSA 5 property, but it's a rather large lot of 1,051. We did meet with
the community and they're in support of this project as the chairman stated. We have a letter
of support from all in the family group associated incorporated to coordinate the RCO. We have a
letter of support from a nearby neighbor as well as extensive petition of nearby neighbors as well
in support of this project. It's not out of character to have multifamily in this portion
of the neighborhood and we have multiple examples of nearby RSA 5 properties that are currently
being used as multifamily. Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property
and the surrounding area. Our plans and drawings, I blew up the floor plans to kind of
show you what we're trying to do here. But again, my client is looking to live on the upper level
unit and then rent out the lower level unit so we can afford a mortgage and the renovations
which would come with this property. Our RCO meeting notice, again, we met with the community
And based on our presentation from the community, which this board is now hearing as well, we have their support, our application for appeal that I filed on Mr. White's behalf, along with the deed to the property showing that he's the owner of the property.
And finally, the Certificate of Tax Clearance showing he's in compliance with his obligations for real estate taxes.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I'll ask Mr. White to virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and now I'll have a few questions for him so he can adopt my testimony as his own.
Notice of refusal. This is an RSA5 property. We're just looking, you know, to make this into a duplex. There are no dimensional variances here.
We did meet with the community and the communities in support of this project.
Now, they do have some conditions. We don't have a roof deck. They're asking for no roof deck, so it's not part of our application. Don't know if it's appropriate to say no roof deck access structure as a proviso, even though there is no roof deck there. And then there's other non-enforceable conditions, which, of course, we'll comply with.
um the letter of support uh from the nearby neighbor um we have a letter right here someone
from the uh who's 2439 north 19th street which is exactly next door to us and then we have an
extensive petition that mr white uh circulated to nearby neighbors
and then again not out of character to have multi-family on this block even though these
These are RSA 5 properties, 2416 North 19th Street, 2351 North 19th Street, 2400 North
Garnett Street, 2439 North 19th Street, 2421 North 18th Street.
So all examples of nearby RSA 5 properties that are multifamily in nature.
maps of the area here again you can just see that we're on you know in close to
Again, you can just see that we're on, you know, close to North Broad Street, and we're in between Glenwood as well.
There's ample public transportation nearby.
And then just maps, you know, an overview map of the area.
And then photos of the property.
This is a vacant lot being maintained well.
This is our orange notice poster that we planted onto the property, which is proof of posting at least 21 days before today's hearing.
North 19th Street to the right of the property, till left of the property.
A lot of vacant lots nearby. So, again, this is a part of the city that's ripe for redevelopment.
are plans and drawings. Again, no dimensional variances requested, but I wanted to blow up
the floor plans here. So you walk into the front door, there's a vestibule area. You make a right,
this is unit number one. And unit number one is two bedrooms, two baths, right? So there's,
on the first floor is an open floor plan with a living room, kitchen, and a little dining room
hugging the rear of the first floor. You go up a flight of steps internally and there's two
bedrooms, right? And then there's flex space in the finished basement. Instead of going to the
right, once you hit the vestibule area on the first floor, you go up a flight of steps. This
is a living room area, which honestly, my client believes more of a, it's a kid's play area. That's
where his daughter would be. And then you go up a flight of steps and then there's two bedrooms,
one on each side with an ample-sized livery room, kitchen, and dining room.
And then there's a bathroom.
So there's two bathrooms on that upper floor on the third floor.
So each of these are two bedrooms, two baths.
This unit, the lower-level unit, combined square footage, is approximately 1,500 square feet.
This upper-level unit is approximately 900 square feet.
We met with the community on August 27th at 5 p.m.
We emailed notice of that community meeting a few weeks beforehand.
And in that email, we gave not only the notice, but proof of mailing of that notice that we sent to 235 properties.
These are the addresses that we sent it to.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on Mr. White's behalf, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form, the deed to the property showing that Mr. White is the owner.
And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance showing that there's no money owed for real estate taxes.
I would ask that Mr. White virtually raise his hand.
How little white has been allowed to speak to white? Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
How you doing? My name is K. H. A. L. I. L. Last name white. W. H. I. T. E.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed counsel.
Mr. White, you heard everything I had to say today about your zoning matter.
And is it correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
just briefly mr chair um in terms of the proviso that was requested by the rco for
no roof deck because this is no construct this is new construction um i think that is a proviso
that can be added in this case if it was a change of use that would not be relevant but because
this is new construction i think that proviso can be added if the board wishes
I guess the only thing I would add is the trash stored in indoor until trash day is a proviso or in rear yard if there's access. I think the first floor has access, but the second floor doesn't.
Second floor unit, rather.
Any questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time.
It's Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan,
given the area-wide documented use history and the site's physical condition.
given the area-wide documented use history and the site's physical condition we recommend the
request advance program mi2024-004-250-2441 north 19th street i vote yes with proviso trash stored
inside um no rooftop deck michael johns my vote is yes with proviso so
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
with provisos
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes
with provisos
Iowan, my vote is yes with provisos
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos
Thank you, counsel
Thank you, have a great day
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose 2 p.m. case has not been called?
I see no hands at this time
We're going to take a five minute break
and come back and finish the 3.30 list
Thank you, everyone
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's
330 ZBA hearings. With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Ryan McSherry, our attorney, and our deputy director for planning and zoning, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Video will be available by contacting kathleen.grady at philo.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 an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and address the property in question.
And finally, the question-answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All comments and testimony should be directed to our Deputy Director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule.
Number two, MI2023-005-975-2000-East-Cambria, Darabella Perez.
Darabella Perez has been allowed to speak.
yes hi good evening could you please please could you please state your name and spell
for the court sonorifer javier perez
p-a-r-i-a-l-b-a perez is spelled p-e-r-e-z right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes sir i understand you may want a continuance i need a continuance
the RCOs haven't released their decision yet. Okay all right so MI 2023 005 975 2000 East
Cambria Street this case is continued and you will be notified of the next hearing okay? Okay
thank you so much. Thank you for calling us we appreciate it. All right have a good evening
everyone. You too. Okay. Bye-bye.
Number four.
Hold one more minute here.
Okay. Number
MI 2023
03-007-024-8575 Tarsdale Avenue, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
Number eight, MI 2024-002-349-2837 West Lehigh Avenue, Cases Continued.
And number nine, MI 2024-002.
MI 2024-002-371-1639 East Cheltenham Avenue.
The board is continuing this matter.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Number three, MI 2023-006-895-2873, North Lehigh.
Michael Ruth, this is the second listing.
The attorney involved in the case is no longer involved.
Mr. Ruth.
Mr. Ruth.
I see no one in the audience with that name, Chair.
Thank you.
So MI 2023-006-895-2873 North Lee Street.
Cases continue.
Mark must be heard.
And number nine.
I did nine already.
And number one.
MI 2023
004 947
1205 South 20 A Street
This case has been withdrawn
We're going to go to our cases now
Number 4
MI 2023
006 923
3101 East Ontario Street
Sean Ward is the attorney
there's a letter of unanimous support
from Port Richmond
Home Patrol and Civic
and a letter of support from Council Member Driscoll
Sean Ward has been promoted to penalist
Mr. Ward?
Do we see Mr. Ward's hand?
okay i'm here there he is hi mr ward oh my god could you please state your name and spell for
the court sonographer thank you mr chair my name is sean s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d attorney for the applicant
at 3101 east ontario street i apologize for the delay and uh but the little wheel
The little blue wheel was going.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir?
Of course I do.
And could you identify your client, please?
I represent East Ontario Company, LLC, which is the registered owner of the premises under consideration.
And I do have a representative of the LLC with me today.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Yes, sir.
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do i've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed yes thank you thank you mr ward please proceed and share your screen okay
chair can we confirm that my screen is uh in fact it's up yep it's up mr ward awesome thank you um
what i have submitted is my typical uh exhibit packet i'm just trying to move it on my screen
Um, which includes bear with me here. Okay. Um, I represent East Ontario company LLC. Uh, the premises is 3101 East Ontario street at MI ending in, uh, 6, 9, 2, 3 as recited by the chair.
A1 is our notice of referral.
This is a special exception case, not a variance case.
And we are seeking approval today for basically equipment and materials, storage, yard, and building.
Again, it requires a special exception in the I1 industrial district due to the IMA overlay.
I-1 industrial district. Due to the IMA overlay, normally it would be an approved
use in the I-3 district. So again, we're here today for a special exception approval.
Let me blow this up a little bit so you can see it better. A-2 is our ZBA application of appeal.
A3 is our project information form.
A4 is a copy of the deed showing proof of ownership and standing before the board.
A5 is our proof of tax clearance.
A6 is an archive zoning site plan showing the site.
A7 are photographs of the posting, the subject property, street views, aerial views.
And I do have as a supplement some interior photographs, which were requested by board council.
I did not receive them until late yesterday or this morning, but they have been submitted to board council and I will share them today.
So I would ask that they be included in A7 as photographs.
A8 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing.
A-9 is our letter from ProPAC supporting the grant of the special exception.
I don't want, I'm not, you don't have that up yet, do you? Because I'm not really saying that. I see him.
You can't say what?
Well, I'm not seeing that. What I see here is not what you usually put up.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Excuse me, this is board council. Yes, we're looking at, I guess, your file folder.
yeah gotcha gotcha gotcha all right let me let me stop share
uh let me start again with well you don't have to start again just throw it out i'm fine
how's that that's it that's it oh there it is okay all right so uh again uh 3101 east ontario
A-9 is our RCO letter of support for the special exception.
A-10, Councilman Driscoll, I believe, submitted an email directly to the board.
We do have it.
Great. Thank you.
A-11 is the zoning history.
This property is down by the Tioga Marine Terminal.
I mean, there is not one residence anywhere near or about this area.
Since 1958, this property is used for the tanning of hides and skins.
And then in 1977, there was a permit granted for storage and maintenance of motor vehicles.
A-12 is the zoning map and A-13 is the aerial photograph.
So briefly, I would again reiterate this use is specifically permitted in the I-3 industrial district, which is one of the least restrictive of the industrial districts.
However, years ago, the IMA overlay was instituted specifically for the preservation of industrial uses in these lands.
So now it requires a special exception.
So that's why we're here.
Under a special exception approval, there are special requirements, if any, listed in the code.
In our case, there are none listed.
And then we're supposed to show any detrimental impacts on the neighborhood.
Congested in the streets and public transportation, there's absolutely none.
This is the Tioga Marina Terminal District.
There is no overcrowding of the land.
We're not erecting any structures.
So there's no impairing of adequate supply of light air to the property.
It's an existing site.
We're not proposing anything new or different other than the current use of the property.
So there are no burdens on the water sewer, school park, or other public facilities.
And we're certainly not going to impair or permanently injure the use of adjoining conforming properties.
This property is more or less surrounded by a property owned by the Port Authority.
And therefore, you know, that just won't happen.
You know, that just won't happen. And again, because it's a storage of construction material and vehicles, there's no endangerment to the public health, safety and welfare.
And again, because it's a.
And we're certainly not inconsistent with the city plan.
Based upon the letter of support from ProPAC, we submit that there is no detrimental impact upon the neighborhood.
And so I will quickly run through our packet.
I'll get to the important stuff.
um taxes are paid here's the site plan uh this is the corner of ontario street and
um what might be called caster avenue however it doesn't really exist
this is a copy of our posting this is the front of the structure we've repainted the front of it
You will see in my Google Street Views how the property looked prior to our institution of adaptive reuse.
Again, this site over here where I'm moving my cursor is owned by the Port Authority.
The black rooftop property is our structure.
Again, these are Google Street views showing the condition of the property before our institution of our use.
Ontario Street running each way.
Again, this is the Tioga Marine Terminal.
This is our notice to the community for our meeting.
Our certificate of mailing.
The lengthy list of addresses that we had to notify.
Again, this is the RCO notification map provided by city planning.
Again, this is the PROPAC letter.
Again, use is allowed in industrial I-3.
You will see that normally this would be a permitted use, a lever, I apologize, I came up gibberish, but this is the IMA zoning, which requires a special exception.
This is the zoning history, again, private garage and accessory storage of motor vehicles, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
uh the approved zoning uh map for the site and
not to belabor the point but again all the deep purple is i3 zoning and we are right here dead
center on the map um so obviously there there is no impact upon any uh other neighborhood
um you know here's the google map again an aerial photograph this entire lot other than
what you see is the blacktop roof um is owned by the port authority uh apparently using it for a
I imagine a tow yard
but other than that
that's what I have
I believe I have George Groves
on the call
George if you could raise your hand
Mr. Groves
Mr. Groves had been allowed to speak
Sir could you please state your name as spelled for the
court stenographer
George Groves
G-R-O-V-E-S
Groves
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed counsel uh george you heard
my representation to the board today correct yes are they true and correct to the best of your
knowledge information and belief yes sir and would you adopt them as your own testimony as if called
to testify today sure would thank you very much uh mr chair that that's all i have okay thank you
questions from the board no question did i hear you say that there were interior pictures or we
don't have them oh cheryl i am so sorry uh they weren't in the packets you just got them a little
late that's fine uh but i i do in fact have them if you if you want to see them it's it's basically
just a, oh, we're already in my second.
It says wholesale distribution and storage, equipment and material storage.
What are we doing here today?
It's a construction and, you know, a construction equipment and material storage facility.
And here are, you know, this is what's inside right now.
It's all tools, some vehicles.
And basically, you know, they, you know, they store their vehicles inside.
And this photo array was shared with Hillary and board council and ZBA this morning.
Okay. And then distribution? What do we...
No, Cheryl, the...
Is that just the general category that we're going under?
Exactly. That is the general category. Our application calls for...
You're just doing the storage and equipment and materials and that kind of thing.
Okay. So, you know, you know, on the refusal, if I go back up, the general category is wholesale distribution and storage. However, our specific use is equipment and material storage, yard and building.
Gotcha. Okay.
But it falls under that category of wholesale distribution and storage.
but any other question any other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney ryan mcsherry
no mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission uh ron bednar city planning uh
the property is indicated for medium industrial use on the city plan we believe the proposed
use will have no more of an impact than would be expected to have given its location.
Therefore, we recommend granting the requested special exception.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-923-3101 East Ontario.
Tarry Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Hi, I win. My vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Thank you so much.
Have a great afternoon.
You too.
Number six, MI 2024-002-341-231 West Rittenhouse Square.
Steve Masters is the attorney.
Unanimous support from West Central Germantown neighbors.
steve masters is coming in as a penalist
good afternoon mr sheriff hey counsel how are you sir could you please state your name and
spell for the court stenographer steve masters s-t-e-v-e m-a-s-t-e-r-l do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client
a relationship to this property? Yes, my client is Susan Deutsch and Matthew Hamilton, who are
the owners of Rittenhouse Soundworks. I talked a real short time ago with the council.
Do you have to do something with planning with this case? Have you submitted the planning?
So where we're at, Mr. Chair, is that the Planning Commission is now prepared to grant
a full waiver for all aspects of the plans that are not in compliance with the code.
However, they didn't have enough time to do that in order to prepare it for today.
So we're going to be asking the board to hold off on the vote to allow the Planning Commission
to stamp the plan.
Great.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Masters.
Do you agree to wait a reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, Mr. Shahid.
I do agree to waive the reading, but I am not going to stipulate to the accuracy because that's part of what we were just discussing, that in fact, most of the refusals are no longer valid.
Fair enough.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we did.
Yes, we did.
And we also then supplemented the submissions a few more.
And we also then supplemented the submissions
a few more times when we had some newer information
to share with the board.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share the screen.
All right.
All right, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
We are here for Rittenhouse Soundworks and the property that we're here for is 231 West Rittenhouse Street. The actual location for the business is 219 West Rittenhouse Street.
Now, 219 West Rittenhouse and also the building right next to it, which is between 219 and 231, they are both zoned as CMX2.
But this lot where the existing parking lot is for Rittenhouse Soundworks is zoned RSA 2.
And that's part of where we had a problem when we made an application to legalize the lot.
The zoning code requires a use variance to put a parking lot in an RSA 2 district.
If it was the CMX 2, it would have been by special exception.
I wanted to just start off with a chart that we prepared that basically, let me move this
here, the chart goes through all of the refusals and explains what the current status is.
Ultimately, I guess I'll do a spoiler alert and ultimately the only variance that is really
at issue for the board is this last one on the bottom here for the use variance.
There were a number of refusals that were issued from the planning commission's review
of our plans.
We went through several iterations of our plans. We first created a landscape buffer plan that had a significant number of trees and shrubs and perennials as is required by the code.
However, the Planning Commission rejected some of those aspects of our plan because the trees were being planted too close together and they thought that the trees would not thrive and would not remain viable.
We then contracted with an arborist from the Morris Arboretum and a landscape architect and we created new revised plans.
And as a result, in a review that I'll show you in a moment from Ian Haggerty at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission is now of the position that we have satisfactorily addressed the issues that are basically due to the size of this lot and the fact that we can't have the full amount of buffer areas
and and the full amount of in of islands inside the parking lot that the code requires us to do
so the first line here uh is around landscape and tree preservation plans um the this was a refusal
because the planning commission had not stamped an approval on the plans we now expect them to
issue a waiver from all of the deviations as i mentioned um and we will show you momentarily
the letter from yesterday from Mr. Hegarty informing us that that would happen. So that
refusal is now going to go away with a waiver. The second row is around plantings. And we had,
like I said, the wrong combination and the wrong varieties of trees that we picked. With the help
of our arborist, we picked the much better varieties. And the Planning Commission now
also expects to issue a waiver for the fact that in this case, not only does the zoning code now
require a lot of plantings of deciduous trees, of evergreens, of shrubs, and of perennial flowers,
but they also require a fence to be erected along all of the boundaries, three of the four
boundaries of this property. And that fence is supposed to be made out of wood or ornamental
metal. In this case, we'll look at the plans. We are creating a natural fence of evergreens
We are creating a natural fence of evergreens that will be beautiful and that and that basically will serve the same purpose of screening that that a wooden fence would do.
that will be beautiful.
And so the planning commission is prepared to agree to that on our third row.
One of our boundaries is supposed to have an eight foot buffer area, but there's only three feet.
Because if we made an eight-foot buffer area, because of the minimum sizes of the parking spaces, we would only have one row instead of two rows of parking spaces, and we need those parking spaces to free up the spaces on the street for the neighbors.
They really appreciate that. They would not appreciate us missing half of our parking lot.
So the Planning Commission gave us a waiver on that refusal all the way back in August 15th.
And then finally, the zoning code now requires that an interior landscaped area calculated by a certain formula be present, basically taking out two of the parking spaces that we had planned.
And we were able to show the planning commission that we have put the same number of trees in the other places in a safe way that they will be able to thrive and grow and provide the shade that is the intention of the zoning code provisions on landscape buffers.
So the planning commission is, we believe, is now expected to issue that we reform.
So the refusal, we've basically just gone through it.
this was on august 15th this is the first response by the planning commission in which
they granted some waivers but not all waivers they denied uh some because like i said we had
the wrong combination and the wrong types of trees um we then have an email from ian haggarty
from yesterday in which he says the plan is generally acceptable but because of the short
turnaround time they can't do the formal acceptance of the waivers within 24 hours so that's um why we
are going to be asking uh the board for to hold the vote until the planning commission can can do
that uh their due diligence and stamp the plans uh we also have streets approval which um which
governs all of the different not just the sight lines but all of the different safety aspects of
of that parking lot. We also have 102 petition signatures from near neighbors in favor of the
parking lot. It's a very popular parking lot and it doesn't even have all the beautiful plantings
yet. We also have the report from the RCO in which it was unanimous. All attendees voted to support
this parking lot. And here we have the revised plans that were done in combination of our
architect team and then our landscape architect and arborist team. They are all in the wings
standing by if members of the board would have any questions. So on the left here is the streets
of aspects of the ingress and egress to the parking lot
and the curves for all of the spaces.
Here we have a photo view.
We have the parking space is in this area here.
You have a better view here.
This is going to be a large multifamily, five-story.
It's either five or six-story building that will be between this parking lot and the Rittenhouse Soundworks studio.
Here we have another view of the parking lot as it exists right now.
And this is a view facing it from with your back to Green Street.
So we now have a buffer, vegetative buffer on three sides. This fourth side is we're bordering
a CMX2 property and there's no requirement for any buffers when you are adjoining a commercial
property these are also going to be five or six story tall walls which um themselves serve as a
buffer for for the for the residents in the apartment building so we're going to have um
a large uh four uh large deciduous trees and many um of these the to is the is the evergreen fence
The TO is the evergreen fence of live trees that will screen off the parking lot from the residence on Haines Street.
We also have, this is the buffer to the left or the west of the parking lot that was supposed to be eight feet wide,
but the property line only allows it to be three feet wide, and we have the waiver from the Planning Commission on that.
All these large circles are large deciduous trees. And then you have the TOs are a continuous line of natural fencing of evergreen trees.
And then in the front, we have a requirement to do a buffer area on the front. Here's the dumpster that is going to be where the trash is stored for the business.
And this line of evergreens will act as a screen for the community around that.
We also have a fence that is going to be on the border right beyond the natural tree line.
And then here we have one large deciduous tree and we have a number of shrubs and perennials.
uh let me just look at uh review the the the landscape requirements and the code and the um
and the chart so the front yard is the one right onto the street where where we just saw the
the dumpster um that we were required to uh have one shade tree and four shrubs per 20 linear feet
This is 40 linear feet.
We provided three shade trees, five evergreen trees, 28 shrubs.
The side yard is the one that was supposed to be eight feet as a buffer,
but it's three feet only because of the constraints of the size of the lot.
It's 166 feet total.
We were supposed to have one shade tree, four shrubs per 20 linear feet.
We are going to be providing five shade trees, 40 evergreen trees, and 20 shrubs.
And then the rear yard is the one that faces the properties on Haines Street.
That one, we have the correct size for the buffer, and we have a very large 18 evergreen tree fence, natural fence, plus four shade trees, 26 shrubs, 42 perennials.
and there was also a requirement to have an interior landscape island we appealed to the
planning commission for a waiver on that because it would take out two parking spaces that would
that would be detrimental to the surrounding community who really wants as much on-street
parking as possible and the planning commission is satisfied that we've we've moved those trees
and shrubs and perennials to other locations
and comply with the spirit of the code.
This is our aerial view.
This is, this area here is the actual Soundworks
building the location of the business.
It juts out, you know, there's only a small amount
of sidewalk but the our client is has always been aesthetically um positive and and um and and has
has put out planters on the sidewalk to to beautify the area even though there's no possibility of any
kind of um plantings of of of any of any sort other than in the planters this is where the
large apartment building is going to be and then this is the parking lot that we're here for today
Now you can see the large apartment building
is in the process of being built here.
And once again, this is the parking lot
that we're here for.
And again, this is a view that shows the direction of traffic
and another entry view into the parking lot.
Our zoning poster, photos for today's hearing,
Our proof of posting in the right time period, our tax clearance, our deed, our application
for appeal, our project information form, and finally our RCO notice letter with our
uh with our proof of mailing and addresses and the mailing went out to 127 um addresses
proof of mailing and addresses and the mailing.
um at this point i would um ask for susan deutch to be to raise your hand
to be recognized and to adopt my testimony okay
Susan has been allowed to speak.
Susan, could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Susan Deutsch, S-U-S-A-N-D-E-U-T-S-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good afternoon, Susan.
in, you heard my testimony that I just gave to the zoning board. Do you agree with it? And would
you adopt it as your own? Yes, I would. Thank you. Do you have anything that you
wanted to add to the zoning board briefly about this project? No, you've covered everything. Thank
you sure questions from the board um questions or comments from our attorney ryan mcshary
no mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair ron you're going to hold your vote on this right we're
We're not going to vote. Okay, thank you. Okay, Steve, thank you for your presentation. We will hold the vote on this until we hear back, and I'm sure that Hillary will be in touch, okay?
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
We'll move on to number seven.
MI 2024-002-342-1121 West Loudoun Street.
Joseph Vaccaro is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from Logan Civic.
Vote was 11 in support, including four near neighbors.
Two in opposition.
Joseph Vaccaro is coming in as a penalist.
good afternoon how are you today i'm good counsel could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer good afternoon my name is joseph vaccaro j-o-s-e-p-h vaccaro v-a-c-c-a-r-o
attorney for the applicant roa lopez llc the owner of the property you swear affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do our vice chair has just a few questions
for you, sir. Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy? Yes, I do. I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibit as needed to
proceed with this case probably in advance of this hearing. Yes, I did. Thank you, counsel. Please
proceed. I do have four additional photos. They're just street views from Google, which I could email
to the board at the conclusion of my presentation. Please, please do so. Will do. Thank you. So,
Essentially, this is, if I may share my screen.
Yes, please.
Can you see what appears to be the top of the deed right now?
You can see the top of the deed.
We see the top of the deed.
Okay, fine.
I just want to make sure that I'm in the right place.
So my client, Roa Lopez, LLC, also being represented by Carlos Roa, the gentleman seated to my room.
He doesn't speak English, but he's here in my office to listen in.
So at the conclusion of the proceedings, I would just ask the board to accept my presentation as an officer in the court.
They had purchased the property on September 13th of 2022, and this is an application to
permit this property to be used as two apartments, first floor and second floor residential.
We received our refusal on April 1st of 2024, stating that since the property is not adjacent
to any residential district, two-family household living is prohibited.
Timely appeal was filed, project information form.
We had our meeting with Logan Civic Association on August 12th, August 12th of 2024.
Four, 11 people, 11.
11 people, 11 people supported, four nearby neighbors were present.
Actually, my mistake.
The meeting took place on July 8th.
So we have a letter of support.
Scrolling further down, I'm not going to waste the board's time scrolling down to all the proofs of mailing.
I can go to the renditions, the drawing of the property.
And it shows a first-floor apartment, first-floor plan, second-floor plan.
Each apartment would have two bedrooms each on the first floor.
One couple resides there.
On the second floor, it's a couple with a child on the second floor.
Again, each unit has its own kitchen.
Each unit has two bedrooms with bath.
What's the basement look like?
It's empty.
The basement is empty.
Apart from...
Tiene la califacción abajo?
La califacción, right?
He just has the heater downstairs in the basement.
Nothing else.
Here's what the property looks like now.
the door to the left where my cursor is with the number two on it. That's the staircase to the
second floor. The door to the right is the door to the first floor unit. Inside photos,
starting with the first floor unit and here's the stairway going up to the
second floor unit with photos of the stairs leading up to the second floor
with photos of the second floor unit
The poster was timely put on the property, and my client's tax clearance certificate.
Mr. Roa also operates and owns 1120 West Ludum Street.
He operates a grocery store at the corner of the block in question.
This is 1121 across the street, and at the corner, he already operates a grocery store.
So he is not an absentee landlord.
He works at the grocery store every day, he can monitor the property every day, he will maintain it, and he keeps the property clean, just like he keeps his store clean.
I wanted to show the board the street views.
Do you see a street view from Google Maps?
I'm sorry?
We see a street view.
I just want to make sure that everything's working.
This is a neighboring property.
the first page it's a neighboring property uh la la c full service beauty salon that's no longer
there that's gone it's empty um here's another view of the neighboring property again the beauty
salon is gone it's no longer there that property is empty uh the property in question my cursor is
over it that air conditioner that you see that was that became the doorway to the second floor
unit upstairs. These are the properties across the street. My client, Mr. Roa, it's his testimony
that all of these units, even though they're all CMX2, they're all being used as two apartments,
apartment on the first floor and apartment on the second floor. Same setup as the proposed
used for this property. And again, here's another view of the block in question with
1121 West Luton over here. This was the La La C Beauty Salon. Again, there were no other
businesses operating on this block except for the corner grocery store, which is my client's.
um we have the tax clearance uh with that i would ask uh the board to approve this application
you're as an officer the court we're accepting your testimony thank you and you've you've
explained everything to your client prior to this yes i have you're the explica that's okay that's
okay questions from the board he said yes yeah could you clarify for me uh did he purchase it
as a duplex or he converted it as a duplex without the permits and stuff uh was there like
He bought it.
Okay. He bought it with an apartment upstairs, but there was a store on the first floor.
And let me ask him a follow-up question then.
Okay. The store was empty.
So he converted the first floor store, which was empty, into an apartment.
could you show us the front of his store again for his apartment sure this is one this is one
picture of you know prior to the conversion i'll i'll go to the other
that's it now yeah that's it now and he closed up this was there a store window there he closed
it and closed it correct he did that he did that other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney ryan mcsherry no mr chair questions or comments from
the virtual audience i see no hands at this time chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar
city planning while the property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use on the city
plan. The adopted comprehensive plan recommended a zoning change to industrial residential mixed
use. Therefore, we recommend the request of VARs be granted. MI 2024-002-342-1121 West
Loudoun Street, I vote yes. Michael Johns, my vote is yes. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham my vote is yes
Ayewen my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes
Thank you counsel
Thank you I appreciate your time
Is there anyone in the verse
whose case has not been called
I see no hands at this time too
Thank you Jasmine
Thank you everyone
Good night all
See everybody next week
Thank you guys
Thank you
Good night.