see in Philadelphia. You have multifamily above, like this little, you know, angler door is where
you would see a business operating um and we're hoping it will operate after the board votes um
you know after we meet with the community and you can see here as well uh two entrances one for the
this what we consider the commercial unit and then you have an entrance here for the upper level
residential units and then this is just proof of our posting of the hearing notice for today's
hearing and this is lumbar street to the right of the property and lumbar streets are left of
the property, 21st Street to the right of the property, and 21st Street to the left of the
property. And then our plans and drawings, again, just a pretty simple open floor plan. Not a huge
space whatsoever. It really wouldn't even accommodate a residential unit. That's what
we're asking for it to be a commercial unit. And then we met with the community on July 25th at 7
p.m. 145 addresses were notified of the meeting, listed these addresses, proof of mailing to these
addresses, our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of our clients, along with the
notice of refusal, the project information form, our client's deed to the property, showing that
they own the property, and the certificate of tax clearance as well. Just, you know, some housekeeping
rules or matters. My client or the operator of the business tends to be open seven days a week
uh from seven o'clock a.m to seven o'clock p.m and there is a specific part of the building
where we've been asked to store trash against the side of the building outside and you know
we would agree to that in a form of a proviso as well um i think that's it so i would ask that
either jezebel justin or liza whoever's in the virtual audience i would ask you to um
virtually raise your hand.
They have been
enough to speak. Hi, could you
state your name, please, and spell for the court
stenographer? Sure. Liza
Bresson, spelled L-I-Z-A,
last name
B-R-E-S-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed,
counsel. Yes.
Liza, you heard everything I had to state
today about this zoning matter.
Is that correct? Okay. And everything I stated about the zoning matter, is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
All right. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
yes mr chair i have andrew gaff with the hand raised i'm not going to speak
sir could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
good afternoon it's andrew yaffe uh a n d r e w last name y a f as in frank f again e
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Proceed, sir.
I own the property directly across the street, 2100-04 Lombard Street.
I would, I have not met with or discussed this with the applicants on the surface.
met with or discussed this with the applicants um on the surface i am opposed to it uh i see
no zoning hardship here um but the neighborhood is zoned so residential area zoned rm1
as a matter of fact uh historically there was at one point uh a requested variance for
the three units which were granted and then the I believe the overlay changed or the zoning
changed and the property again is obviously RM1 now being that the applicants have asked for
the vote to be held I would certainly welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss this with them
But for the time being, I'm definitely opposed.
Thank you for taking the time, the calls, and we appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Joe Bisque with the hand raised.
I've allowed them to speak at this time.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Joe, J-O, Byske, B as in boy, U-Y-S-K-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Masheed?
I live at 2107 to 2109 Lombard Street, so I'm one property away from the proposed property.
I have lived there since 2003, so 20 years, and before that I lived just two blocks away,
starting in 1995, so I've been in the neighborhood for a long time.
I can say that it has not been a commercial property, a living memory of the neighbors.
And just as a point of clarification, the initial presenter said that there was a restaurant across the street and pointed to a map that said Andro's.
There is no restaurant there. That is a residential building and has been since I've lived here.
So I just want to make that one point clear.
And I just want to say I moved to this neighborhood with my four children from 2100 Spruce Street.
And it was because it was a residential street and it was evolving. So we've had flat parking lots in the neighborhood that have converted to housing. It's got a strong residential feel with lots of children, good family relationships and sort of shared block parties.
And I think it's the, you know, the duty of the zoning board to protect the interests of the people who are there, who rely on the zoning to make their choices and make their decisions.
There are empty commercial properties on several corners nearby that need a tenant.
We're a block away from South Street, which also has empty properties.
So we see no hardship. We actually like Jezebels. I used to go there down on Pine Street, but I see no reason to change the zoning here.
and we do consider it to be a hardship to us if that were to be the case it's a very awkward
street corner where two lanes converge into one as you cross lombard street so one lane becomes a
right turning lane that already has fender benders and people stopping and our fear one of our fears
is that people pulling up to pick up food blocking that lane walking the bus lane on lombard street
all those would be problems but most simply it's a residential property we rely on that when we
move into the neighborhood and we really hope that you'll keep it that way thank you for pulling in
we we appreciate your interest is there anyone else in the virtual audience
yes a william clerk with their hand raised i've got them to speak this time hi could you state
your name please and spell for the court stenographer yes hello um i'm william clerk
w-i-l-l-i-a-m-k-l-e-r-k right do you swear or phone to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor yes i live at 2063 lombard i can see the proposed
property right outside my window sure um i would like to just kind of echo the concerns of the
previous speaker um and just address a few of the points that um was was made um um i i'm not aware
of any properties that are actually, you know, can see the, can see the proposed property from
the window that support this. I know, um, there was, you know, shows of support, but as you can
see from the distribution of them, uh, none of them are actually going to be affected by, you
know, the proposed change of this. Um, the, the previous, um, speaker is correct. Like the parking
and the safety is just going to be a disaster. Um, the double parking, um, is just going to
cause impatient drivers to go around and all the other, all the things that usually come
with impatient Philly drivers. In regards to it being in character, I disagree with that. We've
lived here for six years. The trend has been mostly turning things into houses. We had a
parking garage a few houses down that have become residential. A parking lot across the street has
houses down that have become residential a parking lot across the street has become residential
become residential
this house used to be a gas station when it was a tire shop um so i i do not agree that you know
it's in character with the direction the neighborhood is going and finally i'm also
a fan of jezebel's um and then because of that jezebel's actually closed at the end of 2018
so it's hard for me to um imagine that the pandemic had anything to do with their hardships
But and I have not been contacted by the party with their proposed proposed remediations for our concerns here.
So as of right now, I'm opposed. And I thank you for your time.
Thank you for calling. We appreciate your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, Wade Albert has his hand raised. I have allowed him to speak.
Mr. Albert, just state your name for the record. You've already been sworn.
Thank you. My name again is Wade Albert, counsel for the Center City Residence.
Thank you. So at the RCO meeting regarding this matter, I just want to point out that I don't have the exact numbers, but I recall that at least a half a dozen near neighbors spoke out against this project.
and there was zero support at that time. So I have been working with Mr. Nocklinson and I said
to him that if CCRA can see support, hopefully maybe that they can turn some neighbors with
proposed ways to make this establishment more palatable to the near neighbors, then we would
certainly reconsider and possibly um take our opposition back and turn into a non-opposition
and that's why we are going back to the drawing board uh but at this point um you know there
are still a number of near neighbors who are in opposition and we stand with with those near
neighbors uh at this time thank you all right thank you very much uh is there anyone left in
the virtual audience no mr chair no further thank you um hillary do we want to to give
planning the position of voting now or waiting till after they see where the community comes
that is up to the planning commission planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
peter do you want to take a position now or you want to wait to see where they wind up
i think we'll go on the record today very good thank you the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing RM1 multifamily residential zoning at this location. Given the original
construction of the building, we feel the applicant has a demonstrated hardship. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission recommends the board grant the variance. Thank you. So, Hillary, this will be
closed. We will wait for a letter or word from the RCO, and we will give Mr. Nockamson a chance
to respond is that proper yes yes we will close it except um except for an updated letter from the
rco just indicating that a meeting has occurred and mr knockamson can have a chance to respond
to that in writing and otherwise the record is closed all right thanks everyone mr knockamson
we have another case of yours here all right thank you mi 2023 002 426 1916 bainbridge street
there's a letter of support
from South of South Neighbors Association
also the applicant has
a support signed by 12 neighbors
along with 10
form letters
Mr. Nockerson just
state your name for the record you've already been sworn
oh yes
Alan Nockerson
and could you identify your client
the relationship to this property uh yes ryan moore and patricia sanchez are the owners of the
property okay our vice chair has just a few questions good afternoon counsel do you agree
to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards agency i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in
in advance of this area yes we have thank you please proceed and uh share your screen thank you
all right so I'm here to present 1916 Bainbridge Street uh so this property is owned by Ryan Moore
and Patricia Sanchez. And I mean, honestly, they would prefer not to be here. The reason why they
The reason why they are here is due to unfortunate circumstances.
are here is due to unfortunate circumstances.
This property to the left of them structurally impacted their property, where their property of owning it for almost 25 years impacted it such that they had to demolish that building structure.
So they're really here because of no choice of their own.
But, you know, this is an RM1 property and, you know, what they're trying to do is, you know, lessen the burden of the situation by, you know, developing it in a responsible manner and you'll see from the community support, I think they have accomplished that task.
So we'll review the notice of refusal, the letter of support from SASNA.
We do have revised plans.
So certain things were requested to us by the community, which we have complied with.
So this board feels so inclined to grant our variance request.
We would ask that they grant it with proviso revised plans, which are attached here.
And they were separately given to Ms. Everson before the hearing as well.
one of the refusals besides height has to do with occupied area you know while it's a technical
refusal and we'll show you why regarding you know that refusal it's not out of character for
properties in close proximity to run afoul of the occupied area requirement under Philadelphia
zoning code and we did an analysis of that in addition to the community meeting where we had
unanimous support. We did canvas the neighborhood of property owners nearby. Like I said, my clients
have owned the property for some time, since 1999. They intend to, you know, when it's built,
it's going to be owner-occupied again. So, you know, people in the neighborhood know them.
They're a known quantity. So they got a petition and letters to support, and we'll go through those.
We'll review the maps of the area, photographs of the property, or plans and drawings, or RCO
meeting notice or applications for appeal or deeds of property showing that my clients personally
own the property and the certificate of tax clearance showing that they don't owe any real
estate taxes for this property. And at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that
Patty virtually raised her hand, be sworn in, and then I can ask her some questions about my
presentation. First things first, the refusal. We're an RM1 property. We're looking to put three
units. One of them is going to be owner-occupied. We have two refusals. First is the height.
We have a height, we're above 38 feet. But again, if you look at the property to the left of us,
we mimic that property. So it's not out of character to what we're asking for.
And honestly, the neighborhood really did not care that we are exceeding the height limit.
One of the reasons why we're exceeding the height limit is that we wanted to have the basement level
out of the ground to provide light and air, as well as, you know, we have a staircase that's in
the back as well. So to the community, given that the neighboring, the property to left of us is
also above the 38 feet height limit, they had no issue with what we were offering as well.
The second refusal has to do with occupied area. Again, the building structure itself
If you just take the calculation of building structure and compare it to the lot size, the building footprint complies with the occupied area requirements. We have a second floor side deck, which is considered an occupied area. And because of that, we are receiving this refusal as well.
we're trying to provide outdoor living space to the second floor units. Again, the community had
no objection to that. And, you know, they were actually happy that every unit would have
access to the outdoors directly through their unit. And then so we met with SOSNA and we got
unanimous support. I think they do reference the fact that we changed our plans based on their
recommendation and that's another reason why they supported this project and then again you know we