Yes, I am.
Lakeisha, let me know when people are in, please.
I will, Chair.
Thank you.
okay chair we have 35 attendees and we can start when you like thank you good morning my name is
bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning zba hearings with me is carol tenere our vice
Chair. Present, Mr. Chairman. And Ismail Shahid, our Board Secretary.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Also here is our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson,
and our ZBA Hearing Supervisor, Lakeisha Dandy. Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded. By participating, your knowledge agreement to be
recorded. A video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phillip.gov. For the benefit of
our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star
6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the
address of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for
comments or testimony. All comments should be referred to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit.
Let's look at our continuances for today's hearing, for this morning's hearing.
Number nine, MI 2021-002-827-2132 North Darien Street.
That case is continued.
Number 10, MI-2022-002-928-549-51 North 10th Street.
That case is continued.
Number 12, MI-2022-002-926-1430 South 6th Street.
That case is continued.
And number 14, MI 2022-002-927-1426-28, South 6th Street, that case is continued.
Those four cases are continued.
So anyone in the virtual audience has a comment relative to those cases?
I see no handshare.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuances for this morning's meetings?
chair we have jennifer basilio okay
hi uh this is jennifer basilio b-a-z-y-d-l-o 2401 walnut street all right do you swear for
him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed um i'm just here to um
I know you said continuances, but I have a withdrawal for today.
Yeah, I was going to call the withdrawal, but let me list it.
MI 2021-002-628-1931-33-Rawn Street.
That case is withdrawn.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I jumped the gun.
No, no, no.
That's fine.
That's fine.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances?
Yes, Chair.
we have John
last name ending in R
Esquire
good morning Mr. Chairman
hi could you state your name
and the spell for the court reporter please
it's John Raimondi it's R-A-I
M-O-N-D-I
I like to withdraw
do you wait one minute
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes I do
what case
This is 1813 South 15th Street.
1813, right.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2022, 002, 768, 1813 South 5th Street.
That case is withdrawn.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Right.
Are any other cases for continuance?
Are any other cases for continuance?
I see no handshare.
Okay, I also have cases that are, hold on, with number five, MI 2021-002-607-1938 North 24th Street, no exhibits, fourth listing, Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Chair, we have Vern Anastasio.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Anastasio.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Certainly. It's Vern, V-E-R-N, Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
1938 North 24th?
Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher for me as well, Mr. Chair.
I know this is the fourth listing.
I'm just going to ask you to withdraw it.
I just can't locate my client, and I don't know where he went.
So if we need to pursue it, I could always reapply.
All right.
Thank you.
MI2021-002-607-1838, North 24th Street.
This case is withdrawn.
And number 15...
MI 2020, 001-936-5901 North 10th Street. No exhibit, second listing.
Richard and Carol Brown. Carol Brown are the listed owners.
What number is that Mr. Chair? Number 15. 15, okay. There are no hands at this time, Chair. Okay, so
MI2020-001-936-5901-North 10th Street, I vote to dismiss.
Dismiss.
Yes, I vote to dismiss.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other requests for withdrawal?
I see no hands, Chair.
We're going to go to our add-on list. MI 2022-003-345-6995 Pichon Street. This was a resumptive hearing. Here's the update. The vote on this matter has been moved to Wednesday, October 12th at 9.30 a.m. Thank you.
We're going to go to our regular list. Number one, 2021-005-235-3232, Henry Avenue. Lawrence
Calley is the attorney. Still waiting for an RCO letter. Meeting was held 9-15.
Mr. Calley is coming back in as a panelist. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Larry Calley for the record on behalf of the applicant.
Hi, Mr. Calley, could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Certainly. First name is Lawrence, L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E. Last name is Calley, C-A-L-L-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Our vice chair, Carl Tenere, has a few questions.
Okay, very good.
Good morning, Mr. Cowley. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes to all of that, ma'am.
Okay, that's great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen.
Thank you very much. So I have, I don't know if our design consultant is here or trying to get
into the room. Her name is Lindsay Deja. I was going to ask her as the design consultant to
perhaps share her screen and walk the board through the sign proposed, but I don't know
if she's in the room. If not, I can certainly endeavor to do this myself. I've just promoted
Ms. Deja to a panelist. Wonderful. Thank you. And thank you for promoting me this morning. I've
rarely been promoted in life so this morning is a treat for me um and yes i am i could you
as well hi could you state your name is spelled please for the court reporter
um lindsay l-i-n-d-s-a-y and last name is d as in dog y-j-a all right do you swear
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do
Yes, I do.
Let's do it.
Proceed.
Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, before I turn it over to Lindsay to share her screen and walk you through the plans,
and by the way, the only thing we're going to show you this morning are things that were initially filed
and part of the exhibit packet that was submitted.
This is a Davina Dialysis Clinic, Mr. Chairman and members.
They're a national provider of end-stage renal care for patients throughout the country and the world.
In fact, they're a Fortune 300 company.
They've been occupying space here on Henry for some time now,
and the proposal is for a simple non-illuminated sign, brushed aluminum.
It's under 15 square feet of area.
It would have been a permit only had this not been technically tantamount to a roof sign, Mr. Chairman,
which violates the regulations.
There are already roof signs on this property.
This one is very slight, as Lindsay will testify to shortly.
We did have an opportunity to meet with the Neighborhood Committee on September 15th in the evening,
Representative of my office was with them.
It was a very brief and supportive meeting.
And this morning, we are pleased to be in receipt of a letter executed by Rosalie Cooper, dated September 26th,
which my partner advanced to the city this a.m. as soon as we got it,
which supports the request for us to install this 104-inch by 17-inch,
I'm approximating and I'm estimating overages,
Stein over the entrance for the DeVita patient area to help better identify our medical facility
here. So we're glad. Counsel, could you make sure that letter goes to Hillary Emerson, our counsel?
I think it already did. I think my partner sent it over this morning to everybody on the
distribution list, but we'll make sure of that again. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Yes, I just
checked and we did receive the letter. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Proceed,
council. Thank you. So with that, Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is a very simple application.
I don't want to take up more of your time this morning than we need to. I'd like to turn over
to Lindsay to perhaps walk you through the signage. We'll take you through the material,
the colors, the location, and we'll answer any questions you might have, of course.
Sorry about that. Proceed. Okay. You should have screen share capability, Lindsay.
there we go she does all right can everybody see my screen it's coming up it's up now we're good
okay so this is the sign that we are proposing um and as larry mentioned it is very similar to
the signers that's actually already on the property um there is one that we actually took
the measurements um and kind of replicated the devita kidney care sign after which is the new
Portland pavilion apartments. So you'll see that this is going to be half inch brushed aluminum
letters. And unfortunately, due to how the building is constructed, it's going to have to be
a roof mount sign. So the aluminum will be mounted to the backer and then have a three inch high
support systems, ankle support that'll be mounted directly to the roof. The second page kind of goes
through some more detail of the actual construction of that with the aluminum angle, the holes that
we would use, that there'll be no penetrations to the roof at all, and the different materials
that we would be using to actually adhere that to the top of the building. And then we also
did add in some additional information of what the top of the roof looked like and what the
The distance of everything is a.
Lindsay, do you have photos of the building?
Okay, so this is the sign that we would actually be replicating it off of, the pavilion sign.
And as you can see, this one's actually 260 inches long, so the one that we're proposing is actually quite a bit shorter.
lindsey i i proffered to the chairman of the board that these signages in keeping with other
signage on the property and in the area in your professional opinion um is this sign right sized
for the location that we're proposing hundred percent um with it being 15 square feet this
is a substantially smaller sign than we even do for DaVita dialysis on a normal basis where
their national sign vendor. So with the height of it actually only
So with the height of it actually only being a little less than 17 inches high, it definitely is smaller.
Lindsay, could you show us the building, please?
Is there a photo of the building?
Yep. Are you able to see the...
I think we're still stuck on the screen showing the construction.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah, no, that's okay.
here i am going through the pictures and it's not showing you guys that would probably help right
you were explaining it very well all right here we go okay
and where it says new cartland apartments that's where the sign is going to be similar to that
correct yes all right okay so this is the sign that we actually um are replicating
um our techs went up there and took very detailed measurements um construction photos
construction drawings right okay to see what the roof looked like
mr kelly you have anybody from the organization there to adopt your testimony
uh you know my project manager is trying to log in he's having difficulties okay well you're you're
you're an officer of the court we'll accept it but thank you questions yeah questions from the board
all right questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no he is chair by planning commission good morning chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission right uh that's spelled h-e-g-a-r-t-y do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir masheed thank you
good morning board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rmx3 mixed
use zoning at this site this proposed sign while technically a rooftop sign we feel meets the
purpose and spirit of the code due to its relatively short height and application as an
entrance identification sign rather than a large-scale building identification sign
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance thank you
MI 2021-005-335-3232-Henry Avenue, I vote yes.
Carol?
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Ishiro Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate your time.
Have a wonderful day, everybody.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
M-I-2022-002-767-907 South Shell Street.
Raymond Derizio.
Letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Letter of non-opposition from Bella Vista Neighbors Association.
Mr. Derizio is coming back in as a panelist.
good morning mr chairman members of the board raymond dorizio d-o-r-i-z-i-o
addresses to penn center suite 520 philadelphia pa 19102 here for 907 south shell street
my client mr pungitore i believe he is on the call
um i'm going to and i'm sorry i'm a little gonna go on my phone here go ahead all right all right
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do um you've identified your client as the owner uh our vice chair has a few questions
hi mr gerizio do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
good morning yes i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in
advance this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes all that okay
great you may proceed and begin with you did sharing your screen thank you so 907 shell
Well, this is a property that is between 9th Street and, I guess, 8th Street, but Darien Street is to the east of it.
Shell Street is a very, very narrow street.
It's a dead-end street.
There's no exit out into Christian Street, which would be the street that borders it on the north, and Montrose would border it on the south.
So it's a very unique street.
there's I guess Trinity houses is what you would kind of call them they're very short
There's, I guess, Trinity Houses is what you would kind of call them. They're very short. There's an unusual lot size to them. My client is proposing to do new construction, and the refusal was for the minimum rear yard depth because the way he's building it out, it would basically take away the yard.
we got the refusal we filed the appeal just going through some of these exhibits we have the deed
here we have plans and when we met with the community Bella Vista Neighborhood Association
you know they're not opposing and the one thing they proposed to us because there wasn't any
yard space or even like a side alley there is to do a designated trash room in the basement.
So my client modified the plans. And if you see here, that square over to the right in the center
would be the designated trash room. We have sent that over to the community. There's been no
opposition to that. There are the plans. This is what the lot looks like. It's an empty
lot right now we were here about three years ago for a variance to do the um do the extension
and basically the property was in such ill repair that it had to be knocked down and the pandemic
hit so it took a little time to get back um but this essentially is the lot i'm sorry that it's
a little crooked there, but this is Montrose Street, Montrose Street, Shell Street, and I'm
sorry that it's a little crooked. That's basically the street. It's very narrow, and I'm on my phone,
so it's hard for me. I don't think I could turn that, but essentially, these are the houses up
the street. I think that's a better shot there. It's a very narrow street. There's really just
pavement um the houses are very close this is a house across the street this is what the house
formerly looked like when we were seeking um for the prior variance and essentially it was in such
a repair it had to be knocked down and so my client is basically building in that same footprint over
like the first floor um that was the former property that's what the property was formerly
we met with pelvis the neighborhood association again they didn't oppose
those are this was the old variants back in the i'm sorry this is the pelvis the neighborhood
association letter of non-opposition um so essentially that's where we stand today
uh with it if there's any questions you want to have your testimony adopted
yes i was going to ask mr punjutor if he heard everything that i said i guess you're going to
swear him in if he's there but he would adopt my testimony. Apparently I don't see any hands.
Mr. Pungitore you have to tap your screen and hit the raise hand button if you hear me out there.
I think I found him. Sir please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Pungitore could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter please.
my name is ralph pungitore r-a-l-p-h p-u-n-g-i-t-o-r-e right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel okay thank you uh mr pungitore
you heard my testimony to the board this morning yes was it true and correct yes and would you
adopt that testimony as your own today yes okay thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ean hegarty for the philadelphia
city planning commission board members the proposed dimensional variance is directly related to the
small size of the existing non-conforming lot it's consistent with other buildings on this block
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-002-767-907 South Shell Street, I vote yes, Proviso, Trash Doored in Basement.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Thank you.
All right.
You too.
number four mi 2022 004 681 1939 south 5th street burn anastasio
um no rco letter yet from dickinson square west civic association
non-op letter of non-opposition from councilman squilla
letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Morning, Mr. Chair.
Well, you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property, please?
Yes, I represent Mr. Kenneth Grimes,
excuse me, who is the owner of the property.
And our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just want to interject.
We just received a letter of support from Dickinson Square West Living Association.
Thank you, Hillary.
Good morning, Vern.
Do you agree to wait through the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
vote is under plans of the property five days in advance of today, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
a yes to all of that okay great you may proceed and begin with sharing your screen
thank you may i also ask that uh ian toner who's the architect on the project be
promoted to the panel sure thank you mr toner is coming back in as a panelist
mr toner could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes ian toner from toner architects it's i-a-n-t-o-n-e-r you swear for him to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you we have 1939 south
5th street this is a corner property and let me pull out here it's a corner property where we are
proposing adding a third story addition on the corner and then we would have a use as a coffee
shop on the first floor that would be owned and operated by mr grimes and his wife and then there
would be a two family dwelling above one per floor and a small artist studio also for mr grimes and
his wife. And there is the interior layout. We'll zoom in. Corner entrance with the cafe,
ADA restroom, the kitchen attached to the cafe. There's an existing garage that's actually not
really used much by my client. So he often lets neighbors park in front of it. So there's no loss
of parking. There is a trash room that is accessible not only to the folks from the
cafe, but also accessible from the exterior for both of the apartments above. As you can
see, the second floor is a two-bedroom unit. In the rear of the second floor through the
public hall is that small artist space for my client and his wife. We've got maintenance
above that and another two-family two-bedroom apartment on the third floor we have some photos
i'll be happy to share with you the actual uh refusals are for the third floor uh you know
the existing footprint of the property is in fact what it is so when putting the third floor on we're
not going to be compliant for the nine uh nine foot yard rear setback that's a pre-existing
condition the other
refusals
um are is the artist studio which is not permitted in a cm1 cmx1 commercial district again that's
solely for the use of the owner occupant and then the two family dwelling would is prohibited but
only because it's adjacent to the rsa5 residential district and we would contend that if this
property were in fact in the middle of the block uh then the spirit of the code would require uh
that the two family dwelling not you know not be granted but this is in fact on the corner
and it's well within the height limit and for those reasons we do believe the two-family dwelling
is appropriate and the coffee shop only requires a special exception it's going to be owned and
operated by the by the owners of the building it's going to bring new life to an otherwise
dreary corner. We met with the community group. It was overwhelming support for the project.
And with that, I'm going to ask Mr. Toner if he has anything to add with respect to design.
with respect to design uh no i think you said it all um the goal is to have the building
No, I think
blend in with the neighbor uh with the neighboring buildings yes can we swear in mr toner already
say that again hillary did we swear in mr toner already i did okay
okay um we're uh trying to um have a more traditional looking building mr grimes was
interested in something that would fit the neighborhood well um he's already done a lot
of restoration work on the existing shell of the building which had some violations
from the prior ownership so he's taken the initiative to get all that taken care of and
done and is really excited about uh making a beautiful project out of this um and verne's
right the neighbor's support for this project was oh it was a lot and more than i'm used more than
i'm used to seeing when we go to these meetings so that was uh testament to the client and his
connections to the neighborhood thank you mr toner uh we asked mr kenneth grimes to please raise his
hand virtually
Mr. Grimes, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Grimes, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
My name is Kenneth Grimes, K-E-N-N-E-T-H-G-R-I-M-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Grimes, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
yes it is and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i do thank you nothing further mr chair
burn the rear the real part of the building though the white brick is that a double garage
that's correct um but only one it's it's actually looks like a double garage door but only one door
is an actual garage okay all right thank you yep the other is the board the others
for the board. I just want to make sure you understand. That other one is for trash.
No, Mr. Chair. Okay, we're good. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the existing CMX1 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location. We feel
of proposed uses are consistent with the prior uses of the property in the building and the
dimensional variances are minimal and do not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the
zoning code city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances thank you
mi 2022 004 681 1939 south fish street i vote yes carol tenere my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is here thank you counsel thank you thank you number seven
mi 2022 002 845 4355 larston street and we're also going to hear at the same time
MI 2022-002-843-4353, Larson Street.
Mr. Consul is the attorney.
Letter of support for both properties from the Central Roxburgh Civic Association.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, it's Joseph Consul.
That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your clients and their relationship to the properties?
I've got Ms. Kristen Scudder and Mr. Frank Basara.
They are the owners, respectively, of 4355 and 4353 Lauriston Street.
All right.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Consul, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
stipulate to its accuracy. I do. The only point I wanted to make on the refusal is both of them
have a second refusal for undersized parking spaces, but there's a note underneath each of
those refusals which states that the spots themselves are not actually undersized, but
the refusal comes by virtue of the fact that the spots each span two different properties.
properties.
Okay, we'll take note of that.
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance this
a copy of the...
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes everything great you may proceed
and begin with sharing your screen okay
that work yes it's up all right so uh joe consul here as previously mentioned uh for two properties
on loriston street uh the angle that i have on my my screen right now is actually uh monastery
avenue uh this is the back of the two properties that we're here for uh before i actually get into
my docks. I just wanted to orient everyone as to what we're here seeking. So this is Monastery Ave.
The two parking spaces that you're looking at here with the gray pavement are the two spots
that we're seeking to legalize. There's a spot next to it with a Subaru in it that's not related
to our property that's a legalized spot for um the the property here on the left um but we're
trying to legalize these two spots here uh similar to um this property this subaru property here
uh that's the front of the two properties and again this is the side um so as i had mentioned
earlier we're here on 4353 and 4355 the the packets are effectively the same because
everything um exists in both and what we're trying to do is create and file an easement
on each of the properties which grants the use of that portion of the backyard to each other
as parking spaces because the the backyards um because the way you park goes over each property
the neighbors are going to give each other permanent easements to allow for the parking
spaces in each of their respective yards. But in order to do that, we need approval today.
So as I had mentioned, the refusals are, you know, one, and, you know, the one that I believe
is more relevant, surface parking spaces are prohibited in required rear yards for RSA 5.
The bit about the undersized spaces on each of the refusals is in the notes to the ZBA that say the spaces are actually 9 by 20 each, and they're compliant in terms of parking space size, but just because they span two yards, technically each yard has a non-compliant spot, but they're the right size spot each.
as mentioned we went in front of the roxborough civic association and we got support uh there was
very little if any opposition uh these spots have been being used um for uh for a long time
they exist my clients just wanted to legalize them and put their heads together to come up
this plan with the respective easements and getting approval from the ZBA.
Proof of mailing and some photos.
We'll get to the plans in a second. That's what we already saw. It's a
sort of a different car park there or the same car but from the front of it instead of the back.
Here's another shot.
And here's the actual plans itself, showing the parking stalls are 9 by 20 each, which
is what the code would require if these were allowed, if there was, you know, a small alley
they could pull off of to park in.
But you know, we're coming in the rear yard off of Monastery Avenue.
the deed and the required documents uh follow and then finally we have the driveway site
distance as required um we we filed we filed this with with our application showing
there's no issue with the turning radius or getting in you know getting into the parking
spots in in any way uh also submitted site tables required for that and then finally the deeds and
all of our other tax data and compliance certificates so that's sort of the extent of it
That's sort of the extent of it. We have the easements drafted, ready to be filed. We just are seeking approval today, and hopefully that'll come.
we have the easements drafted ready to be filed we just
The fence itself here actually will be moved a little bit to make those spots compliant, but both properties still maintain very adequate sized backyards, consistent with a lot of the other properties' backyard sizes that are around here.
So we're hopeful that this will be satisfactory to the ZBA.
With that, I'll call my clients.
I believe they're both on, both owners are on the same Zoom, and it should be under Kristen Scudder.
Ms. Scudder, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could both of you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. Kristen Scudder, that's K-R-I-S-T-E-N-S-C-U-D-D-E-R.
Right. Frank DeSara, F-R-A-N-K-B-A-S-A-R-A.
All right. Do you both swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Frank and Kristen.
did you both have an opportunity or were you both listening to my testimony today yes yes do you
adopt it as your own yes yes okay is there anything you'd like to add to the board
no okay okay questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing RSA 3 single-family zoning at this location. These off-street parking spaces
were created illegally in violation of several zoning code requirements. Because of the configuration,
the curb cut here that's required here is significantly larger than is permitted in the
Central Roxborough NCO overlay. This condition is exacerbated by the adjacent another 10 foot wide
non-conforming driveway which was also created illegally and then legalized by the board
directly to the east on Monastery Avenue. In aggregate the width of these driveways is roughly
30 feet and we feel that this proposal directly contradicts the intent of the curb cut provisions
of the Central Roxborough NCO overlay. We find the hardship to be self-created since the parking
area was created by the applicant without permits and finally ultimately an off-street parking space
while desirable is not necessary to make a viable economic use of these properties
so given these facts the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the variances for
both addresses thank you um mr council you want to respond uh well the regarding the 18 foot
versus 12 foot bit uh i i don't see that as an issue um several neighbors testified that uh and
that there's not actually uh any more than one spot uh lost by the the use of the driveway
as you see it here uh those two cars are easily able to get in and out um using only the what
you're seeing on the screen there um and we we don't believe that it would add uh if if we were
to shrink the actual drive aisle uh down to 12 feet we don't believe that it would add any spaces
based on the amount of parking that's available on the side here um and the other property that
was legalized um you know we looked around if you look at the other side of the street here
uh there's all these uh parking spaces um
And there was no complaints or issues about any parking issues related to parking on Monastery Avenue here.
No neighbors came in with any complaints of there being any issues specifically with ever finding parking.
And folks believed it was actually a net benefit to have two spots accessible from one drive aisle.
All right. Thank you, Council.
M.I. 2022-002-845-4355, Larson, and M.I. 2022-002-843-4353, Larson, I vote yes for both.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes for both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes for both.
All right, thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Number eight, MI 2021-004-675-5122 Haverford Avenue. Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
5122 Haverford Avenue, Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
Letter of support from the 44th Ward RCO, Democratic RCO.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Lynn Nichols, L-Y-N-N, last name N-I-C-H-O-L-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
There should be a Fatima Conti on the call, and she is the owner.
All right.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I just want to make sure that we're all clear.
We had submitted an amended refusal, and when reviewing the ZBA calendar this morning, I noticed that it referenced our first refusal, and we have an amended refusal from January 26th.
I emailed it to Hillary just to make sure that we're all in the case.
Okay, that's Hillary.
Hillary? Yes. So I'm a little bit confused now because the refusal in your packet is from
January 26, 2022, and it has business and professional office on it. Correct. That's
the correct one. That is the correct one. Yes. Okay. So that was amended? No. No, the first
refusal, we amended it. So the one that's in our packet is the amended refusal. Right, right. So
it was okay so but so what you're saying is there was a different refusal originally
that had a different use okay so we'll need to have the board grants will will need to note that
the decision is per amended refusal dated january 26 2022 correct thank you for letting us know
thank you so yes yes okay so yes yes thank you have you emailed a separate packet with proof of
ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes. Okay, great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen. Yes, and may I have
permission to turn off my video so that it doesn't create an issue with the presentation?
Oh, absolutely. Thank you.
good morning members of the board um this presentation is for 5120 can you see my screen
by the way yes okay this presentation is for 5122 havinford avenue we've previously uh requested a
continuance so that we could work with the rco in order to address some of their concerns and
we were successful in that we were able to make sure that we addressed all of their concerns here
you will see the zoning permit use application that was submitted for this project. We also have
an application for appeal that was submitted with regard to the project. The next, we're showing the
project information form. In this packet, you also have the deed, which is for Fautamata Conti, who's
the owner of the property. We also have the certificate of tax clearance. Here are some photos
showing the front of the property. Now you see the corner and side view of the property.
This is a view looking to the right of 5122 Haverford, a view looking facing 200 North
Paxson Street. Here's a view looking across from 5122 Haverford. We included a photo of the rear
yard of 5122 Haverford. I could email it to Hillary. The RCO was concerned about trash in
the yard and it's been cleaned up. These are the neighbors that were impacted and we were able to
notify with regard to this project. This is the notice of proof of mailing, the zoning notice that
was also posted. Here's the refusal that I indicated was the amended refusal from when we
initially submitted the project. This is the site plan which shows the drawing for the project and
I'll now turn it so that you can make sure that you're able to see it. If there are any questions
with regard to this site plan, just let me know. Well, right now I'm not able to find my
to turn it. Do you need me to turn it so that you can see it or is it okay if I
leave it like this i think we could see it okay um and here's the letter of support from the rco
And here's the letter of support from the RCO.
their concern was to make sure that this
Their concern was to make sure that this was a professional office, auto, and tag title agency to operate only during the time stated in their business plan.
And this is the proviso.
I emailed it to Hillary this morning, which shows their hours of operation Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturday 8 to 2, and they're closed on Sunday.
Before I call my next witness, I would like to state to the board that this property, the variance that we seek represents the lease modification of the code to provide relief.
It will not increase traffic congestion in the public streets or place an undue burden on the water, sewer, or other public facilities.
It will not substantially or permanently harm the neighbor's use of their properties or impair light and air to the neighbor's properties.
It will not increase traffic congestion in the public streets or place an undue burden on water, sewer, or other public facilities, and it will not create an environmental damage, pollution, erosion, or increase the danger of flooding.
At this time, I would like to call Fatamata Conti.
Is Ms. Conti, has she raised her hand?
No, but she's been allowed to speak.
You may unmute yourself, and please wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Patumata Conte.
F-A-T-O-U-M-A-T-E-A-C-O-N-T-E-A.
C-E-E-A, yes.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Conti, would you please tell the members of the board, what is your relationship to the property at 5122 Haverford Avenue?
It's my property.
So you're the owner?
Yes, I'm the owner.
Did you hear my presentation here today?
Do you agree with and adopt the testimony given here today for your property at 5122 Haverford Avenue?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just had a quick question.
Ms. Nichols, just on the proviso form, it has Monday through Thursday 10 to 6 and Friday 1030 to 6.
That's correct.
Okay, so there's slightly different hours on Friday.
Yes, I said 10 to 6.
It's 1030 to 6 on Friday and 8 to 2 on Saturday.
The hours on the form are correct.
Okay, all right.
Thank you.
miss nichols leave that up so i can read from it oh i'm sorry chair thanks um questions or comments
uh planning commission please thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city
planning commission um members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing single family zoning at this location however the proposed use is consistent with the
physical form of the building. City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the
variance. Thank you. MI 2021-004-675-5122 Haverford Avenue. I vote yes with proviso relative to time
Monday 10 a.m. to 6 p all during the week and then Friday slightly different 10 30 a.m. to 6 p
Saturday 8 a.m. to 2 p and Sunday closed per amended refusal 9-28-22. Hillary is that right?
1-26-22 is the amended refusal. Per amended refusal 1-26-2022.
Carol Tenere my vote is yes with provisos. Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you.
Number 11.
MI 2022-002-942-3655 North 3rd Street.
Lenardo Truchet is the owner.
Letter of support from Seventh Ward Civic Association.
Mr. Trouchet is coming back in as a panelist.
Hey, how are you doing?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Leonardo Trouchet, L-E-O-N-A-R-D-O-T-R-O-C-H-E.
I am the owner of 3655 North 3rd Street.
I did send the SEVIC.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
She'll talk about what you've said and things of that nature, sir.
hi do you um no strike that have you
Hi, do you, no, strike that. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, I believe I did complete all the project to it.
Okay, great. This is an application for a business and professional office at first floor in the same building with single-family household living above.
Correct.
There are two use refusals. The proposed business and professional office is prohibited in the zoning district, RSA 5.
The second refusal is the proposed multiple principal uses is also prohibited in this zoning district.
So you may proceed.
and please share your screen okay um we are like a little bit of a rookie to all of this
okay so here's your screen i'm actually uh wait a while i want he he's the only one can speak
okay i'm sorry you get the screen up and he'll speak thank you
so these are the blue okay these are the blueprints that we're proposing is we're trying
to make as an office space at the bottom for a real estate company uh soon to be uh proposing
in the next few years um i grew up in this neighborhood i actually my mom lives across
the street and i've sat on these steps for the last 20 years you know like we we grew up here
this house has been abandoned for 28 years and nobody was able to get anything and do anything
with it because of the prior owners of it um after having it and um checked over and checking the
structure of it the foundation is very tight the bones are very dry and the the condition of the
building is very solid so we're proposing is just doing like a storefront in the bottom
and then just like a little one-bedroom apartment over the top um for multi-use
yeah photos of the property yeah we're trying to fool it up right now like sorry my technicians
just see how i can actually look it up here maybe just go back to the other one there you go
the table so all right that's the property so um before this place used to be a we still don't see
the photo on here okay one second i'm trying to get it on here
so we're feeling a little bit under prepared today for some reasons
so so these are the blueprints we know we know the blueprints what we want to see is if you
have photos of it we do have the photos we're just trying to get them um put them on the on the thing
here ask them you may need to you may need to unshare and pull up the photos and then um share
again so how do you unshare that's what we're trying to do how do you unshare here stop share
Okay. Yep. Thank you.
There you go. Okay.
Have your documents pulled up first and then hit the share screen button.
Okay. One second. So just pull the documents.
Share screen. Here we go.
okay so that's that and then you can click on the document uh where your pictures are
so this is the picture do you guys see it okay you see it so um so it's a corner property yes
okay there's a corner property we have more pictures guys that's okay let him testify about
what you're gonna do here okay we do have more property uh pictures here but so the storefronts
actually you know kind of there already um on the top we do want to put the apartment like a little
one bedroom flat and the downstairs we want to use it as a uh like a multi um what's it called
it's a multi-service multi-service type of um office space um where right here
it's a cool school oh there's a school district here so we don't want to put anything where it's
like uh anybody no kids and hanging out there um we grew like i said i grew up in this neighborhood
for practically 35 years um and we just been watching this place just no nobody ever been
able to do anything with this building and it's just been an eyesore um we met with civic we did
met with the civic and they did you know they had no problems with uh what we want to do with it
as long as we're not using it for like uh rehabilitating for any drug and alcohol
problems or anything like that because that's something we don't want to introduce into this
neighborhood um every neighborhood and on erie avenue
um every neighborhood and on area avenue does have a business other than this one
um every block all all through all of this so what we want to do is just probably like just
make it safe especially for the school kids that would be coming down from roberto clemente down
area avenue um and block it off and then just just eliminate a very very bad eyesore
for a very, very, very good neighborhood of, you know, just very good.
Well, you're going to rehab this existing structure.
I am planning on it.
So, yeah.
So all I'm doing is adding an addition on the back end of it, right,
for a staircase, but not an exterior staircase.
It's like an interior staircase.
So you can get into the upstairs without bothering downstairs.
stairs i am closing off the doors and closing off the windows and shrinking them down so for safety
reason and i am want to do is just fence it off a little bit like three feet away from everything
so nobody can just you know vandalize anything um you know we are building the rat for it as well
for the handicap accessibility
you know just stuck with the whole thing
and put some roll down gates and some
lights and you know just
brighten up this whole neighborhood
all right thank you
questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman
no Mr. Chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands share
planning commission
All right. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5
single-family zoning at this location. However, this building does have a documented prior legal
use as one commercial and one residential unit. The proposed use is consistent with this prior
documented use and with the physical form of the building, and so the City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the variance. Thank you. MI-2022-002-942-3655 North 3rd Street.
I vote yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, sir. Good luck
with your project. Thank you, guys. Thank you, thank you, thank you. God bless you. All right.
Thank you. Number 15, I believe.
Wait a minute, is that it?
Yes, that's where we, no, 15 is dismissed.
Hey, we're done.
I think we're, I think we're, we're, we're.
Yeah, I think, I think, I think we're done.
Just give a last call.
All right, questions.
Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, see everybody at two o'clock.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Bergen.
yes thank you thank you thank you start recording
good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this afternoon's eba hearings
with me is carol tenary our vice chair present mr chair and ishmael shaheed our board secretary
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our board attorney, Hillary Emerson, and Lakeisha Dandy, our ZBA hearing supervisor.
Before we start, here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, your knowledge agreement will be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, 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 lastly, the question-answer box on the screen is for comments and testimony or not for comments and testimony.
Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sung.
Let's look at our continuations for this afternoon.
Number six.
Here we go.
number six mi 2022 003 184 780 south 2nd street that case is continued and number seven mi 2021
And number seven, MI-2021-005-536-776 Martin Street.
That case is continued.
Is there anyone in the audience has a comment relative to those two cases?
I see no hands, Chair.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands, Chair.
Oh, wait a minute.
Sorry.
okay someone just put their hand up it looks like it might be two people
we have andrew goodman oh sure
hey good afternoon hi mr goodman state your name as fellow for the court reporter please
andrew goodman a-n-d-r-e-w g-o-o-d-m-a-n you're representing the oh sorry
you go you go you go sorry representing a third district council member jamie gaudier
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth to nothing but the truth
yes i do what case sir this is mi 2022 what's the address uh 623-39 north 39th street 623
six be with you in one minute of course
did you say 39th street you want to continue that sir
yes that's correct we were told we were told the applicant had put in for it as well
hold on 39th street right yes that's that's number 11 so i was getting ready
I was getting ready to call that.
There's no exhibits.
That's the first listing.
And Mr. Chair, the attorney has her hand raised.
Meredith Ferliger.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Meredith.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Proceed.
Mr. Chairman, we had received an email from Ms. Sunkit, gosh, probably a month ago at this point.
She had let us know that there was a mix-up and they had never sent out the RCO notification,
and therefore they were going to administratively reschedule it.
We never received confirmation, but it was supposed to have been rescheduled.
Okay. All right. So we will take care of this for you, okay?
Thank you.
Case MI 2022-003-457-623-39, North 39th Street.
The case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no other hands, Chair.
Are there any requests for withdrawals?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, so we're going to go to our add-on list.
MI 2022 003 285 1234 West Allegheny Avenue. That case will be continued to next week when we will
vote on it. One of the board members who needs to be here for the vote could not be here today,
so we will continue that till next week. MI 2022 001057 3251 Fox Street.
that case also needs another board member but we do not have an RCO letter or a letter from
the council person yet that case will be continued for two weeks on Wednesday it'll be
third case add-on MI 2022-003-175-225 Cobbs Creek Parkway I vote yes
Carol Teneri, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahidi, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number four, MI 2022-002-963-1701-S 25th Street, I vote no.
Carol Teneri, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
And number...
Number five is the result of hearing.
MI 2022-001-494-2507 Amon Street.
Adam Laver is the attorney.
Mr. Lavery, excuse me, Mr. Lavery is coming in as a panelist.
Mr. Leiber is coming in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
How are you?
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes, Chairman Bergman, Adam Laver, L.A. V.S. and Victor, E.R., Blank Rome, 1 Logan Square.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Thank you.
So my understanding, counsel, is this will be, you will offer testimony regarding a revised plan.
We'll take testimony from the public, but will only be relative to the revised plan.
Yes, sir. We're prepared to proceed.
Right. And just for the record, identify your client.
Mr. Chairman, Blank Rome represents L&M Real Estate Developments, LLC, and its parent entity, the River Wards Group, equitable owner of the subject property at 2507 Almond Street.
We will incorporate all the prior testimony in the two different hearings we had.
And Carol, I understand we have all his information, so we're just going to start.
So, Mr. Laver, share your screen, and you can start.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, on the screen before you is the subject property.
I want to be respectful of the board's time, so I'm not going to go over what had previously been presented and incorporated by reference.
But here are three images just to place it into context.
Following the last hearing, my client took into consideration some of the questions that had been asked by the board, and although there had been full support from the coordinating RCO as well as non-opposition of the district council member,
Squilla, in light of certain questions that had been raised in discussion at the last hearing,
we have submitted a revised proviso plans form to counsel for the zoning board. And what we have
done, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, is to remove the top floor of the originally proposed
development, taking away one entire floor, reducing the proposed development by 10 feet
for a revised height of 62 feet this also significantly reduces the gross floor area
a reduction of 25 129.3 square feet mr chairman and members of the board this comprises the
changes contemplated if the board is inclined to grant the requested relief we would respectfully
request that it be per the two-page revised proviso plan submitted to Ms. Emerson and to
the board. Mr. Rushdie, my client is here to adopt and affirm if needed, and we are certainly
available to answer any questions. We thank the board for its consideration. Thank you, Will.
We'll swear your client in. Mr. Mo Rushdie, would you please raise your virtual hand?
sir you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
i am here hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
my name is muhammad rushdie m-o-h-a-m-e-d last name is rushdie r-u-s-h-d for david y for yellow
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you. Mr. Rushdie, have you been present for the entirety of this resumption hearing
this afternoon? Yes, I have.
And would you adopt and affirm the testimony that I have offered as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Rushdie. Questions from the Board?
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience
relative to the revised plans?
I see no hands here.
Planning Commission,
concerning the revised plans.
Good afternoon.
This is Greg Waltman,
Planning Commission staff.
Spell your name, please, Greg.
Great.
Yeah, my name is Greg.
So Gregory, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y.
Last name Waldman
last name waldman w-a-l-d-m-a-n do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
W-A-L-D-M-A-N
Do you swear a firm to tell the
nothing but the truth i do proceed sir good afternoon chair and members of the board um
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the ca2 commercial auto-oriented zoning at this
location the zoning was updated to ca2 in 2017. this proposal has not been has been presented to
civic design review committee received mostly positive feedback however as the committee members
noted the proposal at that time was more than twice the allowed height the applicant has since
revised plans for the site reducing the total height by 10 feet to 62 feet which remains 24
feet taller than what is permitted by code given the environmental contamination this property is
more appropriate for a CA2 use that would cap seal and limit contact with contaminated
native soils than for residential or commercial mixed uses.
We feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship that would prevent them from developing
this property in alignment with the zoning code.
Furthermore, 24 feet in height above what is permitted by code, even with the 10 feet
reduction, is not the necessary minimum variance to afford relief.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the variances.
Thank you. MI 2022-001-494-2507 Almond Street. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plans, two pages,
stamped by ZBA on September 28, 2022. Carol Tenneri, my vote is yes with proviso.
thank you council thank you mr chairman members of the board good afternoon okay um we're going
to go to the regular list mi 2022 003 192 2621 to 67 in frankfurt avenue attorney is catherine
Missimer. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got it. I have it, Hillary.
We're going to start with number 16. MI 2022-001-055-5100 Ray Street. Jose Rosario
is the attorney, is the owner applicant. We have a letter of opposition from the 44th Ward
RCO. We also, I believe, have an interpreter should be on the line.
Mr. Rosario is coming back and it's a panelist.
If the interpreter is in the audience, can you please raise your hand as well?
Interpreter, if you have permission to speak, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
We have an interpreter?
Yeah, the interpreter is here.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Could the interpreter state your name, please?
Of course.
As spelled for the court reporter.
Consuelo Villagomez, Spanish interpreter.
C-O-N-S-U-E-L-O
Last name, BS in Victor
I-L-L-A-G-O-M-E-Z
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
As in my capacity as interpreter, yes.
All right. Mr. Rosario, are you online?
Señor Rosario está en línea. Está en mudo, Señor Rosario.
Mr. Rosario's microphone is muted.
Could you please unmute?
Sí, ¿cómo está?
Yeah, I'm here.
Can you have him state his name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Señor, por favor, diga su nombre completo y necesito que lo deletree para el registro de la corte.
Sí, mi nombre es José Rosario.
My name is José Rosario.
J-O-S-E-R-O-S-A-R-I-O
First name, J-O-S-E
Last name, R-O-S-A-R-I-O
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
¿Usted jura decir la verdad y nada más que la verdad?
Our vice chair, Carl Tadari, has a few questions.
Nuestro vice chair tiene algunas preguntas, Carl Chignani.
Okay. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
Excuse me. One moment. Carol, this is a pro se, so we do need to read this one into the record.
I still ask about emailing the exhibit packet, though, right?
Yes, you can do that. Yes, thank you.
Oh, okay. Strike what I just said.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral?
¿Usted ya nos envió por correo electrónico las pruebas en donde se le pide que nos dé la prueba de la propiedad del pago de impuestos y de la carta de donde le rehusan el permiso?
Also, have you emailed photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
También nos envió por correo electrónico las fotografías y los planes cinco días antes de esta audiencia, y también ha estado en contacto con el RCO?
Okay, this is an application for the erection of a two-story addition in the rear portion of the building for use as retail sales of food, beverages and groceries and a sit-down restaurant on the entire ground floor of the building and single-family household living above.
Ok, esta es una aplicación para poder construir una adición de dos pisos en la parte de atrás de la propiedad y esta área se utilizará como comercio de comida, bebidas y también artículos de alimentación y además como restaurante en todo el primer piso de toda la propiedad.
y además como casa familiar.
Sí, es cierto.
Sí, es cierto.
Hay una sola razón de que se está rehusando y es porque el hecho de tener un restaurante
en donde la gente pueda sentarse a comer
está prohibida en la zona CNX-1.
Okay, you may proceed.
Puede proceder.
Okay, see you.
And begin to share your screen.
Y puede, por favor, compartirme su pantalla.
Give me a moment, please.
Okay, I'm Jose Rosario, the owner of the 51 race. I had this property in 2017, with the reason to make the restaurant because I have a
bodega en la 49 igual no por más de 21 años y yo por la razón compré esa otra propiedad
51 reis porque yo vendo comida hispana en mi bodega pero no tengo suficiente espacio para
so I bought that place in the 51st place to be able to make a restaurant because I like the
business of Spanish food and I bought that place to make a restaurant and applied for that and
are you getting all that yes um uh so uh i am the owner of this property my name is jose rosario
and I'm the owner of 15100 Ray Street.
I bought this property in 2017
in order to use it as a restaurant.
I already own a warehouse on 49th Street and Walnut.
I have been the owner of that other property
for over 21 years.
I bought this other property
in the 5100 of Ray Street
5100 of Ray Street in order to sell Hispanic food because I already do that from the warehouse,
in order to sell Hispanic food.
but I don't have enough room to keep doing it. So that's why I bought this new property and I
applied for the permission to build a restaurant there, but the permission was denied and I am
appealing. Okay, he can drill down now, he can go through the whole content.
Okay, now can you talk about the content?
Yes, what do you mean?
So this is the notice of refusal.
So this was a letter of refusal.
Excuse me, this is Hillary.
Mr. Rosario needs to make sure we're just hearing from Mr. Rosario, not anybody else.
He is the applicant.
Thank you, I hear another voice in the back.
Esta es la aplicación por la operación que hicimos.
Esta es la aplicación.
Como pueden ver.
This is my application for appeal, as you can see.
Esta es la proyecto información, la forma del proyecto de información.
This is the project information form.
this here
this is the deed of the property
right here
this is my certificate of tax clearings okay
this is the plan taking into account the streets
this is the elevation of uh of the addition that we are applying for okay
hold on i'm looking for the other ramp
also you know
the ramp you can see there the ramp for people that need um and also a different entrance in
In the front.
Also you can see here the entrance to the second floor in the rear part of the building.
This is the second floor.
This is the commercial space right here.
and the commercial area where the restaurant would be.
here you can see the first bedroom yes well we're good with the drawings we understand
We're going with the drawings.
We understand.
Está bien.
Todos los planes ya los entendemos.
No es necesario que continúe con los planes.
Esto aquí va a ser para la basura aquí atrás.
Para la basura.
Here is for garbage.
All the trash area.
Is that where the additions are going to be built there?
Ahí es donde se van a construir las adiciones.
No, no.
Va a ser aquí, la adición.
No, the aditions are over here.
Over here.
The adition was already put on it?
Ya está hecha la adición?
Cuando yo la compré, ya estaba así.
No, I bought the property just as you were seeing it here.
Aquí tenemos...
Esa es mi tienda donde tengo 21 años aquí.
and this is my store uh the warehouse uh that i have had for 21 years you can see that is well
taken care of that's where we use one walnut street it's a isla de walnuts okay thank you
and we sell hispanic food okay
So one of the things that was on this list was the RCO letter. Could you get to that for us?
Let me see that.
Did he ever contact the RCO and go back to see them again?
¿Alguna vez usted entró en contacto con RCO y regresó a verlos otra vez?
No, no, no.
va a rentar a alguien más? No, lo voy a hacer yo, me decidí a hacerlo yo. No, I decided to do it myself.
Does he have anything else to show us?
Tiene algo más que quiera mostrarnos.
the interpreter wants to uh ask for repetition
oh that's just the photos that that this is the way the the business
is supposed to look
once I'm able to open it.
So when I read this case,
it's for the erection
of a two-story edition.
So he bought it
after the edition
was already put on it?
Cuando yo estoy leyendo el caso
es para poder construir
una adición de dos
pisos. ¿Estos dos pisos
ya están allí? ¿Estaban ahí
cuando usted compró la propiedad?
Ya están ahí.
Yes, they are there already.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Gracias.
Gracias.
All right, so questions from the board.
Preguntas por parte de...
No, no.
Questions from the board.
Preguntas por parte de las personas responsables.
Carol?
Carol?
No, Mr. Chair.
No, I'm good, Mr. Chair.
No, también.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Preguntas o comentarios de la audiencia virtual.
Sorry about that.
Chair, we have Mark Ruffin.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Permítame un momento.
Hay alguien que va a hablar.
Hi, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Mark Ruffin
M-A-R-K-R-U-F-F-I-N
and we had specific
hold on one minute
do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do
we had specific questions from Mr. Rosario
with respect to
trash removal that was never
addressed, there were really specific
questions that he never addressed
for the community and I think that's part of the
problem here
Okay, thank you.
I see no other hand, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board.
This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the City Plan.
The proposed use is consistent with the documented site history
and the physical condition of the structure.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you, Greg.
So I'm going to hold a vote on this.
When he went to the RCO, the RCO turned this down with the fact that he was giving it to, he was going to rent it out.
And now he's saying he's going to do it himself.
Before we vote on this, I want him to go back to the RCO.
Ok, el comentario por parte del señor Greg Wolfman fue que el uso comercial de la propiedad está de acuerdo con lo que ya se permite en esa y él está recomendando que esta audiencia le permita realizarlo.
Sin embargo, el juez nos está indicando que él en este momento quiere esperar para votar al respecto.
Cuando usted acudió a RCO, usted presentó sus documentos diciendo que usted iba a rentar la propiedad a alguien más.
Y ahora me dice que lo va a hacer usted mismo.
Entonces, antes de poder nosotros votar y darle el permiso, necesito que usted regrese una vez más a hablar con RCO.
And what we're going to do is, Lakeisha, I want to have this listed again within a month.
So we'll give them time to get to the RCO and make his presentation.
And then we'll get a letter from the RCO about where they stand.
Y en este momento, entonces, vamos a volver a enlistar su casa
para volver a presentarnos en audiencia dentro de un mes.
Con eso, usted va a tener tiempo suficiente para volver a acudir a RCO,
tener la cita con ellos y que nosotros recibamos una carta de parte de ellos
citando lo que ellos opinan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are we going to leave the record open so we can have testimony?
I think I'm going to close the record other than the communications from the RCO.
La carpeta quedará cerrada para cualquier otro testimonio.
Lo único que se va a mantener abierto es poder recibir la carta, la comunicación por parte de RCO.
Thank you, everyone.
Gracias a todos.
Thank you, interpreter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're going to move to number eight.
MI 2022-003-194-800-Cottman.
Amy Farrell is the attorney.
Our attorney, Hillary Emerson, is recusing herself.
Amy Galler will be filling in.
Recommendation of support from the Burholm Community Town Watch and Civic Association.
Recommendation of support from the Burholm Community Town Watch and Civic Association.
Chair, one moment, I'm trying to promote the...
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify, this is 800-Cottman Ave.
Which is M-I-222-003-194?
Okay, great.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Julie Bernstein.
It's J-U-L-I-E, last name Bernstein, B-E-R-N-S-T-E-I-N.
Could you, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Newtown Park Association is my client.
and they are the owner of the property. Okay, thank you. Our Vice Chair,
Carol Tenere, has a few questions. Hi, good afternoon. Do you agree to
wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes,
to all of the above okay great you may proceed and begin to share your screen
here we go can everyone see the screen okay
hi again my name is Julie Bernstein I represent Newtown Park Association
of 800 Cotman Ave. They are the owner. This property is owned as RM2 and consists of a
multi-story residential apartment building with a one-story component along Cotman Avenue frontage
that's historically housed several commercial tenants. The property has a long history of
small scale commercial tenants on this first floor that cater to the building residents
and the applicants here tonight or this afternoon to seek a variance for unit number five to provide
eyelash services in a salon setting as well as a general accessory salon service for hair and nail.
This is a personal service use and in addition to all of the other uses that are currently on the
property. Just to streamline the process, I'll quickly go through the table of exhibits and I
would like to have them entered into the record. I also have two witnesses with me in case there
any questions, I have the owner's representative, Dave Waterman and L'Oreal Colon, who is the tenant.
First, we have exhibit number one, which is our deed, demonstrating that Newtown is the owner.
Then we have our tax clearance as number two. Exhibit number three is the notice of the refusal.
and number four is our appeal we have at five our project information form and at number six
we have posting prop the posting for the property for tonight this afternoon
and okay so here we have some aerials just to
get everyone oriented. So this is the location of 800 Cotman Avenue. It is, although it is zoned
residential, it's along a corridor that has mixed use that you can see. There used to be a Wawa
across the street. There's a car wash next door and a bunch of fast food restaurants down the
street. This is the building and the renovated commercial front area. Regency unit number
five is this one that's within the circle. And it has this nice parking right in front,
right off of Cotman Ave. You can see in back that this is the residential and this area
has been renovated. So this is how it looks today. And as you can see, we have marked
next the zoning overlay map as Exhibit 8. This is where the property is located, which
is the RM2 residential only, but it's sandwiched between both commercial and industrial districts
and there are mixed uses in the surrounding area. Exhibit 9, we have a key plan just to
Exhibit 9, we have a key plan just to orient you.
orient you. This is the commercial.
This is the commercial space, that first floor that we saw, and this red area is what we
are proposing to put in as a LASH personal service use.
Next to it on the left is currently a personal service use, it's a skin aesthetics shop,
and that was previously approved with a variance in March of 2022.
And right to the right of it, there are two units that were approved for a daycare.
At the very end, there is the leasing office in this area that's in white.
We'll hopefully have another complimentary service going in soon.
We are here only for the LASH services personal use today.
Exhibit 10, we've included a business plan,
Again, just explaining a little bit about what is proposed for this particular location.
Just in brief, I'll highlight some of the features.
Laurel Lash has been involved in the lash industry since 2018.
Their primary focus is on high-end lash extension services, and they also provide ancillary
hair services, braids, extensions, and general styling, and they plan to expand to be able
to provide full hair care services and ancillary nail services secondary to the lash and hair.
This is an appointment only location. They're initially going to have two lash artists and
two hairstylists with a plan of growing to four lash artists and three hairstylists
with one nail technician in the next five years. The hours of operation are Tuesday through Friday
9 to 5 and Saturday from 8 to 3. There's a dumpster and established waste pickup area
that's already in place through the landlord and applicant. We've then attached after the
business plan as Exhibit 11, a historical permit that granted use for massage and chiropractic
services in July of 2008, just to show that this has been an ongoing use in this area
despite the residential only zoning then at 12 we've included our near near neighbor notice letter
and proof that this was served on all of the neighbors as well as lastly we did obtain an
rco support letter we met with the burholm community town watch and civic association
on july 21st 2022 and presented what was planned on going into this location and there was a
unanimous vote in support of this variance. Thank you. Why don't we have your testimony
adopted by your client? So as mentioned, I have David Waterman of Newtown Park Associates. If you
can raise your hand, David, for me. Mr. Waterman. Can everyone hear me now? Hi, yes. Could you state
your name and spell it please for the court reporter yes sir david waterman w-a-t-e-r-m-a-n
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed counsel uh mr waterman can you um do you agree with everything that i just said
and incorporate the testimony that i just presented as your own
i do thank you questions from the board no mr chair no mr chairman questions or comments from
the virtual audience chair we have stevenson dunn okay sir could you state your name and spell
please for the court reporter? Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please?
Hello? Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter? Stevenson Dunn,
that's spelled S-T-E-V-E-N-S-O-N, last name Dunn, D-U-N-N. Right, do you swear a firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Hello?
Hi, Mr. Dunn, do you want to testify in this case?
What is that?
What am I testifying to?
I don't know, sir.
You put your hand up.
Okay, thank you, sir.
We're fine.
I see no other hands, Chair.
Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. This is Greg Waldman
with the Planning Commission staff. The comprehensive plan recommends no change
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing multifamily residential zoning at its location.
to the existing multi-family residential zoning.
There are existing non-conforming commercial and professional office spaces on the property.
The applicant seeks to replace one of the commercial spaces with another, thus not expanding the existing non-conformity.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variance.
Thank you. MI 2022-003-194-800 Cotman Avenue. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number one.
MI 2022-003-192-2621-67, Frankfurt Avenue.
Catherine Mismer is the attorney.
we have a letter of non-opposition from councilman squilla a letter of support
from fishtown kensington area business association which is the affected rco
and we're waiting for an rco letter from east kensington neighbors
hi mr chair this is hillary um we did we got a recommendation of support from east kendington
neighborhood association we did not get a letter of explanation with it all right good thank you
Mm-hmm.
Counsel?
Good afternoon.
Catherine Missimer, that's M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19103.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
2418 Apartments, LLC, is the owner of the property at 2621-67 Frankfurt Ave.
All right.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
hi do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do i'd just like to confirm that you have the amended refusal that was issued in september
versus the may refusal we do perfect then yes have you okay great have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos and
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with your CO and
do you have a letter? Yes to all of the above. Okay great you may proceed and begin to share
with your screen which is already up I say. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon as mentioned I'm
here on behalf of 2418 Apartments LLC the owner of the property at 2621 to 67 Frankfurt in East
Kensington. We're here today with a use application to convert previously approved art as an industrial
space to commercial space. It's in a mixed-use building. I have with me today owners rep Dean
Markey as well as our project architect Rustin Ohler. 2148 to 67 Frankfurt is the old Woods
Brothers site that you may be familiar with in East Kensington. It stretches from Frankfurt Ave
through to Amber Street in the rear near the intersection of Frankfurt and Lehigh. The building
itself completed the CDR process back at the end of 2019. Development included over 400 units with
below-grade parking related residential amenities as well as this ground floor and cellar artisan
industrial space. The community really embraced this project as a transformative opportunity to
bring that vibrant commercial corridor of Frankfort Ave to this end of the avenue.
There were prior presentations for this site that never made it off the ground, so there
was real support for what was considered a viable project here.
As mentioned, that process was completed through CDR at the end of 2019, and we all know what
happened in the beginning of 2020 when COVID hit.
So unfortunately, the pandemic paused this project as well as several others, and part
of the issue that this project is now facing is that the availability and marketability
of both commercial and industrial type spaces and the availability of financing for projects
including those spaces really changed in the post-pandemic market. The community has really
supported us and supports this current application. As you can see we have a letter from non-opposition
from councilman mark squilla's office this is our letter of support from east kensington neighborhood
association who is the coordinating rco in this matter we also have a letter of support from the
fishtown kensington area bid this project is seen as in compliance with their vision plan for the
neighborhood they really welcomed you know the discussion and expansion of this project
We also include several letters of support from near neighbors.
we also include several letters of support from near neighbors um there was
Those copies of all have been submitted as exhibits in our package.
This is a photo from the CDR package to sort of give you an example of how transformative
this project is. It's this large building in the center here. So it's a huge project and
the proposal is really to change that small ground floor area to a viable use. Following
completion of CDR and our design process, the ownership went out to seek financing. And the
problem with the pandemic was financing became harder and harder to obtain. A lot of the initial
conversations with lenders and investors alike were this artisan industrial use is not marketable,
it's not a viable tenant option, and we're not going to finance a building that includes it.
As a result, the ownership filed the current application, which seeks to broaden the pool of potential tenants for that ground floor space from just the artisan industrial users to a general commercial user that could really bring vibrancy and activity to this portion of Frankfurt Ave.
The use change, however, does create a technical variance. And as I'm speaking, I'm going to scroll
through just so you can familiarize yourself with the site. The technical variance is really
dependent upon the issue. The site is known in IRMX. There's a code provision that permits
certain IRMX sites to exceed the allowable 60-foot height to 72 feet with the inclusion
of art as an industrial space like art as an industrial. The current project was designed
to incorporate that art as an industrial space and incorporate a 72-foot height which did allow for
that higher first floor space to give us more display opportunities, visibility on the sidewalk,
more glass frontage, that kind of thing. And it's a riddle original iteration we
did incorporate all of that space. Now we're proposing to change that use to
get a viable tenant in there and expand to allow for commercial tenants should
we run into an issue. I would note for the board's edification there's no plan
to change the building construction type so it would accommodate an artisan
industrial user in the future should one become available. However, the request today is just to
allow a broader use category, again, opening that up to allow for all commercial uses in this space
that are permitted in IRMX zoning. We've had candid conversations with the community about
this situation. We first met with the impacted RCOs and explained where we were in a financing
standpoint and what our options were. We then relayed that information at a public meeting
that ECNA was kind enough to coordinate for us. The support was overwhelming for the success of
this project. They wanted to see this completed. The vote at the meeting was 15 to 1 in favor.
We also agreed to meet with a committee of neighborhood stakeholders ongoing so that when
When we do have tenants, we get the input of the neighbors, and we agree to take that
into consideration.
This proposal is really a creative adaptation of the existing project, which hopefully,
by making this slight change, we will allow it to proceed and succeed in the future.
This is obviously the least minimal variance necessary.
We believe that this change will open up the financing that's been sort of out of reach
at the moment and really get construction off the ground.
This is consistent with the existing financial and commercial corridor along Frankfurt Ave,
and it would not be detrimental to the public based on our letters of support from both near
neighbors, the community, as well as the larger bid. At this time, I would just quickly ask
that my client, Mr. Dean Markey, be allowed to speak.
Mr. Markey, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Dean Markey. It's a D-E-A-N-M as in Mary, A-R-C-H-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Dean, have you heard my testimony here today?
I have.
Would you agree that it's true and correct?
We have nothing further.
All right, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
And Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board.
This is Greg Waldman from Planning Commission.
This is Greg Waldman from Planning Commission staff.
In 2016, the zoning map was amended from medium industrial to IRMX industrial residential mixed use at this location in accord with recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan.
At its meeting of January 5th, 2021, the Civic Design Review, which is Civic Design Review, the committee expressed concern that the ground floor artist studio spaces,
which were used by the applicant to satisfy the industrial use requirement needed to receive an
additional 12 feet in height would be eventually converted to non-industrial uses after the
original zoning permit was filed. The applicant now seeks a zoning variance to change from the
approved industrial use to a commercial one while maintaining the additional 12 feet in height that
would not have been earned with the now proposed commercial use accordingly the planning commission
staff recommend that the board deny the requested variance mi 2022 003 192 2621 to 67 frankfort
avenue i vote yes with the filing provisos commercial use on basement or first floor is
permitted in the IRMX zoning district. Use registration required prior to occupancy per
amended refusal dated 9-1-22. Carol Tineri, my vote is yes for Proviso.
Yes for Proviso. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you all.
Next case, number two, and I'll also put number four with it. Number two, MI 2022-003,
403-440-319
Gate Street, Parcel B
003-444-319
Gate Street, Parcel C.
William O'Brien is the attorney.
We have a letter of support
from Ridge Park Civic Association
and pre-requisite
streets department approval.
Mr. O'Brien has been promoted to panelist.
Mr. O'Brien, can you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
William O'Brien, O-B-R-I-E-N.
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 the property?
Yes, my client is Mizio Baker Real Estate, LLC.
and here in the Zoom meeting with me today
is Stephen Aschewski to the right
and Andrew Molson,
who are the two managing members of that company.
That company is the record owner of 319 Gate Street.
Our vice chair has a few questions, Mr. O'Brien.
Hi, Mr. O'Brien.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
I stipulate to its accuracy.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to each of those items.
Okay, great.
You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
um so 319 gate street uh is a um 50 foot wide by 184 foot lot uh with an existing uh residence
the three-story residence it's a legal two-family dwelling um this is the existing structure on gate
Street. And you can see that there is a driveway to the right of it that extends past the right
side of this three-story structure. The lot, as I said, is 184 feet deep. It extends to Wright Street.
This is Wright Street, which is the next block south of Gate Street.
And this retaining wall that you see in the foreground is the end of 319 Gate Street.
As you can see, the retaining wall consumes probably about 90% of the sidewalk.
And that is all part of Gate Street.
And as you can see, and is also depicted on the topography plan, which is on paper.
and is also depicted on the topography plan, which is on page 9. 319 Greats is
substantially a level walk. There's no steep slopes in it. This is Wright Street looking
east. You can see the four single-family attached homes here. This retaining wall
is the end of the gate street lot there is a storage structure this part of the lot
and then this is 316 gate street an existing single family dwelling
this is looking north showing the end of the gate street property and that retaining wall as you can
see there are signs posted on that retaining wall, no parking, and there is no parking
on Gate Street. I'm sorry, on Wright Street. The curb line is no parking, and on the opposite
side, as you can see, is front-loaded parking on the homes across the street, a condition
that's no longer permitted in this area.
This is the topographic plan, the existing condition.
Here is the existing two-family dwelling at 319 Gate Street,
and then this is the whole lot, which I said extends 184 feet to Wright Street.
The zoning code allows the construction of four single-family dwellings on this lot, two on Wright Street and two on Gate Street.
That would have been permitted over-the-counter without any variances.
However, the neighborhood considers Gate Street to be a historic street, and that plan would have called for the demolition of that existing structure.
Anizio Baker decided not to pursue that plan to keep the structure that is considered by the
neighborhood to be historic, keep that in place, and pursue the development of the Wright Street
end of the property with a duplex, two single-family dwellings. Incidentally, since that
decision was made there is now a pending um nomination of the 300 buck of great street
before the historic commission um and as i said uh the the lot is predominantly flat you can see
there is no uh indication of any steep slopes on this uh on this plan um this is the zoning plan
again we're going to the existing structure stays the existing driveway will be used to access not
only a parking space for the existing structure but also to access parking for the proposed two
new structures on the elevations i just want to point out the pilot house the pilot house is four
feet wide by 16 feet in length which is a total of 67 feet which is substantially less than 125
feet allowed so while I acknowledge that the refusal was accurate I don't believe it's correct
the refusal for height I think is a mistake this structure is 30 feet 38 feet high from the average
ground level to the roof. The indication that the plan examiner put down is 47 feet
includes the pilot house. The reason the pilot house was included is that there is a wing that
comes off the pilot house to create some shade on the roof. It is that plan examiner's
interpretation of the code, and I don't believe it's a correct interpretation. In fact,
the four houses uh down the street or next to this adjacent to this house have that same condition
with a a roof or a wing that comes off the pilot house and that was not a refusal uh in those
dwellings um i can show you this is the pilot house in those houses it's it's four feet wide
as i said it's 13 feet and then there is a wing that goes across uh it's 18 feet from the front
the building, you really can't see it, but it does create some shade on the roof and makes
that roof deck a more livable space. So this is what is proposed.
These are the two new homes. It is a transition between the four attached townhomes on the right.
It is a transition between the four attached townhomes on the right and the existing single
family dwelling on the left. The existing house has a porch, so the porch is proposed
for these two new homes and that is the streetscape. There is a refusal for
steep slopes because the retaining wall that I showed you photographs of has been removed
and it steps back now to allow a sidewalk to continue in front of the Wright Street houses
and allows an entrance from Wright Street to the porches and to the homes.
The other refusal is for side yard.
Strict application of the code requires an eight-foot side yard.
We're requesting a variance to allow five feet.
The reason for that is that because there's no parking on Wright Street and because the distance to Gate Street is, as I said, 184 feet from the front of this house, each of these homes needs two-car parking.
If there's an eight-foot side yard, then the garage will only accommodate one car.
and that that presents a hardship for the neighbors who are going to have to compete for
more parking it creates a hardship for the homeowners who are now going to have to find
distant parking the request for five feet side yard is identical to what exists for this house
at 316. As shown on page nine, which I can go back to, this detail indicates that the current
side yard at 316 Rice Street is five feet. So we're only asking for the same thing that 516
and Rice Street has, and that is a five-foot side yard so that we can have two-car parking,
two-car garage. Let me go back. As indicated in the RCO's letter, there was a modification
made at the request of the neighborhood. This parking area has now been closed off to the
adjoining area so that this driveway is not a pass-through. There'll be no communication between
Wright Street and Gate Street. The Gate Street driveway will serve only the existing residents
and the proposed two new residences. And again, the turning radius is so small that if there's
not a five-foot side yard and these houses become narrower, there's simply no way to get two cars in
there. If we're allowed to have the same size side yard that 316 Wright Street has, then each
of these driveways, each of these garages will serve two cars. Then there's space behind for
guest parking when there's a dinner or some celebration, which makes it easier for the
neighborhood because, as I said, Wright Street has no parking. Mr. O'Brien, they're both
single residences right both single family homes uh with uh with a roof deck and uh and two car
parking as per person let's see let me ask mr o'brien do you want to have your testimony adopted
yes uh mr molson uh would you be sworn in please could you state your name and spell it please for
the court reporter? Andrew Molson, A-N-D-R-E-W, M-U-L-S-O-N. All right. Do you swear, affirm,
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel. You were here
and you heard my testimony? Yes. Was it accurate and correct? It was. And do you adopt it as your
own? I do. And you have the authority to do so and act on behalf of the corporate, of the company?
Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Kyle, you're muted.
No, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Adam Herbert.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Certainly.
My name is Adam Herbert, A-D-A-M-H-E-R-B-E-R-T.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I'm one of the neighbors on Gate Street and just wanted to voice my concern over the project.
wanted to voice my concern um over the project um would also just like to say that the baker
street partners build beautiful houses in the neighborhood so um i do appreciate the work that
they've done to do some of the different developments on green street and stuff like that
um on the evening of the vote that you received uh from the civic association in favor of this
project uh there was no role taken um and there was also no identifiers as to see who was on the
call so for instance there was some people who could be identified only by iphone or ipad and
some of the um people who voted were not members of the civic association or in the neighborhood
rather um and also were financially tied to the developers um like plumbers and real estate agents
and stuff like that. So I just wanted to, from the community standpoint, some of us feel like
the Civic did not actually represent our feelings on the project. We don't necessarily have an issue
with the development of two new houses in here. One of the issues is the particular neighbor at
316 Wright Street with that five-foot variance. She has a two-story, it's depicted here as a
three-story house it's actually just a two-story house and so she's going to lose a lot of sunlight
and and there's some some some unfortunate things that kind of happen to her as the homeowner in
the neighborhood understand that you know when you buy a house in philadelphia you're not guaranteed
sunlight you're not guaranteed that kind of stuff so we we asked for some compromises um one of the
compromises as you can see the two houses um you know and i'm not a developer by any means but one
thing we asked is could they just be moved over to butt up next to like 324 Wright Street so it
would give that eight foot variance and they could still build the houses and have the curb cut and
all that kind of stuff so we just like to stress that you know the the Civic Association did not
necessarily due to no role being taken represent the community's decision on this project.
The fact of the matter is the Ridge Park Civic Association wrote a letter right in support
the the civic association did write a letter in support based on the vote um which was a zoom
meeting 24 to 9 in favor of the project but there was no role taken to see who was actually voting
so i could have easily logged into three different devices and voted one way or the other
okay thank you for your uh your call and your concern is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i see no hands chair i'm planning commission
planning commission
i'm sorry i was on mute uh that's okay that's okay go ahead
this is greg waldman planning commission staff
um uh chair uh would it be okay if i asked a clarifying question to the applicant we certainly
can um the uh refusal for 47 feet in height um does that include uh the height for the pilot house
yeah so the as i understand it the plan examiner interpreted the code uh to include the area
underneath that wing as part of the the pilot house when clearly the pilot house is only 67
square feet. I believe that was a mistake and in fact we were the same day we had this meeting with
the Ridge Park Civic Association there was another matter on their agenda I think it was 353 Delmar
Street. And that plan had the same identical roof structure, a pilot house with a wing going across
the roof to create a shaded area. And in that case, it wasn't a refusal. So the height from the
average ground level to the roof is 38 feet. That's code compliant. But the interpretation of this
plan examiner included the height of the pilot house because of his interpretation or her
interpretation uh that the shaded area that the that's the area that creates the shade should be
included in the pilot house dimension i believe that's a mistake okay so the the planet examiner
was including i guess if it was just a pilot house without the canopy then it may have been
interpreted differently yes the pilot house is is that if you include the height of the pilot house
That's how he got to 47 feet.
The average ground level to the roof is 38 feet.
And just to clarify one more time, one other question.
What is shown on the screen, that cornice height, is that 47 feet?
on the screen uh that cornice height is that 47 feet or 38 feet this height the roof height
sorry the roof height is 38 feet i can go back to the uh zoning plan bear with me
why don't you do that i think it shows it better
I did see briefly. I'm okay to proceed. Okay. The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change
to RSD3 residential single-family detached at this location. It is within the Ridge Park
Rocksboro overlay which requires an eight-foot setback above the second story for buildings
abutting lots of buildings that are two-story and then a steep slope protection overlay which
prohibits site clearing or earth moving activity on portions of the lot with a slope greater than
25 percent which the planning commission disapproved at its zoning permit review.
The we appreciate the clarification about the the height that was presented over the hardship for
side yard width is self-created
with a new construction.
The Politic City
Planning Commission
recommends
that the zoning board deny that particular
variance.
MI 2022
003 440
319 Gate Street
Parcel B
22-003-444-319-Gate Street, Parcel C.
I vote yes to both.
Carol Tineri, my vote is yes to both.
Ishmael Shaheem, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you.
Number nine, MI 2022-003-434-3636 North 19th Street.
Michael McElhaney is the attorney.
No RCO letter from the 13th Ward.
Second meeting held on 920.
there we go good afternoon chairman sir excellent could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter michael mcelhenney m-c-i-l-h-i-n-n-e-y right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do um could you uh state who your client is in the relationship
shift to the property? Yes. My client is Hekuran, H-E-K-U-R-A-N, Daku, D-A-K-U, and his brother,
Jasher, J-A-S-H-E-R, Daku, D-A-K-U. Right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
I do agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy.
Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership,
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral voters under plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all those
questions okay great you may proceed and begin by sharing your screen thank you
and mr chairman i guess when i was zooming in i got disconnected for a moment did you say that
a letter did not come over from the RCO that you've seen? We do not have a letter from the RCO.
Okay. Then I will go through that up at the top. As an initial matter, to go through the
administrative matters, the property was posted with the zoning notices, which are at exhibit 12
of our packet today. The RCO notice letters, we met with the RCO twice, and that's at exhibit 13.
My client's deed is at exhibit 14, and his tax clearance is at exhibit 15.
The property at issue is 3636 North 19th Street. My client is seeking permission, a zoning variance, to use the property for three dwelling units. The property is zoned RSA 5 single family, which creates one use refusal.
we as i mentioned we did meet with the rco and we actually met twice the rco emailed over
the letter separately to uh zoning council uh for the board uh but i i will send an additional copy
after this hearing um sorry mr mcleanney i just wanted to interrupt uh we just we just
Sorry, Mr. McElhinney, I just wanted to interrupt. We just received a copy from the
council office. So it is a letter in support. So thank you. Excellent. So yes, we did meet with
the RCO. The original, we met twice and they gave us a lot of feedback after the first meeting.
At the second meeting, we addressed all of their concerns. At the conclusion of which,
we did get a letter of support, seven in favor to oppose for the multifamily three-unit variance.
And the main concerns that were addressed were this is a block, and as the photos will show,
that is in need of serious redevelopment. There's a lot of abandonment and blight, and it's also a
multifamily block. There's very few single families on this block of North 19th Street.
So taking that into consideration, the RCO's big concern was in their provisors, which we agree with and we're not seeking.
They wanted to make sure that this property will not be used as a rooming house.
There's another one approved on the block. They don't want it.
And that's not what we're doing here. It's three apartments is what we're seeking approval for.
And then the second was no installation of a roof deck.
Our plans are just for a change of use. There is no change to the size or shape of the structure.
and just to orient the board the section of the that we're in the of the city is at 19th and
erie erie to the north pacific ave to the south it's a series of three-story structures with a
few vacant lots on either side of the this block of north 19th street uh exhibit three is the zoning
map as you can see the property zoned rsa5 we have cmx2 properties to the north and cmx2 properties
at the far corner, at the south corner at Pacific Avenue.
Exhibit 4 is just an aerial view looking towards the west of the west side of North 19th Street.
The property at issue has the red dot. It's a three-story structure.
As you can see, it's a pretty much intact block with some vacant lots on either side.
On the opposite side of the street, there's also two vacant lots and intermixed with three-story structures.
And importantly, Exhibit 5 is our photos of the subject property and the surrounding block.
This property is in the middle of the screen.
It's the existing three-story structure that is in a shell condition and needs full renovation.
As you can see, the property to the north is an abandoned structure that is in pretty bad shape that needs repair.
going farther to the north are the first property at 3640 is a duplex and the property farther to
the north at 3632 3642 is a commercial on the ground floor and two apartments above
turning to page three is looking at the west side of the block the same side as the subject property
and the other uses on the block, most of which are multifamily.
The property next door at 3634 is set up and approved for a duplex,
although it's currently unoccupied.
Farther down the block at 3632 is also a duplex use,
as you can see from the multiple door entrances.
At the other end of the block, 3626 and 3624 are two properties
that are occupied as triplexes, which is the use that my client is seeking today.
and at the other corner far corner at the south at pacific is a property that is under renovation
that will be used as a three-unit building and going farther to the south on the same 3600 block
and north 19th are the corner property the first two in are a triplex and a duplex respectively
and farther down the block turning to page 7 3608 north 19th is also a triplex approved for three
units looking at page eight this is a view of the properties on the opposite side of the street
one of which is being renovated and was historically used as a duplex
the property directly across the street going towards erie avenue is a triplex at 3641 north
19th street and next to that at 3643 is a four-unit building as you can see from the quad
Plex sign on the outside of the property. But it was also recently approved for 12 residential
dwelling units for a personal care home, which did cause a lot of outrage or upset from the
neighbors, which is why they wanted that proviso and assurance that my client was not seeking to
do any personal care home or group living, which we are not. And staying on the same 100 on the
east side of North 19th Street, we have the abandoned building at 3627 North 19th Street
and other properties that are undergoing renovation.
And just down the block on the east side at Pacific Avenue
On the east side at Pacific Avenue is another commercial building with apartments above.
is another commercial building with apartments above.
And the next section of the block going south, again, there's other three-unit triplexes at 3615, and the corner property is also at 3619, set up for three units.
So going through the conditions of this block, it is a block that has majority multifamily, suffers from a lot of blatant abandonment and needs repair and investment,
which we were thankful that the RCO was willing to see that and encouraging the redevelopment.
The photo on the screen now is just showing the conditions on the ground in terms of on-street parking available on this block.
It's not a – with Erie Ave and Pacific Ave, there is plenty of on-street parking at this time on this block.
The subject property itself, interiors, as I mentioned, it's in shell condition.
It's going to be a complete gut rehab, floors, ceilings, all new appliances, utilities, electric, gas, water, everything has to basically take it down to the studs and renovate it.
and it's a pretty big task.
And in order to be able to bring this property back to life
and make sure my client can invest the money he needs,
the three units would be the minimum variance
that we would seek to be able for him
to economically renovate this property
and provide quality housing space for the neighborhood.
We did prepare just a survey originally
we were thinking about putting an addition on the back of the property, and that's not
at issue here. The property is large. It's 15 feet by 103 feet deep. And again, we're not
changing the height or area of the property. The neighbors, when we met, didn't like the
original floor plans because there were too many bedrooms. So we reduced the bedroom count from
eight to three and what we ended up with is a first floor unit that is a full living room kitchen
dining room and two bedrooms at the rear that have access to the rear yard and they have access to
the basement which is for storage and mechanicals the second floor unit is a two bedroom one bath
unit with washer and dryer, HVAC. And the RCO wanted to make sure after the first meeting that
we have a spot for trash storage for the unit. So we did add an actual trash closet that trash
could be stored in there and not out on the front steps because the upper units don't have access
to the rear yard. And then with the third floor unit, we have a one bedroom, one bath unit. Again,
the residents of the RCO wanted a trash storage closet, which was included. We also included
egress ladders at the rear in case of fire emergency there's those Jacob ladders that
could exit although not required they're easy enough to install and they do provide additional
safety so that is part of the plan at this time the bedrooms are sizable now by reducing the
bedroom count 14 feet by 11 on the third floor unit and the smaller levels it's 14 by 11 and
11 by 15 so they're larger living spaces and it should be a improvement to the this current block
block of north 19th street i would add that i did include all the zoning archives for the other uses
on the block that are multi-family in nature at exhibit 10 um and with that the board um
we would request that the board approve the grant of a variance in light would you want to have your
testimony adopted mr council yes sir if i could have um he goes by my client goes by landy landy
could you raise your hand virtually by clicking the the button
sir you cannot speak please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yeah my name is uh hekuran daku h-e-k-u-r-a-n and the last name daku d-a-k-u
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Daku, did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
Yes, I did.
Were they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, sir.
And would you adopt my statements as if they were your own?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
good afternoon mr richardson good afternoon mr chair could you state your name please and
spell for a court reporter charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass that's
r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n room 312 city hall right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed councilwoman has no opposition to granting
i do proceed councilwoman has no opposition to granting experience thank you anyone else in the
his parents.
Thank you.
virtual audience i see no hands here planning commission good afternoon chair members of the
board this is greg waldman with planning commission staff in 2006 the zoning map was amended from
residential multifamily to single family residential at this location the last permitted
use was for single-family back in 2008. This property sits on a 1,487-square-foot rectangular
lot. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance with
a proviso to limit the unit count to two, which is consistent with the majority of non-conforming
properties on the block. MI-2022-003-434-3636 North 19th Street, I vote yes with proviso,
limited to units. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso. Yes, ma'am Shahid, my vote is yes
with proviso. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Number three, we're going back to number three,
MI-2022-003-197-3900 Aspen Street.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Mr. Mattione is coming back in as a panelist.
good afternoon counsel good afternoon mr chairman hi could you state your name please and spell for
the court reporter sure michael mattioni that's m-a-t-t-i-o-n-i right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client in
relationship to this property? Sure. It's 3900 Aspen Street, LLC, the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions. Sure. Mr. Mattione, do you agree to waive the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Good afternoon, and yes, I do. Have you emailed an
exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under our plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes to everything. Okay great you may proceed and begin by sharing
your screen. Thank you. Thank you.
again um i represent 3900 aspen street llc the owner of the property and i have robert sherman
the principal of 3900 aspen street llc on as well today and as we just said chairman we have
submitted the tax clearance refusal, a letter of unanimous support from Mantua Civic Association,
the coordinating RCO, revised zoning site plan, revised plans form, floor plans, trash plan,
renderings, photos, the deed, proof that we met with the RCO, etc. So
So the owner is seeking variances to develop this property, including a variance to permit 12 residential units to have an open area of 16.04%, where 20% is required.
And those are the two variances because the revised plans were modified so that we now have a roof deck that meets the setbacks of five feet from 39th Street and a pilot house that is more than 10 feet.
It's actually 11 feet off of 39th Street.
So the revised plans took care of those two refusals, so they are no longer being sought.
And a revised plan, here's the setback from the deck.
it's 11 for the pilot house it's 11 feet and for the deck it's five feet and there's our form
um mr sherman before proceeding with this project met with the members of the community
uh he was told by the community members that they wanted three things to be here
that they wanted wheelchair accessibility ada accessibility and rental units they were told
they told him that there is limited housing in the community that is wheelchair or ADA accessible.
So what he did was he developed a plan where on the lower unit it is wheelchair accessible and
you have three units and as you can see from 39th Street there is a ramp that goes from 39th
And as you can see from 39th Street, there is a ramp that goes from 39th Street down to the units, and there are also steps.
And all of these units are wheelchair accessible.
They have wheelchair accessible bathrooms.
The doors meet the requirements for wheelchair accessibility, et cetera.
On the first, and that's, I'm sorry, that's not the, there's the lower level units.
I'm sorry, incorrect units.
There they are showing the widths and compliance with the wheelchair accessibility, and there is the ramp going down, there's a landing, and there are steps as well.
On the first floor, they are also ADA accessible units.
You do walk up the steps, but they are ADA accessible units, and that was done specifically after meeting with the community.
And then on the third and fourth floors, you have, again, similar units, but they are not ADA accessible.
They're just typical residential units.
So 25% of the units, or three units, proposed were wheelchair accessible.
Another 25% or another three units are ADA accessible.
And this was done specifically at the request of the community.
So, I want to turn now to the renderings and just show how this works in coordination with
the surrounding properties and how it would look.
He has a red brick facade proposed with a front porch.
The houses, two house, two structures to the west both have front porches and that would
tie in with them.
Again, this is looking at the property from 39th Street, from 39th Street again showing
this is where the ramp is and you go down into the lower level units where you have
steps and those are wheelchair accessible units and another look showing the ramp 39th street
when you look in in the community where and there will be private trash pickup
and there will be trash storage in the rear of the property this will be a zoning compliant fence
and the trash storage will be in the rear
there are also two properties next to it both of which are multi-family uh 3904 and 3906
aspen street and then after that there are 12 vacant properties on um aspen street so after
after the corner and then two structures and there's a whole bunch of vacant properties as well
the site photos show we have a vacant lot and that it's a double wide lot it's a large lot
much larger than most of the other lots in the area here is a triplex right next door to us a
duplex next to that when you look through the community there are at least 10 other properties
right in this general area that are multi-family that's 3904 3906 3913 and 3875 aspen street
and also 737, 735, 727, 725, 723, and 719 North 39th Street, which are all also multifamily.
And significantly, the properties on North 39th Street all had variances granted permitting multifamily uses within the last three years.
So the only construction in this community is multifamily construction done with variances.
None of those properties, however, have the wheelchair or ADA accessible units as requested
by the community here.
The variances will permit the development of this property in a manner that was specifically
requested by the community, and this is shown by their unanimous support letter from the
And it will permit development to fill in this corner prominent corner lot.
and also that the conditions around it are either vacant parcels or multifamily structures the only
construction in the area recently is multifamily none of it though is done specifically to meet
the needs and requests of the community the community also said that they're they prefer
to have multifamily residential units here because there are older residents in the community who
who wish to remain in the community, who own their homes,
but no longer wish to have the responsibility
of home ownership.
So this is why they requested the ADA accessibility,
the wheelchair accessibility,
and it doesn't have the burden of home ownership.
Variances who again permit the development
of this property, the community will benefit
by having this large property built upon.
It will add eyes and ears to the street
and it will reduce the likelihood of illegal dumping.
The variances really are necessary to develop what the community said they want to see and
it's in conformity with anything that's been built in the community recently.
There are again numerous polyfamily structures here.
They will benefit by having a modern building with the life safety features that modern buildings have.
They will benefit by having a modern building with the life safety features that modern
They will not adversely impact light and air.
They will not add overburdened public facilities.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on Robert Sherman.
Mr. Sherman, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm here.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Robert Sherman, R-O-V-E-R-T-S-H-E-R-M-A-N.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
Robert, did you hear my statement?
I did.
And are they true and correct?
Yes, they are.
and was this proposal developed with the input and at the request of the community
yes it was and do you adopt my statements at your testimony yes i do i have no further
questions for mr sherman mr chairman or questions from the board
and mr chair no mr jim mr mattione is there anything this large close by
Anything that's large?
No, this is a larger lot than any of the other properties.
When you look on 39th Street, they're all about 1,000-square-foot lots.
This is a 2,000-square-foot lot.
It's larger than any of the other lots that are in the area.
The properties just to the west are smaller, much smaller.
Thank you.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands here.
Questions from the – statements from the planning commission, please.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended from CMX2, Commercial Mixed Use, to RSA5, Single-Family Residential at this location with the support of the community.
There is nothing unique about this 1,982 square foot rectangular vacant lot that would require a variance to enable viable economic use of this property.
And even if there were, 12 units far exceeds what can be considered minimum relief, and the property has many more units than nearby non-conforming multifamily properties, as demonstrated by the applicant.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance.
Mr. Matty, we're going to take this to our executive session and have a conversation about this, and we'll vote this next week.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You can. You can. Go ahead.
Mr. Mattione? I'm trying to get him back here. Okay.
Mr. Mattione? He's coming back in as a panelist now.
all right i believe i'm back sorry we lost you there that's all right i just wanted to add um
yes this is more units than any of the other properties it's also larger and it also specifically
is being built with ada and wheelchair accessible units which take up more space and which are more
difficult to build and that was specifically at the request of the community and as of the rcl
and we're meeting their goal and to do that we need the the additional units um again all of the
the properties have been built on in the last three years are all multi-family they all had
to get variances they're all in smaller lots and none of them have the the features that we have
that were specifically requested by the community mr chairman thank you for updating us thank you
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2022-003-269-747-North 37th Street.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
Letter of Opposition from Mantua Civic Association.
Mr. Boylan is coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Whalen.
Could you speak your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N, here from Vintage Law, on behalf of B. Ross Real Estate, LLC.
Do you swear, affirm, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Sean, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin by sharing your screen.
Thank you very much.
So, board members, I'm here today representing 747 North 37th Street.
Again, that is BROSS, B-R-O-S-S, Real Estate LLC, is the owner and developer of the project.
This is an aerial map, just to give you some context here.
It's an existing two-story building.
You can see a lot of vacant lots all surrounding a developing neighborhood.
And we back up to the very large Miles Mack playground right behind us.
And it is RSA 5, as are essentially all of the lots all around us, either RSA 3 or RSA 5, again, except for that large playground behind the property.
This is an image of the property. This is the existing building, the red right here.
It was previously a single family. You can see it's in a very dilapidated situation.
My client purchased this property on the last day of 2017.
In 2018, he had to clear out the property, which was being misused by some squatters at the time.
It has since been vacant, and he's been working to gear up in order to develop the project.
This is an individual developer with sort of a mission for the neighborhood as opposed to a large, you know, entity, well-heeled entity.
So he was working up the financing to develop the building.
And then COVID hit, as we all know, and everything went sideways for a couple years.
So here we are.
So, again, here's just in context.
you can see the entire block all up and down and actually the blocks to the south of this.
Everything is an existing two-story building except for the vacant lots. This has a first
floor commercial with an upper story apartment. Again, just showing you going north from this
property. This is Mantua Avenue in the distance. We're one block off of Mantua and one block off
of Fairmount, just to give you some context where in the Mantua district we are. And again,
just showing you going south, again, the overwhelming, I think these two properties
right here are the only three-story buildings on the entire blocks. My client's proposal is to
turn the single family into a duplex with one unit on the first floor and one unit on the second
floor. It will get a new roof, be re-skinned, have a new porch built on it. There will be no
addition to height. None is requested today and there is none proposed. There is also no addition
onto the rear or the front of the building, so the building will stay in exactly the same
exterior size and shape that it is today. What you can see here, this is the unit A is the first
floor unit. You come in, there's the large, will be the large porch, and then you have what is a
very large, approximately 700 square foot single family or apartment unit, and you'll have the
same type of unit on the second floor. Each unit, again, is about 700 square feet, so a large one
bedroom. You can see both of them have, this is the second floor unit, so the living room and
the kitchen are flipped, but you have very large open floor plan between the living room and the
kitchen. Both of them have a washer dryer, a large approximately 10 by 11 bedroom, and a full bath
with a tub. And there will also be additionally central air.
so we have one refusal the only refusal is a use refusal that two-family dwelling is prohibited
this is an RSA 5 underlying district so only one single family is allowed we went before the
Mantua Civic Association they actually do I think quite a novel idea which works very well
they actually meet right in front of the property so we met with most of the neighbors on the block
and met right in front of the property to propose our project.
They did oppose, and they actually provided a...
They did oppose, and they actually provided a – this is a letter.
Fortunately, Chairman, they still have the old Chairman's name, so this might not have gotten to you, but an explanation letter of their position.
They raised four items of concern.
The first was concerns about the care and condition of the property since 2017.
I did already address that, but I will have my Brent Ross, my witness, testify in furtherance of that.
He's looking to, you know, now he has the financing securities looking to move forward, develop the property and really keep it in the condition that it should be kept going forward.
There was no damage to the other properties or any kind of unsafe condition or violation or anything of that sort.
It was just left vacant since he had to get rid of the squatters a couple years ago.
I'm going to skip number two and come back to it because that's a lengthier discussion.
Another point that the neighbors raised was communication with the neighbors.
Mr. Ross at the meeting handed out his personal cell phone information and personal contact information, hoping to, he's hoping to become a staple of this neighborhood and build additional units throughout in some of the existing properties.
properties. You can see that there were from the map, and I can go back to it later, a lot of
vacant lots in the area. And he's looking to utilize the existing buildings to create and
allow him to tell you the story behind it, but created affordable units here for younger
professionals. The main item I would argue that came up in front of the community was affordability
and size of the units. Essentially, the community was not interested in reviewing the plans. We had
brought full-size plans to the meeting, and there was an assumption that we were asking for
additional height at the meeting because there was no way we could fit one unit on the first
floor and one unit on the second floor. However, that is the case. According to the floor plans,
that I just showed you, and as my client will testify, we can actually put in the existing
space with no increase whatsoever to the exterior dimensions in order to keep everything in line
with the block. We will be having two approximately 700 square foot units in the building, one on the
first floor, one on the second floor. As far as affordability, again, my client will testify to
this, but he shoots for a slightly below market rate, again, because he's trying to help a
particular target market of young professionals who don't want to live downtown in large apartment
buildings paying huge rents, but would rather live in a family-focused neighborhood.
So then the last issue that was raised by the community is the alignment with single-family
culture on the block. And we certainly did hear this. It was absolutely a family-oriented
meeting. However, in light of their comments, we went back and we did an analysis of all of
the zoning records and public zoning records through the City Atlas website. And again, this
is, I would suggest, just the publicly available records. There are certainly other properties up
and down, as I'm sure the board members are aware, that did not go through the proper
channels in order to have multiple unit buildings. There is evidence of those up and down the blocks
of, you know, multiple mailboxes, multiple doorbells, things of that nature.
But if there are a total on this block and the block just to the south of it, there are a total
of 59 lots. 26 are existing single family. Nine are PHA rentals. 13 are single rentals. Three
are duplexes. Seven are vacant. And there is one church property there. And again, there are a lot
of other vacant lots kind of as you go east and west from here. So we believe that, you know,
obviously we have to show, and it's our burden, to show that there's one, a hardship, two, no
detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare, and three, that this is the least minimum variance.
Starting with number three, I think the easiest one, this is the least minimum variance.
We're actually only asking for one additional unit. We could build a third floor by right and
by right and be asking for a triplex, but we're not doing that. We're trying to be commensurate
ask be asking for you know a triplex um but
with the neighborhood, keep the existing building as is, even though it's in its
dilapidated state, it can be brought back to a very nice status. And therefore,
we're proposing only residential use in a residential neighborhood with nice-sized units.
uh there is for those reasons there's no detriment to the public health safety or welfare
we're proposing uses well in line with uh the neighborhood there's no issues with traffic
congestion uh light and air or anything of the sort those were all uh in fact not even raised
at the community meeting the community only raised the four points that are uh up in front
of the board at this time. So the hardship, this was a longstanding single family neighborhood
that has been changing over time. There are a lot more rentals, a lot more PHA units,
and there are also a lot of longstanding vacant lots. These are starting to be developed or looked
at by developers. We also have a very small lot with an existing building that's in a very
dilapidated condition. All of these factors and the, you know, financial requirements to bring
this property back to, you know, vibrancy for this neighborhood, you know, show and demonstrate
the hardship that we have here. With that, I would ask to call Brent Ross.
sir could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter
hi my name is brent ross uh first name brent b-r-e-n-t last name ross r-o-s-s
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel uh certainly mr ross you you're here on behalf of the
owner and developer, B. Ross Real Estate LLC, correct? Correct. And did you hear all of the
testimony that I already presented in this case? I did. And do you believe it to be true and correct
to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? I do. And would you adopt it as your own
testimony? Yes. Now, being cognizant of the board's time and trying not to be duplicative,
is there other information that you believe you have that would be relevant to the board's
decision today? Yes. Good afternoon, board. If you allow me to speak, I would like to take a
minute or so of your time. Please do so, Mr. Ross. I'm a small investor and I mean, come from
humble beginnings and I see that there's a deficiency, especially in proximity to downtown
where young professionals really don't have an option of moving into a one bedroom unit that has
all of the amenities and not paying a ticket towards the number of something, you know,
2,500 north, even for studios, in the zip code of 19, I believe 103, which is the next one over.
So what I'm providing here is something for your young professionals, for someone that
works in your local school, someone that works in the fire department, the police department,
they will have a chance of getting a one-bedroom unit. And my target price is
around $1,300, $1,400 a month.
And, you know, this was a two-bedroom
dilapidated building when I bought it
and it was used as a drug den.
It was feces all over.
And what I'm essentially asking to do
is change it from a two-bedroom home
to creating two to two one-bedroom units.
So I think that it's a very small variance in accordance to what Sean has stated.
And I would love to, you know, put this project into the community.
And I think that at the end of the day, they would love seeing, you know, people who would love to come in and live in a family culture block.
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board?
no mr chair and mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have asia cooney
good afternoon miss cooney good afternoon could you state your name please and spell for the
court reporter so asia cooney a-s-i-a-c-o-n-e-y do you swear for him to tell the truth
A-S-I-A-C-O-N-E-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
First of all, my apologies because I was not available for the meeting.
But let me start by saying I live absolutely right next door to this unit.
I'm at 745 North 37th Street.
I've been there three years.
I met Mr. Ross, I believe, when I first moved in, and he gave me his phone number.
Because when I moved in, it was a vacant property and dilapidated.
And he informed me that he was trying to fix it.
As I said, I've been there three years.
There has been absolutely no work done to the unit.
And the backyard, quite frankly, looks like a jungle.
So as my neighbors have attested, there's been no work on the unit.
They actually have weeds that are as tall as me or not tall, and I'm 5'7".
I didn't, the notice went up on the building, but I couldn't read it because the porch itself,
as you showed in your picture, was so unstable that I did not, I was afraid to walk on it.
So my black captain, when I came out this morning, had posted this notice on my door.
So I just wanted to actually state that my concern for that unit is such that the condition that it has been in for the three years that I've lived there gives me no confidence that the building will be taken care of once it's renovated.
That's number one.
Number two, this is a block of folks that are very united.
We work together.
The block is clean.
As you stated, there are renters.
and homeowners and clearly being an activist of housing for so many years I certainly know the
need of affordable housing and the need for families to have a decent place to live however
our block is as I stated a block of single family homes who live quite well together we just
recently on the corner had to join together to stop a stop and go for moving into that property
which is now going to be a daycare so we should miss cooney do me a favor yes don't tell me about
the other properties just concentrate on this one oh thank you i'm sorry sure so the fact that you
we could not even read the notice because we were afraid to step up on the porch didn't allow us
enough time to really organize as we do but my black captain put the notice on my door to ensure
that some of us would participate in this hearing.
So I'm just actually participating to say
that I oppose a dwelling that is double family,
single family, we are in support of.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in, Ms. Cooney.
We appreciate your...
Let me go through whoever else is in the audience,
Shawna, you can respond.
Anyone else in the audience have a comment?
Yes, Chair, we have Sabrina Brooks.
Excuse me, please unmute yourself, Ms. Brooks.
Ms. Brooks, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter yes mr sheriff my name is sabrina brooks first name s-a-b-r-i-n-a
last name is brooks b-r-o-o-k-s all right wait a minute do you swear a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do yes proceed thank you so much i stated my name is
sabrina brooks and i am the home owner of 752 north 37th street which is directly across the street
from the property as stated. I am a young professional who purchased her home 10 years
ago. As stated by this gentleman here, I am a young professional and a registered nurse.
We, I have lived on this block my entire life. My mother owns her home at 748. My sister owns
her home at 750. We are a single family unit. We are united. The double dwelling on the block
is not what we stand for as the culture as stated earlier.
When you think about young professionals,
yes, we do need places to stay,
but we are in support of a single family dwelling
so that we can understand the benefits.
Again, I stayed out on my home for 10 years.
Ms. Brooks, thank you for calling in.
We really do appreciate your input.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
we have two more people. Yvonne Wright. Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter? Yvonne, Y-V-O-N-N-A, W-R-I-G-E. Okay. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Ms. Wright, could you do me a favor? Could
you tell us something that we haven't already heard relative to this? I'm a homeowner on the
relative to this i i'm i'm i'm a home owner on the block i'm at okay north 37th street okay
black.
yeah the reason why i don't think they should be able to put a double dwelling on the block is
because we already struggling with parking on the block it's not enough parking there's a lot
of construction already going on the block because they got the train tracks being um worked on at
the bottom of the block and then at the end of the block they got that building to the day they're
worked on and on that block and then they also get make work on um building a home for seniors
and okay i don't think that when they start building this double building it's going to
bring more construction to the block we don't already we already have and struggling with
parking on this block okay miss right miss right we we we know your position and we understand it
thank you very much for calling us is there anyone else in the audience yes chair we have
Patricia Massey. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Correct. The name is Patricia, P-A-T-R-I-C-I-A, last name Massey, M-A-S-S-E-Y.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. And I think you've heard the people before you. Could you just tell us where you are with
this? I, too, am a homeowner on this block for over 20 years. The cultivation and landscape
of a public school is a block, two blocks away. We also have a playground, which is right in the
rear of the actual housing unit that he proposes to have. And last but not least,
the overall overdevelopment in the area as we've listened is not prone to a family culture
environment which we would like so so patricia you're against this property absolutely single
dwelling yes okay thank you thank you very much for calling in is there anyone else in the audience
i see no more hands here thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board this is greg waldman with planning commission staff
In 2017, the zoning map was amended from residential multifamily to single-family residential, sorry, at this location with support of the community.
The Pelham's hardship claim is not supported with evidence of unique fiscal circumstances of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the use variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-003-269-747 North 37th Street.
I vote no.
on you carol i am i am never muting again carol tenere my vote is no
my vote is no thank you counsel um mr kelly we're going to take a five minute break
okay thank you your own thank you your honor force of habit thank you mr chairman kelly's
a good man he's a good man so our next case is a remand hearing that has three different cases
MI 2022-004-162-102 Duval Street, MI 2022-004-160-100 West Duval Street, and MI 2022-004-161-31 West
to Valle Street. Alan Nockamson is the attorney. Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon. Hi, good afternoon, Mr. Nockamson. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter. Yes, my name is Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name
Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. So the record and testimony from the original hearing on January 31st, 2021
is incorporated into the record for today's hearing.
The scope of today's hearing is limited
to taking testimony from the architect
on undue hardship and least minimum variance standard.
There will be no testimony taken for the public.
Mr. Nockamson, we're ready to go.
Mr. Nockamson, we're ready to go.
Okay, may I share my screen?
Okay. May I share my screen?
Oh, sure. Absolutely.
And I figured I would briefly go through this matter since the board has not heard this matter for some time.
So we have 31100 and 102 west of Olive Street in the Mount Airy section of Philadelphia.
Again, just to briefly go through this, and we have Ray Rolla, the architect on the project in the virtual audience, who will testify regarding the standard of undue hardship and the lease modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code.
But we'll quickly go through the notices of refusal, the letter of support from the West Mount Airy Neighbors Association that we received.
Just as a matter of background, just as a reminder, the City Planning Commission also recommended the granting of the requested variances as well.
We have, you know, had, you know, discussions with the community since that meeting.
I alerted Ms. Emerson of those discussions just for the purpose of stating that we are going to even try to get further in conformance with the zoning codes
by proposing these revised proviso plans
where we're reducing the width of the building structure
to get closer in conformance to the codes.
And this is the least modification possible
on the developed use of the code.
Just our motion for consideration,
our remand orders,
nearby properties with no minimal side yards,
just maps of the area, photographs of the property,
street views of our plans and drawings.
And then we don't have to go through the rest of the materials.
are just prerequisites. The RCO meeting notices the applications for appeal that needs their
property. The certificates of tax clearance. Just for your information, these properties are owned
by Oak Spark Ventures, LLC. And I'm just indicating that Tomer alone is the member of that LLC. He's
in the virtual audience, along with Mr. Rolla, who's the architect on this project.
uh 31 west of all street this is an rsa3 property uh we're proposing to have a single family
structure all of these matters deal with single family structures we have two refusals as to 31
west of all street and we'll go over those refusals each one of them with mr ola but just
as a matter of background there are two refusals uh this lot is 20 feet wide uh we're required to
have an eight-foot side joint, which is required to have a building structure of 12-week part.
We are proposing to have a 15-foot side joint, and Mr. Roller and I will discuss why our proposal
is the least modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code. The second refusal
is that because we're an RSA 3 property, we're required to have one parking space.
And again, we'll discuss with Mr. Lola why that's not possible either under the Philadelphia Zoning Bridge.
Second set of refusals is the 100 west of Wall Street.
Again, doing a single-family structure, just as another background, I was in front of the same zoning board regarding 100 and 102 west of Wall Street years ago, requesting to have two dupluses there with the same building footprint.
And we were asked by the West Mount Perry Neighborhood Association to, you know, to provide a single family structures.
And if that was the case, we would receive their approval and we'll look at that under support.
But, you know, the refusals for this are as follows.
We would need a common driveway for the parking for 100 West of Wall Street.
We'll show you why we believe we conformed with that requirement in spirit.
but we would also be willing to forego that parking because our understanding from both
you know in the testimony of the previous hearing as well as previous discussions with the community
they are against any parking in the 100 in the 102th of all street so we would be willing to
forego that by way of a proviso if the board feels so inclined the second refusal is non-accessory
parking so we're basically using you'll see through the drawings and we'll go with through
mr ola uh we have a part a common driveway coming off of 100 where uh the corner of duval and and
uh cherokee we're coming off of cherokee where we will have a common driveway where two parking
spots will be there on 100 one for 100 and one for 102 because this is a non-accessory parking
for the benefit of 102 we're getting a refusal for that again we believe that we're needing
again we believe that we're needing the spirit of the code uh because we're providing essentially a
the spirit of the code, because
common driveway for two properties each having a parking space just one the parking spaces has to
be um under the circumstances on 100 as a non-accessory use for the benefit of 102.
but again we we defer to the board if the board feels so inclined we have no objection to eliminating
that off-street parking use, which would eliminate this refusal, which would go closer in conformance
with the code. The third refusal is the minimum rear yard depth shall be 15 feet, whereas the
depth proposed on 100th Duval Street is 9 feet. And as you'll see from the drawings, it has to do
with the fact that the parking is 17 feet wide with these two parking spots. While we have
a backyard of 26 feet 17 of those feet is because those parking spots again it's really open area
it is a rear yard it's just because we have to reserve that space for the parking technically
under the code we're showing that we're only nine foot rear yard when in essence we're a 26
foot rear yard again we defer to the board if the board feels so inclined we would have no
objection to a proviso, no off-street parking. And again, under those circumstances, we would
be eliminating that refusal and going in closer performance to the codes. And then the final
refusal for 100 west of all streets. Again, we run afoul the minimum side yard requirements. Again,
this is an RSA 3 property. We're required to have an 8-foot side yard. The width of our property,
you'll see it's in a regular shape lot the width of the property is anywhere from 18.62 feet wide
to 21 feet wide so it tapers in the back by having an eight foot side requirement would make it a
non-functional uh building uh property you couldn't even have a single family with that
wide of the requirements again not out of character to what we are uh what other properties
in the neighborhood are most if not all the most a super majority of the properties don't need the
eight foot requirements and for good reason uh but again we're proposing as way of a proviso
to shave essentially a foot off of a hundred the width of the building structure of a hundred as
well as the width of the building structure of 102 so we are the closer conformance to the codes by
having at a minimum four feet and four and one half inches of side yard and as much as five feet
nine and one quarter inches as well so that's 100 west of olive street as far as 102 west of
olive street again another single family structure we're not asking for any use variances here this
is a single-family neighborhood. We're asking for a single family. So that in itself is the
least modification required or expected under the zoning code in our opinion. But we have two
dimensional refusals. First, again, it deals with the side yards. We have an eight-foot side
yard requirement. This lot is 19 feet wide. So if we were required under the zoning codes to comply
or we were required to comply with the zoning code you would have a building structure of 11 feet
which is you know impossible under the circumstances uh mr roller will testify and you'll hear his
testimony that um having such an 11 foot building structure would be impossible to have a functional
floor plan uh he will also testify that he took measurements of next door and 104 west of all
Street and our proposed side yard of three feet here, but by way of their proviso form to have
four feet, it's in conformance with what the neighboring properties are. And then the second
refusal again has to do with the parking requirements. Technically, it says that we
were supposed to provide one parking spot. We didn't. We actually did by way of having the
parking on 100 west of All Street. But again, from what we're hearing from the neighboring
property owners they do not want us to have a curb cut coming out of cherokee so again we defer to
the zoning board in that respect if the zoning board is inclined to grant our variance by way
of proviso no off-street parking we would have no objection to it and then the letter of support from
the west mount harry neighborhood group again it speaks for itself it's part of the record
but it even gives the background of how we got here.
Originally, we asked for two duplexes here,
one at 100 Dowell Street, one at 102.
The community was disinclined to support that project,
but dimensionally, they had no issues,
uh and they they they supported the project because of it and then again a separate one for
and they supported the project because of it.
102 for 31 as well and then our revised uh proviso plan that we delivered by email to
miss emerson earlier today for 31 west of all street it's just a housekeeping item we noticed
that there was a typographical error on the uh on the site plan so we're just correcting it on
elevation only we're not changing any dimensions this is a 20 foot wide lot we're asking for a
five foot wide side yard and we're having a 15 foot uh wide building structure so i think there
was a typo something saying like 16 feet wide building structure when it's 15 but the notice
and the refusal uh are correct but we just wanted some housekeeping items so if this board is
declined to grant our variance requests, we would ask that they do by way of proviso one page
of these plans. And then for 100 west of Wall Street, again, looking at the situation further,
we talk to the architect, the least minimum width of the building structure has to be 15 feet.
originally we proposed a 16 foot wide building structure for a single family and you know just
based on you know the discussion with mr rollout which the board will hear we'll we'll discuss why
we think this is the least uh modification available to us under the Philadelphia zoning
code and we have plans as well in that respect and the same thing for 102 we decreased the width
of the building structure to 15 feet wide giving us a side yard which is uh similar to ones in the
neighborhood as well and then here's our motion for reconsideration along with our explanation
which goes forth with basically the same arguments we made in front of the zoning board as well
without the benefit of mr rollo's testimony and then here are remand orders explaining how we
doctorate today. And there's a transcript where the, you know, again, my understanding is that
the court of common police relinquished jurisdiction, allowing the ZBA to hear today's
matter with Mr. Roller's testimony, where then they can reissue their votes. And then just as
an example, here are just other examples, and I'm going to go really quickly through it. This would
say there are other matters, but, you know, it's not uncommon to have either no or minimal side
yards and again just you know for refreshing one's recollection here um you can go through
these materials but you know we have many examples and then just maps of the area of where we are in
here again just trying to get through everything but the maps and the photographs of the property
here's 31 west of all street we're a vacant lot here as you can see we're a twin to 33 west of
Wall Street, you can see that the side yard here is not eight feet, between 33 and 35.
All we're asking for is if you walk by the property built or used as proposed,
you know, the question is, is this, does it stick out like a sore thumb or is this something that
fits within the fabric of the neighborhood? 31 Duvall Street, we're asking for two variances.
First, no parking in the front, which you don't see for any of these houses in this part of the neighborhood, especially the twin of 33 Duval Street.
The second refusal is the width of the side yard.
And as you can see, the side yards here are rather small in nature and clearly are not eight feet on each side, because that would require a 16-foot wide side yard in between these two twins, where it's nowhere near that.
and then this is 100 west of all street this is a vacant lot it's been a vacant lot at least
according to google as far back as 2008 all we're trying to do is have a single family structure
the coordinating rco uh voted in their executive committee voted in support of this variance
request for 3100 and 102 and the planning commission at the conclusion of our hearing
some time ago recommended a grant that they do not impose a granting of these variances.
Again, it's been some time and we're asking that we can develop these properties.
And then this is 100 and 102 West of Olive Street, the side of the properties from Cherokee.
And then there's the street views. Again, we're talking about parking as one of the variances.
Most of these properties do not have parking. And Mr. Lola will explain as to the difficulty
of having parking regardless
regardless under the circumstances and this is the first block of west of all street to left
under the circumstances.
And this is the first block of West
of Wall Street to left.
their property again really don't see parking here as an option given the width of these properties
is very difficult if not possible 100 block of west of all street to the right of the property
100 block of west of all street to the left of the property and then the 6300 block of cherokee
to street to the right 6300 block of charity cherokee uh to uh to the right and then just
our plans and drawings what we try to do is match and mimic what's in this neighborhood so
we try to have this as all the properties with porches man serge roofs that more traditional
feel of of of stone we really try to mimic that and it's a very handsome project this is
the rendering of 100 and 102 west of all streets and that's from the cherokee section or side and
then this is just again we can go through this uh what we're trying to propose for 31 deval street
is a two-story structure in this two-story structure part of of the of that block with a
front porch and again we have no height variances we're just asking because of the width and the
parking requirements. And again, these are just single-family structures. You walk up to a porch,
open floor plan, living room, kitchen, bedroom, and then you go up to a second floor and there's
a few bedrooms up there. And there is a lower level for laundry as well as a den area.
And then this is 100 and 102 west of all streets. Again, these twins, similar. You walk up a porch,
open floor plan living room dining room kitchen here's the parking area as you can see so there's
one curb cut that you come off of cherokee one is for the benefit of 100 west of all
one's for the benefit of 102 west of all but as you can see
the rear yard depth is really 26 feet two and quarter inches for all intents and purposes
we do corner off the nine foot side door for the benefit of 100 west of all street and then
each of the parking spaces width wise takes eight and a half feet again if we eliminated
the parking on 100 west of all 400 and 102 west of all we would be eliminating two refusals one
for the non-accessory parking of on 100 west of all 402 and then the second has to do with the
fact that this entire yard now would be 26 and two and a quarter feet rear yard setback would
be well in conformance with the code of a 15 foot setback. But again, if you go up a flight of steps
to the second floor, there's two bedrooms, a laundry room, and two bathrooms.
And then you have the third floor, which is a master bedroom and a rear deck.
And then that's basically it.
I wanted to give you just a general overview of where we are, where we hope to go.
Again, and now I would like to have Mr. Rola virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Rola, you may unmute yourself.
Yes, I believe I'm unmuted now.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Raymond Rola, R-O-L-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Rola, let's first review 31 West of Wall Street.
On my screen is the notice of refusal.
So, first of all, this is a proposed single-family use, correct?
That's correct.
Okay, and we're not seeking a use variance for multifamily, right?
That's correct.
Okay, so let's go over the first refusal.
The first refusal is minimum side yard width for semi-detached structure shall be 8 feet, whereas the width for the proposed side yard is 5 feet.
So how wide is this lot?
This lot is 20 feet wide.
Okay, so you're asking to have a five-foot side yard and a 15-foot wide building structure. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And what was your reasoning behind having it that way?
First of all, we were trying to keep very close to the – it's basically a twin, so we were trying to keep close to the other twin.
but at the same time understanding that in new construction against a
But at the same time, understanding that in new construction against an existing party wall, we basically have to build another wall next to that party wall, which would take up some of the width of the inside of the space.
So 15 feet seem to be the right dimension in order to be able to get the same amount of interior space as the Twin next to it.
Okay, so when we're talking about the Twin, we're talking about 33 west of Austria, right?
That's correct.
Okay. So am I hearing that the interior of 31 West of All Street, the amount of actual square footage is going to match the actual square footage of 33 West of All?
Yes. Yes, it would.
Okay. Is there any way for us to meet the 8-foot side yard requirements under the code in any respect?
well we you basically end up um with a 12 foot wide building and by the time you took out the
wall space for the party wall and the exterior wall you know you'd end up with about 11 foot
of usable space inside which would be very difficult would that be a fun would there be
an opportunity to have a functional floor plan under those circumstances
uh not reasonably no okay are there any other yeah are there to your knowledge are there any
other properties on that block or in close proximity which have a 12 foot wide building
structure not to my knowledge no okay uh so in your professional opinion it would
be virtually impossible to have a functional floor plan with the 12 foot's uh uh with the
12 foot wide building structure. And that's correct. Okay. And then the 15 wide building
structure mimics what's next door at 33 west of All Street. That's correct. And anything less than
a 15 foot wide building structure would make it rather difficult, if not impossible, to have a
functional floor plan at 31 west of all street yes that's correct and it's partly because of
the fact that we have you have the the builder would have to build out the party wall on 31
west of all street yes you would lose that space for the thickness of that new wall next to the
existing party wall and and what you're suggesting is best practices uh to uh safely attach to 31
west of all street that's correct okay uh the next question has to do with the or the next area of
the notice of refusal for 31 west of all street minimum one parking space is required for single
family household living whereas there is no proposed parking space what why did you design
the project this way well the first priority was to make the building fit in with the neighborhood
apparently this lot did have a building on it maybe i don't know how it was destroyed probably
by fire so the idea was to try to keep the neighborhood streetscape intact with front
porches and a building that looked the same as most of the buildings on the block with the same
setback the same porch and essentially the same width so if if you had to have parking basically
the whole first floor would just be a garage door with a small entrance door next to it which would
be completely out of character with the neighborhood and all of the all the neighboring houses as well
taking away a parking space from the street yeah well why couldn't we just put a parking pad out
front of the property i don't believe that the zoning code allows for surface parking in the
front yard and is that section 14-803 of the philadelphia zoning code you're referencing
i believe it is yes okay and then why couldn't we just have a some type of driveway leading to the
rear of the property where parking would be allowed? Well, then you would have to have,
I believe, 10 feet of driveway, which would basically give you a 10-foot house left over.
Okay. So for the same reasons, given the lack of the width of the property,
it would be impossible to comply with the requirements of a driveway.
Yes. Yes. Okay. That's correct. And is there any parking allowed on our,
is there any parking currently uh for 33 west of all street or twain uh no okay and
No. Okay. And most of those properties on Devolve Street, as the pictures indicated, do not have a parking in front or in any type of garage in front, right?
most of those properties on devolve
That's correct.
okay all right so let's go over to the second refusal 100 west of all streets
um the first refusal has to do about uh accessory parking for any single family
using an attached or semi-attached building shall be prohibited unless it can be accessed from a
shared driveway alley or rear street on which non no on-street parking is permitted on the side
side of the rear street directly abutting the lot.
Is there a reason why we cannot conform to this section of the Philadelphia zoning code?
Well, the attempt was to essentially create a small parking drive essentially in the rear
of 100.
And I'll just briefly go to that picture.
so when you say you you try to conform to the best possible way i don't know if you're in front
of your computer yes this is a curb cut that's coming off the chariot here right that's correct
and you use that common curb cuts to create two parking spaces uh on 100 devolve street
And one's for the benefit of, one parking spot's for the benefit of 100 Duvall Street,
and the other one is for the benefit of 102 West Duvall Street.
Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
So that was your attempt to have the least modification possible under the Philadelphia
Zoning Code?
That's correct.
All right, so the second refusal is non-accessory parking is expressly prohibited in the RSA 3 district, whereas there is a proposed non-accessory parking in the rear yard. Can you explain that refusal to the zoning board?
Well, I believe it means that that parking space that's going to be used by 102 is basically legalized by easement so that they can utilize that parking space for their use.
It would be impossible to get a parking space behind 102 because of turnaround requirements and things like that.
Gotcha. So because of how the property is uniquely configured and because there's no commonality way, you attempted to comply with the zoning code to provide one parking spot, and this was your best attempt at doing it?
Correct.
okay um now if we eliminated parking on 100 we would eliminate uh the two parking spots on 100
west of all street we would eliminate that refusal correct yes that's correct and then the second
the third refusal on 100 west of all street says minimum rear yard depth shall be 15 feet
whereas the width for the proposed rear yard is nine feet i'm going to go back to the site plan
that is part of our revised proviso plan.
So, if I'm looking at the plan correctly,
here's 100 west of all streets.
It does say the depth of the property
from the rear of the building structure
is 26 feet and two and a quarter inches.
And there is like a rear yard with a fence
and then there's two parking spots.
So why does it say that we're only providing 9 feet rather than the 26 feet 2 1⁄4 inches?
Well, I imagine that the examiner didn't consider those parking spaces to be part of the rear yard.
And that was your attempt to comply with the one parking spot per unit requirement, right?
Correct.
And the fact that we lack a commonality way as well, right?
yes okay and if we eliminated those two parking spots in the rear we would comply by way of by
way of a proviso if the board feels so inclined to eliminate off-street parking that would eliminate
that refusal about the rear yard death right that's correct okay
and then the last refusal from 100 west of all street minimum side yard width for the semi-detached
And then the last
structure shall be eight feet whereas the width for the proposed side yard is three and a quarter
inches uh why can't we comply with the minimum year of your minimum side yard requirements under
the code we take 102 for example which is a 19 foot wide lot and you subtract it eight feet you
only have 11 feet width left for a house all right well we're focusing on 100 um so okay let's focus
on 100 first and then we're going to focus on 102. so i'm going to do the bring up the site plan
for 100 again so how do you remember how wide uh 100 duval street is well it's a tapered lot i'm
just going to zoom in here to so i can see the number i think the rear is 18 feet seven and a
half and then the front is um the front is you can scroll down quickly yeah it's a sound 21 feet
sound correct yes okay so if we met the if we had to meet the eight foot side yard requirement
on a corner property by the way um it would be anywhere from like 13 feet seven in a corner
eight feet would be anywhere from 10 and seven and a half inches of a building structure
hypothetically depending on where the building structure is to as big as 13 feet does that sound
about right yes that's correct okay could you have a functional floor plan on a building structure
which is a little over 10 feet wide no what about would it be functional given the tapering
of the property a unique shape of the property to have something that's tapering from 13 feet
in the front to all the ways back 18 and excuse me like 10 and uh and seven and a half inches
would that be would you be able to have a functional floor plan for single-family use
would not be practical no okay uh now we did uh reduce the width of the building structure
by way of these revised plans to 15 feet wide, right?
Correct.
And that's the least modification, in your professional opinion, possible to have a functional floor plan, correct?
Correct.
and and and that provided a width as you know as of of the building of the side yard of at most
five and i think nine five feet like nine inches to as little as uh four feet four and a half
inches correct 100 we're referring to correct yes yes and and that essentially falls
in line with the width that you're seeing of the side yards for the most part of the properties on
the 100 block of west of all street yes they're all about the same size yes okay he alan he keeps
walking away from them backing up to the mic he's hard to hear could you make sure he's speaking in
the mic yeah uh can you can you uh can you answer that again ray is is that does that fall in line
with the width of the other? Yes, many of the properties adjacent to us have four foot side
yards. Thank you. And then let's go over the last one, the last set of refusals for 102
west of Olive Street. So we're proposing a single family structure with a porch and we have two
refusals. First is a minimum side yard width for semi-detached structure shall be eight feet,
whereas the the width for the proposed side yard is three feet now we have revised our plans to
increase the width of the side yard uh to four feet by shrinking the width of the building
structure to 15 feet is that correct that's correct okay now you did measure the width of
the of the side yard for one on four west of all street right yes i did and based on your recollection
You did this a while ago, so no one can be perfect, but based on your recollection, what was the width of the side yard for 104 west of Wall Street?
Four feet.
Okay, so we're matching 104 west of Wall Street based on your recollection and your measurements.
That's correct.
Okay, so we're mimicking what's there.
Now, how wide is 102 west of Wall Street?
if you're a number 19 feet okay so that's the smallest lot of of of the three lots that we discussed
Okay, so that's the smallest lot of the three lots that we discussed, because 31 west of
Wall Street was 20 feet wide, you know, 100 west of Wall Street was the widest at 21 feet,
but tapered off to 18 feet, seven inch, seven and one half inches. But this one consistently
is 19 feet wide throughout, right? Correct. Okay, so if you had to meet the minimum side
yard requirement of eight feet the building structure would have to be 11 feet right that's
correct 11 feet okay would you be able to have a functional floor plan under those circumstances by
being required to meet the philadelphia zoning character no okay so and the 15 feet that we're
that we're proposing by way of these revised plans is essentially the minimum
uh amount possible to have a functional floor plan under those circumstances correct okay
um and you know again we didn't talk about this for 31 or 100 but can you just explain
you know to the board how you come up with that rationale why 15 feet is the magic number
and it can't be any less can you bring up that floor plan sure which one i guess for like
Like a 102, 100-102 plan.
All right, here's...
Yeah, there we go.
So if we take, for instance, the second floor plan, which is basically, you know, it's a
typical sort of floor plan that you would see in a house that has pretty good depth and minimal
width you basically you have a stairwell that you you basically want to put in the long direction
which is going to be a minimum of three feet and then you usually need like four inches for a hand
rail another three feet for the corridor space to wrap around to get to the third floor and so you're
and you sort of have a dumbbell plan where you have bedrooms on the wider part of the building
front and back and enough space for closet space and so you're left with the toilet rooms the
bathrooms and and the laundry room sort of fit into that leftover space so with 15 feet you're
pretty much at a minimum of like seven feet for for the bathrooms and uh so that sort of is the
determining factor in in in the width of the building and making it practical and conforming
to the way, you know, people use space today.
I'm going to go back to the refusal for NORNO2 again.
Okay, so we talked about the minimum side yard requirement
that we're trying to be in conformance
to nine foot wide
property. We're asking
to have a four foot side yard which
mimics what's on 104
and a 15 foot wide
property. He explained the rationale
behind it that we couldn't have
eight feet wide side
yards because we would have an 11
foot wide structure which
nowhere in the neighborhood is
there such a structure on a lease on that
block. The second refusal
has to do minimum one part
one parking space is required for single family household living whereas there is no proposed
parking space how how do you react to that refusal well there certainly could not be parking space in
the front of the building because of the um again there would just be a garage in the front
with a door next to it leading to the second floor of the building and you couldn't have a driveway
on the side because you'd need 10 feet and uh on the side yard uh would leave you with basically a
nine foot building um so that was the solution was to put them in the rear and i think that's
what the intent of the zoning code was to have parking in the rear in this kind of situations
so you did provide a parking space the parking space is just by way of easement on 100 west of
That's correct.
And 104 west of all.
And you were able to leverage, unlike 31 west of all street, which was landlocked, because this was a corner property, you were able to leverage the access through Cherokee to have the parking in the rear through 100 west of all street, right?
That's correct.
But there's no parking, for instance, at 104 west of all street at all.
Or 106.
Okay. So if having no parking here, if the board feels so included,
Okay. So having no parking here, if the board feels so inclined to have no parking as a proviso,
would not be out of character to those nearby properties on our side of the street?
That's correct, because they don't have parking.
Okay. I'm going to unshare my screen. I am done with the question of Mr. Rola. If the board feels
so inclined to ask Mr. Rola to our questions, we can also reshare our documents.
anyone have questions for mr roller no mr chair no it's not us
the only thing i would ask mr chair is to admit uh the most recently uh uh presented materials
into evidence okay everything we will admit it um so real quick does the planning commission
have any additional comments about this with what's after the presentation uh good evening
mr chairman david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission thank you do you swear
affirm to tell the truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do proceed uh so mr chairman we have
no additional questions in our testimony from the last round stands. Thank you very much. Mr.
Nakasin, the vote on this matter for all three cases is being held for at least 30 days for the
preparation of a supplemental finding of fact and conclusions of law that will be incorporated
through proviso into the board's decision. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you very much,
Mr. Nakasin. Have a great day. Okay.
Okay, so now we're going to go to number 12, I think.
Give me one more.
Yes, number 12, Mr. Chair.
Number 12.
Am I 2021-005-225-120 North 53rd Street?
Bart Levy is the attorney.
letter of support from 44th Ward
Democratic RCO
Mr. Levy
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please
my name is Bart Levy
B-A-R-T-L-E-V-Y
do you swear a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes Mr. Chairman I do
could you identify your client and relationship to the property
my client is angel of fun llc okay our vice chair has a few questions
thank you mr levy do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of
the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
We have all of that.
Okay, great.
You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen.
All right, let me see if I can do that.
Green button at the bottom.
Green button at the bottom.
All right.
I hit share.
Great. Now the screen's frozen. Unfortunately, I...
Okay. We have somebody here who can help.
Try one more time.
All right. Try this.
one more time
okay should we have somebody could be helpful
okay uh yes mr uh levy do you have your documents open on the screen
Mr. Levy I'm not sure if he just having um computer issues
okay so Mr. Levy
Okay, so Mr. Levy.
And it looks like he's connecting there, I'm sure.
Hello?
Hi, Mr. Levy, how are we doing?
You know, I honestly wish this worked as well as it should, but...
Okay, so how do we do this?
in this group of i still have one more case yeah why don't i go to the case and i'll come back to
you as soon as i'm done okay thank you all right sure number 13 mi 2022
you'll have to get out mr levy i'll have to get out all right
MI 2022
004 555
1711 to 17
Rittenhouse
David Orphanides
is a complaint
against L&I
and also Leonard Reuter is the
attorney for the city
they're both
coming back in as panelists
thank you
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board hi how are you good good good thank you
could you state your name and i'll i'll swear you in and spell it please sure my name is david
orphanetes last name is spelled o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Mr. Reuter? Good afternoon. May it please the board,
Leonard F. Reuter with the City of Philadelphia. That's R-E-U-T-E-R. Do you swear a firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I would also point out that this is
a an appeal from a zoning violation so um the city inspector uh gerardo or gerardo uh gonzalez
is also um out there i don't know if we're going to get to his testimony yet or anything like that
but i i do want to let you know that okay for sure so why don't we start with mr orphanages
versus and okay i mean typically in these cases it's the city that presents well good uh again i
you know it's it is 513 this is a somewhat uh different type of case for you all so i don't
know if you want us to just present opening arguments and then get into the case or if
this case is even going to get concluded today or how all right why don't we go with opening
our arguments we'll see where we stand all right well mr chair can excuse me one moment this is
hillary can we just um address that we did have uh another um that we did have another attorney
who had submitted exhibits and with and witnesses um in this case um and were requesting to be a
party could please address that issue first um you know we we do not believe the neighbors have a
standing in this. This is an issue between the complainant and the city's L&I department. So we
do not believe that they have standing. That doesn't mean that somebody could not call them
as a witness. Right. Okay. And that's the city's understanding. We believe that we can call or
even Mr. Orfinity's can call. And the person's name for the record is Leslie Gerstein. She's
the attorney. We believe that we could call her client as a witness. But I would note that
because her client is represented by an attorney that Ms. Gerstein would be allowed to be present
and, you know, online if that questioning occurs. We don't have an objection to that, but, you know,
the city would have, it would just get really weird in a code enforcement case for her to be
entered as a party. But, and it's totally up to you whether you want to allow her to examine or
cross-examine anybody. Again, we don't take a position on that. Yeah, right. So just by way
of opening, this matter concerns, we think this is a really simple question that ultimately boils
down to a purely legal issue because we think that all of the relevant facts are not in dispute.
And the relevant facts are there is a bar. It is a fairly well-known bar or it had been a well-known
bar operating at a different location during the pandemic. They closed, they have since reopened
in a space that is part of what I think they would call a boutique hotel. The boutique hotel
is located at 1711 to 17 Rittenhouse Square and that boutique hotel
Rittenhouse Square, and that boutique hotel operates by way of a variance that was originally
granted in 1998 for the property formerly known as 1713 to 1715 Rittenhouse Square,
and over the years from 1998 through 2005, what was originally characterized as a bed
and breakfast, which doesn't mean anything, that was never a defined term in the code
at that point, that expanded to, so now it encompasses what were formerly three separate
parcels, and now it goes from 1711 to 1717, Rittenhouse Square.
The permit applications at the time and the zoning approvals, which again were all submitted
by Mr. Orfanides himself,
in which the city's also adopted
as part of its exhibits,
so what we're calling the Zoning Archive.
Again, none of this is disputed, I think,
and I think Mr. Orfanides would jump in
if he thought there was a dispute.
So that operated as a hotel.
At the time,
those approvals were granted by the board,
that is all the way from 1998 to 2005.
The zoning code merely defined hotel as 10 or more dwelling units devoted to temporary housing, and at the time, they may have accessory commercial facilities for the use of its guests.
So since 2012, we now don't use the word hotel, we use the phrase visitor accommodation, and the current zoning code says that visitor accommodations, and this is 14-102 sub, I'm sorry, 14-601 sub 7 sub N.
and is in Nancy. Visitor Accommodations in it defined, the code
says it's uses that provide temporary lodging for fewer than 30 days where
rents are charged by the day or by the week or portion thereof
and may also provide food or entertainment primarily to visitors or tourists.
So there's no dispute
I think that the bar that is currently located at the hotel
and I believe the hotel's name is 1711 on
Rittenhouse um 1715 on Rittenhouse I'm sorry 1715 on Rittenhouse thank you thank you David um
the bar which is located at the hotel is known as Franklin Mortgage and Investment Company and
that's just kind of a weird name because the prior that was the name of the the bar when it
originally opened and it's named after um what was back in the uh days of prohibition a a speakeasy
that used to be located at somewhere else.
I forget where.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
The point is that the bar advertises to the public.
The bar has a web presence.
They have an Instagram presence.
They have been covered in the news.
6ABC had a thing about them.
They've gotten extensive coverage in the media, reviews.
And we're talking since they have reopened at this location.
It was also well covered prior.
But what happened before, we don't think, how the bar operated before they went to this location is not at all relevant to this case.
So the question is, they advertise to the public.
They have a certain number of people that patronize the bar that are not guests of the hotel.
And again, I don't think there's any dispute that there are certainly a portion of the clientele of the bar are not guests of the hotel and that the bar clearly markets itself to the general public.
so the issue is whether or not um this bar primarily serves food or provides food and we
we can see that the word food uh incorporates or subsumes uh drinks um because they don't
actually serve food at this place i mean some snacks or something um
The question is whether or not a bar that advertises itself and is open to the public and has at any given time when it's operating a certain portion of its clientele who are not guests of the hotel,
whether that bar is providing food primarily to visitors and tourists.
I think Mr. Orphanides and I agree that in the definition of visitor accommodations, when it uses the word visitors, it has to mean guests of the hotel, because otherwise it means literally everyone in the world that might happen to go there, and therefore there wouldn't be any purpose to having that kind of restriction.
Uh, and that visitors means guests of the hotel. And that's the definition is visitor accommodations, which is now just what we use, uh, to cover hotels, motels, bed and breakfast, et cetera, et cetera.
And that visitors means guests of the hotel, and that's the definition.
the real issue here is what is a tourist and i know mr there is one little factual dispute uh
which which i wouldn't say it's a little factual dispute but it's how like how many people uh or
what percentage of people in the bar at any given time are in fact guests of the hotel and mr
orphanetes is going to argue if it's less if it's more than 50 percent then they are primarily
serving visitors of the hotel. And I think we would concede that that's probably correct.
The problem here is that L&I is not in any kind of position to go to and conduct an inspection
of the bar and literally interview everybody and find out where they're sleeping tonight.
We don't know how many people are guests at the hotel. We do know that the bar advertises
extensively to the public. They have a strong public presence, a strong web presence. They
are covered extensively in the media. And that the current operation of the bar and the hotel,
they have a placard outside, an A-frame, which indicates that this Franklin mortgage is in the
hotel. So again, on its face, it seems self-evident that the bar intends to be open to the general
public. So the way we look at it is that it's the difference between, say, if you're in a hotel
that has gym and pool facilities for guests that is not open to the public, that's fine. That's
what hotels are allowed to do that. And I think they're even required to have that if they want
to be like a two or three star hotel or whatever. But if you have a hotel that happens to have a
Philadelphia sporting club in the hotel, and that sporting club is open to anybody that is a member
of the public that wants to join the sporting club, that is not part of the hotel, but is in
fact a non-accessory use. It would either be a separate main use that happens to be in the same
building or be considered a non-accessory use. So we think that this is more like having a sporting
club at the hotel as opposed to just simply having a gym for guests. We think that the definition
in visitor accommodations means you have tea service or coffee service or maybe a wine night
or something for guests at the hotel,
and if they have friends or people that are visiting them
while they're in town, that's fine.
And we just think it's self-evident that the marketing
and the position that Franklin Mortgage has taken here
indicates that they are primarily serving the general public.
So we do have Inspector Gonzalez, he's here.
He's able to testify about his observations.
I will concede that Mr. Gonzalez was not able to enter the bar the first night he did an inspection or attempted an inspection back in April.
But he has since gone there. He was there yesterday.
So again, I was hoping we can get a stipulation about what his testimony would be and what the layout is of the place.
And, you know, we just leave it up to the board to determine whether or not, you know, this bar, this hotel and the bar comply with the definition of visitor accommodation or whether they've gone beyond that and now would therefore need, well, in this case, probably a variance.
Because the zoning classification here is RM1, which actually doesn't permit visitor accommodations.
That's a lawful variance.
That's fine.
But also does not permit a bar restaurant to operate at this location.
So, like I said, we can get into the specific.
Why don't we let Mr. Orfanides do his opening, and then we'll figure out what we're going to do.
David?
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. So I represent and I represent the owner of the property. I represent 1711 to 1717 Rittenhouse LLC.
see. They purchased the property at bank sale. It was a hotel closed. The family that operated
the hotel previously were actually clients of mine at a different property. I've been
Had a different property.
I've been inside that property when it was previously operated.
inside that property when it was previously operated.
Saw the inside of it.
We had meetings there for a different case.
My clients purchased it in 21.
They secured a building permit.
While they were rehabilitating the hotel, they secured a building permit to rehabilitate the first floor and the cellar.
to convert that into a restaurant lounge area, meeting room, conference area for the hotel as part of the hotel.
That permit was issued, as I said, in 21.
That permit included a full kitchen in the cellar.
um it called for an occupancy of 84 people indicating uh those plans that were approved
by ellen i indicated that the hotel the guest room occupancy was 38 so they clearly permitted
a greater occupancy than was then are the number of uh guests that stayed there um this was during
obviously during the it was in march of 21 that that building permit was issued um during the
pandemic uh my clients you'll hear you'd hear testimony that they were unable to get the
equipment because of obviously because of the well-known supply chain issues so they scaled back
and moved forward with an amended building permit application with the same occupancy
but without the full kitchen in the cellar still their intention um once this is sorted out
to finish that kitchen.
Unfortunately, now with the citation that's happened
and the issues that have been raised,
we don't know what that kitchen is going to be serving
until this is resolved.
Len mentioned an inspector coming out back in April.
That was the first day that the restaurant lounge opened.
The restaurant lounge is part of the hotel.
It's not a separate business.
You'll hear testimony that while it was a separate business at one time, my clients purchased the name, purchased the recipes, and hired one of the owners as the manager.
But the restaurant lounge meeting conference area functions solely as part of the hotel.
It's not a separate entity.
You'll see on the plans and photographs that you can access it from within the hotel as well as from the rear street or alley.
It's Latimer Street that's also known as Schubert Alley.
That's the rear of properties on the north side of the 1700 block of Rittenhouse Square.
Properties that are front on the west side of 17th Street to mid-rise, high-rise buildings.
And then the rear of properties on the south side of the 1700 block of Locust Street.
On our side of Rittenhouse Square, you'll see that there's only one single family dwelling that's next to us.
There's a couple across the street on South Rittenhouse Square.
Then behind us, across Schubert Alley, they're the rears of multi-use buildings, commercial on the ground floor and some residential units above.
So my clients relied on those permits, expended building permits, which showed an occupancy of 84 people and spent a lot of money.
And you'd see doing very nice improvements to that rear portion of the hotel to make it suitable for the, once again, restaurant lounge meeting conference room area.
the day we opened I got a call about two o'clock before we even opened you'll hear testimony that
Ellen and I showed up at our door claiming telling us that we couldn't serve people who
weren't guests before we'd even opened I got on the phone communicated with the law department
We talked about the definition of visitor accommodations.
I understand that later in the evening, Inspector Gonzalez went to come out, but did not go inside the building.
Did not go inside the restaurant lounge meeting conference room area that night.
In fact, the only time he's been inside the meeting conference room restaurant lounge area was yesterday afternoon.
I happened to be in my car nearby.
I, the manager, Jason, who was one of the owners of the Franklin Mortgage and Investment
Company when it was a standalone business, contacted me and I went over.
There were no customers at the time.
It was, I think, around 1230 in the afternoon.
So, what Mr. Reuter stated, I think, is extremely important here.
So what Mr. Reuter stated, I think, is extremely important.
And I think just based upon that statement and what I've stated now, which I don't believe Mr. Reuter will contest, that the violation notice, and if I can share my screen real quickly, you'll see, states that there was an inspection.
and while there was an inspection of the lobby there was maybe a minute maybe an inspection of
the lobby may have been inspection of the outside of the building there was no inspection at the
time the violation notice was issued of the inside of the area in question and there was no inspection
while anybody was there to make the determination as to who the patrons were and where they came
from. So on its face, you have a violation notice that was issued without basis, without a true
inspection, and should therefore be dismissed on its face. In addition, Len was correct that
here we are looking at the definition of hotel with the key phrase being
providing food and may provide food and entertainment primarily to visitors and
tourists. If you look here at the violation notice, it says a use permit authorizing
non-accessory bar restaurant is required where only accessory food service to the hotel is
permitted. There is no reference to accessory food service in any of the permits. There's
reference in the provisos from the coordinating RCO in the area, the Center City Residence
Association. You'll see from my exhibits that food service was contemplated. However, it's
not this this we're not talking about accessory of accessory food service we're permitted and
this is very different than the analogy mr reuter used about a gym the definition of visitor
accommodation doesn't say this they may also provide a gym primarily to visitors and tourists
or to visitors and that you would be in violation it doesn't say you can you can provide it at all
But by saying primarily, it means not exclusively, clearly. And so here, on its face, the violation of this fails in multiple ways. And we would get into that. We submitted a legal memo that talks about the need. We have a vested right. We provided licenses. We relied on the licenses. We have a vested right.
We innocently relied on those permits, not licenses, permits, and now we're finding out that, you know, this area that called for 84 people where the hotel only has 38, that we can't serve anybody else other than who's there.
so without the inspector having actually been in at any time while people were there
the only people so aside from the violation notice i think with this case should just we
should be upheld just on what i brought up about the violation notes it's it's just it's defective
but if you want to get if we want to get into the definition of visitor accommodation again i don't
think there's any dispute what primarily means you know i have my merriam webster's up on my phone
And it talks about what, you know, for the most part, then it talks about what most is, is, you know, the majority, and majority is more than half.
And the only people that know how this space is used right now are my clients.
And we're prepared to present today information based upon hard statistical data that my clients gathered regarding their operations that not only show the breakdown of the whole hotel in terms of physical space, but the use of the very limited space, the 13% of the overall hotel area, where this area, this food and beverage and meeting and conference area is located.
And as you can see, on the weekends, that area, it's only 30% of the time that it all is open to anybody who's not primarily a visitor or a tourist.
My people, or my witnesses, will state that 24 hours a day that space is available and utilized by the hotel, 24 hours a day, 100% of the time.
but that during this window this very limited window 5 p.m to 2 a.m on weekends and 5 p.m to
12 a.m on weeknights Sunday nights that more than 50 percent of the people that come in are either
guests or tourists we're the only ones that know and I don't think that there's anybody that can
refute what they say and here again it's not like they're just going off the top of their head they
have hard evidence to support it. And so based upon, but for both of those reasons, we think
that without even having to present anything more in this case, the issues with the violation notice
that Mr. Reuter himself has confirmed is a basis for upholding this appeal.
has confirmed is a basis for upholding this this appeal but if we get into the case if that's not
enough for on its face to dismiss you know to dismiss this violation notice and uphold our
appeal right here and now without any evidence being other evidence aside than what we presented
or provided previously being presented to the board or any testimony we feel that there will
be testimony by the only people that know whether we're in compliance and we are in compliance with
the definition and that this establishment, this area of this portion of the hotel is in compliance
with the zoning permits that exists for the property. Thank you. Leonard, let me ask you
this. How low of a case do you think you'd put on? I think the city's case would be relatively,
I mean, the inspector's testimony really, I mean, if I were to call him, I would really just call
him to uh confirm the um authenticity of the violation notice that this is a a true copy of
the violation notice uh maybe not the not the one that mr orphanetes has marked up but you know
something like that but that's again that's already in the file it's what was actually appealed from
so uh and again i believe there are other there may be other witnesses um that the city could
call but again i think if i could just briefly respond to what mr orphanetes was saying we do
think that in fact uh first of all a person can get it because they are permitted to have food
service they can make their kitchen and seating area as big as they want and plenty of hotels
and motel maybe not motels but hotels have conference rooms and they do there are other
things that hotels do that would be open to the public that's fine uh we're only talking about
with food service here. So again, they can have, you know, so we're not going to dispute that
during the day when the bar is not actually operating as Franklin Mortgage, that there are
people that will be sitting down there. I don't, again, it's not clear whether they would, they're
actually eating, whether there is any kind of food or drink service at the time. But again,
that doesn't really matter. We're talking about, so we can, we don't have any problem. The building
permit that they obtained to renovate the property and to put in an occupancy of 84
persons at that bar kitchen area, yeah, they have a vested right to that.
We're not disputing that, but because it's not up to the plans examiner to make a determination
about how big your restaurant should be, but that being the case, as far as there not having
then bar patrons present at the time uh of that the bar is operating again it seems like there's
a kind of contradiction there in the argument so it's like well if there's really nobody there
during the day uh even though it is open to guests of the hotel uh and the only time that
there's really any number of people or any significant number of people at the location
is at night when it's operating as Franklin Mortgage, it kind of like doesn't really matter
that much. I mean, there's no question that the bar would not be open to, is primarily open to
guests during the day when the bar is not actually even operating. And as far as there not being
anybody there, L&I can and has issued violations for, say, a property being used as multifamily
um because we go and we look at the property and we can see uh we don't necessarily have to
see people uh going in and out of various apartments or whatever we can see that there
would be multiple mailboxes so let's go back how much time do you think you're going to need
i mean to put on the city's case probably a half hour uh i mean david yeah i would say
half an hour to 45 minutes so look look it's very late I think we're going to have to bring this
back um and I'll tell Lakeisha let's try to get this done as soon as possible right we'll bring
it back and we'll we'll finish it up okay sure we did it's just you know we haven't got to the
3 30 list yet so we've got a lot of people waiting and I just don't want to tie the whole place up
as we go back and forth with this okay that's fine all right we'll be in touch with you okay
would it be thanks i understand all right thank you i appreciate every your comments thanks okay
let's go back to sure do we now go back to number 12. i sure hope so mr levy
Mr. Levy, I'm sorry.
i'm sorry if you're in the audience can you wait
If you're in the audience, can you raise your hand, please?
I'm not sure if he's able to, but I did go ahead and promote him to panelists.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Levy?
Mr. Levy?
Mr. Levy, you have to unmute yourself
Mr. Levy
Acacia, do you see him?
Yes, he's available
He just unmuted
Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy, how do we look on our computer?
All right.
Let me see if I can do any of this.
So you would just open your documents first that you would like to share?
They're open.
And then hover around the bottom of the screen to that green share screen.
You got it.
All right. Is that shared?
No, we don't see the document. We just see the files on the screen.
You don't see the document. You just see the files.
I mean, I'm sorry. We don't see like the actual pictures or anything. We just see your files.
Probably going to have them.
Does that show?
No. So what you can do is stop sharing.
Stop sharing.
And then click the share screen.
And then it's going to show you on your Windows what screen you would like to share.
then click on the documents if i click window then uh the file opens up
and i hit share right yes
now okay the computer's processing again so so mr levy yeah no this this case was mark must be
heard and here's what we're going to do i'm going to continue it and then wait a minute wait a minute
okay so i i think what you have to do here is you've got to click on the different like for
instance the rcl the deed all these files you click so click on click on the first one zoning
hearing notice all righty zoning hearing notice yes how about that one and it looks like you have
to share yeah i think you have to open the document then share your screen
all right the share key vanished now it's back now it's vanished again all right mr levy this
happens every time mr chair so this is a must be heard don't put your mr levy just listen to me
pick your head up here so what we're going to do is this was mark must be heard yeah what i'm going
to do is we're going to continue this and then what i want you to do is to call the office
and they'll help you prepare for the next hearing is it okay yeah it's very generous chairman right
we have a we have a we have a group of people in there that their job is to help people and
they'll gladly help you get ready for this help me once before i i just don't know what i'm doing
wrong this time well but we'll we'll we'll find it we'll get it fixed for you okay thank you for
your patience all right is there any oh boy is there anyone in the audience from the 2 p.m list
i see no hands here we're gonna go we're gonna go to the the 3 30 list and we're gonna move as
quick as we can my name is bill bergman i will be chairing this meeting with me is carol tenary
our Vice Chair. Present Mr. Chair. And Ismail Shahid our Board Secretary.
Present Mr. Chairman. Also here is our Board Attorney Hillary Emerson and our ZBA hearing
Supervisor Lakeisha Dandy. Our virtual format be advised proceedings are being recorded
by participating in a knowledge agreement to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting
tonyasunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call
267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, the question-answer button.
And lastly, the question-answer button on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Semple.
Let's look at what we have available on this afternoon list.
And first of all, I have number two, MI 2021-004833-2436 West Allegheny Avenue is a withdrawal.
That case is withdrawn.
I also have number four, MI-2022-002-822-6701 Rising Sun Avenue, Julio Tuxedo.
There is no, we have no documents for this project.
Is Julio available?
okay chair i'm sorry chair did you ask for someone in reference to that case yes i did
okay i have someone with the name roger santos well put him on i'll talk to him
mr santos please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr santos are you involved in 6701 rising sun avenue yes sir okay so we do not have any doc
exhibits for that this is the first listing the case is going to be continued okay thank you so
what i would recommend you do is you call the office and they'll help you on what documents
and how you need to get them to them. Okay. Okay. So Mr. Santos. Yeah. Sorry. This is Hillary. Mr.
Santos, what is your role in this case? Cause you are not the listed applicant.
Yes. So my dad is, he's a, I'm a translator for him. I'm the manager for the company.
Okay. So if your dad, your dad is going, unless he has an attorney, your dad will need to be the
one that presents. Um, and he will need to let the office know that he needs a translator. We
We cannot use family members or friends as translators.
We have to want us to be provided by the board.
Okay, thank you.
All right, thank you.
And number six, MI 2021-004-842-426 East Clearfield.
Maria Rodriguez is the owner.
We have no exhibits for that.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, so that case is continued.
And also MI-2022-002-908-740-44 South Street, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands, Chair.
We're going to go to number one, MI-2022-002-916-1948 East Stella Street.
sean ward is the attorney letter of support from somerset neighbors for better living
mr ward is coming back in as a panelist
good afternoon mr ward good afternoon mr chairman sean ward on behalf of the owner applicant
Laura Crespo. My name is spelled S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D. Office address of 331 East Street Road,
Trevos, PA, 19053. Thank you. Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I most certainly do. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Mr. Ward, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of the ownership
tax compliance, refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes to all the above.
That's wonderful. You may proceed and share your screen, which you already have. Okay,
don't let my 143-page exhibit packet scare you, because it's not going to take that long to get
through this but i just wanted to document the file in case there was any questions um i do
represent laura crespo a long-time client and a friend uh her and her husband john uh they
own the property in 1948 east stella street uh which is the subject of today
John, you're muted.
john you're muted
I'm sorry. I don't know how that happened, but my cursor has been doing cursed things
for the last half hour. Again, I represent Laura Crespo and her husband John. Laura is the registered
record owner of 1948 East Seller Street, subject of today's hearing. I've submitted my typical
exhibit packet, which includes A1 as the notice of refusal. The application was for the documentation
of an existing five-family dwelling in an existing structure. Obviously, it was refused because the
use is not permitted in RSA 5, and therefore, we seek a confirmation of a use variance
for this property. Pardon me. A2 is the ZBA application. A3, project information form.
A4, proof of ownership. There are numerous deeds attached. The property was transferred several
times, but from Laura to her and her husband to Laura, but she has been the owner of this property
since at least 1987, as I see. A5 is proof of tax clearance. A6 is a location map. A7 is the deed
map. A8 are photographs, subject property, aerial views, street views, posting, and the interior
apartments. A9 is the RCO letter of support from Somerset Neighbors for Better Living.
A10, if submitted, I would ask that the district council person's letter be marked as A10.
I think the most relevant zoning history for the property that the board should be aware of is that the board vanted a variance for 1942 through 52, East Stella Street, for a lot consolidation of two lots into one, for the legalization of 10 apartments, five apartments in 1948 and five apartments in 1950, East Stella Street.
and contractor's storage, shed, garage in the rear.
A12 is the zoning map.
A13 is the aerial photograph.
So with regard to my brief comments,
the lot consolidation was never completed.
I know there was a deed recorded by Mrs. Crespo
from her to herself for both parcels,
but it was not a deed of consolidation.
It was just a deed conveying to herself the same properties she already owned.
So it remained two properties.
However, each had five apartments, which have been continuously occupied.
And the zoning history will show that 1950 East Snellich Street was used as a five-family dwelling since 1933.
And 1948 East Stella Street has been continuously used as a five apartment unit building since 1946.
The problem is a rental license for 1948 was incorrectly issued for three units at 1948.
We don't know how that happened.
And then trying to correct it, it was near impossible to figure it out, you know, by Ms. Crespo.
So to confirm the use and correct the rental license, licensing issuance told us we needed a new zoning permit for this property.
So and I would point out that they are well invested, especially on the 1900 block of East Dollar Street,
because these are the numerous properties that the Crespos own on that block, maintain, rent, and take care of.
So in the packet, obviously we have the exhibit packet, the application of appeal, the project information form,
my transmittal letter to the board filing the appeal, the numerous pages of deeds, you know, showing, you know, here it is, 1942-48.
so I don't want to waste the board's time. They're in the exhibit packet. If the board has any
questions with regards to any specific deed, I'd be more than happy to answer, but I think it's
well established that she's the owner of this property and has been for quite some time.
The next exhibit obviously is the proof of tax compliance paid through 2022.
The property is located on East Stella Street.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, it's located 1948 East Stella Street.
It's an adjoining property to 1950-52, and it's located just to the northwest of Emerald Street in the Kensington section.
and it's located just to the northwest of emerald street in the kensington section
as you can see the property is approximately 57 feet wide
fronting on east stella street a google aerial shows the two buildings together the one with
the tan the red brick in the front is the subject property 1950-52 is to the left
here's just another picture of the front of the property with the red dot on the front like
pointed out another shot shown 1950
my apologies to the board i have i have a green pirate partners meeting carol and there's a
traffic accident or some police fire emergency right down the street and they can't get here
But anyway, again, this is a picture of the fence, the posting.
And then we have some pictures of the interior staircase.
As you can see, it's got the fire extinguishers, pull stations.
I'm going crazy.
All right.
and then um hillary contacted me and said the board uh is uh you know appreciative of
interior photos of the uh the units so as you can see these were taken before it was occupied
but they're their file photos that the crestos keep
to show prospective tenants what the what the property looks like
first floor rear
second floor front
as you can see these are not new renovations but they are well maintained second floor rear
and then there's one unit on the third floor
this is the letter of support from Somerset neighbors there were 25 people attending the
meeting. There was a final vote of 16 to 1 in support of the application. They were well familiar
with the property and knew it had been used as such for the longest time. Again, reference to
the 2003 decision by the zoning board granting the variance for the lot consolidation and confirming
10 units, five in each. And the zoning history goes on and on and on. There's plenty of,
here's one uh from 19 wait it looks like oh that looks like oh three as you can see the present
use was five apartments here i'm sorry we'll go to uh five apartments in 1948 five apartments in
1950 the proposed use was 10 apartments in the consolidated building again the consolidation
never occurred. And then I want to go to page 120. As you can see, this is the permit from 1946
for 1948 East Stella Street. The stamps don't come through on the scan, but you can see it's
from 11-5-1946. And it was to convert a present three-story dwelling into five apartments.
uh so the first floor had two apartments second floor had two apartments third floor has one
exactly as it exists today so unless the board has anything else i don't want to waste your time
you've been uh diligent all day going through these but here's the zoning map and again my
typical area do you want to adopt your testimony with your client yes if laura could raise her
hands she is she is present if if not any in the interest of the judicial economy
thank you very much i did review everything i did review everything with her so questions from the
board and mr chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no handshare.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
Since this is a legalization of a currently nonconforming use of the property and the applicant is not expanding the nonconformity,
the City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the use variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022, 002916, 1940 East Stella Street.
I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Yes, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Have a great evening.
Okay, number three, MI 2021-004-665, 5832 Old York Road.
Lori Maislin is the attorney.
Joint meeting by Council Member Bass's office with Area RCOs.
Council Member Bass
provided meeting some reform
the board denied the request
for special exception
also received
a letter of opposition from Council
Woman Bass attached
Chair Maslin
oh sorry Chair
she's coming back in as a panelist
thank you
Ms. Nasling, you have to unmute yourself.
I did that.
I always forget to click that one.
And let me start video there.
How are you?
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
It's Lori Hahn Maslin, L-O-R-I-H-A-H-N, and then M-A-S-L-I-N, no hyphen in the last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My clients are Andre Lane, Naheem Mohamed, and Taheem Jackson, and they have a lease with the property owner for 5830 through 32 Old York Road.
We have provided a copy of the lease as part of the exhibit packet.
So our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Good evening or good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership,
tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes. Okay,
great you may proceed and begin by sharing your screen okay i think i'm sharing
um hopefully these will open up and i will not have the same problems as mr levy
as you can see uh this is a referral unlike most of the cases that you've heard today
uh this is a referral this we have to you have to open it up it's not opening yes we still see your
files uh i'm showing it is sharing yes so you have to stop sharing first open the file that
you want us to see yeah okay that share screen button
and it should uh give you like a list of documents that's on your screen now just click on the one
that you want us to see. Okay. And then share screen. Did that do it? Yes. Yes. We're looking
at the refusal. Excellent. Okay. So it's going to be a little harder, but anyway, um, excuse me.
Uh, what we have here is a special exception, uh, unlike most of the other cases today,
which are variances. As a result this is looked at a little differently by the board. Basically
this is a use, it has been quantified because of the way the zoning code has been written
as a nightclub or private club. And what this really is, is it's not intended to be a nightclub.
It is more intended under the designation of nightclubs and private clubs, under the definition as more of a private club or a banquet hall.
And you will hear from Naim Mohamed, who is waiting to testify, that the purpose of this is to bring the community together to have events.
This is a property that will never have a liquor license.
as per the lease and the owner of the property, and I can bring that up, but you have it as part
of your packet. This property is not for the purposes of having a liquor license. It is not
for the purpose of having people in and drinking alcohol, you know, just because it's a bar or
in and drinking alcohol, you know, just because it's a bar or a nightclub and having people
lined up to get into the premises. What it is, is more of a community space that is to be for,
and what I'm going to do is I'm going to bring up some of the plans that I have.
as soon as I get to that. Let me open that up. And there we go.
And hopefully that will allow me to share it.
Green button on the bottom. There you go. There you go. What we have here is this property is
located on the corner of old york road and conlin street as you'll see the entrances are in the front
along here can you see my pointer there we can um and there is a large front area that um also there
is a um what would be a it's what will be used as sort of a dj kind of booth thing for you know if
there's a wedding or a retirement party or that kind of thing that booth already existed when it
was a furniture store. I have a feeling that back in the days of the furniture store, that was
used to oversee the floor where the furniture was and be able to see customers and interactions.
Towards the back, there are double bathrooms. They intend to put a kitchen in eventually,
but for now, it would be a premises that would be catered events. My clients intend to also
open this up for community meetings to support the local community. These guys are, these three
gentlemen are locals. They are from the area and they are familiar with the area. And this is,
as I started to say, this is being defined as a as a nightclub because that's what the
that's what the code defines it as. And I'm going to pull up a picture of the exterior of the
neighborhood, and you will see that essentially this neighborhood is, whoops, there's nothing to
show there. That's not good. This neighborhood is a commercial. It's a CMX2. This is directly
in front of the building uh there is a gas station across whoops um there is a gas station across
the street let me see if that'll come up is that coming up yeah okay great yep um and then you know
That is directly across the street. Let me bring up some of the other photos and I apologize I
have to do this one at a time. I am technically challenged as apparently Mr. Levy was and I feel
for him. This will also show you this is across the street and we have as well.
would you show the property itself could you do that sure i can
this is a um
this is a small picture of it it is the black building on the side
okay and i should have a better picture of that but you will see next door
is um a clinic i believe it may be a methadone clinic
This is an entirely commercial area except when you get to behind the building.
And you will see that the objections raised by the community and by Councilwoman Bass's office
and you'll see this is along the sidewalk of the building. This is standing directly
in front of the building that shows you down towards where it meets up with Broad Street.
So this building, previously a furniture store, is, as I said, is CMX2.
This is a building that, for purposes of the code, it's considered a nightclub or a private club,
but it's going to be used more as a community banquet hall type of place.
Eventually, a kitchen will be built so that caterers can have additional use of some facilities.
uh the inside of the premises has counsel counsel counsel let me ask you a question yes
The inside of the premises has been wallowed.
Can I cancel? Cancel?
so what you just said to us was that case made to the council person and also the rco
and they just didn't agree with yes yes it was and and their their problems really are about
their concern and this is something that you as a board can do and you can issue an approval of this
with a proviso with it with a with a proviso that if this property changes hands and my clients are
no longer running this place it's no longer going it it will have to be um they will have to come
and ask for new zoning i understand yeah what they're i think i think the greatest concerns
of the um of the neighborhood are that this is going to be it become just just another bar
just another place where um where people are going to congregate okay they have issues
excuse me with my dogs barking um so what we have here is we have three guys that um are looking to
uh better their community and do something within their community and at what i would like to do is
So I would like to have Naeem Muhammad come in and explain to you their –
So what do you do – well, listen to me.
Listen to me.
Why don't you put – get him to put his hand up, and then what we'll do is he'll adopt your testimony,
and then you'll give him a chance to say –
Absolutely.
So why don't we bring him up?
Absolutely.
Chair, we have someone by the name of Andrew Lane with their hand up.
I'll allow them –
Is that yours?
No, it's Naeem Muhammad.
Mohamed, unless he's coming in under a different name.
Let me...
Mr. Mohamed.
If you want, I can allow them to speak.
Yeah, why don't you let Mr. Lane in?
Mr. Lane, you're free to speak.
Hi, Mr. Lane, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Lane Mohamed.
I'm sitting next to Andre Lane, the co-owner.
Wait a minute.
hi hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter my name is naim muhammad
n is a nancy a i m is a mary last name muhammad m-u-h a m is a mary m is a mary a b is in david
right you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes proceed counsel thank you uh mr chair uh mr muhammad i have you and mr lane and mr jackson
been listening into the hearing up to this point? Yes. Okay. And have you heard all of the
testimony that I've given to this point? Yes. Okay. And to the best of your knowledge and
belief, is this testimony that I have been given true and correct? Yes. Okay. And would you,
for the purposes of this, adopt my testimony as your own? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr.
Mohamed, why don't you tell the board a little bit about the project in your own words from
where you and your partners are coming from?
Well, about two years ago, my partners and I, we got together and we sat on and we wanted
to do something for our families in the community as well, as far as having something for our
With COVID and everything that was happening, a lot of our family events and a lot of plannings
we had you know for get-togethers and thanksgiving and and other sort of things like that um were
canceled and uh we thought that you know um together uh we would come together and try to
make an event space you know somewhere close to um our neighborhoods somewhere close you know to
where we grew up with to um whole personal private events um community events things of sorts of
natures um where we didn't have to actually like come into hotels or high price uh venues you know
to come in and bring it back to our neighborhood um just to have peaceful quiet events we had with
your family um other than that uh we really uh we had no other use uh for the building um
that's basically it i mean in a sum to all right thank you questions questions from the board
no mr chairman i have none no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have charles richardson hi mr richardson good afternoon again mr chair
so it's it's almost nighttime but that's okay good evening mr you've already been sworn
to state your name and we'll take your testimony charles richardson from the office of councilwoman
and Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Mr. Chair, this has been a long case.
Mr. Chair, this has been a long case, just like this day has been a long day. The gentleman
approached me back in, I believe it was January or something along those lines, and they were
trying to go pro se. They did not do, they did not understand what they were supposed to do,
and then they did not read and understand that they would need to get an attorney.
So once we had a meeting scheduled, then I told them that they had to get an attorney,
and then had to continue the case, and it's been ongoing and ongoing. We did end up eventually
having an RCO meeting that I conducted. Also, the two RCOs in the area concerned the community,
which I believe Ms. Sandra Broders will probably be coming on after me, and Westo Glen Worcester
were also parts of the meeting as well.
It was well attended for that community.
In actuality, we had 27 individuals that voted against it.
One individual voted for it.
The two RCOs are also against it as well.
There is no real hardship here with granting this special exception.
Only hardship is that the gentleman signed a long-term lease
without any contingencies in the event that they were unsuccessful in securing the granting
of the special exception. It's a bad project. I mean, we salute that they're trying to become
entrepreneurs and things along those lines, but the project is bad for that location at that
place. Laurie has tried to broach this as being a commercial area, but there was fully residential
in backup including an apartment building and and and residences along uh common street and
15th street that will be affected by that by this they have no parking plan they have nothing they
you know the only thing that they have is is is an idea uh and they actually had did the work prior to
uh getting getting this done and unfortunately when i guess when they tried to do it the
covet hit and they've been being hit with the uh rental fees ever since then so it's made it a very
much of a situation
where they're trying to rush this through
and it's just not rushable because the neighborhood
does not want it. Councilwoman is vehemently
against it. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Chairman, if I could
just...
Listen to me.
Why don't I let anyone...
Let's finish this if there's anybody else in the audience.
Then I'll come back to you, okay?
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Sandra Votas.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Can you hear me?
I can.
Okay, very good.
My name is Sandra, S-A-N-D-R-A, last name Broadus, B-R-O-A-D-U-S, and I am presenting on behalf of a concerned community association.
Okay, all right, okay.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
To make this simpler, we did submit a statement.
I'd just like to submit it for record, if that's okay.
At the required RCO meeting on 6-30-22, a concerned community association met with this
applicant and community residents who unanimously opposed a variance for a nightclub, stating
that the location is too close to residential homes in a struggling, in a neighborhood
struggling with pre-existing burdens and saturation from SEPTA's Broad and Isle
Transportation Hub and Business Corridor Extension. Also, this applicant is a tenant
And community members do not want a revolving door of nightclub and event rooms to be permanently zoned into this challenge location while creating an additional burden for local police to monitor.
Other concerns are a 40-unit apartment building right next door with a dangerous shared driveway behind the building noted for drugs, prostitution, and gang activity.
Multiple apartment complexes are within two blocks.
There is no off-street parking.
near blocks already need permit parking just to park into their home. A nuisance trash dump site
exists directly across the street as a result of the tight location that is also shared with a KFC
location that is also shared with a KFC on the corner and confusion about.
on the corner.
Why don't we do it, Ms. Brodus, do me a favor. Concentrate on this property. I don't want to,
we don't want to talk about other properties. Okay. Next door to this property, might I just
add, is a methadone clinic, a large child care center down the street. And the block is the
pathway for half school elementary students to come and go to school with a crossing guard
halfway down the street. Traffic and septa buses will be interrupted as cars double park
to unload event guests in front of the building because there is absolutely no parking. We have
established that it is common for event attendees to circle and park in near neighborhoods up to
three to four blocks away. All blocks are residential that extend west of this property
where event attendees will have no choice but to park. Local homeowners are primarily seniors
who will actually be unable to leave or return to their homes when event parking crowds their
blocks. Local blocks have driveways where entrances will be blocked. Okay. Mrs. Broadus,
let's safe to say you're against this project. Totally. I'm against it. The community is against
Thank you. Thank you for calling in. We do appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else
in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. We have Sherry Cohen. Hi.
Ms. Cohen, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes. Hello, Chair and members of the board. My name is Sherry Cohen. That's S-H-E-R-R-I-E.
My last name is Cohen, C-O-H-E-N. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes yes okay thank you well uh i'm a neighbor i live a
few blocks away i also graduated elementary school from how elementary and um unlike the photos
presented by counsel for the applicant you know this is a very residential neighborhood i mean
just to review a couple points that Sandra already made is that, I mean, it's right next door to
a major apartment complex with 40 units. There's multiple apartment complexes within two blocks,
lots of residential housing. We are already an overburdened neighborhood. I lived, I think I
said, just a few blocks away. We have a methadone clinic next door. We also have a stop and go down
the street. I'm sure you've heard about the incidents that's occurring at the Broad and
Only Transportation Hub, where we have children coming every day from across the city to attend
Girls High and Central High. And we don't need any more negative institutions in our community.
So, Ms. Cohen, it's safe to say you're against this project.
Absolutely against, yes.
And thank you so much for your call.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
We have a user underneath the title Legacy Building Strategist.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, good afternoon, Chair.
My name is Camille, C-A-M-I-L-L-E, Pearsall, P like Paul, E-A-R-S-A-L-L.
Right.
Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you try to focus on something different than what we've already heard?
Absolutely.
I'm here actually in support of the gentlemen who are trying to open this event space.
I'm a member of the community.
I live in the zip code 19141.
I've worked with these gentlemen with various projects in the community and I'm certain if
given this opportunity to open this space though they might not know you know the proper way it
was just an idea with good intention to move forward if they are given this opportunity I'm
certain that they will bring um breathe a different type of life into the community as I said I'm a
resident here I don't work in this area I'm a resident I'm look I need somewhere to host even
let's say I want to have a harvest party for my daughter next month, but it's nowhere in my
for my daughter next month but it's nowhere in my community to have it okay because every time that
community to have it. Okay. Because every time.
the opportunity is granted and someone is willing to take the risk on a challenged community they're
shot down because it's always looked upon as negative let's look at the positive things that
they can do for the community they just participated and hosted a wonderful book big drive no one is
speaking about these things that these young men are trying to do to help empower our community
As a resident here, I believe that them opening up this event space will help us.
All right. Well, thank you very much. We do appreciate your call, and we appreciate a different viewpoint.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. We have about four people left. Next up is Robin Jackson.
Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes. My name is Robin Jackson, spelled R-O-B-I-N-J-A-C-K-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you state your feelings, how you feel about this property? Are you for it or against it?
I'm for the property. I live in 19141 area. I actually went to Central High School.
So I'm familiar with the area. I actually lived at 5932 Oyer Road at one point in time.
okay um so i mean as i guess you could say as a resident in the area and someone who actually
live right up the street from the event space that they're trying to create i actually think
that they should be given the opportunity to have this in the community i think that you're in favor
of it yes i am okay so i want to try to we got three people left i'm going to try to get everybody
to your point thank you for your call and thank you for offering a different viewpoint who's next
M. Logan.
Hello.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Marcia, M-A-R-C-I-A, Logan, L-O-G-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Are you in favor or against this?
I am against it.
My parents have been members of this community for over 70 years.
I still live here.
I live on the first block.
People keep saying they live in the zip code.
I live on Grange, which is where Broad and Old York Road.
Yeah, I know.
We would be the first street that would be saturated by these additional people.
That shared driveway behind, I'll be very brief, sir.
That shared driveway behind this space, it occupies a garage that is over 40 years old and structurally unsound.
Ricks are falling from it.
Well, do me a favor.
Let's concentrate on why you're against their property.
because because it how it will it will saturate our community okay traffic our our residents are
elderly and infirm all right thank you leave their homes it's traffic and the danger from crime
okay all right thank you so much for calling in who's next Robert Young Mr. Young could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter
mr young mr young you have to unmute yourself
yes can you hear me now yeah could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes robert young r-o-b-e-r-t y-o-u-n-g do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do are you for this project or against it i'm against it okay
Okay. Do you live nearby?
Yes, I live in the 1500 block of Conlon Street.
First of all, the pictures that were shown of the property only showed the property, only showed Broad Street, showed the gas station.
No pictures were shown of the residents on the 1400 block, 1500 block, the parking that exists on those two blocks.
That is a big concern.
At our last meeting, there was also a conversation about the trash.
And the lack of security.
Mr. Young, listen a minute.
We've heard a lot of comments about it.
Is there anything else different that you can tell us than what we've already heard?
Anything different?
No, except for the fact that pictures should be shown of the residences
on common street okay okay so let me let me say this we thank you for calling in and we appreciate
your viewpoint who's left one more one more arlene berkeley okay hi could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter please miss berkeley please unmute yourself
Ms. Berkley, please unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Arlene Berkley.
Spell your name for the court reporter.
A-R-L-E-N-E Berkley B-E-R-K-L-E-Y
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Are you in favor of this project or against it?
I am a fan of it.
We need something positive in the neighborhood.
Their lawyer should have showed you the inside of the place.
The place is absolutely beautiful.
These guys have invested their money into it, and they're just waiting to open up to show exactly what they have.
All right, so thank you for calling in, and we do appreciate your viewpoint about it.
Counsel, would you want to respond to some of the comments, and please don't take more than five minutes?
Counsel?
Yes, yes, sorry, I had to unmute myself.
My dogs were barking, so I didn't want to interrupt the hearing.
What I do want to show you is, he asked about showing the interior of the premises, and I can show you that.
that what we have is we have a beautiful place that these guys have put together and yes they
did do it before. I'm going to do that. I am back to down here back to share screen and it doesn't
want to come up. I don't know why. There we go. Share screen. Are you getting these? I don't know
why it won't share. Yeah, I don't know why it won't share. Okay, so let me ask this. Just what
about all the comments were made? Where do you stand? Okay, number one, the first comments from
Mr. Robinson. Part of the problem with that is Mr. Robinson speaks of hardship. This is not a
variance. Ms. Broadus spoke of variance. This is a special exception. I know. And under case law...
And I think you made that, wait a minute, you made that very clear with us when we started.
Yeah. And what we have to show is that we have the initial duty that meets the definition of what a use exception is, that all the dimensions satisfied, that the application complies with all the criteria and meets the conditions applicable for the proposed use.
There is no indication that this private event space, not an open, you know, anybody comes in all the time, that will not be being used seven days a week, will not be booking seven days a week, is actually less of a use than an approved use of a restaurant.
These guys could walk in and apply for a zoning use of a restaurant, and it is a permitted use.
so what we have is we're not overcrowding the land we're not congesting the streets anymore
there's no evidence that there is any congestion to the streets anymore um i can tell you that
people you know maybe double park for the methadone clinic in the middle of the afternoon
um i don't know um you know we have people that we're using the term um will be interrupted by
we've established, Ms. Broadus has put in her letter, we've established that this is what's
going to happen. I don't know how they've established it, and I don't know what objective
evidence they have to establish it. But the burden becomes on them at this point to say,
oh, here's the objective evidence, and all they are telling us is what they feel they think will
happen okay this is cmx2 okay this is not rsa okay so what i what i want to do is let's i'm
going to have to bring the planning commission on to see where they stand okay yep planning
commission thank you mr chairman and good evening david effecto city planning commission
mr chairman and members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location the applicant has shown that the
proposed nightclub and private club will have no more of an impact than a nightclub and private
club would be expected to have. So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board
grant the special exception. Thank you. MI 2021-004-665-5832 Old York Road.
0-0-4-6-6-5-58-32 old york road i vote no
carol i was running low yeah i was running low on uh power my vote is no carol tennari
okay thank you so we're two to one for this what we're going to do is take it back
to our other members let them look at the uh the notes in the film there'll be a video of this
and then we'll re-vote it at a later date okay all right and i would just say mr chair that um
the interior and exterior photos are part of the packet that has been presented okay all right
and i'll make sure the other members of the board have copies of that okay great thank you thank you
thank you for your time all right um mi 2022 002 925 725 to 29 south broad street
jared klein is the attorney
mr klein
it's moving slow chair but he's coming back in as a panel okay all right thank you
good evening mr chair members of the board mr klein thanks for hanging in there for us could
you state your name and spell for the court reporter certainly it's jared klein j-a-r-e-d
last name is k-l-e-i-n from blank rome 130 north 18th street in philadelphia right um do you swear
to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do could you identify
by your client and the relationship to the property? Certainly. My client is Broad Street
725 LLC, and they are the owner. Okay. Our Vice Chair, Carl Tenere, has a few questions.
Certainly. Mr. Klein, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with your CO and do you have a letter yes to all except I did not quite make the
five days but Miss Emerson was gracious enough to review my exhibit packet earlier today and
permitted me to proceed okay great you may proceed and begin by sharing your screen thank you very
much and I I know how long the board has been online today I will be as as brief as professionally
possible. This is a very simple zoning application. This is an existing or it's a building that is
under construction. It was permitted to be a six-story office tower, which was a by-right
use in the CMX3. That permitting took place pre-COVID and changes to the office market
had led my client to decide that he would rather convert the top two floors into a dwelling unit
for himself. And so this application is to use the penthouse level of the building that is under
construction as a single residential dwelling unit. Because we're CMX3, that generated the
refusal. To orient the board, this is the property here. It was formerly next door to the fire station
right on Broad Street. That's the building there. Photos for context along Broad Street and
Fitzwater, and photos of posting. This is the floor plan that my client has in mind. It'll be
a bi-level unit with two bedrooms, gym, and then a master bedroom area, a very nice size penthouse
for if you're able to be fortunate enough to own a building of this size, you can create a nice
living space for yourself. We did meet with Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition. Their letter
of non-opposition is on the screen in front of you. And I will conclude just by noting that my
client's representative, David Snyder, was unable to hang in there this afternoon. But I will adopt
and verify that he would have agreed with my testimony had he been here to hear it.
um mr klein we will we will take that testimony thank you very much questions from the board
unless you care no mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission
thank you mr chairman david facto city planning commission mr chairman may i ask
the attorney one question?
You most certainly can, David.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Klein, the refusal said that there were previously approved use.
The refusal said that there were previously approved uses.
Can you speak to what those were?
Yeah, it was a by-ride permit for an office building.
It was general professional office use.
Okay, and there's still going to be offices somewhere in the building?
There's going to be offices exclusively through the first floor, four floors.
So this is just creating the penthouse that would have had two floors of office space.
That's turning residential.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate the clarification.
Certainly.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use 3 zoning at this location.
The proposal is consistent with the current zoning district, and so the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant these fairs.
Thank you. MI 2022-002-925-725-29 South Broad Street, I vote yes.
Carol Canary, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed
my vote is yes
Mr. Klein
thanks for hanging in there
we appreciate it
is there anyone
is there anyone
in the virtual audience
who's 330 cases
not been pulled
I see no hands here
thanks everyone
this is the latest
I've ever stayed
I know in the past
you've stayed a lot later
but I appreciate
everybody's help
and we actually did
a lot of nice cases
today and got a lot done
so thanks everyone
thank you thank you good night thanks you did a great job today
have a good evening everyone good night good night good night everybody