and we are live
we okay time
Chair, if we can just give one minute for the attendees to come into our virtual room.
okay chair we have 51 attendees presently you may begin as you wish good good morning everyone
my name is bill bergman i will be chairing this morning the dba hearing with me is
Carol Tenere, our vice chair. Present. Ismail Shahid, our board secretary.
Here, Mr. Chair. Thomas Holliman, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. And James Snell,
our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also here is our board administrator,
Tanya Sunkit, and our attorney, Rebecca Cole. Before we start, let me go over the virtual
format. Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at
philadelphia.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
who identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone and you wish to
testify press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute to enter an appearance statement
call 267-270-5548 leave your email and the address of the property in question and lastly
please note the question answer box on your on your screen is not for comments any comments
should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our board administrator.
I'm going to start with continuances.
So the continuances for the day.
Number four, MI 2021-003525, 2214 North Reece Street.
Number five, MI 2021-003526, 2215 North Reece Street.
Number six, MI 2021-003530-2237 North Reese.
MI 2021-003529-2233 North Reese.
Number eight, MI 2021-003528-2231 North Reese.
Number nine, MI 2021-001959-2349 North 20th Street.
Anyone have any comments about these continuances?
Only those continuances.
I did not see any hints, Mr. Chair.
They will all be continued and marked must be tried.
Case number 14, MI 2021, 003561, 908 North 63rd Street, and case 15, MI 2021, 003557, 906 North 63rd Street.
Could the representatives for those two cases step forward or raise their hand?
As a representative for the two aforementioned cases, once again, please raise your hand.
Both cases are continued and Mark must be tried.
We have an add-on case of 1910 Chestnut Street.
We will put that towards the end of our list and we'll hear the morning list and then go to that.
We will put that towards the end of our list, and we'll hear the morning list and then go to that.
Any other continuances requested?
Mr. Chair, we have North Central Philadelphia CDC with their hand raised.
I will allow them to speak at this time.
Please wait to be sworn in, sir or madam.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Please state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Tina Marie Russell.
T-I-N-A-M-A-R-I-E-R-U-S-S-E-L-L.
Good morning.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
What case, Ms. Harris?
23-49 North 20th Street.
I'm not sure if the attorney was represented to continue this matter.
Is that this morning?
Yes, at 930.
Is that 23-49 North 20th Street, Tina?
Yeah, that was already continued, Tina and Bill.
Thank you so much.
I wasn't sure.
I just caught on.
Okay, thank you.
All right, thanks, Tina.
Any other cases?
All right, we're going to go to the regular list.
MI 2021-001897, 1313 South 23rd Street.
Paul Toner is the associate attorney, Point Breeze Community Coalition in Opposition.
Councilman Johnson opposed.
Mr. Toner.
Okay, sir, I have a NNCDRN LLC with their hand raised.
I can allow them to speak at this time.
Okay. So they can just be allowed to speak to make sure that they should be an attorney for this case.
Right. Mr. Bergman, can you hear me?
Yeah. Could you state your name for me, please, and spell it?
Yes. Paul Toner.
Oh, good, good, good. Good. All right.
Okay. For future workers, can you please have your name so we can identify you? Thank you, Mr. Toner.
Mr. Toner, spell your name for the court reporter, please.
E-O-N-E-R.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Our vice chair.
I'm sorry, Peter.
This is time that we would need to pause.
Jason, could you promote Mr. Toner to the panelists, please?
Yes, ma'am.
Understood.
Mr. Chairman, may I begin?
our vice chair has a few questions
good morning Mr. Toner
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy
we do yes
it appears that you have everything required
submitted in the exhibit packet
is that correct
that is correct
okay you may proceed
thank you very much
Mr. Chairman and members of the board
I'm happy today to present
an application for a variance
for 1313 South 23rd Street. What we're proposing today will bring this property into greater
compliance with the RSA 5 zoning districts. It is an existing two-story property that has 100%
lot coverage that not only covers the entirety of the existing rear yard of the property,
but also a four-foot public alleyway at the back of the property. The proposal is to eliminate
the non-conformities and build a 100% conforming structure according to all the dimensional
provisions of the RSA zoning district and we will be in effect be down zoning from the commercially
approved use of the property and this property has a documented history of a variance being granted
for a first floor grocery store with a projecting sign plus a residential rental unit on the second
floor. With me today, we have our architect team, including Colin Rupp from Nome Architects.
Partnered with the current owner of the property, Quan Mac, is Nick Gianti. He is a local resident
and known developer in the community who has extensive experience with this particular
community. And then with that, I'd like to go through my zoning packet. As I mentioned before,
we're seeking a single variance and before you on my screen and can everyone see the screen
this is exhibit three this is the existing conditions in the property and you'll see the
existing structure and in the back you see the approved edition that has 100% blocked the rear
yard and the public right away
and the public right away.
A single refusal was issued for this property,
and that being in the RSA 5 zoning district,
a single family is permitted,
and we're proposing three dwelling units.
Notable on the refusal itself is
referenced to the prior zoning history
with its approval as a grocery store
and delicatessen with
with the residential rental unit and also included in our packet is the zoning archives
so this is this is what my client is proposing to develop at 1313 south 23rd street a three-story
structure that is specifically intended to comport conform with the surrounding uses
this is an all brick structure with detailed brick work that was modeled after a property
on the corner of Wharton Street that's included with Exhibit 13 to bring back some of the
style of bay windows that are seen in the neighborhood, the brickwork that is seen in
the neighborhood, all with the idea of adding a long-term asset to this community.
This property is at the corner of South 23rd Street and Sears Street. Here's a visual,
and this is Exhibit 2, page 2, of the renderings that show the angled bays on the side, Sears
Street side. There'll be two separate entryways, one entry on the Sears Street where my cursor
is, and then one entry atop the stoop onto South 23rd Street. And the third rendering
is a visual that shows the rear yard area that not only shows the restoration of the
open area, the rear yard open area at the rear yard, but also a dedicated custom built trash
storage unit that will allow all the unit owners to store their trash safely and behind the fence
with swing open gates to allow them to put the trash out only on trash day, which was a specific
request of the community that we are happy to provide. Going back to the existing conditions.
On page two, there is a visual of Sears Street, and again, our property is on the corner of
South 23rd and Sears. As you can see, going down Sears Street, there are a number of existing
two-story structures with new construction. In the middle of Sears Street, you see two
three-story new construction homes. And this is a visual going, looking west on Sears Street,
our property on the right side of this image. And then in the immediate foreground is the Wharton
Square. Page four shows the properties to north of our property and again some new three-story
homes that have recently been approved and constructed. Moving to exhibit four.
So this is an aerial of Wharton Square showing our property at 1313 South 23rd Street.
There are a couple notable issues here that I'd like to draw your attention to.
First of all, you can see the blue SEPTA station markers on South 23rd Street.
This property is literally on the SEPTA bus route.
Its front door is going to open up onto the SEPTA bus route.
This is an area that we believe is appropriate for a multifamily use for many reasons,
but one of them being that it is ideally situated within easy access public transportation in the center of the city.
And then on 21st Street, which is the next street, on 22nd Street, which is visible on the right side of this picture,
you can see, again, the septum marker showing the bus route leading into center of the city.
This is certainly within the Point Brace community, an easy walk and bike into the neighborhood or into center city.
So we think this is a property that, because of its situation within and on bus route, has excellent access to public transportation.
On the second aerial view, there is a good image of the existing buildover on the rear yard.
This, again, is 100% existing lot coverage.
This is the rear yard where my cursor is, or the four-foot public alley where my cursor is right now.
And that's situated between 1313 South 23rd and 2247 Sears Street.
This is not accessible at this point.
And we're going to move later on onto some shadow studies.
And just to note at this point, the existing 100% lock coverage is causing shadows as the sun rises from the east and sets in the west.
As the sun rises from the east and sets in the west throughout the day, this addition, which we propose to remove, is currently impacting the air and light of the property at 1311 South 23rd Street, as well as 1309 South 23rd Street.
moving to the zoning plan and we have uh mr rupp from no more architectures here who can
walk the board through some of the particulars of the zoning plan but most important is this
property is 100 in compliance with every dimensional provision of the rsa 5 zoning
district the only refusal and the only variance being sought today is to allow for the three
units where one unit is provided in terms of the floor plans and this is exhibit six in our packet
what we're proposing are the three units and these are all of significant size unit one has a total
gross floor area of 1,590 feet. Now this is in fact larger than every one of the homes on Sears
Street that has a gross floor area closer to 1,400 square foot. So this is going to be in terms
of size fully in line with what we already see for the homes on this immediate block.
The second and third units, the third unit has a square footage of 1,066 and the second
of 866.
So again, none of these are efficiency units.
These are all two-bedroom, two-bass.
In terms of the height, as the board's aware, the RSA 5 allows for my client to build up
to 38.
Working with the neighborhood to reduce air and light issues as much as possible, this
was planned at 33 feet in height so we're a full five feet below what the zoning code permits by
right some other notable notable provisions so the unit on the bedroom on the basin level and den
these are both have dedicated stair access at the rear of the property
So easy secondary access, as well as the egress well at the front of the property.
And then on the second page, which is the first floor plan, we can see again the trash
enclosure, which is planned.
This was a specific request of the community, which we were happy to provide, as well as
the separate entry on the upper left-hand corner.
each one of these units as you can see on the second page our second floor plan
large living spaces large kitchens large bedrooms
and on the roof plan you can see you'll have a dedicated roof deck for just the third floor unit
the one zoning plan that's part of our proviso plan or proviso form
is when we changed the bays from original box bays to an angled bay, we had to revise
our zoning plan. So, this is the limited change from our original as-submitted zoning plan,
and our as-filed zoning plan is included in our packet as Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 9 is a depiction of the zoning plan and approvals and areas for this immediate
community.
And the center is Wharton Square.
And I want to draw the board's attention to the significant amount of multifamily zoning
that is permitted along and around the perimeter of the square.
To the north is extensive amounts of RM1 where my cursor is right now.
On the corner at Reed and 23rd Street, again a significant amount of RM1 zoning.
Each one of the corners in pink is CMX1.
And then we also have extensive CMX2 zoning at the corner of 24th Street and Reed.
Exhibit 8 is a depiction of all the multi-families that are within the RSA 5 zoning provisions as well as
the CMX 1 and 2 that we just referenced. So in the upper left-hand corner at the corner of
24th and Wharton Street this board recently approved a five-story
and Wharton Street. This board recently approved a five-story, 50-unit multifamily development.
There are triplexes and duplexes. Triplexes located within the three-story structures,
as indicated. The duplex is located in two-story structures, as indicated. As you can see,
the square itself has seen quite a lot of multifamily development approved and developed
around its perimeter. All within general conformity with the Zodiac Code provisions.
Exhibit 4, we saw the build over and I mentioned the shadows that were cast. So Exhibit 10 is the
actual shadow study. And as the board can see, right now we're essentially covering all the
rear yard of 1311 South 23rd Street with a shadow caused by the legal 100% law coverage that exists
at 1313 South 23rd Street. As indicated, we're going to open this up. So what we're asking for
today, as indicated in the shadow study, will undoubtedly, unequivocally increase the air and
light to the surrounding properties.
Exhibit 11 includes the prior zoning history for this property, including the variance
granted in 1992 for the commercial use on the first floor and the multifamily residential
on the second floor.
One of the requests made by the Board is that we do whatever we can to address stormwater
management that's generally concerning the community.
We are happy to include a rain barrel design, and we'll make this as part of our ultimate project.
Exhibit 15 is our letter from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Now, my client appeared before Point Breeze Community Development Coalition two times.
The first on June 28, 2021, and the second time on October 25, 2021.
As you can see from this letter of not support from the Point Breeze Community Development
Coalition, there are a couple important things to take note of here. First of all,
this is essentially a split vote. The position in the community that voted on this project were
seven in support and ten opposed. So this is certainly not a project that saw broad opposition
to it. And then in terms of the number of people who showed up at the property,
this was a very well attended meeting where only 17 people from the community itself voted.
So there were a total of 43 attendees with only 17 actually voting on this project. As my client,
Mr. Gianti and Mr. Kwamek can both testify too. The meeting itself was very heated. We were third
on the agenda and there was quite a lot of contention beforehand and many of the individuals
who had wanted to come and make an appearance and testify unfortunately had left just because
of the length of time of the meeting lasted and the amount of contention. But to show that
there really is more than simply the seven people who made it through the meeting and were allowed
to go to support. My client has secured a letter of support from the immediate surrounding near
neighbors, including the ones that live within the immediate properties right to the east of 1313
on Sears Street, 2247 and 2248, property owners on South 23rd Street, and then property owners
to extend down through Sears Street. This property in our proposal is not only accurately
and clearly depicted on the top of Exhibit 14 in terms of its rendering, but accurately
and correctly described within the pros of this letter of support. And we have a total
of 12 individuals who were not included within the seven who voted at the RCO meeting, but
again also support this project.
Going down through our zoning application, we have for both our June and our October
meeting complied with the requirements of 14-303.
We have accurately posted the property as seen in Exhibit 19.
We have included the last deed, which is to my client Quan T. Mack.
which is to my client Quan T. Mac. We have our proviso form and our tax documents.
We also at the end have Sam Morton's that show that, in particular, that 1313 South 23rd,
its lot dimensions are significantly large. They're 18 by 63. The average property on,
or all the properties on Sears Street are much smaller at 1430. At 18 feet wide and 63 feet deep,
we have a total lot area of 1,134. Or in terms of existing gross floor area, 2,268 square feet.
What we're proposing in terms of total gross floor area for the new proposal, the three-story
structure is 2,713 square feet. So by eliminating all of the overbuild on the rear yard area
that is found at both the first and the second floor existing structure,
we're essentially replacing it with a third storage structure that total gross floor area
will not be identical but will be very close and certainly the units will be of very comparable
size to everything that's seen on Sears Street and then with that I would like to
I'd like to call Mr. Nick Janty to just briefly explain his experience and his concept for this
particular proposal is he the architect no Colin Ruff is the architect Mr. Janty is the partner
with Mr. Mack on this development project.
Sure, Paul.
Nick, if you could please raise your hand
and I'll allow you to enter the room.
Mr. Giante has been allowed to speak.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, sir?
Please unmute yourself, sir.
Do you hear me?
Yes. State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Yes. My name is Nicholas Giganti. First name, N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S. Last name, G-I-G-A-N-T-I.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead.
Mr. Janty, first of all, can you explain to the board your role with the development of 1313 South 23rd Street?
Yes. I have known Kwan for some time.
And basically, this property has been sitting undeveloped, kind of an eyesore.
and um based on my knowledge of of developing he he approached me about helping him out with
with uh building something on the property since the property is is kind of structurally not sound
at this moment and um that's that's basically where we came to coming up with this this design
mr can you see the rendering that's depicted on the screen now yes i do and can you just
briefly explain to the board how you came to this aesthetic? Absolutely. So, and to give you a
little background about myself, I am a Point Breeze resident. I lived in Point Breeze for 12
years. I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, the fabric of the neighborhood. This property
is across the street from Wharton Park. I bring my children to Wharton Park. It's a beautiful park
that's not really that known to many people.
So personally speaking, when I build things,
I like to design them with the proper aesthetic
that you don't see anymore in Philadelphia.
A lot of these builders are budget builders.
They don't build things to fit the aesthetic
because of course it costs a little bit more.
So this type of design, I want to use all brick on the building because it stands the
test of time as we see the brick buildings in Society Hill and the federal style buildings
that are hundreds of years old.
And I also wanted the bay windows to reflect the bay windows that you would see on those
older style buildings with the old tin bays.
So, of course, that would be additional money that would need to be spent, but it would, you know, I always say part of the experience of going to the park.
It would, you know, I always say part of the experience of going to the park is not only the park itself, but the buildings that surround it.
And it would really just be a disservice to see somebody who doesn't put something up that really aesthetically fits the fabric of the neighborhood.
Because unfortunately, especially living in particularly Point Breeze, I've just seen a lot of really horrible construction go up.
And unfortunately, as a citizen of the neighborhood, you have to deal with it for the rest of your life until the building falls apart or whatnot.
So that's kind of the background of how we designed it and the look of it, which I think really came out nice.
Going to the letter of support.
First of all, did you personally security signatures?
Yes, I personally knocked on doors, spoke with neighbors, spoke about their concerns, had conversations. I mean, this was a multi-day thing right here. I mean, I had, you know, some people you're having half hour conversations, they're getting to know me, I'm getting to know them.
really at the end of the day figuring out like do you have any concern with this project like
this is the type of person I am this is the type of look I'm going for and ultimately we had a lot
of positive support um most people wanted what's there which is just an eyesore there's you know
Ronan's coming in and out of it and you know what I mean it's just it's it's just an eyesore at this
point um mr toner mr toner i think you described the building to us really well
how you came to that conclusion so i i want to try to skip over what how he designed it because
you went over that in detail for so yeah i'm really just going into the support from the community
yeah and to be brief i did speak with the neighbors the neighbors on the block overall had
support it was either they had support or i i couldn't get a hold of them because they were
you know it was a vacant building or whatnot but majority of people i spoke to were in total
support of this property being redeveloped excuse me sir excuse me sir yes where was the community
in opposition i i truly feel that the nature of that meeting because it we were um uh not the
first people to speak and the other projects that they were debating were so heated and people were
very contentious about it that we lost a lot of positive votes coming our way because I spoke with
the neighborhood. I got positive feedback from the neighbors I spoke with. We had people hop on
for the RCO meeting and then we waited literally three weeks to get the vote back and then the vote
was in opposition which i i that hit me by surprise because i mean a lot of work went
into this we made changes we spoken to people this we're not you know i'm not trying to say
that i'm just like going around just building things not talking to neighbors like these are
my neighbors i you know i've been living in point breeze i know what this neighborhood you know is
and what it needs and um i truly believe that was a result of that excuse me this is carol
Did they say anything about why they didn't like this? Any, just one word, anything?
The RCO?
They had some pushback on the, it being a multi-unit building.
But we're trying to, yeah, go ahead.
is it fair to say that one of the demands was that you build a
a two-story all brick single-family home that would be affordable housing selling for less
than 150 000 no no that was not one of the requests of the community oh i'm sorry yeah
no that was one of the requests and it's not unfortunately not feasible and one of the other
individuals who spoke in opposition at the R2 meeting, did he ask that you perform work at his
property at 1311 North 23rd Street? Yes. Did they also ask that you eliminate street trees from the
proposal? I don't remember that. And just finally, Mr. Janty, can you basically summarize for the
board or compare the comments that you heard at the RCO meeting with the community input
With the community input you received when you walked the neighborhood, spoke with neighbors on their stoop in their block?
you received when you walked the neighborhood, spoke with neighbors on their students.
Yeah, I mean, overall, there was a negative response to the development, as in my experience, especially in Point Breeze, is usually how it's seen, unfortunately.
But when I'm face-to-face with the neighbors and kind of going over the plans and spelling it out
and showing them what we're doing and what we want to do, it's like night and day.
I mean, no one really had any type of negative feedback.
Really, they wanted to see this blight be fixed.
Thank you. Board, I have Mr. Colin Ruff. I think from the chairman's comments that
details of the zoning plan have been covered, but if the board has any questions concerning
the layout of the units, we do have the architect available, too. So with that, I'd like to
open the board. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No.
No, Mr. Chairman. Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Mr. Chair, we have Demetrius Richardson with his hand raised.
I can grab you at this time, sir.
Good morning. Can you hear me?
Yes. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, sir?
Yes. Demetrius Richardson, D-E-M-E-T-R-I-U-S.
Last name is Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Proceed, sir.
Good morning. Thank you for having me on here.
As this client is presenting his building for 1313 South 23rd Street, we had several meetings with him, with the community.
One of my concerns was those bay windows that he keeps trying to push.
everything on 23rd Street between Wharton and Reed
is flat, including all new development, that those
developers work closely with the community and they came and they agreed
to keep it in conformity with the rest of the block by making
the buildings flat, even the new three-story constructions, which we all
have, and I have one next door to me, at
1327 South 23rd Street.
So in previous years, in 2018, the ZPA board also voted against 1301 23rd Street, which is the very first house between Sears and Wharton because they wanted to do multifamily and they didn't get the approval.
And the house sold as a single family. It sold for a quite lengthy amount, but it sold as a single family.
And the house that he sold on Wharton Street with the bay windows is a structure for Wharton.
There are three-story houses over there, and they replicate the houses on Ridge Street.
23rd and 24th Street houses are all flat, lined walls, and this is what we wanted in the community.
We're all for new development.
We don't mind the new development.
We don't want the multifamily.
We want a single family.
So we're not opposing him building.
We ask him to build single family.
he had the bar right by 38 feet which we can't stop so build that and then build single family
and then build take away those bays that's all we asked him to do and he would not do that so
and I've talked to them several times at the meeting about those bay windows and I thank you
for having me thank you thank you for your call sir thank you any other comments from the virtual
audience mr chairman so should we understand that the main objection is the um multi-units
and and the multi-unit and the multi-unit because we're not the design police that's right right
right mr chair can i have i got a question um so if you go to the three-story uh building how high
is that what's going to be is that going to be over the 38 no it's 33. okay okay planning commission
thank you chair bergman uh ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission 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 i do thank you members of the board uh good morning ian hegarty for the planning
Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single
family zoning at this location. Just want to note that the RSA 5 designation
at this location. I just want to note that the RSA 5 designation of the property is not
accidental or arbitrary. It reflects a desire that was just spoken by the last witness
to maintain single-family use on this block and in this property. This is a 1,159-foot
square foot lot. The applicant's hardship claim here has depended entirely on the existing
structure, which is proposed to be demolished. So without the existing building, there's
nothing inherently unique about the lot that prevents it from being developed in conformance
with the zoning code. Transit proximity, adjacent non-conforming structures, other zoning districts
that are in the neighborhood, they don't substantiate hardship. So we find that there's
no hardship uh presented in this case and we recommend that the board deny the requested
variance. MI 2021 001897 1313 South 23rd I vote no. Carl Tenere my vote is no. Thomas Holliman
my vote is no. James Snell my vote is no. Ishmael Shahid my vote is no. Thank you.
MI 2021-003-283-1625 Brown Street, United-Francisville, letter of support, Mr. Masters.
Mr. Masters is being promoted to our panelists right now, sir.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Masters. Spell your name for the court reporter, please.
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S, from the law firm of JustLaws.
All right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Carol Tenere has a few questions for you, Sarah.
Hi. Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And it appears that you've emailed the entire exhibit packet with the required documents,
is that correct? That is correct. You may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen.
Thank you.
um good morning again mr chair members of the board um this is um an interesting
building uh 1625 brown street with me today is um the property owner my client joshua cohen
And we were able to go back into the Zonian archives and discover what this building has been used for over the years.
I'm going to pop over to page 33.
so this um this building was originally a rooming house um in 1918 uh six room
a six unit rooming house and throughout the years it has always contained um from six to
five units it's never been less than than five units we're um we're here to legalize the five
the five units um of this of this multi-family dwelling under the zoning code for arm one
four units are permitted because of the size of the lot. And we're halfway, a little more than
halfway to getting five units, but that's the only refusal that we have. And the hardship is
that the structure has always, has been configured and always been a six or five unit structure.
And so the courts have said that a hardship exists if the only way to do the permitted use is with demolition and extensive reconstruction.
As we go through the plans, and I'll show you what would happen if we got rid of or tried to join the top floor unit with the other ones, it would require extensive reconstruction.
there's going to be no change to the structures dimensions and there's no there's no there's no
physical changes we're simply legalizing the the use of it so start from the beginning here
the use of it. So start from the beginning here.
The refusal, as I said, is one refusal for the five units. We require 1920 square feet
for five units. 1440 square feet is for the four units. We have 1663 square feet.
The RCO, as you noted, was in support.
We have seven attendees voted in favor, two were against, one was neutral of the 10 attendees,
and there was no further letter that was issued.
Our site plan there is on the on the left side here there you'll see that there is a side yard
and a rear yard to this to this building which predates the zoning code from the early 1900s.
the um the floor plans um we have we have it's a three-story building we have two units a and b
on the first floor we have two units um c and d on the second floor and we have one unit that was
originally this the two for this when it was a six unit uh dwelling there were two units on the
On the top floor many, many years ago, they were combined together into one larger unit on the top floor.
In terms of the photos here, this is that side area, the side yard that we saw on the plans.
We have a lot of photos of the hallways.
We didn't have access to the individual.
this is all tenants are are living in all of the units and we didn't have access to to go into
their their units. This is the front of the building.
scrolling down here we go uh the zoning posters uh photos of the zoning posters
and it was displayed on the prominent side of the building.
We have a tax clearance, we have the deed in our exhibits, and
our application for Akil, our project information form,
and the rco notice with the proof of mailing uh rounds out our our exhibits
um if i could have um mr cohen raise his hand
and and get recognized so that he could adopt our testimony sure
mr cohen state your name and spell for the court reporter joshua cohen j-o-s-h-u-a
c-o-h-e-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do i do proceed um good morning uh mr cohen um you have been present um at the hearing today
and heard my testimony do you agree with it and adopt it as your own yes i do um is there anything
else that you wanted to uh share with the board about your your property i don't think so okay
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman mr chairman no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience
I don't see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, in 2018, the zoning map was amended in this area in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
This parcel was intentionally not changed.
Property, as you've seen, has a documented prior use as six-unit multifamily dwelling, among other things.
We therefore recommend that the Board grant the variance.
We therefore recommend that the Board grant the variance. MI 2021-003283-1625, Round 3. I vote yes.
MI 2020.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will be with you later also for
another case right okay mi 2021 002644 1701 south 25th street rco point breeze development
coalition letter of support concerned citizens of point breeze and opposition councilman johnson in
support mr dockamson
coming back in as a panelist. Yes, sir.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Good morning. How are you? Good. Good. How are you
doing today? Great. Great. State your name and spell for the court reporter, sir? Yes. Alan
Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, 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?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you. Carol?
Hi, Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT IS CORRECT. YOU MAY PROCEED.
MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN? YES.
THANK YOU. CAN EVERYONE SEE MY SCREEN?
ALMOST. YES.
OKAY, GREAT. I'M HERE FOR 1701 SOUTH 25TH STREET.
This is in the Point Breeze section of Philadelphia.
This is an ICMX property of well over 10,000 square feet, and we're looking to put an 18-unit
planned community, six single families facing Morris, and then six duplexes as well as part
of this planned community with a common driveway.
What you'll see is our notice of refusal, as well as a nearby property.
this board has, you know, dealt with under similar circumstances.
1501 South 25th Street, which is merely two blocks away in 2019,
this board granted an 18-unit planned community
for ICMX property on South 25th Street.
So this is not an outlier of what we're requesting
under similar circumstances.
We have a letter of support from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition
AS WELL AS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KEYNOTA JOHNSON I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PUT THE LETTER FROM THE CONCERNED CITIZENS GROUP BUT I DO HAVE IT BECAUSE IT WAS SENT TO US
LATE YESTERDAY AND ACTUALLY WASN'T EVEN SENT TO US IT WAS SENT TO THE BOARD AND THEN WE DID
RECEIVE IT LATER IN THE DAY FROM MS. SALETA THE ZBA'S COUNCIL SO I DO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME AND WE
um we have maps of the area in our exhibit packet photographs of the property in the surrounding
area our plans and drawings proof that we had a meeting with the community and the community was
in support of this project uh deed to the property showing that h and m development llc is the owner
the property our application for appeal and our certificate of tax clearance showing that we're
good standing with the city of philadelphia on the line i also have ghazi out of seven
the owner's representative who will adopt my testimony and answer any questions he's also
a licensed realtor who can answer any questions with with regards to you know using the property
for its allowable use so this notice of refusal again is for icmx property
We're looking to put 18 units here, six single-family, six two-family units.
Again, it's not out of character, and you'll see from the next portion of this exhibit.
But the refusals are as follows.
The first is the use.
This is an ICMX property.
We're looking to pay 18 units.
Again, not out of character.
This board in 2019 granted a similar variance for an 18-unit plant community, only two blocks away at 1501 South 25th Street.
The second refusal has to do with the minimum side yard width.
You'll see from the photos that we have no choice.
We're near an underpass where there are columns which are on our property, and we had to set back our ability.
where we're you know which are on our property and we had to set back our building structures
on south 25th street so whether it's an ICMX use or a residential use that we're proposing we would
have the same type of issues in terms of a variance so that's a hardship the third refusal
is the minimum rear yard depth nine feet required whereas the proposed rear yard depth is six and
two quarter inches, six feet and two quarter inches. We'll go through the site plan. You'll
see that how we're orienting the property. We're having the six single family homes on Morris
and we're having, we're using an existing curb cut on South 25th Street and then having the 12
duplexes in the rear of the property. And that side yard, excuse me, that rear yard is actually
the pedestrian walkway for the duplex structures as well. So we're using it more as a pedestrian
walkway, not as a rear yard. So the way we're orienting it using an existing curb cut,
you know, that's the rationale behind that. And then the final refusal has to do with the width
of the drive aisle. 24 feet is required under the code and asking for 18 feet, which is not
out character you know we you know we're you know we have a 12-foot curb cut which we're using an
existing curb cut and there's more more than sufficient with in terms of the drive aisle for
the uh off-street parking again just you know gave the zoning and use permit for 1501 south 25th
street again it references an 18 unit plan community it also indicates a calendar number of
36580. This appeal took place not too long ago where this Board under similar circumstances
took an ICMX property and allowed for the conversion of it two blocks away for 18 units,
just like the same thing that we're looking to do.
And then our letter of support from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition. Again,
Again, if you look at it, it was unanimous support by the community.
And then Council Member Johnson typically only gives letters of non-opposition, but here it's actually a letter of support.
Well, it's an email of support. This is what I received.
But it really speaks volumes about the responsibleness of the adult development that we're proposing and how it fits within the character of this part of the neighborhood.
Next is the maps of the area. Again, you'll see from the photos, but there's an overpass
here. We're at the corner of Morris and South 25th Street. All we're merely looking to do,
especially by having the single-family homes facing Morris Street, is to extend the residential
nature of this neighborhood, right? Where we purposefully designed it so the residential units
would be each of them would be facing Morris you'll see in the drawings we have a curb cut
that will be in the middle here and then the duplexes will be hugging uh I guess the side
but depending on how you orient it the rear of where the Morris part is but you know we purposefully
oriented this by using an existing curb cut to extend the residential nature of this neighborhood
And then photographs of the property. This is what our property looks like right now. We're under the underpass. As you can see, this is an existing curb cut. I believe this was a salvage yard for its last use. It's been abandoned for some time.
and, you know, it can just be very difficult to, you know, use it for its proposed ICMX use.
Again, a similarly situated property two blocks away found the same issues in terms of using it
for ICMX. We are in a residential neighborhood. We're just trying to extend that residential
nature of the neighborhood. You also see these columns. This is the issue, and this is why we
are setting back our property somewhat and we would need to do that regardless of whether it's
ICMX or this use as residential and that's one of our refusals. The side of the property on Morris
Street again you'll see pictures to the left and the right on Morris but this is the existing
building structure which is out of character for what you would see on Morris Street and what we're
trying to do is make it more into in character in terms of
residential use. And then 25th Street to 25th Street to the
right of the property. 25th Street to the left of the
25th Street to the left of the property, and then Morris to the right.
property. And then more
And as you can see, this is where you'll see more of the residential portion of the neighborhood.
This hasn't been developed yet.
And then our plans and drawings.
A couple things to note, and I'm just going to reduce the size to this.
There's no basement use in the duplexes.
This ground floor, first floor and second floor is Unit 1 or Unit A.
The third and fourth floors are unit B, and there's 12 off-street parking spaces, one
for each of the single-family homes, as well as the lower unit for the duplexes have a
garage for themselves.
else. But this is just our site plan to kind of show where we
are. Just trying to go down here. So this is Morris, and this is
25th Street. And this is the existing curb cut, which is, you
know, 12 feet. This is the dry vial, which is 18 feet, again,
not out of character in terms of width of a dry vial that this
board has approved in the past on many occasions uh again this is the uh you know the request
because of the columns to have um you know the the frontage um which i guess would be considered
minimum uh side yard width but really it's frontage here of how we oriented here this is the uh
refusal regarding the rear yard depth which is again we're just using it as a pedestrian
walkway with this which is more than sufficient in terms of width.
And then here's just the again just some renderings of what we're looking to do.
These are all four-story structures, a mixture of brick and other materials.
The site plan more focused, but again, these are the single-family homes on Morris.
These are the duplexes that hugs the rear of this development.
And then you can see just from a dry vial perspective of the units between the single
family as well as the multifamily.
And then here's just floor plans.
This is for the single family.
but this is you entering Morris Street you have a little vestibule area storage a bedroom
you know a bathroom most importantly we took one curb cut of 12 feet and we that was pre-existing
and we were able to put off-street parking for for for 12 of the 18 units the single family homes
We purposefully did not put a front-loading garage there.
We want to keep eyes on the street for these properties, so the garage is in the rear.
And a particular note is we have trash storage in the units, specifically where the garage level is to account for trash storage.
The ones that don't have garages, the duplexes that don't have garages, it's actually noted on the site plan where the trash is going to be stored.
You go up a flight of steps. You have a living room, a half bath, and a kitchen. You go up another
flight of steps. You have two bathrooms and a bath and a laundry facility. And then you go up
another flight and that's the master suite with a deck. That's the single-family use.
Then the multi-family use.
there's one entrance for the lower level and one entrance for the upper level unit this is the
upper level unit you have the garage you go up a flight of steps you're on the third level you
have a bedroom open floor plan bath and then you go up to the fourth fourth level and you have two
more bedrooms, two baths. For the lower level unit, you go directly in. Again, no basement use.
This is an open floor plan, kitchen, dining room. You go up a flight of steps, you have two bedrooms
and two baths. And then just more elevations. Again, everything allowed as a variety in terms
to height. We did meet with the community on October 25th. Again, we had unanimous support of the
on October 25th. Again, we had unanimous support of the individuals in the community who voted.
individual
And I'm just trying to get it to my computer like usual. It's slow.
Well, you know, the other stuff you have is just, you know, again, exhibits that, you know, we would, you know, typically share with the board, showing proof of mailing, the deed to the property, things like that.
I'm going to unshare my screen, so maybe things are going a little quicker via Zoom.
Again, we have unanimous support from the community that members that did attend the meeting, the coordinating RCO reflected that in a letter of support.
Councilmember Kenyana Johnson also supports this project, which is, again, atypical.
Typically, they only, at best, do non-opposition.
I know that there was another correspondence from this Concerned Citizens Group,
which was not the coordinating RCO.
They did not separately take a vote.
They were at that meeting.
I know that there's a lot of non-zoning related matters with regards to their issues, something about the overpass not being saved, things like that, which would deal with, you know, whether it's ICMX or this residential use.
I believe a lot of those things are unfounded.
But, you know, with that being said, I would like to have my client, Gaziada Seven, adopt my testimony, and we would be more than happy to take any questions from the board.
you want to adopt your testimony uh the testimony yes so mr aliceven can you virtually raise your
hands yes i'm here could could you spell your name for the court reporter yes my name is gazi
joe ataseven g-a-z-i-j-o-v-a-t-a-s-e-v-n do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do, sir. Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Addison, you heard
everything I stated today. Yes, I heard that. Is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt
it as your own testimony? Absolutely. Yes. All right. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Um, yes, sir. There is a Miss Betty Barfort with her hand raised. I will allow her to speak at this time.
Barfort, please unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Could you state your name, please?
I don't know where she is.
Any other questions from the audience?
Sir, we have a call-in user with their hand raised.
I will not for them to speak at this time.
Hi, I'm Tiffany Green, Concerned Citizens of Point Breast. Good morning, board.
Good morning. Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Yes, T-I-F-F-A-N-Y-G-R-E-E-N, and I'm with the Concerned Citizens of Point Breast.
Sure. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed.
I just want to address, we did send us an opposition letter, and I just want to address some of the issues that the lawyer for the applicant has stated.
Number one, this particular area is ICMX, and the neighbors, the businesses, and institutions have stated in the 2035 plan that they would like to maintain this ICMX zoning district area as part of the district plan.
roughly because we feel we need areas where many of these businesses can operate.
One particular issue is that I just want to say that this is a self-imposed hardship
that I believe the applicant has created.
The applicant has created. There is no residential from Tasker Street back to Wolf Street, which is about eight blocks. On this particular block, 1700 block, there is approximately five auto body collision shops, several collisions and auto body.
There is no residential from Tasker Street.
They've been there for years.
They're good businesses.
They bring jobs to Philadelphia, and we support them being on 25th Street.
And so we feel at this point that this particular applicant is trying to change the whole, force a residential zoning district in this area.
And the reason why I was saying that, because the city of Philadelphia, in conjunction with Councilman Johnson, they have a committee, according to an article in Planned Philly, that city council has worked to limit zoning auto bodies in residential areas.
And so, therefore, because many other residents in Southwest have had extreme issues with auto body shops in terms of fumes and fluids and toxins and chemicals and a healthy environment.
And so these businesses have been for years on 25th Street, and they've been able to operate in a positive manner without having to worry about affecting the neighbors.
And so for the applicant to want to plot 18 residential home development on the same block with five other auto body businesses is really creating an issue that would be further down the line in terms of, you know, when it comes to getting a variance, it talks about is this a public safety, public health issue?
And, yes, that would be. And so, therefore, this particular block in itself would not really qualify for a residential. We say all that to say that also, I'm sorry, I'm getting a little bit.
Okay, so we want to state that ICMS District was part of the district plan with the Planning Commission, and it was all agreed upon.
And the city would be going against their own policies to try to limit auto bodies in residential areas.
So why would this particular project, which is not on Marsh Street, is actually on 25th Street on the corner?
And he has a driveway, which he has a refusal for. He's having 18 inches instead of 24, which means that when people try to drive into the complex, they will have a hard time really doing a turnaround and coming back out.
So at that particular point, that's why he doesn't meet the requirement for a driveway to walk to, you know, to come in and come out regarding that.
But at the same time, the buildings will be along 26th Street, which is also an issue because in Plan Philadelphia Magazine 2020, Councilman Johnson has stated that this building, this bridge is crumbling, particularly where he wants to build at 25th and Mars.
There's no lights there. There's no signal lights, which makes it a very dangerous situation. At that point, there's no walkability, because at that point, when you come out, the businesses next door have their cars there, so the residents would not be able to walk. There is no real walkability at that point.
And at the same time, the bridge right where the area is, because we've talked the clean water action, and they've submitted in a request for a federal bridge inspection right at 25th of March.
It's extremely crumbling down, and that in itself is a public safety and a public health issue at that particular corner.
And so it has white liquid licking down onto the pillars.
We did go around and we did meet with the residents, and we do have petitions.
And the residents have stated that they did not support this project on 25th Street Residential, and they would like to maintain the district plan.
I would object.
I know.
I know that.
We do have the petitions, and the young lady who was trying to get on, she was trying to explain why she has not sent those in at this particular point.
Mr. Allen has stated that he unanimously, he had unanimously support. If you look on the summary letter, 41 people attended and only four people supported. So I don't know how he can state that that was unanimous support at that time. And also, that was one of the meetings that also did, as the gentleman said before, 1313.
That was one of the meetings that also did, as the gentleman said before, in 1313, had a serious vote problem in terms of people trying to vote.
So that was a serious, that's an issue.
The other thing is that residential is just not allowed, not on this block at all.
All right.
And I think that we would like to maintain the ICMX district going forward.
I understand.
I understand.
I understand.
Mr. Chair, I'm being cut off. We sit and we listen to Alan give his spirit.
But I have other people that we have to get up. I understand where you are, Tiffany. Okay.
And Mr. Chair, just one minute. I will be brief. The four people that voted in support are the
nearby neighbors. That's the vote they count. There were many projects that day, like many
community meetings, and the people voted in support, and the council member voted or is
supporting this project as well. Is there any other people in the virtual audience that have a comment?
Colin, you're just back again. We don't allow her to speak anymore.
I think we understand where she is.
okay thank you any other comments
no further hands sir planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia
city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the industrial commercial mixed use zoning for this property which has been intentionally
applied here as a buffer between the industrial uses to the west of 25th street and the residential
uses to the east and in respect for the elevated freight rail line that runs above 25th street
this is one of several contiguous blocks of 25th street that have maintained their character
as a light industrial corridor we've heard the applicant claiming that the intent of the proposal
is to extend the neighborhood's residential character to the west. We would argue that it's
not the applicant's or the board's role to make determinations about extending the neighborhood
character. The correct venue for this is through amendments to the zoning map. And the proposed
variance here will adversely and substantially affect the implementation of the comprehensive
plan, which calls for maintenance of that ICMX buffer in this area. As for the degree of the
variants being requested. This is a lot that's just over 10,000 square feet. If this lot were
zoned RSA 5 for reference, which is the most common residential zoning district in this area,
then the applicant would be able to subdivide into 10 units as a matter of right. And so we feel that
this is an overuse. And so in summary, we believe that this application constitutes
a de facto rezoning of the industrial land to residential and is far in excess of the
minimum variance necessary to overcome any limitations that are associated with the
physical conditions of the property. We have no objection to the dimensional variances,
which we think are minimal, but we recommend that the Board deny the requested use variances.
MI 2021-002644-1701-S 21st Street, I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no. Thank you.
MI 2021 003544-5007 North 5th Street, first listing, no exhibits.
Dasha Hentz.
Can Lombus Hentz to speak or it should be promoted?
I was asking.
I'm allowed to speak.
Hello?
Hello.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Natasha Hentz, N-A-T-A-S-H-A-H-E-N-T-Z.
Vice Chair, would you see what we need on this case, what we have?
Yes, I will.
Hello.
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 today yes
does anyone have a copy of
Does anyone have a copy of any of these required documents?
Tanya, Rebecca?
And if I may, Chair, may you swear her in also?
Sure, sure.
Do you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Natasha, N-A-T-A-S-H-A-H-E-N-T-Z.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed
tanya do we have anything on this um
tanya you just got cut off okay this is rebecca cole council for the board we have no uh evidence
of the exhibits having been sent to the board.
Ms. Hentz?
Ms. Hentz, we're going to continue this case.
So, I'm sorry, can you ask where are the documents?
I sent it on January 13th.
To what email boxes?
The boxes?
I sent it to...
so chair if you would allow um this to be moved back i can try to see if we can retrieve something
that's right okay i can have miss cole review it if you wish to proceed um
um we'll put it to see if you can find it but we're going to move on to the next case as we do
it. Okay. So Ms. Hintz, could you please resend the same thing you sent already? Yes. Thank you.
And you can mute yourself and turn your camera off until we come back to you. All right. MI
2021-003548-5108 Haverford Avenue. RCO 44th Ward, letter of support. Mr. Consul.
Mr. Consul has been promoted to panelist.
Mr. Consul, state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Good morning, Joseph Consul, Consul Madison, LLP. That's 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204,
media pennsylvania one nine zero six three how's everyone doing all right do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do our vice chair has
a few questions mr consul do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do um it appears according to the notes that you've submitted everything required
is that correct that is correct carol you may proceed thank you is my packet on the screen
yes yes it is again joseph console here for 5108 haverford avenue uh that is a 1 349 square foot
property it's at the corner of haverford and ramsey street here on the screen is a shot
looking from haverford street here is the ramsey street side and an extended view uh showing a
further view on Ramsey Street. The owner is Mr. Poi T. Sung. He is on this call as well and will
verify my testimony when I'm complete. The history of this property in 1948, it was a shoe repair in
three apartments. 1957, it was a shoe store and a two-family dwelling. In 1983, there's a note
stating um that it was that it was a continuous two-family non-conforming use with commercial
space on the first floor uh appears between that time and 2005 it operated as a vacant storefront
with two apartments in 2005 the zba granted approval for a takeout on the first floor
and the second floor was then converted into a single a single apartment my client bought the
property in 2017 since that time has had great luck finding a tenant for for the top floor but
no luck for the commercial space on the first floor which obviously you can see is still set
up externally as commercial and i'll show you the internal space in in a second um he's seeking to
renovate the commercial space on the first floor and have it function as two apartments
Our refusal is because the property is zoned RSA 5.
our refusal is because the property is zoned rsa 5.
Again, that's the side view.
That's the side view looking up Ramsey Street.
I'll go through the actual layout of the property in a minute, but I'm just giving you guys an idea.
So here's what the internal of the space on the first floor appears now.
Here's what it looks like from different angles.
And so that's the deal.
The RCO meeting was on November 30th, 2021.
We went with the 44th Ward.
At that time, the neighbors and the RCO believed a two-unit building was appropriate, and they, in fact, preferred not to have a commercial space on this corner anymore.
However, after discussing the project, their main concern was the front facade of the building, as I had shown several times.
It still very much looks like a store from the outside.
So they held the vote. We designed the facade and sent them the plans.
We met with them again, and we got their full support.
Basically, they just wanted this to actually look like a living space and not like a store on the outside.
We have included in our packet pictures of the exterior of the building, showing the ground level, the space here accessible off of Haverford Avenue.
um that front door leads to the first floor unit this white side door leads to the first floor
unit and then um through this gate next to the garage which is also my clients is the entrance
to um the second floor unit and the basement uh it's a different view you can see the door in
there we don't have internals from the second floor unit it's as i said it's occupied right now um
So we only have the first floor unit, we can see here where it's accessible and then the plans layout where the actual setup is on the inside.
So I'm going to scan down to the plans real quick or up to the plans.
So here's what the layout of the property looks like here.
you access the um the second floor unit and the basement through that gate which is here and the
second floor is set up right now as a um two-bedroom apartment and again it's occupied um let's see
there's the back garage area and there's that space on the side that i showed you guys here
where everyone keeps their trash now the community had reported nothing as far as i know that the
trash storage was a problem. It's plenty of space out there. Again, there's that garage space and
then the space next to it. The basement space will be accessible by everyone via the stairs
through that back gate there that I just showed everyone. It's just going to be mechanicals and
storage. And the first floor itself will be renovated into a one-bedroom unit. It's large,
But the way that it works on the angle, it seems to make sense just to have one bedroom in that first floor unit.
So additionally, our packet contains the proof of ownership as well as the tax clearance certificate.
And, you know, in closing, considering the history of the property, it's always been a multi-unit.
the support of the neighbors the fact that my client has not been able to occupy the commercial
space he's owned the property since 2017 we believe that a two-family dwelling is appropriate
for the space and we are here seeking the board support thank you you want to adopt your testimony
as your client here yes sir um could you raise your hand
okay you're the officer of the court we aren't we will we're fine with that um i know he's on
he's texting me hi questions from the board there he is if you want to get him on them okay sure
state your name sir please and spell it for the court reporter
oi suon p-o-i last name s-u-o-n all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed good morning mr swan um did you hear
my testimony right now regarding 5108 haverford yes do you have anything do you adopt it as your
I'm sorry?
Do you agree with what I said?
You were saying it yourself. Thank you.
Do you have anything you want to add?
uh no you you explained it very well thank you thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
No, you explained it very well. Thank you.
Thank you.
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
planning commission hands you have a hand no i was saying i see no further hands sir okay thank
you sir uh planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city
planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing residential single family at this location however as we've seen the existing
structure does contain two separate units we recommend that the board grant the requested
variance mi 2021 003548 5108 haverford avenue i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes thomas
holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you board
okay um mi 2021 003399 5229 westminster avenue and mi 2021 004629 5231 westminster avenue
mr masters i believe we can hear them both together westfully together civic association
letter of support and jamie gunthier letter of support uh chair this is tanya
uh did you not want to go back to the other well let's hear this these two here and then we'll go
back to that okay mr masters um good morning again mr chair members of the board steve masters with
the law firm of just laws on behalf of the applicants uh ganithia geiger and uh young
scholars uh child care center and and we can hear both these together yes um this is actually one
property that has never been officially consolidated so there are two lots but the
deed that we will see is one deed and so you've you've already been you've already been sworn
um our vice chair has a few questions do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy yes i do okay it appears that you've submitted all the required documents
is that correct that is correct you may proceed thank you all right i'm going to share my screen
okay um welcome again um so this is um this was a real joy of a project to present to the rco
in this neighborhood, once they started to really understand how great the child care center is and
their track record, their only concern was, how can we get this to happen now? Why do we have to
wait for this to happen? So that was a great phenomenon at the RCO meeting. The refusal here,
um and and we do have the two properties as as i said uh well the two parcels but they're really
one um they're one structure uh we have for the for the 5229 which is where which is the part
of the building without the sign we just have a um a use refusal um because of rm1 and on the
5231, we have also some refusals around the sign. So it is our contention, members of the board,
that the refusal is actually in error because the zoning code allows in the RM1 district for
child care centers when they're accompanied by educational programming for older children.
And as you will hear, this child care center, this is going to be the second site for this child care center.
They serve not only very young children, not only preschool children, but also school-age children.
So it's actually an appropriate use legal within the zoning code.
But this building for many, many years has been a commercial building.
It's not at all configured for residential use.
And so it definitely meets the definition of hardship, because it would require extensive and very expensive renovation to make it into a residentially appropriate building.
Mr. Masters, what are the ages of the children?
For the Young Scholars Day, let me screw it over to that.
this is a for the for the preschool there are four out of four keystone star program
they have um we'll saw that in the second you asked me specifically about the ages
they have um well so that in the second you asked me specifically about the ages yeah um
sorry board it's okay
okay do you know the days and hours of operation
Yes, I have the owner that I can call up for these specific questions. But yes, we have in our project information form. So here we go.
The preschool program is designed for three to five year olds. It prepares them for the school year.
They have an extensive school-age program for before and after school for age 5 to 7-year-olds and also 8 to 12-year-olds.
There was an extensive traffic management plan that we discussed with the RCO that they were very pleased with.
And this is the traffic management plan that's in use at the existing facility on Girard.
And this is a program that partners with CHOP, Philly Pre-K, has the strong support of Councilwoman Gaudier, and many other institutions in the city, the school district, for the high-quality education that they do, both for the preschool children and for the younger elementary school children.
And we also have the architect available for us to go through.
We're not having, we don't, there's no additional construction or any changes to the building.
It's been renovated to just be in terms of very modern and very clean, as I will show you in a moment.
but first let's look um we have the the rco letter from west philly together um was in support we
have um it was unanimous um in support of of this application and then we have a letter from
jamie gaudier uh supporting her second um the second location of the young scholars program
at Westminster, saying that it's a great program at its existing location, and the councilwoman
was very pleased to support the expansion into the second location. This is our plans.
And the photos. So here we have, this is the south elevation on Westminster. So this is the 5229 portion and this is the 5231 portion where the where the sign is.
This is the rear yard space of 5229.
This is the more of the rear yard space. Then we have the internal photos, interior. This is the
main entrance and that connects both the 5231 to the 5229 spaces. This is the second floor for 5229.
This is more of 5229.
bathroom. We have elevation drawings and the sides of the north-south and everything. Here's
the sign. This sign is a pre-existing sign. It's existed for decades and apparently it was never
properly legalized. So part of this application is to legalize the projecting sign that harmonizes
as well with the surrounding community.
Here we have photos of the 5231 side,
and our zoning posters.
There's a little promo oh it's supposed to
Oh, it's a post-to-work, but it's not working. Okay.
Young Scholars Today are the leaders of tomorrow.
At Young Scholars Daycare Center, we're committed to providing safe, affordable, quality child care for children from birth to 12 years old.
Our program is designed to foster children's developmental needs with activities in the arts, language, math, and science.
Our qualified, compassionate staff will nurture your child's growth and develop it, instilling a sense of pride, confidence, and independence.
Contact Young Scholars now for information about enrollment or to schedule a tour.
All of the children who are served by Young Scholars, it's free.
It's free child care and free after-school care.
It's all paid for by the programs from the city and other providers.
This is the deed.
and Premises A and Premises B.
Their Application for Appeal and Project Information Form we've gone over.
And the RCO notice and the proof of mailing.
At this point, I would like to have Genithia Geiger raise her hand and to be recognized.
She has been about to speak.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes. Good morning, everyone. My name is Genithia Geiger. That's G-E-N-I-T-H-I-A-G-E-I-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. Geiger, you have heard my testimony this morning. Do you agree with it and adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Would you like to share anything else with the board about your program and what you're hoping to do with this new location?
Sure. Thank you.
So this new location, I would like to service preschool children and after school leaders.
We reopened, you know, as the world shut down for all of us for six months, we reopened September of 2020.
And knock on wood, we've never had to close due to COVID.
We have very strong health and safety practices that we'll continue to do.
In fact, sidebar, yesterday, the health department came out to my first location on Gerard Avenue
and gave me accommodations again and told me I'm one of the cleanest child care centers in the city.
So we would like to expand our services.
As Steve mentioned, I'm part of the Philly Pre-K, which is the mayor's soda tax.
So this location, we would like to service, you know, those communities with preschool students and after school,
especially with the school closures going down you know sporadically we're providing virtual
care so families can still go to work in school thank you mr geiger thank you questions from the
board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the
virtual audience.
No further hands up.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
residential multifamily zoning at this location.
However, as we've seen, the building has a documented prior use.
It's having a non-residential first floor.
With respect to 5231 Westminster Avenue, City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variances with the condition that the sign variants be limited to legalization of the existing sign.
And as for 5229 Westminster Avenue, City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variants.
MI 2021-003399-5229 Westminster.
And MI-2021-004629-5231 was Mr. I vote yes with comments from the Planning Commission relative to the sign.
Carol Tenneri, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Howland, my vote is yes to both with proviso.
James Snell, yes to both with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, yes, the vote for provisals.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, members of the board.
Thank you very much, members of the board.
MI 2021-003544-5007, North Fish Street.
Are we ready to go, Tanya?
I'm sorry, Chair, about the last case?
Did we get the proviso?
Rebecca, did you record the proviso?
I just want to make sure we have the proviso unrecorded.
Ian, state it again, please.
City Planning Commission's recommend.
Ian Hegarty for the City Planning Commission.
Recommended proviso for 5231
Westminster Avenue is
that the sign be permitted
only to legalize the existing sign
with no change to the size
or illumination.
Thank you very kindly.
Tanya, are we ready with this other case?
If, Ms. Hintz, we did review and realize that you sent documents.
However, all required documents wasn't sent.
So the case is going to have to be continued.
A deed is necessary.
There was only one photo.
And we would need more.
So all documents would need to be presented the next time you come before the board.
Are you thinking?
All right.
And you have to ensure that your documents are emailed to both the RCO box and Ms. Saleta.
You can email the RCO box to get further information from the ZBA staff, okay?
Okay, thank you.
And because this was just a minor glitch, we're scheduling in June.
If you reach out to us with a request to go earlier, I can accommodate, okay?
All right, thank you so much.
Thank you, Ms. Hentz.
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you.
MI 2021-003213-1910-Chestnut Street.
Mr. Michael Mattione has been promoted to panelists, sir.
Mr. Patterson and Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to hop off.
Thank you, sir.
good morning mrs israel good morning i'm sorry chair this is tanya i hate to keep interrupting
but could we put on record um ismail shaheed left and reputes himself thank you chair
good morning good morning um both attorneys have been sworn i think where we left it mr
Mattione, you're ready to present your case?
I believe that's correct,
Brown, is that you agree?
Yes, Michael.
Thank you. I'd like to give a
little opening, Mr. Chair.
Sure. I represent the board
of directors. I'm sorry.
I was going to say, I got,
I'm sorry,
Mr. Gross had notified
me to ask the board
if he, as not my witness,
if he could speak at some point
in response to Councilman Clark.
statement okay so why don't why don't we do this why don't we start with Mr. Mattione let him do
his opening and let him present I think he said yesterday he has three or four witnesses
okay thank you I'm sorry did I miss swearing then maybe I missed it well they were sworn yesterday
if we we think they need to be sworn again this is a continuation yes they have to be
All right, so Mr. Mattione, Mr. Patterson, do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All right, I represent the Board of Directors of the William Penthouse and Michael Niederman individually as resident of the William Penthouse and as president of the Board of Directors of the William Penthouse.
I provided exhibits last week to the board, including CV and report from Ira Rosen, an entertainment industry expert, the CV and report from Steve Schneider, a traffic engineer, CV and report from Joe Vanderslice and Russell Collins of KSG Security Group, petitions with 227 William Penthouse residents signatures on them, 200 residents opposing, 26 not opposing, and one other vote, a memorandum of law.
and yesterday I submitted one additional document, a follow-up letter from Steve Schneider.
As I said, I have four witnesses, Michael Niederman, Ira Rosen, an entertainment industry expert,
Steve Schneider, a traffic engineer, and Joe Vanderslice, a security and risk assessment expert.
William Penthouse is at 1919 Chestnut Street, and it's one of the most impacted neighbors
regarding the proposed bankroll development.
The front door is almost directly across the street from the William Penthouse.
bankrolls front door. There are more than 800 residents of the William Penthouse and
There are more than 800 residents of the William Penhouse, and they overwhelmingly oppose the bankroll project assumed by the petitions that I have labeled as Exhibit A.
they overwhelmingly oppose the bankrolls.
William Penhouse will present testimony that bankroll, show that bankroll cannot meet the requirements to show that the use will not have specific detrimental impacts on the neighborhood that exceed those to be expected from a 400-seat restaurant.
William Penhouse will present expert and fact witnesses who will testify that the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the community.
and specifically on their building that far exceeds that which is expected from a restaurant use.
The testimony will show that there is a high probability of substantial injury to the public interest
and that this justifies denial of the requested special exception.
The testimony will establish that bankroll project will have a much greater than anticipated adverse impact
on the quality of life at the William Penn House.
The testimony will establish that bankroll will have a substantial detrimental impact
on the health safety and welfare of the community that exceeds what is expected from a 400 seat
restaurant and as a consequence the testimony will show that bankroll should be denied the requested
special exception i'd like to start with my first witness michael niederman
and i'd like to share my screen
is my screen up it is yes all right thank you
Mr. Niederman could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
sure Michael M-I-C-H-A-E-L Niederman that's N like Nancy I-E-D-E-R-M-A-N
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Michael, what is your relationship with the William Penthouse?
Well, I'm a resident of the William Penthouse, and I'm also the president of the Board of
Directors.
Would you please briefly describe the William Penthouse, what it is, how many units it has,
whether it has parking facilities, and who manages the parking facilities?
Okay, the William Penthouse is a cooperative apartment building.
We have approximately 525 units, maybe close to 800 people who live here.
We do have a garage.
The garage is a part of the building that we own, but it is actually operated by another company called SP Plus.
And please describe the present neighborhood where William Penthouse is located.
Well, we're kind of mixed use neighborhood.
there's a lot of commercial space right on Chestnut Street, but there's an awful lot of
residential space as well. On our, just on our block, as I said, William Penthouse has
maybe close to 800 people. There are stores along Chestnut Street, and above many of those stores
are rental apartments on the other side of chestnut street on the south side we have a
large apartment building called the harper um and then there is a condo i think at 1920 not as big
a building but nonetheless a residential building and on the corner of 20th and chestnut there's
another large apartment building. And how far from the bankroll facility is the William Penthouse?
Well, we're more or less directly across the street. And as a resident, is it fair to say
you're familiar with the general traffic and vehicular use on Chestnut Street, the 1900 block?
Yes, it is because I'm on Chestnut Street a lot. And based on your personal observations,
would you describe traffic conditions and typical uses well it's a pretty busy street because um on
the south side of chestnut street there are three different bus lines you know that use that lane
the middle lane of the street is traffic and then the lane closest to the north side of chestnut
street is there is some parking there's some dedicated bicycle space um there's a streetery
so there's no traffic can use that lane of Chessna Street. Based on your personal observations and
knowledge of the needs of William Penthouse's residents as well as the surrounding neighborhood
what questions or concerns did the proposed bankroll use raise in your mind? Well we're
concerned about safety and security of our residents specifically as concerns large groups
of people coming out onto Chestnut Street from the bankroll, you know, establishment late at night.
establishment late at night. I am very concerned about the congestion on Chestnut Street since
I am very...
that's the streets that is used for emergency vehicles. So I fear that there could be a problem
with emergency vehicles getting to our building in the case of emergency. And were you part of
the stakeholders group with CCRA? Yes, I was. And did you have the opportunity to review the plans
for bankroll? Yes, I did. And have you reviewed and discussed the bankroll project with bankroll
representatives? Yes, I have. And as president of the board of the William Penthouse, did you
discuss the bankroll project with the board in residence? Yes, many times. And did the board of
the William Penthouse placed a petition in the building to attempt to determine the sentiment
of the residents of the William Penthouse.
Yes, we did.
It was at our front desk, which is a place that all our residents pass by frequently.
Of course, I did that wrong.
But up on the screen, when I finally get around to getting the right view, let me stroll down
Is this the copy of the petition?
Yes, it is.
Did you have the opportunity to tabulate the results of the petition?
I personally did not, and I believe the results are like 227 signatures and 200 of those signatures
opposed the project.
There were 26 that supported it and one abstention.
Did the Board of Residents raise concerns regarding bankroll?
Yes, they did. I mean, the same concerns that I mentioned, people were worried about noise of large groups of people coming out of an establishment, especially late at night.
I was going to ask you the next question. As a result of the concerns, did the William Penthouse retain experts to review the project and what impact it would have on the neighborhood?
Yes, we did. We engaged the services of a traffic person, a security person, an events person, to help us realize whether or not our concerns were really valid concerns or not.
And did you receive reports?
Yes, we received reports from each of them.
and did you um what did you do as a result of the reports received well they were distributed to the
members of the board of directors we reviewed them and then we met to discuss them um we all
all being the board of directors um you know felt that those reports substantiated the concerns that
we had that this property or this business that's proposed to to open bankroll is is an okay business
but not here not in a neighborhood that's so residential um and where their patrons may cause
uh you know congestion on the street and block the street etc and did you have an opportunity
review a memorandum of agreement that bank rolled and entered into with several other nearby
stakeholders? Yes, I did. And why is this memorandum not adequate to protect the interests
of the William Penhouse? The memorandum, in my opinion, was a good one for a lot of purposes,
but it didn't address our main concerns, which was safety on Chestnut Street and large groups of
people um exiting a business you know this business we were told will be open until 2 a.m
even though like food service will stop around midnight so we could have a large a large number
of people exiting uh after possibly drinking i can't swear to what they're going to object to
speculation but we are told that the um liquor control board their license will allow them
to be open until 2 a.m. So that is a concern for us that a large number of people could
be exiting onto Chestnut Street at that hour with not only the people but the vehicles that
they may need to use to exit. Where do emergency vehicles serving the William Penthouse stop?
Well there's a loading zone right in front of our main entrance at 1919 Chestnut.
Do emergency vehicles use Ludlow Street to service William Penthouse?
Do emergency vehicles use Ludlow Street to service William Penn House?
I live in the building 15 years, but it is something I have not seen, that emergency vehicles use that entrance.
There are times when the loading space is occupied by vehicles not serving the William Penn House?
Correct.
What impact do you think, in your opinion and your observations, will Bankroll have on the emergency vehicles serving the William Penn House?
Well, as I stated before, I fear that the street at a busy time will be so congested that an emergency vehicle wouldn't be able to get to our main entrance, which is where they come.
We have an aging population in our building.
It's not unusual that we have an emergency vehicle like an ambulance come to the building.
excuse me i'm going to i'm going to inject an objection to the last statement as an opinion
in summary uh please state you know your personal basis based upon your observations and what you've
heard and seen for the opposition of william penthouse as chair of the board or president
of the board to this bankroll proposal it's your lay lay opinion your lay statements as to the
opposition okay so we're concerned about the size scope the hours of operation um in addition to any
other issues that i mentioned um because like other restaurants and all are not open that late
this would be something uh or different for for that space so it concerns us that that our um
our space in front of our building would be blocked if we needed it we retained the experts
to kind of corroborate what we felt we're just lay people but we had concerns about what this
establishment might do how it will affect us so that was why we engaged these experts
we didn't just do it off the top of our head and we believe that the reports from the experts that
we engage kind of corroborated the fact that you know there's kind of a a hardship for us
as a result of this uh establishment. I have no further questions for Mr. Niederman. Thank you.
Um if I may I have questions for Mr. Niederman. Okay. Michael you mind if I share my screen now?
no no no i think i think ron i have to uh exit my screen yeah okay you're up thank you
as we saw yesterday oh hi mr neederman nice to see you again hi um a few questions um
you were you were just testifying about some of the residential buildings on that block
And you mentioned the Harper Building.
You're aware that this proposed restaurant is located within the Harper Building project, correct?
Correct.
And you stated that more or less the William Penthouse is located across the street from 1910 Chestnut Street?
This is the William Penthouse.
Can you see my cursor on that?
Yes, I can.
Is that front on Chestnut Street?
Well, yes.
I mean, to get to our front door, you have to come in off Chestnut Street right near where your cursor is.
And that's the walkway, right where your cursor is.
That's the walkway from Chestnut to our front door.
But the building does not front on Chestnut Street.
That's my question.
No, it does not.
And it's another picture here.
It's set back.
It actually fronts on Ranstead and Ludlow Street.
Would that be accurate?
Well, in my opinion, I wouldn't call that front, but one side of our building is on Ludlow Street.
Well, yeah, sorry, I'm using zoning terms.
Right, and Ranset Street is not a street that goes through.
I understand.
There's only a small portion of it.
But it's partially open, I would say.
So, you know, back here on Ludlow Street, that's where the loading and unloading occurs, and trash removal.
Is that correct?
yes loading is done from ludlow dude does the fire department or emergency vehicles
ever use that street i have not seen them on ludlow street okay um i want to ask you about
this the process of um uh the william penn process so there was a public meeting held
let's say public meeting you held a meeting with with the representatives of um of the bankroll
Stephen Starr restaurant, correct? Correct. And in general, how many board members make up your board?
Correct. And in general, how many board members make up your board?
Eleven. And they consist of residents? Yes. And how do they get placed on the board? Is it by
election? It is by election. Okay. And is there a zoning subcommittee or something like that,
who a smaller group of people who took the lead on this?
It was our executive committee of the board.
I think you did explain how the board arrived at its decision.
So was there a vote of the entire board or the vote of the committee?
How does it work?
That's what I'm trying to understand.
how the position was arrived at?
Well, there was a vote of the entire board.
I mean, much of the communication was just
with the executive committee of the board.
But after we met and made whatever decisions we made,
we brought it to the entire board
so that they make the decision as to the position
that the William Penthouse wants to take on this matter.
I wanted to ask you some questions
about your petition that was just shown.
So how were those signatures compiled?
I heard you say that the petition was left from the front desk.
Like, is that would be near where the sign-in sheet is if you walk into that desk?
So where we get packages, et cetera.
And was it just sitting there on the desk for anyone to sign who was a resident?
And was there anyone available to talk to if someone wanted to sign that petition or any documents there that they could review?
There were no documents for them to review, but they were told if they want, they could leave a message for the board of directors.
When you say documents to review, where were those documents? Were they with the sign-in sheet?
No, there were no documents with the sign-in sheet, but if somebody had an interest, they could go to our management office.
Understood. And so, who or what individuals were responsible for compiling the petition and then submitting it today, other than your counsel? I'm not asking about that.
Right. No, our management office.
Your management office? Okay. And you mentioned the application that the applicant has to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for a liquor license. Is that correct?
Well, I wasn't really talking about their license as much as what we were told at meetings with the bankroll representative saying that their liquor license allows them to be open until 2.
So you're aware there was a liquor license application?
Correct.
And did the William Penthouse similarly compile petitions to oppose the liquor license?
Actually, this is the zoning case, and that's the liquor control board, and I don't know what relevance.
If you just allow me, I'll get to the relevance in a second. If not, I would agree with your objection.
We did not compile an objection to the liquor license.
So you were not involved with or aware of a petition that was submitted to the liquor
control board in opposition?
Not that I remember.
Do you know who Mr. Rosen is?
Mr. Rosen
excuse me
Mr. Rosen
David Rosen
I believe you're talking
about Mr. Rose
not Rosen
Rose sorry
so you're aware of him
absolutely
do you know anything about
him and his involvement with
the petition to the
lcb board mr chair i'm going to inject again because i really don't know well here's the
point okay here's an affidavit from mr rose who who signed and said that there was a petition
filing to the lcb board and his name was sports so to me that brings into suspect any of the names
that are on this petition uh in connection with this case for his own i'm going to object to mr
rose's affidavit because it's hearsay unless he's here to testify he signed it and notarized it if
want me to bring it i'm happy but in order in the interest of time on this you're not going
to accept the notarized affidavit okay no anyway
mr neederman um and i raised this yesterday too were you
Mr. Niederman, and I raised this yesterday too, were you aware of the restaurant application
that was filed in 2017 in this 1910 Chestnut Street?
For another sit-down restaurant?
Correct.
Were you on the board at that time?
And you were aware there was no opposition at the time?
Correct.
So how does that restaurant differ from this restaurant, if you know or if you can say?
Well, that restaurant, as we were informed, was just a restaurant.
Bankroll is not just a restaurant, even though mostly what we were told was, oh, it's just the Stephen Starr restaurant.
But the hours of operation are very different from most restaurants.
And they're the basis for a lot of our concerns.
So you're saying that their restaurant hours are different than their other star restaurants,
such as Midtown and the Park? Have you checked with it? Or is that just your speculation?
Well, somewhat speculation, but I frequent those restaurants a lot.
I don't necessarily state or two. As far as I know, they are not open at those hours.
Okay. That's all I have for Mr. Niedermann, Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Mattione, call your next witness, please.
Yes, Ira Rosen.
Mr. Rosen has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Rosen, state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Yes, my name is Ira Rosen, I-R-A-R-O-S-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Mattione, proceed
Mr. Mattione, could we see if we can get your client
to move closer to the mic
Absolutely, sorry
Yeah, Ira, you're a little low
Okay, how about now
It's still a little low
if you can do something
Let me try
Is that better?
Yeah, it's better
Mr. Rosen is an entertainment industry expert.
What is your profession or occupation, Ira?
I'm an event and venue risk assessment consultant specializing in both indoor and outdoor venues.
And is a copy of your CV up on the screen?
Hold on, I have to share my screen.
I'm sorry.
Is it up now?
Yes, it is.
Is that a copy of your CV?
Yes, it is.
We have no objection to it being offered as an expert.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Ron.
Do you have a CFEE certification?
Yes, I do.
And what does that mean?
It is a Certified Festivals and Events Executive Certification from the International Festivals and Events Association.
And are you familiar with the Bankroll Project?
Yes, I am.
And is the, oops, sorry, document up on the screen, a copy of the report you repaired regarding the bankroll application?
Yes, it is.
And what information did you review regarding bankroll?
I've reviewed about 12 different documents, including a letter from Bankroll to the residents of William Penhouse, the proposed Memorandum of Agreement, Philadelphia Inquirer Article of 9-9-21,
Portico Article of 9-5-21, all of the Zoning Board submissions, review of security reports submitted by Bankroll, Philadelphia Business Journal article,
security report submitted by Collins Security Group, the Allied Universal documentation,
PHP planning documentation, traffic planning documentation.
And have you visited the site and surrounding area? Yes, I have. And as an entertainment
industry expert, what type of risk assessment, in your opinion, should have been performed by
bank vault? Typically, a risk assessment for an indoor facility consists of human-related risks.
You know, what are the potential risks of people being in the facility, potential risk of people
leaving the facility, that type of risk. The other two types of risk are more outdoor-related,
weather-related risks, and technological risks. But a human risk assessment is typically what
would be done in this particular case. Have you seen anything to indicate an
appropriate risk assessment was completed? I have not seen anything. And as an
entertainment industry expert, do you have an opinion regarding the
appropriateness of bankroll for this facility? Yes, I do have that an opinion.
Yes, I do have an opinion.
And state that for the board, please.
And state that for the board, please.
Absolutely.
To me, and again, in much of the documentation I have read, the facility is referred to as a restaurant.
In my opinion, in some of the documentation that comes from articles that were written, it is more than just a restaurant.
It's referred to in many ways as a, quote, from Philadelphia Inquirer, a sports and entertainment venue.
To me, a sports and entertainment venue is different than a restaurant.
This certainly includes a restaurant, and I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Starr
and what he does with his restaurants.
But this is more than just a restaurant.
This is, again, a sports and entertainment venue.
And is this appropriate for this location?
In my opinion, it is not appropriate for this location.
It's a highly residential, highly trafficked location.
I think it would cause, again, opinion.
I think it would cause undue traffic issues, potential security issues, potential safety issues to the residents in the area.
And did you see the memorandum agreement that Bankwell had entered into with several nearby property owners?
Yes, I did.
And does this MOA adequately protect the nearby residents?
In my opinion, it does not.
And why not?
Again, to echo those similar kinds of conversations, I do think as an entertainment venue of this nature, I do think it increases risk to the residents.
I think it increases risk, traffic concerns.
I think it's potential risk to the residents of William Penhouse with regard to the accessibility of the emergency area.
So I do not...
No, no, Jack, that's traffic engineering issue.
So again, in my opinion, I do not think the MOA effectively protects the residents of William Kent House.
And as an entertainment industry expert, do you have a conclusion about where you think bankrolls should actually be located?
I think it's a great idea.
I think it's an excellent facility.
I do not think it should be located in a residential area.
opinion. And in your professional opinion, will the bankroll facility as proposed have a detrimental
impact on the health, safety, and welfare that exceeds that reasonably expected from a 490
person capacity restaurant? Yes, I do. Why do you have this opinion? Again, come back to my
statement earlier that it is more than a restaurant. It is, again, that sports and entertainment venue
in a you know in reading a lot of documentation it does talk about the possibility and the
encouragement of the utilization of sports betting applications which in and of themselves
are certainly not a detrimental effect but a facility that is open if the liquor license
is granted and I have not read the liquor license application to full disclosure if the liquor
license is granted that they're staying open until two o'clock in the morning I think in my
opinion that that could create a substantial effect, a negative effect on quality of life
to the residents of the William Penn House.
And do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of professional certainty of whether this
proposal by bankroll for a restaurant, liquor license, combining gambling, entertainment,
and competition among guests and patrons?
Jackson, gambling was never, we've testified that there's no gambling.
Gaming. Gaming. Gaming. And that has to testify, though.
Gaming, entertainment, and competition among guests and patrons with food service until 10 p.m. or midnight and alcohol service until 2 a.m.
With security as described in the report presented by Bankroll and by their testimony providing camera surveillance, entrance door control,
Does this meet the minimum standards for ensuring the proposed uses will not cause adverse impacts
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the William Penthouse residents and other nearby residents?
Greater than what would be expected of a normal restaurant use?
Yes, I do have an opinion.
And what's your opinion?
In my opinion, it does not adequately address those issues.
Again, there will be a security report from another witness, but from a risk perspective,
I do not think it provides adequate security services.
And did you have an opportunity to review the materials submitted by bankroll,
CH planning report, traffic planning and design, and allied security reports?
Yes, I did review those.
And did these reports change your opinions?
No, they did not.
No, they did not.
And why not?
And why not?
Again, as stipulated on...
Again, as stipulated, I am not a traffic expert, but as a risk expert in reviewing that documentation,
and again, as a risk expert looking at the documentation from CH Planning,
I do not feel that they adequately addressed the challenges that would be posed by the residents of William Penhouse.
is there anything in the material submitted by bankroll that shows there was a risk assessment
completed by bankroll i have i have not seen a risk assessment and are your opinions today
uh based upon a reasonable degree of professional certainty yes they are i have no further questions
for the witness thank you i have some questions hi mr rosen um a little confused because you've
use restaurant and entertainment venue interchangeably here. So what do you view this
use as? I view this use as a sports and entertainment venue with a restaurant.
And why is that? Have you looked at the floor plans? I have looked at the floor plans. Yes, I have.
And do you see all predominantly tables and chairs? There are predominantly tables and chairs
as well as a significant bar space. Okay. It seems like you have a lot of experience in
major events. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And what does that mean? Like
stadium-sized events, outdoor events? Well, I'm not... I love everything from small venues
to convention centers to gambling establishments. Again, recognizing that this is not that.
many outdoor festivals and events throughout the country.
How about restaurants?
I have not specifically worked in a restaurant setting.
So are you aware under the zoning code, this is classified as an eating restaurant?
I'm not familiar with zoning code in the city of Philadelphia.
Okay, so you haven't read the zoning code in connection with this case?
I have not.
I have read the documentation, but not the specific code.
And you mentioned about risk assessment.
I have to tell you, I've never heard anybody say we needed a risk assessment for a restaurant.
Where would that conclusion come from?
I would not recommend one for a restaurant.
I would recommend one for a sports and entertainment venue.
Well, we differ, I guess, on what you're characterizing as.
Yes, sir, we do.
That's fair.
I mean, I get it.
So in your report on the last page, you say, this is not just a restaurant, but an entertainment venue with the probability of large crowds, congested streets, intoxicated patrons, gambling, and all the problems inherent with this type of operation.
um i'm going to try to understand where you come up with the illusion that this is such a bad
um a bad proposed use here that it's it's almost criminal that's going to spill out onto the
streets i've seen that you you've cited some newspaper articles um is that where you've got
most of your facts because i would object i'm going to object to any references to newspaper
articles in your report um do you have any answer for that let me just state it again
And, you know, again, reading the articles, reading all of the information that I have reviewed, that is where I came up with that opinion conclusion.
Fair enough.
I just want to note for the record that those newspaper articles contain statements against interest by people such as Paul Martino and other principals of Bankroll, including Michael Kira, who testified yesterday.
I mean, you and I have been quoted in newspapers.
They don't usually come out, in my view, accurate.
So I would object that it's your site, but it is what it is.
I have no further questions for Mr. Rosen.
I'd like to call on.
You want to call your next witness, please?
Yes, Stephen Schneider.
Mr. Schneider has been allowed to speak, sir.
Mr. Schneider, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Can you hear me?
Yes, Wayne. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Absolutely. It's Steven Schneider. That's S-T-E-V-E-N-S-C-H-N-E-I-D-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Thank you. Again, Ron, he's a professional engineer. His CV is up on the screen. Do you have any objection?
Thank you. Again, Ron, he's a professional engineer. His CV is up here.
No, Michael, and I just had a question because I couldn't tell if he was licensed in Pennsylvania or if that matters.
I do not believe he is.
Okay, thank you. Other than that, I have no objection to enter him in as an expert.
And I just want to ask you a question, Steve. Is the document on the screen a copy of your CV?
Yes, it is.
Okay. And we requested that you study the possible traffic impacts of the project proposed by the applicant for special exception under the city zoning code. Is that correct?
That is correct.
And briefly describe what you did to investigate the bankroll project and its potential impacts on traffic in the area of 1910 Chestnut Street.
All right. I personally visited the site to observe the current roadway and pedestrian conditions. I reviewed the proposed floor plans, zoning use applications, ZBA hearing transcripts or transcripts from October 19th, 2020.
I also reviewed the Philadelphia zoning codes
for a special exception approval
I looked at a memorandum of agreement
between bankroll and neighbors
and among other things
I also reviewed the bankroll security report
addressing its security measures
those were the key ones I guess
I also conducted an analysis
of industry standards
and publications comparing the anticipated impacts of this site to a typical restaurant.
And I addressed traffic and safety concerns of the proposed site in general.
And does your analysis specifically review
the impact of the bankroll project on the William Penn House at 1919 Chestnut Street?
That is correct, yes.
And in order to complete your evaluation as a traffic engineer, what must you do with the information you assemble?
Well, I reviewed all the information that was available.
I looked at any previous studies that were possibly available to review from both the public agencies as well as the private sector, including area-wide studies.
I found a few of those from the city, for example, concerning traffic movement, traffic safety, pedestrian safety, reviewed impacts for this type of a use on this system and general traffic in the area.
And did you prepare a traffic impact analysis for the Bancro project?
Yes, I did.
Is a copy of that analysis up on the screen?
yes it is okay and do you have any professional opinions regarding the traffic pedestrian safety
and related issues and how these issues will be impacted if the bankroll project is approved
yes i do and what specific difficulties will residents of leon penthouse face if the special
exception permitting bankroll is granted um first a a higher parking demand which will lead to more
illegal parking, including use of the loading zone in front of
the William Penn House entrance, as can be seen in
some of the photos of my report. Cars currently attempt to park
in the loading zone in front of the William Penn, where they're not permitted
due to the current high parking demand in the area.
If I'm going too fast, just tell me.
The site will exacerbate
this issue by creating an even higher parking demand
in the area. The loaning zone is needed for deliveries
as was mentioned earlier, a little while ago, but more importantly
it's needed for, as also mentioned a little while ago, potential emergency and use
for the needs of the William Penthouse residents.
Another issue would be the noise disturbance
and greater potential for violence. The site's proposed
closing hour is 2 a.m., which is cause for concern of disturbance of noise around the
property, properties, most significantly to the residents of the area.
Unlike a typical restaurant where people don't stay around, don't necessarily stay around
for entertainment purposes, closes at 10 o'clock, this will have a lot of the people
staying there much later than that.
The bankroll people, I believe, said that they'll end the food service by midnight, but the bar will still remain open until about 2 a.m.
And this is likely to lead patrons.
And this is likely to lead patrons to congregate at the entrance with large numbers of vehicles on the street.
This is true because many of the sporting events, as we all know, end in the West Coast about three hours later, which is about 11 p.m. West Coast time.
East Coast would be about 2 a.m.
So because of that, these establishments, this establishment would be open until about two to cover the 11 p.m. ending of some of the possible games that might be going on.
In addition, there are other bar restaurants within the, I would say, quarter of a mile area radius, which can compound the potential disturbance of noise levels.
I also reviewed, which I thought was very important, the accident rates in the area.
According to PennDOT, crash data, Chestnut Street is currently, it's a corridor in the city ranked with one of the highest rates of fatalities and severe injuries per mile.
Due to this high volume that will be generated, as I feel, by bankroll, these accidents, rates will intensify.
And are there specific challenges presented by Chestnut Street?
Yeah, it was interesting when I got into it.
Chestnut Street is one of the only streets having three bus routes.
It also is one of the only streets having a bus-only lane.
The travel lanes on Chestnut are also about, I measured it, about nine feet wide, including the bus lane, creating a less, I'll say, less forgiving buffer to the drivers.
And I looked at some other documentation, you know, industry standards.
One was through the National Association of City Transportation Officials, which is used, you know, across the country.
Travel lane widths of 10 feet is most appropriate in urban areas.
But this type of use for trucks and buses, they recommend 11 feet, not 10.
And again, we have 9 feet in our case.
Also, these buses, as you know, run between 5 a.m. and 2 a.m. during the weekdays and 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
And it will create more congestion and obstacles on the roadway during the peak hours of the bankrolls business, as well as the closing hour, which is obviously very important.
I also had some photos of my report showing that buses are capable of contributing to the blocking of Chestnut if there's another vehicle basically in front of them.
They've just got to go around them in order to continue the route, even though it says it's supposed to be an only bus lane, but people are people, I guess.
this will also cause issues
queuing with traffic
for possibly many blocks
unplanned and aggressive
diversions of many vehicles
the dumping of traffic
loads and getting off
and on will create potential
higher
potential for really
higher accident rates
I'm sorry
Have you reviewed Bankwell's proposal for ride-share services?
And as a traffic engineer, do you believe the ride-share proposal will work?
And why not?
Well, basically, to be honest, there's no stopping or parking along the south side of Chestnut in front of the site.
This will present major issues, obviously, for many drop-offs and pickups, which people will be doing.
They will be parked.
If there's a generator as large as this,
and especially during possible peak hours of people going in and out,
they will have no place to legally stop in front of the site or the other site.
In reality, many rideshare vehicles will be stopping regardless, as I just said.
Buses will have to maneuver around them,
create unexpected conditions, as I said a few minutes ago.
I don't want to go into that again.
I also have some photos of my report that shows this as well.
Excuse me.
And do you have any comments regarding the parking situation at Bankroll?
And given the lack of parking available for bankrolls patrons on site, do you have an opinion of the consequences of the failure to conduct a meaningful survey and plan for use of publicly available parking in the vicinity of 1910 Chestnut?
And given the lack of parking available for Bankroll's patrons,
And what's your opinion?
Complete traffic and parking study should have been done, and it was not.
I've been doing this for 52 years, and I've never seen a project of this size in such a busy area have these type of issues without a traffic and parking report prepared, showing backup data, information, anything.
There was actually no data shown from any of the documents that I could receive.
And in your opinion, will this project cause unexpected congestion in the public streets or on the local transportation systems?
Absolutely. Okay. You know, they have to demonstrate that there's enough parking available elsewhere.
And as I said a few minutes ago, parking studies should have been shown during peak times.
And they should have done a study of the parking specifically.
And as a professional engineer with more than 50 years of experience, do you have an opinion of the impact of a 490-person capacity bankroll project, which includes food service, alcohol until 2 a.m., games, entertainment, competition, broadcasting, and related activities we'll have on traffic and public safety in the neighborhood?
And what's your opinion?
there will be obviously greater congestion on the roadways more illegal use of the bus lane in front
of the site higher accident rates as i mentioned higher parking demand obviously you know the
concentration that you have of this amount of vehicles coming to and leaving this site they
have to go somewhere and people are just people negatively illegally park it'll put a tremendous
burden on the neighborhood as well and realize this site, according to the applicant, will be
using hours up until as late as or as early as 2 in the morning.
Jack, that's not what was said. Liquor licenses require closing at 2 a.m. if you know that.
Do you have an opinion on whether this impact will exceed that which would be expected of
a 490-person capacity restaurant?
Absolutely.
What's the basis of your opinion?
Yeah, I
reviewed, which I didn't see anything from
their traffic engineer,
ITE, which is the Institute of Transportation
Engineers,
called a trip generation manual.
It's basically
the industry-wide standard
to determine the number of trips a
typical restaurant would generate
for a restaurant without the live
entertainment and bedding
aspects. A restaurant of this size would generate as much as 132 trips and a peak hour on a Saturday.
From a traffic engineering perspective, this is a significant number of trips over one hour
at one concentrated site. With the added entertainment value, whatever you guys want to
call it, it is what it is, it is reasonable to anticipate that the number of trips generated
will be more substantial.
Many of the patrons would have the ability to stand
and not even use the seats.
Additionally, it must be realized that regular quality restaurants
are not typically this size.
Realistically, if a regular restaurant were to be established here,
it would be much smaller and therefore generate obviously less traffic.
One more question.
Did you have an opportunity to view an evaluation
from traffic planning and design?
Yes, I did quickly, yes.
And I put up on what I've labeled as ZIPA 10.
Is this your reply to reading that evaluation from TPD?
Yes, it is.
Do you have any comments on the TPD evaluation to share with the board?
Yeah, I just mentioned four quick ones.
Again, I didn't have much time, but that's okay.
Basically, there was no engineering data to support any of their conclusions, nothing at all.
The report uses even the word may about patrons staying in this restaurant longer. May is not an engineering answer. Again, no support for this statement.
They claim that people going to the restaurant will also make other planned stops and will be on the street already, thereby not adding any new traffic.
Well, I don't agree with that people wanting to go to a high-end restaurant as their destination will be going to clothes shopping, food stores, or any shopping.
Their destination is, in fact, that location.
Their destination is, in fact, that location.
It's not being shared by other sites along the way there, adjacent to the site.
It's not being shared.
Again, there was no data support.
And the last point in this case is that I also looked at the ITE parking generation manual,
which is also an industry standard, which they all use as well.
And it requires between 184 and 208 parking spaces for a restaurant of this size.
and it doesn't take into account any of the, I'll call it sports portion aspect, I'll call it, of the site.
They did not discuss this in any detail.
Traffic evaluation must address this.
Evaluation claims that rideshare services must obey motor vehicle laws.
Does this mean that rideshare services will not utilize the loading space for the William Penthouse?
They will be forced to use the William Penthouse Loading Space.
Objection. Speculation.
He's a traffic engineer.
I think he can make that as part of his opinion.
I don't know what the basis of it is, but I hear you.
If I could answer it, it's my pictures that already show it's being used.
Well, I was going to give a blanket objection on your pictures,
because I really can't tell what you're saying or they purport to be if it's accurate,
but that's my objection.
Or maybe a traffic engineer.
It could be interpreted different ways.
Maybe a traffic engineer is willing to stand.
Are you going to get cocky now?
come on
I apologize
are the opinions you expressed today
based upon a reasonable degree of traffic engineering
certainty? Absolutely. I have no further questions
I do Michael, if you don't mind
Hi Mr. Snyder, let's start off
on a better foot.
Absolutely.
I really do apologize.
After 50 years already, you know.
It's been a long two days.
So a few questions in no particular order.
So you mentioned you have over 50 years experience
in traffic engineering and planning.
Is that fair to say?
That is correct, yes.
Have you done any other studies in Philadelphia
regarding restaurants?
In Philadelphia, regarding restaurants, no, I have not.
And you mentioned about requiring traffic impact studies for restaurants.
I forget how you actually put it.
But are you saying that the zoning code requires a traffic impact study for a special exception?
No, what I'm saying is that a traffic engineering report should be prepared when it affects the safety of pedestrians and traffic in an area.
Okay. Well, do you know that the zoning code requires no traffic impact study for a restaurant?
As a matter of fact, it only requires one for an above-ground parking garage in certain locations in the city?
Well, I do know what it says, except that I disagree with it, because safety is mentioned in other parts of the city codes, and safety comes first.
Okay, but that's the policy we live with here. Would you agree with that?
I don't know the policy you live with, but I do know.
Okay, well, let me state that.
Don't speak for a quote.
I'm sorry.
yeah so so you don't know that the zone neither the zoning code nor the streets department code
does not it does not require traffic impact study
for a restaurant that's what i'm getting at i do know that i do not know that answer okay um
are you aware that under the zoning code that restaurant uses require no on-site parking yes
Have you looked at any of the other restaurants in the area as part of your analysis?
Have I looked at the other restaurants? In what way?
Sorry, what was the answer?
I said in what? I'm sorry, in what way?
In terms of your traffic impact study, in your testimony.
Yeah, I did notice that most of them, if not all of them, are not nearly the size of this one.
Most of them are about half the size.
Well, I think you're on Zoom yesterday for our testimony.
You heard at least Michael Palermo from the Star Restaurant indicate that the nearby Continental Midtown and Park-Barclay combinations are both approaching 350 patrons in each of those.
Objection, because the only one that he said at 350 was a Continental Midtown.
He'd considerably less for Park and Barclay Prime.
i say partly in part combined which they're both i understand what you're saying
Well, I say parkly and park combined, which they're both out, but I understand what you're saying.
I'm sorry, was there a question?
Are you aware if there's any traffic impact studies done for those restaurants?
Did I do any? No.
No, are you aware of any that were performed?
Absolutely not.
Okay, are you aware of whether there's on-site parking for those restaurants?
I do not know.
I wanted to clarify operational time.
So are you aware that this 2 a.m. closing time is related to liquor licenses?
That's my understanding, yes.
And you mentioned about a 10 p.m. closing time, typical.
Where did you get that information?
From the other restaurants that I walked around and tried to get into, to be honest.
Well, you think is that typical or is that regarding because it's COVID times?
No, I think it's typical.
It's typical.
I would disagree.
At least, again, if you looked at Midtown or Park or any of the other restaurants around there,
they're open past 10 p.m.
Would you know that or not?
No, I would not know that.
I'm sorry if I asked you this right now maybe I'll ask the prior witness did you happen to view
floor plans of the proposed restaurant? Yes, I did. And did you see dance floors or concert areas or
did you see tables? Mostly tables. I remember it, mostly tables. Okay, thank you. Just a few more questions.
So in your report you talk about there's some trip generation numbers? Yes.
these values are, I guess,
they're vehicle trips, I guess?
Total trips, that's correct.
Both in and out, that's correct.
And the number of trips,
is that based on an analysis
of current demand?
That's based on, it's an ITE,
it's based on hundreds of studies
that were done across the country
and based on the size of the facility,
in this case, it was a restaurant,
what they call a high-end restaurant,
and now based on them versus a mcdonald's or something uh and and that those numbers are
are based on studies that were done uh over the last oh god uh you know 30 40 years
but specifically as to chestnut street here and you know you mentioned about a traffic impact study
um was a traffic impact study conducted on this block for current conditions or you just or you
modeled it.
I did not do a study.
I was hoping that someone else would, but yes,
I did not do a study.
Would you agree
or disagree that given this, well,
let me ask you this. Do you think
Chestnut Street is not a commercial
street?
I didn't say that.
Um, so given that it's a commercial street, is it possible that visitors to the site may
already be in the area at nearby shops or other locations, which does that take it into
account into your, into your modeling?
You mean people who are also going to the restaurant?
Well, they could be, it's like a circuit.
You stop in other places and you go, you know.
Oh, sure.
People can stop at other stores and be the residents from there.
They could be walking around.
That's exactly correct.
Okay. Was that taken into account in your study?
Absolutely. I specifically mentioned it earlier, yes.
And you mentioned about three bus routes on Chestnut Street.
Do you think it's better or worse for various uses on the street, including this one, to have three bus routes available as opposed to having none?
I'm sorry. It only depends upon the demand.
There's reasons why there are three bus routes on the street.
there's reasons why they have a one lane specifically for the buses.
If it wasn't that busy and people weren't dropped off that often, they wouldn't put a specific bus lane for the buses.
If it wasn't that busy and people weren't dropped off that often,
There's reasons why they do that.
Earlier in your testimony, you mentioned the word fatalities on Chestnut Street.
Are you aware of any fatalities on this block, 1900 block or 1800 block of Chestnut Street?
No, what I read was from the PennDOT that they said that this particular street is one of the highest in fatalities.
I don't remember the numbers, but I did receive it.
If you need a copy of the reference, I could do that.
No, I don't.
But do you realize how long Chestnut Street is?
From what street to what street did it go to?
From what street to 63rd Street?
Yes, they were talking about this specific location.
What specific location?
the surrounding area i'm sorry i'm sorry i couldn't hear you i'll say it again yeah which
specific location that's what i'm trying to understand um i'd have i'd have to look up in
pen dot to see what they were using i don't remember offhand to be honest okay so so you
didn't look at this block for that no that's not true i did specifically mention chestnut
i'm trying to determine if you did or not again you mentioned chestnut street it goes from front
street to 63rd street so um but they were but i i'll move on um sure um you were you were
discussing about west coast uh sports events ending at 2 a.m um
have you seen you watch football or baseball or hockey
for uh close to 70 years okay when's the last time a football game ended at 2 a.m on the west
coast on the west well they because of tv now sometimes they do it earlier right they start
earlier right they start eastern time prime right they well sometimes i've seen basketball games
college games they start at 10 30 11 o'clock i've seen it all right check it all right mr
started. I have no further questions. Thank you. So, Mr. Manione and Mr. Patterson both.
I have one last witness, Mr. Chair. Pardon me? I have one final witness. Fine. Just to let both
you know, we have a one o'clock stop, and I'm not going to rush you, but we have a one o'clock stop.
So, who's your next witness? Joseph Anderson. I certainly hope we can finish by one o'clock.
i think we'll finish quick okay quickly sir and i'm here this is tanya if i could just mention
that one o'clock is a hard stop so closing should be before 1 pm thank you chair
all right could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter
mr collins oh the vanderslice vanderslice vanderslice hello mr chairman members of
boards joe vanderslice can you hear me yes could you spell your name for the court reporter
sure it's joseph vanderslice the fourth cpp last name is v-a-n-d-e-r-s-l-i-c-b all right do you
swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed again he's a
a security risk management risk assessment expert.
I have his CV and the CV of his partner, Russell Collins.
They've both been up on the screen and they've been provided.
I just want to ask him, are those two CVs reasonably accurate in terms of background experience?
Yes, they are.
And did you work with Mr. Collins on the project?
Yes, I did.
And what's your position with Collins Security Group?
I am currently the president and chief security officer.
And how long have you held that position?
I've had this position since September of last year.
And who was your employer in your position prior to this?
Prior to KSG, I served over 17 years in security risk management, progressing through the ranks.
for board gaming and served over five years as a security manager general at Bogada Hotel Casino
Resort in Atlantic City for MGM Resorts International. I was an authority for the
operation for the proprietary property security ordinance and possibly command over 250 person
department, an additional 50 plus contract security team, and was directly involved in
development operation and training for areas such as gaming, online gaming, hospitality,
restaurants, nightlife bars, retails, conventions, and entertainment.
restaurants, nightlife bars, retails, conventions, and entertainment. This also includes property
safety, risk, and crisis management, which also includes threats and risks in and around the
community, emergency action plan, security plan, life safety, investigations, physical security
auditing, first responders surveillance, and executive protection. Regarding this matter,
I have developed the security plan. I developed security plans for the restaurant headliner,
such as Wolfgang Puck, Bobby Filet, Michael Shulson, Michael Simon, Jeffrey Zaccari, and Sherry Bowles.
Are you familiar with the project called Bankroll, proposed at 1910 Chestnut Street?
And try to briefly describe what you did to investigate the Bankroll project
and its potential impacts on public safety in general and the residents of the William Penthouse in particular.
Sure. We use a methodological approach to investigate and analyze the impact to William
Penthouse and the community. This includes the examination of documents, open source information,
police data, interviews, pictures, site inspections. We did two both day and night
and research. Some of the documents we examined in our approach include bankrolls, WPH Q&A,
bankroll security report, memorandum of agreement, post architectural layout, news articles,
open sourced information uh zoning site plan zoning board hearing of 10 19 21.
and based upon the information you reviewed how would you describe the proposed bankroll use
um well i was on yesterday and i heard mr clark uh you know in there and no pun intended he was
right on the money the actual use of the space uh working in regulating standards in the gaming
environment you can you can see that the use and the understanding for risks associated
Based on the facts presented, our analysis is the use, is development and operation of the sports bar restaurant entertainment and the curation and marketing of online sports engagement.
The online sports engagement will require staff and that is proprietary contract or vendor to analyze sports games and pair patrons hurting or incentivizing them to an area of similar.
Jackson, he doesn't know this.
To effectively control viewing area for various sports contests or online betting opportunities.
I believe given his background in gaming and security, he's perfectly capable.
He's commenting on how this business operates specifically.
And I'm not objecting to that.
That's pure speculation.
Anyway, you know.
Move on.
John, have you had the opportunity to review the Bankroll Security Report, which was included
as Exhibit 10 in the materials presented by Bankroll at the hearing on October 19th?
And as an expert in the field of security and risk management, do you believe that
the Bankroll Security Report identifies and addresses the possible security and related
issues proposed by the Bankroll Project?
And why not?
There's no document providing a settlement of understanding to detect, deter, delay,
respond to emergencies and potential or actual threats. Risks in an environment that serves
alcohol and promotes a competitive environment with an enhanced gaming experience are higher
than in a typical restaurant. There is also no understanding presented as to the potential and
actual risks to the neighbors or the community with the influx of people and use of this space.
and excuse me what ways is the bankroll uh security report deficient
there's no apparent methodological mythology applied to this document um there's considerable
weight the document to the application of adding video surveillance system and cameras
to as main deterrent to unwanted behavior um this fails to address what is known in the industry
As a standard, the cameras will only affect the turn if there is a live and active response.
Without that video surveillance system, it's basically a retroactive component, effectively making them an after-incident review component and a potential of providing a full sense of security.
As demonstrated, there is no to limited natural surveillance from bankroll to the entrance of 1919.
There was reference to installing three pan-tilt zoom cameras, where now I heard yesterday two pan-tilt zoom cameras with a 360 camera on the exterior, but there's no understanding on the programming.
And what I mean by programming is whether or not these PTZs are going to be randomly moving around, or if they're going to stay static until somebody moves them, so they'll have a field of focus of where that field of focus is.
uh making and there's no trained operator designated to operate the cameras effectively
making them a static camera so you know ptcs are great but if there's nobody actually moving them
So, you know, PTCs are great, but if there's nobody actually moving them, they're pretty much a standard camera looking at a certain area.
they're
The document pushes off monitoring onto the management of the space, whereas in restaurants, managers can be some of the busiest people.
There is no mention of management being trained to identify and detect preemptive signs of unwanted behavior prior to escalations,
which is one of the keys to an effective response.
The document also suggests security will be in key areas, but these areas are not defined, so it's improbable to get the appropriate amount of personnel required.
What also is required is operational understanding for each area of the space to assist in the development of the security plan.
Even in the MOA, staffing is described as sufficient, but I see no assessment to determine the acquired level security personnel and presence.
More importantly, their training.
There is only one only mention of security, and there is no emphasis on identifiable uniform security, which identifiable, identifiable uniform security is an example of a deterrent.
This is another standard overlooked in the document.
Without doing an assessment, how would they determine the need for outside resources like law enforcement understanding where they would be most effective as a visual presence?
There is no understanding if they will use proprietary or contract security force for both the space and outside on the sideboard.
If both are used, or in the industry we like to call hybridization approach, this also presents challenges for training and supervision.
For outside of the space, documented mention of the cameras and security safety, but their authority will be limited to the space and the sideboard.
Problems that are pushed from the main entrance, also the emergency entrance, will go to Chestnut Street.
There's no mention of mitigating the crowd efforts for the space that will certainly draw a crowd due to Wisconsin.
The document fails to address crowd dynamic and overflow and simply dismisses it.
It is unclear if the lobby has its own capacity or part of the 490 patron capacity, which does not include employees, contractors, or vendors required to work the space.
The document dismisses the possibility of line control outside its lobby or other mitigation methods to control capacity, which will be higher than just a table count of 400.
The document also calls for resources from local law enforcement, but there is no understanding
of what their duties or actions will be other than presence.
Due to the design of the resources in the immediate area, there will be sufficient impairment
to traffic form and thus restricting backup to potential violent incidents, potentially
triggering the overuse or underuse of the application forced by police or the security
assigned.
This document was produced in the understanding of risk of operating a restaurant, but it
not just the restaurant there are considerable other factors to situate to the situational
and security awareness such as alcohol awareness gaming awareness suspicious activity emergency
situations such as fire evacuations fight cpr these important due diligence processes are
typically associated with a security plan or emergency action plan at this point in the
operation to benefit not only benefit the business and understanding and identifying risk to the
operation for loss of revenue personnel and reputation when evaluating risk security does
not start at the door but must be layered to address detection deterrence and adequate response
this document does not demonstrate any understanding for these standards
to analyze risk you must demonstrate the basic understanding of these threat vulnerabilities
to people property in the process this document fails to demonstrate the basic concept and it is
clear that there was no threat vulnerability risk assessment conducted by a certified security
professional to safeguard the community let alone the space did ksg prepare an impact report
regarding the proposed bankroll use yes we did there's a copy of that report on the screen now
uh the front page is yes yes and uh just summarize to the board the conclusions reached in the impact
report. Sure. We concluded that there'll be a detrimental long-term and consequential impact
to the community in William Penthouse. As stated, there has been no security or life safety
understanding presented for analysis. There is no security plan or emergency action plan for the
space itself, let alone the community and the risk factors associated with alcohol awareness,
gaming awareness, or an effective response component demonstrated. The overflow of patrons
in the areas will increase congestion and also potentially increase crime and noise in the area.
this is represented in our report with the philadelphia police department calls for services
of two other center city locations with similar use
There is no plan to address the traffic flow around the area, which is crucial to life safety since the front of 1919 serves as a known, let me repeat, known emergency response location for occupants of William Penthouse, who are of an older demographic and residents with physical disabilities.
there is no plan to address the traffic flow around the air which is crucial to life safety
The traffic flow will also impact the community in the area, especially with responding emergency services.
William Penthouse will have to spend time, money, and resources to protect the people and the property, which residents will have to navigate.
Would installation of a gate at the front of the William Penthouse alleviate the problems you described?
I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
Would installation of a gate at the front of the William Penthouse alleviate the problems you described?
You dropped down, Mike. I can hardly hear you.
Would installation of a gate at the front of the William Penthouse alleviate the problems you described?
No, it will not.
I mean, and that's an example of just throwing just something at an issue.
You have to actually analyze what the threats and risks are to that community in that area.
So a gate, in and of self-offense even, can be scaled in seven seconds.
So it is part of a strategy, but it is not a whole strategy, and it will not alleviate some of the conditions that might arise from overflow from bankroll.
What are the present conditions on Chestnut Street on a typical weekend evening?
Can you hear me, Joe?
Hello?
I think you lost him.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm back.
You're back?
I didn't hear what you said, Mike.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
No, that's fine.
Sorry about that.
What are the present conditions on Chestnut Street on a typical weekend, evening?
As documented report, we witnessed vehicular loitering and congestion, also a vehicle was parked in the William Penthouse space used for emergency and other spaces for prolonged periods.
There is also a bar located in the block with a line from the front door directed down towards William Penthouse.
That's what we noted on our site inspections.
And what impact will Bankwall have on these conditions?
detrimental long-lasting effects um if this was quote-unquote a restaurant closing at 10 p.m
or thereabouts then the impact would probably be a lot less but banking is not just a restaurant
but an entertainment space with marketing and curated online gaming closing at potentially
at 2 a.m it's really apples and oranges and um there's no dedicated parking for bankroll correct
that's correct will this cause problems for the community yeah as we document the report
vehicular traffic has been demonstrated to increase 30 percent since we're just people
looking for parking uh this number is exacerbating what calls detrimental impact to the community
with the use of rideshare services dropping waiting and picking up objections the topic
of traffic engineering please especially during the operation the congestion and noise will
definitely increase with the additional constant flow of people going to and work at banquet and
remember it's it's 490 plus so you have 490 patrons actually that's not accurate you testified
to 400 plus 400 plus the memorandum of agreement says the patron shall never exceed 490 at any one
time correct that's patient testimony did a contrary yesterday that's specifically in the
memorandum agreement hours and capacity. Well, you're not a part of it, but we
testified differently yesterday. But it's part of your exhibit.
Sure, the idling and blocking areas.
Let me move on.
In your experience, will this type of restaurant or operation
cause increased risk of crime or criminal activity greater than a typical cornered seat
restaurant. Yes. Mr. Miadioni, I think you already testified to that. Okay. Let me just ask you this
then. Given your review and examination of the presentation by bankroll of its security provisions
reflected in its report, evidence presented to the board, do you have an opinion as a security
and risk professional of whether bankroll has properly and adequately identified the security
risks related to its proposed use and whether it is properly and adequately designed and planned
for managing the risk?
And are your opinions today
And are your opinions today expressed upon a reasonable degree of professional certainty?
expected?
Yes, they are.
I have no further questions for Mr. Vanderslice.
Thank you, Michael.
I have a few.
Hi, Mr. Vanderslice.
How are you?
Good morning.
Good afternoon.
Yeah, good afternoon.
So your background that you were talking about, it sounded like you worked at a regatta, the casino.
That's correct.
In Atlantic City?
That is correct.
And you mentioned you did risk studies for some restaurants, including Wolfgang Polk and Shulson restaurants.
Were they the restaurants in the Borgata?
Yes, they were.
Did you conduct any such studies in restaurants in Philadelphia?
Well, I personally haven't, but Russ Collins has.
And he was part of this process.
So in your report, page three to four talks about the experience with mass shootings and active shooters.
and then you know you turn to page 11 and it says you have all these facts for aggressions of bars
violence in bars and and that um the restaurants coupled with bar entertainment increases the
probability that glass door will be used as a weapon escalating fights and assaults i mean why
why do you use those statements in connection with with this restaurant because it's true and
accurate has been proven true and accurate yeah it's true and accurate and do you have any basis
for that for for restaurants in philadelphia that you didn't look at well personally when
when we looked at um glassware inside the brigada we we made that assessment yeah but that's a casino
isn't it it is a casino amongst other things it's hospitality driven you have retail space
the station is it's casino that's really what you're you're viewing it well
it's not it's it's a resort it's a hotel casino resort that's ways later right and we're talking
about a restaurant. So I hear all your discussions and your criticism, let's say, but I didn't
hear any suggestions other than to do we should do a better report is that accurate
or do you have another opinion on that well there was no there was no basis there was no
assessment done it was just a a blanket statement we're going to add cameras uh there was no attempt
to analyze the risk so yeah that should have been done at this point to identify not only
threats to banquets but also to surround the community okay i have no further questions uh
just to remind the board about mr gross yeah could you could you bring mr are you done michael
that's what i'm doing all right could you put mr gross back on please
and can we hold him to five to ten minutes the gross has been allowed to speak again sir
thank you gross could you state your name again and spell for the court reporter richard gross
r-i-c-h-a-r-d-g-r-o-s-s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do sir thank you i will be very brief sir um i listened with uh great
interest to the um statement of council president clark yesterday uh as you may know and as i think
he referred to he and i communicated regularly about the process and the creation of the memorandum
of agreement. We reviewed the provisions together that deal with an absolute obligation of bankroll
to protect hours, scope of activity, congestion, noise, and safety. I would remind the board that
the agreement makes it an absolute obligation, not a best efforts obligation, for the bankroll
proprietors to ensure the safety of the neighborhood on all those issues and more
one issue that council president clark and he council president clark was very enthusiastic
about that and said so yesterday he was concerned as i heard his testimony about enforcement
and my reason for talking to you again is twofold the agreement has very extensive enforcement
provisions paragraphs five through eight mandate that bankroll honor its commitments
that they will be subject to an injunction if they don't that
that they will be subject to an injunction if they don't, that any party who is a party to
the agreement, which would include CCRA, is able to bring an action without a bond to enforce
compliance. And I have told the members of CCRA, and I've told William Penhouse, that CCRA intends
to enforce this agreement as it is written and to the full extent. But to give the board further
comfort i have also following council president clark's testimony i have arranged the agreement
of bankroll to agree to a compliance report proviso and that would provide that a year
objection objection whatever he had in a private conversation with the council president is not on
the record and it is hearsay this is not a private conversation this is with bankroll and their
additional agreement sir it's still a hearsay objection because they're not testifying
he is well well mr gross proceed thank you sir bankroll has agreed to provide
a year from the opening date a full compliance report with its with the terms of the memorandum
of agreement reviewed and agreed to by the parties and make that filed with the lni department and
with the ZBA so that the concerns of Council President Clark, as ours, that this agreement
be enforced will be a matter of record. And they have told me they would agree to that as a proviso
and CCRA accepts that as a response to the concern about enforcement. I think every issue that's been
testified to today, hours, scope, congestion, noise, safety, and all of those. He's not qualified
the way he's not qualified the way the the uh the uh
Mr. Mattione I understand what you're saying Mr. Gross could you finish up please I'm done I'm
done sir thank you Mr. Chairman I have spoken to Mr. Patterson prior to this and we had suggested
that we submit written closing arguments uh by say maybe this Friday and have the board vote this
next week i think around that's what we said in a little time uh we would discuss you know
if you wanted closing arguments yeah to put them in in writing um so but of course it's up to the
board that's fine it can be done by friday 5 p.m turn him in yeah that's fine um michael i i have
apologize but i was going to object to your memorandum of law that you submitted because
it was written before we finished the hearing so if you want to you know revise that your
submission i'm okay with that sure all right thank you all right mr chairman what day what
day next week will we vote this case i just want to make sure wednesday okay i want to make sure
everybody will be here. That's the 26th, if I learned correct. Yes. 930. 930. We'll look for 930.
Well, I'll check with Tanya with that. Well, thank you for your accommodations here with
and thank both thank both you for we do appreciate it and thank you
do we uh rebecca do we want to get the planning commission
i think they should comment after we put in our closings and have an opportunity to review them
okay that's fine thank you all right everybody thank you very much thank you thank you
can you uh just make the announcement chair uh the announcement is that by friday at five o'clock
they will have their closing arguments done next wednesday we'll take this up an executive
session and then vote in public at 9 30. yes you're hearing from the planning commission yes
great and just to make sure that we have um nobody is in attendance waiting
yeah is there is there anybody in the audience still waiting for a case
no hand sir okay i think we're done thank you everybody thank you thank you
recording has begun okay thank you
and you may start chair thank you good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing
the zba hearings this afternoon with me is carolton airy our vice chair president
ismael shaheed our board secretary yeah thomas holloman a board member
president james snell our board member
Present. Also present is Tanya Sunkett, our board administrator, and Rebecca Cull, our attorney.
Before we begin, let me go over the virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being
recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. A video will be
available by contacting the Board Administrator, TanyaSunkett at phil.gov. Two, for the benefit of
our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before they
testify. Three, if you are participating by phone and if you wish to testify, press star nine to
raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the prompting question. And lastly, the question answer box
that you see on the screen, that's not for comments. Any comments should be directed to
Tanya Sunkett, our board administrator. And we're going to start with continuances that we have for
this afternoon. Number three and number four. MI number three, MI 2021-004011-223 East Springer
and MI 2021-004012-225 East Springer. These both were contingenters. Is there anybody in the
audience objects to those continuances or has a comment I see no answer Mr. Chair all right
both are continued are there any other continuances in the audience
sir Ms. Allison Weiss has her hand raised I will allow her to speak at this time yes thank you
Ms. Weiss, state your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Allison, A-double-L-I-S-O-N, Weiss, W-E-I-S-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
What case are you talking about, ma'am?
um 322 West Coulter Street MI 20 21 00 okay um I I thought that was going to be a continuance
because we had a community meeting but it didn't work out because there was a
problem with the um zoom information is Mr. Bernard's student student online
i'm not sure we weren't the convening rco the 12th ward democratic was
okay ted stones is there anybody else on this case online
mr studovan please raise your hand so you can i'm sorry can you hear me now can you hear me
Mr. Studeman, do me a favor, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Bernard Studeman, S-T-U-D-E-V-A-N.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you ready to go today for your case?
No, I am not.
All right.
We're going to continue that case.
Thank you very much.
Any other cases?
sir miss uh dorothy brown has her hand raised i will now speak at this time sure
hello hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter yes dorothy brown d-o-r-o-t-h-y
brown b-r-o-w-n and is this for the 3500 block of grad street wait a minute no um this is for
brown b-r-o-w-n and is this for the 30
Thank you.
if you have a continuance for a case i'm sorry okay thank you thank you ma'am
any other anyone else
mr chair melita ford has her hand raised i will allow her to speak at this time
Miss Ford could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes my name is Melita Ford M-A-L-I-T-A F-O-R-D right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir what case do you want to talk about um 1119
north 63rd street 119
what are you you want to continue with ma'am um well it's it was already a continuance i think we
had a um appointment in october and we just had some difficulties with the computer
okay well i didn't call the case yet is what i'm saying oh okay okay okay i'm gonna call that in
couple of minutes. Okay. We're just looking for continuances now. Okay. All right. No,
no other continuances. Okay. Case, case number one, MI 2021, 002610, 1117 to 19 North 63rd Street,
Angelina Geiger listed for pro se.
Edgar, if you're available in the audience, please raise your virtual hand so that you may be sworn in.
It looks like Miss Melita Ford is raising her hand again.
Jason, could you allow her to speak for a minute, please?
I think she put it back down again or something.
who is here for 19 11 17 to 19 north geiger um 63 sorry thank you chair please raise your hand
if you're for this case yes it was for me um okay miss malita ford yes i'm sorry chair i was just
wondering who was she in respect to the case I agree I totally agree is this your case yeah so
I'm the applicant I believe something was mixed up where they had my sister um as the applicant
but she owns the property all right all right you've already been sworn our vice chair has a
few questions for you sure if we can pause one moment can we um promote her Jason so she can go
forward. Thank you. Ford has been promoted to panelists. Hi, Ms. Ford. Have you emailed the
exhibit packet in with the required documents? Yes. Okay, then you may proceed. So my sister
has the property and she has a pretty large space. She has a space in the basement where
we're trying to make a small boutique style salon. We did do a community meeting and we got
much respect from the neighborhood. Ms. Ford, let me ask you a question. Do you have documents that
you can show that we can look at what you're trying to do? Yeah. So what exactly did you
want me to show first? Everything that you submitted to us, can you put on the screen?
Give me one second.
Find a CBA.
No, where's the CBA folder?
We're going to Dropbox.
I'm sorry, I'm just trying to find that file on here.
we're here okay we see you
so i have another i'm on a another device will i be able to um switch to the other device because
I have everything better on the other device.
better on the other device i'm also on there is um alita ford okay so chair we can move her down
Also on there is Melita Ford.
yeah and then go forward with the next miss ford please turn over your turn off your mute
mute yourself and turn off your video thank you we'll come back to you all right mi 2021
2121-004016, 2127 Gilligam Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
We don't see an RCO letter yet.
Mr. Consul?
You've been promoted to Panama's.
Hello, everyone.
counsel did i swear you this morning did i you did we did okay just just stay your name and
and our vice chair has a few questions for you okay cool uh joseph consul consul madison llp
hi mr consul do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do based on what we see here you've submitted all the required documents
i have the rco letter was sent over to us this morning and we flipped it over to you guys
shortly thereafter, so it's in someone's email line. I can pull it up, but besides that,
everything else. That's fine. Okay, great. You may proceed. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Joe
Consul again. I'm here for 2127 Gillingham Street, Unit D2F. The tenant is Juliana Mena.
We are here on a referral. It is a ICMX slash CMX2 zoned property. She's seeking to use this
particular space. It's 510 square feet in a larger building called Frankfurt Works.
She's seeking to use it as body art services. It is a special exception.
um we here's the letter i i referenced it's a letter of non-opposition uh from our meeting
uh on january 13th which was last week with the frankfurt neighborhood advisory council
they came forth non-opposition there's our proof of mailing
here's photos of the space uh this space um was acquired somewhat recently by the owners
There's five tenants or so in there now, and Ms. Mena will be the sixth or so.
Here's the interior of her space.
She signed a two-year lease.
She is a body artist.
She has a history of being a fine artist.
Here is a top-down view of the space itself, showing the breakdown of the various units, that kind of a thing.
site plan. Here's sort of her bio plus the layout of the studio. She'll be working Tuesday through
Friday, five-hour window, servicing one client a day, no staff. It's going to be a private,
just a private studio featuring her as the artist. Here's the rest of our required documents
submitted at the end, the lease, and then the tax, there's the lease, and then the tax clearance
certificate at the end of our packet, which is down there somewhere. There we are. And then I
did attach more of a thorough bio for Ms. Mena at the end, which was more for the RCO, but we
are attaching here now. She's been, she's been doing, tattooing for five years and is now seeking
her own studio. That's the extent of my presentation. Here's a little bit of her work.
If I could call Ms. Mena to raise her hand and adopt my testimony.
Hi, Chair. This is the Administrator, Tanya. I just wanted to confirm that we have received
the letter from the RCO. Thank you so much.
Ms. Mena, are you online?
i've been allowed to speak miss manna please unmute yourself yes hi hi miss manna could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter yes hi it's j u l i a n n a m e n a m e n n a
sorry okay fine do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed good afternoon juliana thank you did you uh hear my testimony just now
yes i did do you adopt it as your own yes i do is there anything you'd like to add
no thank you thank you with that we rest special exception no opposition from the rco thank you very
Thank you. With that, we rest. Special exception, no opposition from the RCO. Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission?
good afternoon chair bergman david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir i do proceed thank you sir mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the industrial and commercial mixed use zoning at this location
frankfurt was rezoned in 2014 in accordance with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan
the applicant has shown that body art services would have no more of an impact than this type
of use would be expected to have which is what the code requires to be shown so the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the special exception for body art services
MI-2021-004016-2127-Gillicum Street. I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Board.
Tanya, how do we stand with one?
let's go back and see Miss Ford
Melita are you there
Ford are you still available it doesn't seem like she's ready yet sure you can continue okay
Okay, sure. MI 2021 004357 2713 Livingston Street, Rachel.
Councilman's School, letter of non-opposition, letter of non-opposition from Old Richmond Civic Association.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Brandon Severin has been promoted with your panelists, sir.
Sure. And Mr. Chair, I think we're hearing five and six together.
Okay. MI 2021-004-358-2715 Livingston Street.
Hello, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. As I was promoted to panelists, my sound cut out for a moment.
I am the attorney for this. Rachel Pritzker is my colleague. I'm stepping in for her.
Sure, great. State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Sure. It's Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N, and I'm with Pritzker Law Group at 1521 Locust Street, Suite 605, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Do you agree to avoid the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, Madam Vice Chair.
I'm assuming you've sent in all the required documents or notes indicate that you have,
but I just need to ask you if you have.
Yes, we have.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Does the board wish me to address these two matters one at a time,
or I can use our architect and present both so that you can vote on them in quick sequence,
whatever is preferred. If the architect makes it quicker, then we'll do the architect.
Okay. So I'm going to go through both projects, both 2713 and 2315. I'll do a brief introduction
for both. I'll then let him walk through both sets of plans and I'll bring on the property
owner to adopt my testimony at the end. So let me share my screen. Okay, so I always like to start
off when this is the case by saying that we have letters of non-opposition, both projects from the
only participating RCO, which was Old Richmond Civic. This is the letter for 2713, and then here
is the letter for 2715 um so that's that to give the board a quick introduction of the location
um this behind me here is um lehigh avenue this is a very short dead end street livingston street
off of lehigh um it only has three legal parking spaces boom boom boom on this side of the street
No parking is permitted on this opposite side of the street and the subject two properties
no parking is permitted on this opposite side of the street and the subject to
are at the end of the street.
They are currently this garage right here.
That's number 15 and number 13, which is this row home.
So the project proposes to demolish both of these structures and construct new single
family homes.
The refusal is the same for both properties.
The refusal was obtained because we are proposing a garage for each house.
And as you know, in the RSA 5 district, you can't have front-loaded parking.
Hardship here is that there's no side or rear street that abuts these properties.
And as I showed you, sort of the, you know, softening factors here are that we're at the end of the street.
So there's no through traffic.
I don't believe that the presence of the garage poses a safety threat from that standpoint.
In addition, it's just hard to park on this block, given that there are other garages
and that parking is illegal on the other side of the street.
So really, the hardship here is we want the residents of these two new homes to be able
to park, and it's very hard to do so if they don't have a garage, and we don't think the
garages will pose a safety threat.
But so with that being said, Zemir Garcia is the architect.
If we could promote him and he can walk you through the zoning plans for each property.
Mr. Garcia has been promoted, sir.
Mr. Garcia, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Hello.
My name is Zemir Garcia.
That's Z-A-M-I-R.
Garcia, G-A-R-C-I-A. I'm with M-Architects, 4590 Main Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Do you swear our firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Samir, before you start, would you just answer one question from me?
Is it true that we will be eliminating one existing garage, as shown here?
and um our plan which you'll go through now um will um retain uh one on-street parking space
so effectively we're not causing a net change in on-street parking is that correct yes that is
correct okay with that um you just tell me when to scroll or move to the next set of plans but
go right ahead and I'll control the screen for you. Sure. So this is the zoning plan for
2713 Livingston. So here we're proposing a four-story building with three stories of
residential above the garage and one bedroom on the ground floor adjacent to the garage.
We've included, so there's a garage entry to the left side if you're facing the property on the Livingston Street.
And then the building entry, the residence entry is right to the, sorry, to the left side of the garage.
and then there's a breezeway which allows egress from the back residential bedrooms
on the upper levels due to the fact that there's no alleyway at the back of the property
and so we've created a breezeway which ends up between the two properties and it sort of expands
that so as um brandon was saying um there because of that it's the swap with the garage um being
split on two on two opposite sides we end up with this parking space between the two um the two
garages so they're not taking away an on-street parking spot um the the home itself is a four
bedrooms four and a half bath and it is maximum height 38 feet as noted in the zoning and we do
have a larger than required rear yard um in in the in the rear of the property so zamir i'm just
going to pause right there so i showed as you were speaking the board the front elevation for 2713
And I'm now going to move to the front elevation for 2715 just to show the board how the garage door versus pedestrian door is flipped.
And as a result, what you end up with is a large enough curb in front of the two front doors for one on-street space.
Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
Yes, that is correct.
Okay, and if you have any additional comments to make, I moved to the other property.
And if you have any additional comments to make, I know we're going to go ahead and
So I now have the 2715 zoning plan up.
If you have anything additional to say about this property.
So 2715, the current use as a garage is actually occupying 100% of the lot.
um by demolishing the lot we're bringing back and and meeting the zoning requirements for
for um an open space um the the concern here is that it is not i mean it's not a concern it's a
it's a less than 45 foot property so it is exempt from having a required open area um
But we're meeting seven-foot setback at the rear, creates a rear yard, and we also have the breezeway.
So we are introducing open area where currently there is none on this property.
And then, again, as the previous property, it's a mirror image on the front of the lot.
And then on the side, it is shallower because the lot is only 40 feet deep.
but um it's still also a four bedroom um four and a half bath uh four story structure
with garage on the ground floor and a bedroom on the on the ground floor as well
thanks damir um does the board have any questions for this witness
no thank you okay um with that i'd just like to bring uh the property owner on to adopt my
testimony and then i will rest um his name is rob robertson
mr robertson state your name and spell for the court reporter
sir are you in the virtual audience please raise your hand if so
he's been enough to speak sir sorry about that this is state your name and spell for the court
reporter this is rob robertson rob r-o-b-e-r-t-s-o-n all right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do okay proceed uh hey rob thanks
for joining us um so um did you hear my testimony um with regard to both of these properties today
i did yes um and can you confirm um that my testimony was true and accurate with regard to
both properties yes it is and would you adopt my testimony about both properties as your own
yes okay um thanks very much and the last thing i'll note for the board is that
we have revised plans two pages each for both of these properties they just entailed additional
detail on the elevations and additional detail with regard to the curb cuts thank you questions
from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
do you know hands mr chair planning commission good afternoon chair bergman members of the board
david effecta with the city planning commission and we're going to give a recommendation uh one
recommendation uh that's going to apply to both properties 2713 and 2715 so the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning of these two properties
Old Richmond was rezoned in 2016 based on the comprehensive plan's recommendations.
Although front parking garages are a convenience, I've not heard in the presentation that a
hardship exists that would prevent the applicant from building a row home on each lot without
a front parking space.
So the City Planning Commission is going to recommend that the board deny the requested
variances for front parking.
Thank you.
MI 2021 004357 2713 Livingston Street. MI 2021 004358 2715 Livingston Street. I vote yes with two pages of proviso.
Carol Tenere, forgot my name. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both with provisos.
James Snell, yes to both, with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes to both, with provisos.
Hi, this is how are you? I'm sorry. Rebecca Cole, are you there?
Yes, yes, I'm here.
Can I ask if you would kindly please read the proviso exactly as stated in the record?
Can I ask if you would kindly please read the proviso exactly as stated in the record?
It would be, as the Chair indicated, yes, with revised plans, two pages.
And approved today. Thank you very kindly.
Thank you.
number eight
mi 2021
002885
north 22nd street
rco tayoga
letter of support
swamp poodle rco is requesting
a continuance
mr yanoff
mr yanoff has been
promoted to panelists you'll be redrawing shortly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
I'd like to address the request for continuance first, if we may.
Do me a favor.
State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Michael Yanoff, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, Yanoff, Y-A-N-O-F-F.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What I'd like to do is, if Adrienne Fernandez is here, I'd like to get her one at the same time.
Adrienne, or anyone from the Swamp Poodle RCO?
Okay, Mr. Chairman, I have a...
Please only raise your hand if you're Adrienne.
Everyone else, please put your hand down.
Thank you.
Yes, sir, as I was saying, a hand is raised for a number ending in 3552.
Do I allow them to speak?
Let's check if it's Ms. Fernandez.
They've been allowed to speak right now.
Hello, is this Ms. Adrienne Fernandez?
Caller, please speak.
Do we have anybody on the line?
Caller ending in 3552, please let us know who you are.
We can move on, Chair.
Okay, good.
Mr. Yanov, proceed.
Thank you. Do you need me to address the issue?
Before our vice chair talks, just tell me about the continuance first.
Yes. This matter was scheduled. We have three separate hearings before the RCO.
We provided all the information each of the three times.
The first hearing was postponed because there was a delay in getting us a date.
So we agreed, obviously, to get the RCO meeting done a second time.
We scheduled the RCO meeting a second time, and Ms. Fernandez, on behalf of Swampoodle, then objected to that, saying she didn't receive notice, even though we had another full RCO hearing and made the presentation.
So we rescheduled it again for December 30th.
I sent all the requisite notices out, we sent proof of bailing to the coordinating RCO, and we had a meeting on December 30th, at which time a vote was taken, and we have a letter in our packet from the RCO indicating that there was no opposition.
Even after that, the RCO contacted me and said to me that...
We're going to proceed, but first I want our Vice Chair to ask you a few questions.
Yes, sir.
Hi, Mr. Yanov. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
It appears, based on the notes I'm looking at, that you have submitted all the required documents.
We have, and then yesterday I submitted an updated tax clearance certificate.
I sent that in by email, and I have it available if you need it now.
That's great. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. Can you ask my client, Roy Aharonovich, to share as well?
He's much more adept at sharing than I am.
Have him, bring him on.
Well, Mr. Bergman, I have not managed that skill yet.
Well, that's okay.
We all struggle a little bit.
But he's very capable.
And also there was one other glitch.
Yesterday, my scanner stopped,
or the other day my scanner stopped working.
So I had to submit all the documents
in four separate packets.
Okay, let's see if we can get him online.
so he raised his hand um mr chair was sunk is it roy roy aharon aharonovic okay mr yanoff
Roy Aharonovic.
Mr. Yanoff, is he under your name, maybe?
No, he's not.
He should be separate.
Allow him to speak.
There's another Mr. Yanoff.
Yeah, I'll do that right now.
Yeah, his hand is raised.
That could be him.
Hey, everyone.
Michael, I guess for some reason it's coming up as Yanoff.
Hey, sir, do me a favor, state your name and spell for our court reporter.
Roy Aronovich, R-O-Y-A-H-A-R-O-N-L-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed.
Okay, we're going to have to pause.
Mr. Hand, could you promote him to a panelist so he can share his screen?
Right away.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
thank you hold on a second
hello everyone can you see my screen we can what we have here is the tioga united uh acceptance
why don't you go back to packet number one
okay what you have now uh mr chairman and members of the board this is a notice of refusal this is
an application for a conversion of a single family residence into three separate dwelling
units in the RSA 5 residence district. Essentially, there are no exterior renovations to the property
whatsoever. The only thing is changing is the interior renovations, which my client can explain
to you. The notice of refusal is in front of you, and it's plain that the three dwelling units is
expressly prohibited in the rs5 rsa5 residential zoning district can you move to the plans roy
all right here we have here we have the plans um can you roy can you take the panel through
so as michael mentioned before this is currently a single family home um we're not planning on
doing any additions and all this is going to be you know interior alterations so essentially you
know it's going to be demoed on the inside and be transformed and framed out as a three unit
um building um it'll be divided into three floors each floor will have a two bedroom one bath
unit um after having you know our rco meetings we allowed it only we'll have you know four
four um individuals pair apartments that way we're not making any um density in the area
um reviewed trash trash will be in the inside of the prop inside and outside of the property
um anything i can add here um we can go into more you know specific details of this
but essentially from a single family home our goal is to transform this into a three-unit building
you know the the application is made in the name of a of a hillsford vidal v-i-d-a-l but you you
your llc is now the owner of the property as of june 30th of 2021 is that correct correct and we
we attached a a general warranty deed to our zoning packet which indicates that the closing
was made on june 30th 2021 to your llc is that right yep and you are the managing and sole member
of that llc correct okay that's essentially that's essentially we rest mr chairman that's
essentially what the application is about okay um questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr uh questions from the virtual audience
mr chair we have a charles richardson with his hand raised i can about sure
hi state your name and um spell it for the court reporter please sir
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Richardson is R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Room 312, City Hall.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
I have a question for Mr. Yanoff.
I am looking at the correspondence that we received from Tioga United,
and I note that there were 10 people that attended.
Only four were in support, and that was actually the RCO committee themselves.
Were there any near neighbors there?
There were neighbors present at at least one of the three hearings that we had.
There were neighbors present at at least one of the three hearings.
Near neighbors, Michael. Near neighbors.
Yes. And in fact, what I started to say when we started this presentation is the immediate next door neighbor asked for a separate Zoom conference after the December 30th meeting, which we just had last week.
And we answered all of her questions as well on an individual one on one basis.
Okay. We weren't included on any of that, though. I guess the question and the situation that we're facing here is that it appears that the committee themselves made the determination that they would be allowing the...
well we sent we sent notices out to all of the surrounding property owners uh all three times
and invited them to attend the hearing giving them specific dates and times of the rco meeting
and there were people present but there were there were very few questions if any at all
okay most most of them just so you would know mr richardson most of them were related to
security of the building, fire protection for the building, and trash removal.
Okay. For what reason was Ms. Swan Poodle asking for a continuance?
She says that she didn't get notice of it. And then when she told me she didn't get notice of
the last meeting, she asked for, and I sent to her, a complete packet that I submitted to the
ZBA. All of the packets, all of the information, and all of the plans, and heard nothing else after
that. Okay. Weighing whether the councilwoman would be willing to support this or not at this
point in time, because there were no near neighbors involved in this. No near neighbors were actually
included on the meeting summary as well. And of the 10 individuals that were there, I'm believing
that there were UNNA RCO and a couple of other RCOs that might have been included, but there
were really no near neighbors that were included in this meeting. Well, Mr. Richardson, that's not
really so. There were neighbors on the block who were present. Unfortunately, I don't know their
names off the top of my head. I remember one specific woman, and I'm sorry, I don't remember
her name, spoke and asked very specific questions relating to this matter. So she was there.
And we had that conversation with her. Well, I guess the issue is that the coordinating RCO did
not include any of those folks on that meeting summary. And in fact, they are saying there was
no opposition but they don't list that the neighbors were there in actuality so uh you know
with all due respect to the coordinating rco i think that they're relatively new to the process
and it was it was their newness to the process which caused us to have three separate rco meetings
because at each one they said we have no opposition but they made us come back anytime
because they didn't have proof of mailing whatever the reasons were but i i think their
inexperience has resulted in this but we have we've had this application outstanding since
April I think April of last year April 2021 actually I'm sorry June of 2020 and we've complied
with all of the requirements from the ZBA and all of the requirements under the RCO ordinances
requiring notice I can't control what the RCO the coordinating RCO did or didn't do
all i know is that i sent everything in that needed to be sent in mailed twice mailed three
times mailed complete notice packet to all surrounding property owners in accordance with
the list that we were provided and if the coordinating rco didn't complete the form properly
with all due respect i ask that not be held against the applicant because we did everything
that we should do hey everything we could do what a mission mr richards did you want to take
position on this yes uh we're going to oppose the variance thank you thank you um questions from the
board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr jim questions from the virtual audience
no further answer uh planning commission
good afternoon chair bergman and members of the board david effecto city planning commission
so the comprehensive plan recommends that the zoning for this property change to residential
multi-family and the proposal for three dwelling units would comply with the proposed change
However, that zoning change has not been adopted by the council.
however the that zoning change has not been adopted uh by the council office or the community so um
since there is no clear hardship presented uh in this presentation we are going to or i'm sorry
the city planning commission is going to recommend that the board deny the use variance mi 2021 002885
3350 north 22nd street i vote no carol tenary my vote is no thomas holliman my vote is no
James Snell, my vote is no
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no
Thank you
MI 2021
002418
3301 South
20th Street, RCO
Packer Park, Civic Association
Letter of Support, Ron Patterson
Mr. Patterson, we'll be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Good afternoon.
Mr. Patterson, you've already been sworn today, I think, several times.
Good to have an unopposed one.
Could you please answer a few questions from our vice chair?
Hi, Ron.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Based on all of the notes I'm reading, I see that you've submitted all the required documents.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Also, I have one witness, Reverend Brad Leach, L-E-A-C-H.
um anyway ronald patterson 1835 market street footoff vpa 19103 i'm going to share my screen
here excuse me so this regards uh a property in packard park uh at the corner of 20th street and
gary street and this view at the top is from 20th street um for 60 years it was known as calvary
Temple Church. It was a staple
in our neighborhood. I say ours because I'm on the
Packer Park Civic
Association Board.
And it consists
of a church
school here. It's a
very large property. Here's a view of the
school building from the side.
This is a view from
Geary Street
on the side of the church.
And here's where
this regards an existing sign
which is right here in this corner
and also
visible
right here
Calvary Temple
as I mentioned has been the foundation
of the neighborhood along with several
other churches in the neighborhood
Holy Spirit, St. Richard's
and about three years ago
the church closed
but fortunately
Reverend Leach and his church
City Life took over
the church
I have a
photograph
I'm going to show you
compare and contrast but you see that the church
is beautiful now
it needed a lot of work
and they've done a great job
bringing it back to life
have over 500 members now
So the application basically is to replace this freestanding sign that's been there for 60 years, which probably, sorry, this is a picture with a cover over it.
The existing sign was there since the church had begun, so existed as non-conforming at this point because it's now an RM1 residential zoning district.
The existing sign was 8 feet wide and 4 1⁄2 feet tall, 36 square feet per side, 72 square feet total.
So the proposed sign is to go to a smaller sign, same exact location, to a nice monument sign of dimensions of six feet wide from left to right, four and a half, four and three quarters feet to the bottom of the copy, meaning making 28 square feet per side at 57 square feet total.
So it's the comparison between 72 square feet and 57 square feet.
As you see, the property is quite large.
It's a residential district, but the fact that it is so large, it needs some kind of identification.
And everybody who knows the church is used to looking for that particular sign.
It is across the street from some neighbors. We had an open meeting with the Packer Park Civic Association. There's no objection. As a matter of fact, it was overwhelmingly supported.
It is across the street from some neighbors.
We had an open meeting with the Packer Park.
So with that said, we would ask that the relief be granted to replace the sign with the smaller and up-to-date sign.
With that, Reverend, are you there?
Yes, I'm here.
Okay, could you state your name, sir, please, and the reverend, and spell it for the court reporter?
Brad Leach, B-R-A-D-L-E-A-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hi, Pastor Leach. You've heard my testimony. Would you agree it's true and accurate?
And you would adopt it as if you were your own?
And so you are the founding member of City Life Church that arrived here three years ago, is that correct?
And what I mentioned about the sign, is that kind of well-known, critical to the members now to try to find your church who are now new members?
Great. That's all I have for Pastor.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
I see no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Bergman, members of the board, the David Fecto City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The proposed sign is connected with the religious congregation's free exercise of religion
because it impacts their ability to attract congregants.
So the City Planning Commission is going to recommend that the board grant the dimensional variance.
MI 2021-002418-3301 South 20th Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll be stepping
off, but I'll come back one. Thank you. Thank you. Tanya, did we ever get number one back?
She's here. Ms. Ford, are you ready to proceed with your presentation?
Jason, could you allow the hand that's up now to speak, please?
I'm allowed to speak. Hello, how are you?
so miss ford first of all i need you to mute one device and only have audio on the one you wish to
speak on are you ready are you ready to proceed do you have your exhibits to put up yes so do you
need to be promoted on this device you're speaking on now yes is this where you're going to show your
exhibits on this device yes okay jason may you promote her please and cheer when she comes in
it's all ready for you okay it's been promoted
Ms. Ford?
Carnegie, did we lose her?
No, I think she's coming in.
Let's check now.
Ms. Ford, are you ready?
You can turn on your video and open your mic.
Ms. Ford has kicked off, this is Angelina Geiger, she's joining back on, we're in the
same rooms together on different devices.
so which one is who's going to test on the ipad we are on three devices i don't know
we're having technical difficulties okay so um miss ford is now joining again
if you can hear me so let's see um if we can promote her now Jason
no I don't see her I don't see her yet
Ms. Ford is kicked off can someone let Ms. Ford back in I can't hear what they're saying
I can't hear anything
so the problem is that um in order for her to be promoted she has to be a current attendee
and i don't see her listed so we don't have to let anyone in anyone can join this public event
if you can hear me this is angelina geiger
yeah yes i am here with melita ford we're here together in the same room
Ms. Ford
Her device
somehow out of the meeting
Ms. Ford
I mean Angelina can you hear me
Yes I can
We got a bunch of
devices on there
okay okay now let me hear you speak miss ford okay i'm here okay so right other
our angelina keep yours off miss ford you're on is your video on um video put your video on
start we're gonna get you done today here we go here we go here we go thank you so much i'm old
school i'm sorry okay let's try to see if you can share your screen now see if that works
hit the share screen button
okay you hit share screen yes ma'am all righty here it goes here it goes you can go ahead chair
all right i think if i remember correctly melita i i already swore you in yes okay so so
So, Thomas Holliman is going to ask you a few questions.
Thomas?
Did you mail the exhibit package with all the required documents?
Please proceed and share your screen, which you're doing.
Thank you.
So I'm going to talk while I'm sharing.
We are trying to open up a salon at my sister's rent.
It is 2,900 square feet altogether.
We'll be using 500 square feet in the basement.
One second.
This is our refuel.
just waiting for that to pop up
okay this is our refusal very good um i also got my tax clearance that i was
told to get i'm gonna wait for that to pop up
And I'm also going to show you our community meeting summary.
And for our meeting, we got 100% support from the RCOs and the neighbors around the neighborhood.
and there's this and I'm going to show you a few pictures of where we're going to be working
so um this will be the salon area so it has a private um driveway and a private entrance
and a private bathroom also um right to the right of this picture is where they will be
coming into the salon. And sorry, it's not operating right now, so it's a little
mess. This is the rest of the salon with the private bathroom to the right, and
there's also another staircase in case of any emergency. So we have two exits, but
they have a private exit in the back, and I'll show you where they'll be coming
in and where we will be using for parking just give me one second okay
Okay, so this is 63rd Street, and that's right eight on the corner, and we are right here to
the left where the white car would be, and that's also our parking, and we have a private driveway
that holds five cars. Although it will only be a two-person salon, it will just be me and my
sister working there. So we will only be having two people per person, which would be four max.
I'm going to show you the driveway.
This is our private driveway, which goes all the way to the back of the house with
more room. And I'll show you the entrance. So if you come up the driveway, you have a walkway,
There on the steps right here will be the entrance.
We just got a banister there.
And this is going down the steps into the salon.
And this is the surrounding area around the neighborhood.
And I'll give you a few more pictures.
This is the front of the house.
with that being it right here
um and this is just another picture of our side of the street
um yeah and it's pretty much it so like i said it would just be um me and my sister
pretty small. We had an existence
before
COVID.
And that's when we got the idea
to utilize the space that we have.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Mr. Gregory Allen has his hand
raised. I will allow him to speak at this time.
Sure. Chair and board, my name is Gregory Allen, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y-A-L-L-E-N. I represent the RCO.
Wait a minute. Wait one minute. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Proceed.
Chair, we've never had an RCO meeting where 100% of anyone agreed on anything.
Thank you.
Yeah, I'm sure you can relate.
Ms. Ford and Ms. Geiger have complete support of her neighbors, all of whom live near her
and neighbors throughout the community.
In fact, she approached me early last year
to try to get this done
and has been struggling a little bit with her business
because she wanted to do it the right way.
So we are in full support of her application.
Thank you so much for calling in, sir.
Any other comments?
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair Bergman, members of the Board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at
this location.
This home-based business appears to be accessory and secondary to the residential use of the
building, and the applicant has shown that the home-based business will not alter the
residential character of the building or the neighborhood, and so the City Planning Commission
recommends that the Board grant the use variants for personal services.
Thank you.
MI 2021, 002610, 1117 to 19 North 63rd Street.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
Good luck.
Okay, Melita.
You're all completed, and you will get your results in the email, okay?
Thank you.
You did a great job.
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002382, 3930 Brown Street, Mr. Nockamson, RCO, Mantua Civic Association, letter of support.
Mr. Nockleton is coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Jason.
Jason, can you remove Ms. Ford?
I can't do it.
Something's wrong with my Zoom.
He's been removed.
Thank you very kindly.
Turning as our attendee.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Nockamson of Nockamson PC.
Mr. Holliman has a few questions for you, sir.
I already swore you once.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Mr. Holliman.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you mail the exhibit package with all the required documents?
Yes, I did.
Please proceed and share your screen if you can.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Oops, wrong one.
Sorry.
Let me unshare the screen.
That's the next one.
Sorry, technical difficulties.
DOES EVERYONE SEE MY SCREEN?
Okay, great. So we are presenting 3930 Brown Street. And as indicated, we have the support
of the community for this project, coordinating the RCO with the Mantua Civic Association.
We'll go through our presentation materials, which include our notice of refusal, our letter
of support from the Mantua Civic Association, recently granted zoning Board of Adjustment
variances in close proximity to this project. As you'll see, it's not uncommon for the zoning board
to grant similar type of variance requests. Maps of the area, photographs of the property
in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings, proof that we had a community meeting and that
the affected properties received notice of that community meeting,
our deed to the property, our applications for appeal, and our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, a notice of refusal. So 3930 is an RSA 5 property, but it's substantial in size.
It's 1,422 square feet. And the properties that are surrounding that property are similar
in size. And that's probably one of the reasons why the Zoning Board of Adjustment has seen
an influx of variance requests for this part of town. You'll see in our presentation material
and what we're requesting is a three-unit dwelling. You'll see in our presentation materials
that the community actually supported this project and unanimously. There was no opposition.
It was a well-attended meeting. We had seven people who attended that meeting and all of
them were either in support or in non-opposition on this project.
AND THEN JUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF SIMILLY SITUATED PROJECTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY YOU HAVE 3860 BROWN
STREET WHERE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER APPEAL NUMBER 39950 GRANTED A VARIANCE
FOR A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING FOR 3801 BROWN STREET UNDER APPEAL NUMBER 39952 THE ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT EQUALLY GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR THE INCREASED USE.
AND THAT'S 3801 AS WELL. MAPS OF THE AREA, AGAIN, WE'RE IN THE HEART
OF VANTUA. WE'RE ON BROWN STREET BETWEEN UNION AND 39TH STREET.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST A MAP OF THE AREA FROM A GOOGLE PERSPECTIVE.
and then photographs of the property it's it's a vacant lot it has been a vacant lot
uh it looks like since at least 2000 and uh well it's been abandoned since 2007 i went on google
uh earth myself uh just to confirm you know what the use has been and google earth goes far as
2007. So this hasn't been an active property for over 15 years. Here are properties to
Here are properties to the right of the property on Brown Street.
the right of the property on Brown Street. As you can see there's
As you can see, there's a vast amount of vacant lots on our side of the street.
To the left of the property, again, a vast amount of vacant lots.
One of the things I will point out is, like, you'll see this is a porch neighborhood.
One of the things that was really important to my client, knowing Mantua, because I do present a lot in Mantua, is that this is a porch neighborhood.
So we wanted a project that mimicked what, you know, you would see typically in Mantua.
In addition to the variances that have been recently granted for 3860 and 3801 Brown Street,
also 3938 Brown Street is a nearby RSA 5 multifamily structure.
3921 Brown Street, again, is a nearby RSA multifamily structure.
3908 Brown Street is a nearby RSA 5 multifamily structure. Again, it's not uncommon for this
part of Philadelphia to be multifamily even though it has an RSA 5 designation.
And then here's our plans and drawings. I'm just going to reduce the size of this.
Again, what we try to do is mimic what the look and feel of the properties that surround
us, again to emulate the porch feeling of Mantua, but with a brick facade.
We weren't trying to put a center city product in Mantua.
And I believe that's one of the reasons why they supported it, in addition to the similar
use that has been approved by the ZBA and has been used in many properties surrounding
this property.
And then this is just our site plan, which were in your materials. Again, you can look
at the site plan. This is, you know, the lots that surround us are vacant currently.
And then just our floor plans. And again,
Then what we have here is unit number one, which is bi-level with the first floor and
lower level, second unit is on the second floor, takes the entire second floor, and
then the third unit is on the third floor.
And then we met again with Mantua Civic Association, and here's our letter.
We met December 6th at 6 p.m. There were 168 addresses, so there was a great density of
addresses that were informed in this meeting. And just to reiterate, no one at the meeting
opposed the meeting, and we actually had either people voting in support of it or in non-opposition
to it. And here are just our addresses.
And then our proof of mailing of that notice.
And then just our deed to the property showing that H&M Development LLC is the owner of the
property.
Our application for appeal to the ZBA with our notice of refusal and our project information
form and our tax clearance certificate showing that my client is a good standing with the
City of Philadelphia as it pertains to this property.
With that being said, I have Joe Ades-Evin, a representative from the property owner who can adopt my testimony. So, Mr. Ades-Evin, if you can virtually raise your hand, that would be great.
I'm not allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, court members.
Mr. Ades-Evin, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
g-a-z-i my name is gazi r-a-7-a-t-a-s-e-v-e-l my address is 24 24 east york street Philadelphia
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed oh yes mr other seven you heard everything i stated today
yes i heard everything and with regards to this project is everything true and correct
yes and do you adopt this in your own testimony yes uh with that being said i i'm open to uh any
questions from the board questions from the board no mr chairman no mr
questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman no mr jim questions from the virtual audience or comments
do you know other hands mr chair planning commission good afternoon mr chairman members
of the board david effecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location the zoning maps here
were changed in 2017 in accordance with the community-led process. The documents in the
zoning archive do show that there are some standing homes that are multifamily in nature.
However, since approximately 60% of the block is vacant, it's tough to characterize the block as
being either multifamily or single family. So since there's no unique physical condition of
this 1,418 square foot lot that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning
code the city planning commission is going to default to the existing zoning for guidance
and we're going to recommend that the board deny the use variants thank you mi 2021 002382 3930
brown street i vote yes thomas hollivan my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Nockleson, I have a couple of your cases here, so we'll go right to it.
MI 2021-002381-3861 Fairmount Avenue?
The state name, you've already been sworn?
Alan Ockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street,
Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
And Mr. Holloman has a few questions.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the proposal of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, Mr. Holloman.
Do you mail the exhibit package with all the required documents?
yes we have Mr. Hellman please proceed and share your screen thank you
so similar project actually same client and we made this presentation in front of the
Mantua Civic Association along with 3930 Brown Street. So, again, similar circumstances.
We have a porch community. We try to emulate what the property should look like in a community like
this, and we're looking to put a triplex here. Similarly, which is this property is not that
far away from Brown Street. So you saw the evidence of the ZBA granting similar variances
in the past. And this property is actually, I think, slightly larger, at least according to the
site plan, it's 1,440 square feet. It's a rather large property. And there are other examples on
Fairmont, 3913, 3908, and 3801, where the ZBA has granted variances in the past under similar
circumstances. So we'll go through the same materials as we did for the Brown Street property.
We have a notice of refusal, which will go over.
This is an RSA-5 property, a rather large lot.
We had the letter of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Again, same thing.
Not one person voted at that well-intended meeting.
No one voted against it.
They either voted in support or in non-opposition.
We have examples of recently granted zoning board of adjustment variances for nearby properties.
We have maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area.
Our plans and drawings, proof that we had a community meeting and notice was sent beforehand, our deed to the property showing that H&M Developments LLC is the owner of the property, our application for appeal that we filed with the zoning board of adjustment, and our certificate of tax clearance showing that the property owner is in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
So again, notice refusal. We're not asking for any dimensional variances, just like the
previous property. This is a rather large property of, I think it's 1,440 square feet,
and we're trying to put a three-unit dwelling there. Again, the letter of support, it was
the same exact vote. Seven either in support or not in opposition, and zero opposed. And
And then recently granted variances for multifamily use in this area.
We have 3913 Fairmont Avenue.
We have 3908 Fairmont Avenue and we have 3801 Fairmont Avenue.
We have 3908 Fairmont Avenue.
All recently decided by the zoning board, all granting similar type of variances.
And presumably all applicants having similar support by the community.
again where we are on we're on Fairmont between 38th and 39th streets we behind us is Mellon on
the other side is Olive just showing where we are from a Google Maps perspective and then
photographs of the property. Again, another vacant lot. Again, properties to the right
of the property on Fairmont Avenue. Properties to the left, again, just focusing on the porches
here that this is a three-story block. We try to emulate and mimic the architecture
in this neighborhood and then in addition to the recently granted variances there's other legal uses
of multi-family multi-family use on these some of these RSA5 properties 3834 and 3836 Fairmont Avenue
and then as you can see from the rendering which I'll try to reduce the size of this
We really did try to mimic the porch nature of here with a modern twist.
This one how we see it is maybe because some of the other properties on that block do have
painted brick we're thinking of having a more white brick to kind of match the interesting
decor of the other properties on that block unlike the Brownstreet property.
and then same thing with the site plan this is a rather large property you can see there are
some vacant lots on this block in addition to well this is the cross section but there
is some vacant lots surrounding us here and again I looked on Google Earth I don't believe
that this property has been occupied since 2007 that's as far as Google Earth goes
and again same thing as the Brown Street property similar floor plan for unit one is first floor
lower level unit two is second floor unit three is third floor and then similar to the other
Another presentation, we had a separate notice sent to the community for the Fairmont Avenue
property. Same meeting December 6th, 2021 at 6 p.m. This went to 174 addresses. These
are the addresses that we're required to send it to. Proof of mailing that we mailed the
notice these addresses, our deed to the property, also showing that H&M developments purchased
this property and owns this property, our application for appeal that we filed to the
ZBA along with our notice of refusal and our project information form.
And finally, our certificate of tax clearance showing that my client is in good standing
with the city of Philadelphia.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Adaseven, again virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Adaseven, just state your name, you've already been sworn.
Yes, G-A-Z-I Gazi Adaseven.
Proceed.
Mr. Adaseven, you heard everything I stated today.
yes i heard and is it true and correct yes and do you adopt as your own testimony
yes thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
no mr jim questions from the virtual audience
planning commission
good afternoon chair bergman 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
the comprehensive plan recommends no change the residential single-family zoning at this location
location
the zoning maps changed in this block in 2017 in accordance with the comprehensive plan
there is no unique physical condition of this 1330 square foot lot that would prevent it from being
used in conformance with the zoning code and there are several multi-family homes on this block
however most of the homes are still single family so the city planning commission recommends that
board deny the use variants thank you sir mi 2021 002381 3861 fairmount avenue i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
ishmael shahim my vote is yes thank you thank you mi 2021 002200 4801 fairmount avenue mr
knockamson again we don't have a letter at this point from the rco mill creek advisory council
uh so see when and there's also note here there is a petition signed by the by the local neighbors
so i am actually going to defer to uh my colleague clementa amazon but we did get a letter yesterday
mr chair it's in our presentation materials it's a letter of support from the coordinating rco
I also received notification from Mr. Goodman from the council member's office that they are
also in non-opposition to this project, but I will defer to Ms. Amazon, so I will mute myself.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board.
Hi, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Of course, Clemente Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N. Address is 123 South
Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
All right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Holliman has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Did you mail that exhibit package
with all of the required documents?
Yes, I did.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
This is Rebecca Cole.
Ms. Amazon, would you?
I'm sorry, Ms. Cole, I didn't catch all of that.
Rebecca?
Rebecca we lost you yeah we lost Rebecca okay so I will share my screen and then I will
pause when Rebecca comes back on perfect thank you can I punch you my screen yep perfect
so again today I'll be presenting for 801 Gamal Avenue I will be going through the notice
of refusal. As Alan mentioned, we did receive a letter of support from Mill Creek Advisory
Council. We did also reach out to the councilwoman and we did receive a position of non-opposition.
We do have a permit showing that there was a history of triplex use for this property. In
addition, the ZBA has granted more extensive use for this property as well. We are currently
requesting a duplex. It has previously been granted for triplex as well as for units. We did reach
out to the community. So we have a petition of several pages, which includes a letter from the
never next door. We have maps of the area, photographs of the property, our proposed plans
and drawings, the notice that we sent out for the community meeting, the application for appeal,
deed, and certificate of tax clearance. So first things first, we have the letter of refusal. As
I mentioned previously, we are only looking for a duplex here. The ZDA has previously approved it
for a variance for a four-family dwelling with a cigar and school supply store, and
they also granted a variance, again, for a four-family dwelling in an existing structure
dating back to 1943.
You will also see that there was a permit that was issued for three units.
Again, we did meet with Mill Creek Advisory Council, and they did provide us with a letter
of support for the project, and to that effect, we reached out to the council member to see
they were providing us with a letter and they confirmed that they did have a stance of non-opposition
to the projects. As I mentioned previously, this property also has a history of three units as well
as four units. Again, we are asking for a less aggressive use here. We are simply requesting to
have two units. And we did reach out to the community. My client is actually a neighbor.
a neighbor. He lives on this block. He's partnering with his best friend. They both lived in the
He lives on this block. He's partnering with his best friend. They both lived in the neighborhood
neighborhood for a very long time. My client's family has been in the neighborhood for well
That's right.
over 65 years. His grandmother was also a, let's close that, a block captain. So this is a project
that is very close and near and dear to their hearts. And here we have the second page of the
petition. As well as the third page, and just taking a step back here, as I mentioned, we did
receive a letter from or signature of support from 4803 Fairmont Avenue, which is the property
next door. This is a corner property, so arguably the most impacted property did express support
for this project. And again, our third letter, and here's a Google map view. Again, we are
here on the corner. We did receive support from this property right next door across the street
to school. Again, 481 for Mount Avenue corner property view. The view of the front of the
property from Fairmont Avenue, the view from North 48th Street. This is again a very sizable lot.
There has been used that was far more aggressive than what we are requesting today that the ZBA
has previously granted. Here we have the view to the right of the property on Fairmont Avenue,
the view to the left of the property on Fairmont Avenue,
48th Street to the right of the property, 48th Street to the left of the property.
Here we have our proposed plans and drawings.
We have the brick facade that's common for this area.
We also wanted to make sure that we included several means of entrance and egress to really
utilize the fact that this is a corner lot.
And this is a view, as you can see here, there's also access to the rear yard.
Side view of the property.
Here we have the site plan and elevations.
the floor plans so these are going to be bi-level units the first and lower level being for unit one
and the second and third floor being for unit two and again we did meet with our community and we
received a letter of support we met with the community on this night we included the date
time and zoom information on our notice as well as a copy of the refusal on 104 properties were
notified in total, and we have a certificate of mailing showing that we sent out that
notice in a timely manner, as well as our application for appeal.
Again, the refusal, which is for duplex here, whereas the ZBA has previously approved up
to four units.
Our project's information form, the deed, and our certificate of tax clearance, and
the receipt showing that the payment was made for that outstanding balance.
So with that, I will stop sharing.
I believe my client should be on Jason Francis or Michael Dozier.
Hi, Chair, this is Tanya, the administrator.
May I ask that Ms. Cole send an email of the RCO letter to Ms. Saleta, as well as the RCO's EBA box?
Thank you, Tanya.
I believe our office also forwarded it to Ms. Saleta.
okay thank you she just waved in i just wanted to be sure of course
your client on yes can you could you yes could you state your name is spelled for the court
reporter sir jason francis j-a-s-o-n-f-r-e-n-c-i-s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Jason, did you hear my presentation
today? Yes, I did. And was it true and correct? Yes, it was. And would you adopt it as your
own testimony? I would, yes. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr.
Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or statements from the virtual audience?
No further hands sir. Planning Commission. Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. We are aware of four other multifamily homes on this block. However, the remainder of the block seems to be composed of single-family homes.
There is no unique physical condition of this 1,355-square-foot plot that will prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the requested variances not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002200-4801 Fairmont Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
thank you great i just want to read uh just ask again
miss amazon we don't have it in the rco box too so i just want to make sure we close the record
Ms. Amazon, we don't have it in the RCO box, too.
So I just want to make sure we close the record with this one.
with this one
Ms. Amazon?
Ms. Amazon, are you still in the audience?
Ms. Amazon, please unmute.
Yes, I apologize.
I was on my way out and only caught half of that.
I was asking.
I don't see it in the RCO box, either.
so can we just make sure we get that letter so we can put it with our record
yes of course i'll forward it over again thank you as always miss amazon of course
mi 2021-002181-5101-5107 westminster avenue no rco letter from the 44th democratic ward
that this will be a yes to four pages and attorney pritzker
good afternoon miss pritzker could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
sure rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1521 locust street suite 605
philadelphia pa 19102 do you swear for them to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes mr hollam it has a few questions for you sure do you agree to waive the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes did you mail the exhibit package with all the
required documents yes please proceed and share your screen thank you
so um as you can see uh in front of you is the letter of support that we received on the 18th
which was yesterday which is a letter of support from the 44th ward democratic rco
based on a community benefits agreement that we agreed to and have submitted so we do have
support from the coordinating rco i'm just going to go through the packet
the refusal only refusal that we have for this project which is basically
a adaptive reuse of an existing long-standing vacant structure to add 78 dwelling units with
32 accessory parking spaces to accessible spaces to ev spaces and 26 bike spaces
given the location of the existing structure that we are trying to rehabilitate and the
addition, the only refusal we have is for dimensional standards. The property requires
a 39 foot 11 inch side yard depth and we are proposing a 23 foot side yard, 23 and a half
side yard depth. Basically this again is a long-standing existing hotel that we're turning
into residential units. This is the deed. You have all this. The lot is zoned RM2, which
is a high density residential multifamily. So from a use perspective, we're in character
with that and our architect Scott Woodruff is here from Design Blends who will be able to
go through the design and further explain the only refusal which we have which is related to
quite a large side yard that RM2 requires. Again this is what the site looks like right now.
It has again been vacant for quite some time and is causing a lot of safety
and blight issues in the neighborhood especially for these surrounding single-family homes and we
worked with the 44th Democratic Board through this. Here are the zoning posters on the property.
As you can see, the building is not in great shape. And again, the only refusal we have is
dimensionally. We met with the 44th Democratic Board a number of times and ultimately have the
letter of support. They originally did not support the project based on the September 2nd letter,
but again, based on a January 18th letter, they are in support given the community benefits
agreement and some revisions that we made to the project. With that said, if we could allow for
Scott Woodruff to present, he'll be able to again explain the design of the project and really the
only way we would be able to comply with the required 39 foot side yard would be to demolish
part of the existing building. And we're looking to adaptively reuse it and put an addition on
And we're looking to adaptively reuse it and put an addition on instead of demolishing it just to meet what I think is extremely large side yard requirements at almost 40 feet.
instead of demolishing.
So if Scott can be promoted and be able to share his screen to go through the plans, that would be appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I'm back.
Thank you.
Mr. Woodruff has already been a promoter to panelist.
Thanks, Jason.
So, Woodruff, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F, 4001 Main Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
Let me just share my screen.
So, I have the zoning plan of the property, just to orient everyone, 51st Street is on
the right here, Westminster Ave to the south.
The existing building is located on the corner here, originally two three-story buildings.
We have proposed an addition to the middle building here, and then a new five-story structure
on this left side. The side yard that we are looking for a refusal on is this one. So currently
we have a 23 foot and half inch side yard that's abutting the houses to the left here. And then we
also have 32 parking spaces on the north side of the property. As far as the hardship that we're
looking for the intent of the design was to save the existing structures which are an interior
perspective in pretty poor shape but structurally actually are in good shape masonry bearing walls
are still construction on the interior and they're on the corner in order to keep those
intact architecturally and provide the right unit density for the project we constructed a brand new
building on this side um and we can walk through the plans looking at uh the new unit sizes that
are actually nice um sizable dwelling units for people to live in as opposed to the existing
smaller kind of hotel rooms that have been historically on this building um you just run
through. This is the proposed exterior rendering for the project. As you can see, this is the
existing building on this side. The middle one will receive an addition and a recladding,
and then this is the new five-story structure on the left through talks with the RCO.
It was determined that the existing building had was like a jazz hotel and had some historical
ties to having some of the african-american jazz artists come to this hotel um in the past so we
proposed a mural to kind of recognize that um along this building which is currently a stuff
of construction so it'll be cleaned redone and then a mural will be um kind of accented on this
existing building uh that is on the corner the rest of the material palette is a fiber cement
metal that kind of creates a playful pattern along the facade looking at the
this is the basement plan laundry bike storage utilities is the only thing
that's on this plan this is the first floor level plan that is proposed
currently there are five two bedrooms in the project and 69 one bedrooms we'd
reduce the unit count based on conversations with the neighborhood as
well as created a community room on the first level that's adjacent to this lobby that's
access from Westminster Street here. So the interior of these existing buildings were
kind of relayed out to create a little bit of a better layout for these units that was
more livable. This is the typical third and fourth floor plan. Again, pretty standard.
there was a small existing elevator we'll be adding another elevator to the project as well
to better serve the residents of the complex fourth floor so again we're creating an addition
to this existing middle building the third floor roof will remain here and then this is the top
fifth floor which is in stop so we kind of create the stacking effect to the building
just go through we can get into actual units if you're interested but I'll keep this moving
again this is the facade as far as again going back to the side yard is 23
Again, this is the facade. As far as, again, going back to the side yard, it's 23 feet
currently. Based on the zoning, the side yard is required to be three quarters of the dimension
of the height of the building. So the height is in direct proportion to the side yard,
which is a little bit unique, but it is part of the zoning code. If we were to kind of
flip this entire development the way that it is and had the taller building at the corner
and the smaller building at the side it would kind of bring it into compliance at that point
um again one of the main parts of the project was to keep the existing building and fabric
uh that's there and just kind of add to it um we wouldn't be able to kind of add the
you know density and the kind of addition of this scale over here um to do that which is why we kind
of did this again we felt like the stacking kind of uh at least um brought down the height of the
corner and kind of create a nice visual aspect um but based on the 23 feet that we currently have
it would need to be i think 34 35 feet tall on this side which is essentially what this building
is here um again just going back to the rendering we can kind of see the the visual of that looks
and this across the street is a large baseball field in the park that's open to the public
and this side I think is a cemetery that's over here. Rachel, did you want me to touch on anything
else specifically? No, unless the board has any questions. I appreciate the presentation.
Any questions for the architect before he leaves by the board?
no mr chairman no mr chairman okay continue rebecca i've been rachel i'm sorry okay um so
as i said the only uh variance that we're asking for is just uh from the 39 feet to the 23 feet
and other than that um i don't have anything else uh do you want to put your owner do you
want to have your owner come on yes thank you chairman um is there a felix
felix ellison should be able to raise his hand he's been allowed to speak thank you
would you state your name sarah and spell it for the court reporter
yes felix ellison f-e-l-i-x-e-l-i-n-s-o-n right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Felix, have you heard the presentation
I gave today and the testimony that I gave? Do you believe it to be true and accurate and do you
adopt it as your own? Yes, I do. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, sir. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Willie Jordan has his hand raised.
I will honor you.
Mr. Jordan, please unmute and wait for your phone in.
Hello?
Hi, Mr. Jordan, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Willie Jordan, W-I-L-L-I-E, Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir. Proceed.
Yes, we're sorry we got the letter of support in late, but as Rachel indicated, it's been a back and forth.
We're trying to get this right for the community.
And we want to stress the importance of our community benefit agreement that will make this project successful.
And also, Lynn, our apology to you for addressing it to the past chairperson.
Oh, thank you.
That's fine, Mr. Jordan.
Thank you.
We appreciate you calling in.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, before the Planning Commission, before we vote, Rebecca, did you see there's four pages attached?
My notes indicate revised plans, four pages.
Can you hear me?
what that yeah i can do we know what that is maybe rachel could help i don't have it in front
of me currently yeah i believe yeah i believe we made uh slight revisions to the plans um
scott if you're still out there um it's from the we reduced the uh unit count from 78 to 74
reduce from 70 to 74. 78 to 74. okay all right planning commission
okay all right planning commission good afternoon chair bergman david facto city planning commission
mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multi-family zoning at this location the proposed dimensional variance granting relief from the side
yard depth requirements of the code is a minor variance that will not impair the use of adjacent
properties the city planning commission recommends of the variance thank you
MI-2021-002181-5101-5107, Westminster. I vote yes with proviso of four attached pages.
Carol Tinheri, my vote is yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with advisors.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Chairman, I have another case today that I just didn't see on the list for 1820 West
Venango.
It was a reconsideration hearing.
Anya, do we have that?
Yes, check your checks.
Thank you.
it's an add-on
okay why don't we do that right now
MI 2021-004041-1820 Venango Street.
You want me to put my name back on the record?
Yeah, just your name.
That's all.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
And we have this note.
Vice Chair, could you ask a few questions before we...
Rachel, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And it appears, according to the notes, that you have submitted all the required documents, correct?
You may proceed.
Thank you.
So I'm going to just share my screen.
This, I don't know, Chairman, if you were privy to the prior hearing back in September 1st.
Okay, so this basically was, I'm just going to then go back through. Essentially, it's not our burden to show that we needed a rehearing. It's the councilwoman's burden because apparently new information should have been brought to light or there was something new that should have gone on.
But nothing new has happened besides additional outreach and communication with the RCO, some inappropriate, in my opinion, exchanges, and some, you know, a lot of time spent that really didn't result in a whole lot.
So this is an existing corner lot.
I'm sorry. This is Tanya, the Zony Administrator. Just want to interject, Rachel. Maybe I'm confused, but is this the council person's case?
Well, they're the one who filed the motion for reconsideration that the board granted.
Yeah, so they should have the burden to show, but given-
Right, but I want them to be put on first, so that's why I'm making sure.
Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Richardson is here.
okay please promote mr richardson staff he's being promoted to panelists now thank you thank you all
mr richardson just state your name you've already been sworn good afternoon again mr
chair charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
Okay, thank you.
Go ahead.
The reason that we're here today is because in June of last year, we received a meeting
summary that stated that the near neighbors from Tioga United, stating that the near neighbors
had opposed granting the variance.
This summary was sent to us by the former co-chairs of Tioga United.
In fact, that was back in June and September of last year.
The ZBA hearing was scheduled for September the 1st.
I was informed just prior to the hearing that this is Tanya again yes may I ask that you pause this for one moment please.
Hi, Chair. This is Tanya again. I'm sorry. I have to confer with the almighty Ms. Sharon Saleta.
I thought she was up tonight, but besides that, go ahead.
So the idea is that this reconsideration request was actually submitted by the councilwoman.
Right.
So the councilwoman would have to present or have representation by an attorney.
So if you wish, we would have to continue this, Mr. Richardson, and inform her of the requirements.
Because you can't do that.
You would have to be an attorney or the applicant themselves.
She's not available at the moment.
understandable i could work with you offline and rachel and come up with a date that works
for everyone that's fine tanya yeah let's do that okay thank you appreciate it thank you
mi 2021 002175 5916 north 13th street
no RCO letter, no RCO letter from 9th Council District RCO, RCO letter in opposition from
ACCA. Sean Whalen. Mr. Whalen will be coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Hi, Mr. Whalen, how are you? Could you state your name for the court reporter and spell it,
please? Certainly. Sean, S-E-A-N, Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N. Right. Do you swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And the vice chair has a few
questions. I can't hear you. Cal, you're muted. That's why I hate being muted. Do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Based on the notes,
I see you've sent in all the required documents.
Yes, I have.
You may proceed.
Thank you very much.
Just one quick point of order before I start sharing.
Chairman, the letter from ACCA is actually from a 2015 case that ACCA had with this case.
ACCA is no longer an active RCO.
we did not meet with, nor did they participate in any way in this current matter in front of you.
And do we have a letter from the 9th Council District?
Not to my knowledge, and I'll address that here in a minute.
Okay, sure. Good, good. Thank you.
Certainly.
So this case is 5916 North 13th Street.
It's a pretty straightforward case.
We have one use refusal. You can see that we are proposing four dwelling units in a very large existing structure.
Currently, since 1962, you can actually see it down here, the property has been approved for two dwelling units and has also had a separate commercial unit.
It was originally, as you can see, a painting contractor's business office and accessory storage, and then later it became a doctor's office.
The property, my client, Medith Charles, obtained the property in 2014 at Sheriff's Sale, and the property was actually deemed, it was designated dangerous by L&I.
It was in such poor condition.
So here is North Broad Street, 611. We're just north of 1, and you can see just a couple blocks down West Nidro, and you're about mid-block on North 13th before you get up to West Champlast.
um again you can sort of see just a standard this is a double wide property it's actually
uh 40 feet by 140 so it's it's a very very large property and what you'll see and i'll show you
is the property is actually fully developed as an l and has been forever um so here an outline
is the property 5916. This is 100% sort of on the north. This is the right side is the north side
is 100% lot coverage. And again, has been for all times relevant, at least since the 50s.
I couldn't go back before that. So right now you have, it is attached at the front portion.
So right now you have, it is attached at the front portion. Here is a twin. This front portion is essentially a standard row home that has always been divided into an upper unit and a lower unit of a two-unit building.
There's also a full basement underneath this portion of the property.
There is then a one-story connection right here that connects both the front and the back, which are both two stories.
And then there's an accessory garage here.
So you have approximately 5,000 square feet of built-out space on this lot.
and as you can see on this left side the south side of the property you have a very large open
driveway again just to give you kind of a better understanding of the process you've got this
existing kind of standard twin or row home not quite as deep as its adjacent neighbor then you
have this one-story addition that goes into a two-story addition with an accessory garage again
all of this existing as is since the 50s, at least. This property is currently zoned RSA 3,
which is single family. However, as I said, since the 1960s, we've had zoning for two
residential dwelling units and a commercial unit. Now, again, this property did go into
significant disrepair, ended up in sheriff sale and was designated dangerous when my client
purchased it. And she then actually had to invest in excess of $100,000 in order to improve the
property, repair the interior, and remove that dangerous designation. Now, most notably, she did
not at any point in time create any new structure on the property, nor did she create or erect any
new walls or anything in the property. So she repaired the property and rehabbed the property
in the structural condition that it was and always had been. In fact, I'll show you in a minute.
The only exterior structure that she built was, you can see, Ellen and I required her to put
a second stairway egress for this rear portion of the property, and that is there.
So here's a look at the street. Generally speaking, it's a twin-type environment up and down the block.
There are some multifamily mixed in with single-family residential properties.
again this is just going down south along the block this is the property that is immediately
across the street and this is actually part of that property too this is multi-family
and what you can see here is this is the very front portion the street is to the right
and as you can see there's multiple mailboxes now before I miss it again most notably here
and I think most telling of the prior use of this property this is in the basement I'll show you the
pictures later but I wanted to have a zoomed in shot first there are three gas meters in the
basement of the property my client did not install any gas meters these were existing obviously
They've been fixed by the gas company throughout the rehab process, but this is all existing.
And so there is no reason or purpose to have multiple gas meters if any property has ever been used as a single residence.
Similarly, there have at all times been four separate electric meters, further evidencing four units.
We recognize that there are three gas meters and four electric meters.
We attempted to go back to the electric company and gas company and find records
about that history, but we could not find them.
So again, how this is laid out, this picture was taken immediately in front of the accessory
garage. You have one unit, unit one on the top floor of the existing building. You have one unit
on the ground floor of the existing building that also has access to the basement. The basement is
unfinished. You have a third unit, which to our understanding was always the commercial unit
in here. That's unit three. And then this to the left, this fourth unit is
that's unit three and then this to the left this fourth unit is the two-story structure
the i simply go through these photos to show you in what good condition my client has brought the
property back up to um you know full kitchens she maintains it impeccably and again has spent
significant monies to do this, and with 5,000 square feet of built-out space and living space
already designed into four units, she does have, you know, that is one in the first piece of a
hardship with regard to her having to, you know, conform this either to a single unit or even
keep it limited to two units, which is what the councilwoman's office, I believe, will be asking.
So a Ms. Hillary Emerson from Councilwoman Cheryl Parker's office, I believe, is on the call, and she can speak more to this herself.
The Councilwoman's office stepped in to host a meeting because there is no active RCO in the area.
We hosted a meeting in conjunction through our law firm Zoom in conjunction with the Councilwoman's office.
There was one attendee.
So we presented the case to the one woman who showed up.
she was the immediate neighbor. At that meeting, she stated that she didn't want to get in the way
of anything, but she did wish that the property was better maintained. And my client explained
that she had, in fact, felt the same way about the property and realized that it was not being
maintained. And she had actually about six months ago retained the services of a professionally
licensed property manager to manage this property. So it was an issue and it's been addressed and it
was addressed before even the meeting. So this meeting also tellingly, this is unit two here,
the meeting we held was actually held I believe in August. This matter was originally before
the zoning board in September. At that time, we heard from the councilwoman's office. This is
the unfinished basement where you have the gas meters there. Here is unit three. It's a smaller
one-bedroom. Obviously, we have not been using it as a one-bedroom because of the issues with zoning
And we didn't want to run afoul of the councilwoman's office, but it is fully equipped with a bathroom and kitchen.
So we did have that one meeting.
And again, right before the September meeting, the original hearing for this matter, we learned from the councilwoman's office that they were going to oppose the project.
based on the opposition of the woman who appeared at our one meeting and said that she didn't want
to oppose the project, evidently spoke with Ms. Hillary Emerson in further detail after that
meeting. And there is one other neighbor, I understand, who Ms. Emerson spoke with on behalf
of the Councilwoman's office afterwards. We continued the September meeting specifically
to deal further with the councilwoman's office and to host a second meeting to address any
concerns that any residents had. And we were flatly refused. We were told that there was
no desire or wish to speak with us or to have a second meeting. So as far as I know, there is no
letter and the councilwoman's office may or may not still be in opposition, but I believe they are.
And I'm not sure that we have any neighbors or any neighborhood opposition of any sort.
Just quickly, here is unit four.
And again, this is a fully built out fourth unit.
Again, because of this zoning issue, there's nobody living in this unit.
It was vacated when all of this became an issue.
And here's the extra means of egress.
again that's just the the meters so at this point in time you know my client has a significant
hardship she has a very large 5,000 plus square foot fully built out building that she was
required by L&I to fully rehab and repair because of it it was imminently dangerous and designated
it as such when she purchased the property from sheriff sale in 2014. She underwent that entire
process and we have now gone through everything with you know this large existing building to
have it built out. With that said we did have some preliminary conversations with the
We did have some preliminary conversations with the Councilwoman's office that as a compromise and to meet a least minimum standard, my client will agree to a variance of three units instead of the originally requested four units that is in the current refusal and application.
woman's office that has a compromise and
But you want to bring your client on so that you can have your testimony adopted.
Yes, I will.
So, Ms. Medith Charles, please.
I'm allowed to speak.
Ms. Charles?
Yes, I'm here.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
I'm sorry.
Ma'am, could you turn up one of your devices or mute one of them?
Now try to speak.
Ms. Charles?
Ms. Charles?
i'll try texting real quick to see if she's there
well i can see her she's there she's trying to connect yes i'm here okay yeah yes but you have
other devices on yes i thought it off no okay i could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter yes my name is medith m-e-d-i-t-h last name charles ch-a-r-l-e-s
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Charles. And Ms. Charles, you are the owner of the property, correct?
Okay. And did you hear all of the testimony that I presented already?
Yes, I did.
Okay. And is it true to the best of your knowledge and information?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Okay. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Sir, there's a Mr. Melvin Sharpe with his hand raised. I will allow him to speak at this time.
Yeah, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
M-E-L-V-I-N, Melvin, initial T, last name Sharp, S-H-A-R-P-E.
All right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Proceed.
Yes, I am the resident two doors from Ms. Charles. I initially opposed this application
and I still oppose this application. There are principally three reasons why and that doesn't
change. Ms. Charles is not a resident of the block and does not really monitor her property
or clean her property. Secondarily, Ms. Charles has already been in operation of these units
and it was opposed the first time. And the first time Ms. Charles seemingly acted like she didn't
understand what the decision was, which means you don't operate until you have the compliance
of the zoning board. So secondarily, that is the second reason. And thirdly, this block is composed
mostly of senior citizens and single-family residents. We do not want additional apartments
in this block. We want to maintain the integrity of this block. We don't have any issues with crime,
loitering or any of those things. Some of those things happen sometimes when you get transients
coming in in a lot of apartments. So the issue of the precedent that would be set
by this decision and what it would mean for the rest of the block would be that if this was allowed
then others could very easily come in and then the composition of the block changes from single
family to mostly apartments. This is not like there is a resident there who wants to add
an additional unit. This is an investment property and we don't have any problems. I
this is an investment property and we don't have any problems. I don't have any problems certainly
don't have any problems certainly with Ms. Charles.
with Ms. Charles getting a return on her investment, but not at the expense of the
normal operations of the zoning code and not at the expense of the residents who are not
in favor of this. The immediate neighbor, Ms. Tucker, is very clear about her opposition
and several other seniors on the block.
This community meeting was not held
by Ms. Charles with the people on the block.
It was a Zoom and a lot of people didn't make Zoom.
We have a lot of senior citizens
who are not even participating in Zoom.
Believe me, there will be more people on this call today
if a lot of our seniors understood
and would follow these hearings on Zoom.
But they don't.
all right so thank you mr sharp thank you for calling we understand where you are
thank you thank you very much is there anybody else in the virtual audience
that wants to have a comment this hillary emerson has her hand raised do i allow her to speak sir
good afternoon mr chair members of the board hillary emerson emerson on behalf of councilwoman
sherelle parker do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you proceed thank you um i just first want to note that um as mr whalen stated our
office served as the coordinating rco in this matter and we did have a meeting over zoom from
over the summer um two neighbors were in attendance um we did not hold a vote at that time i attended
to follow up with both neighbors to get further feedback after the meeting. One I was not able to
reach, and one was Ms. Tucker, the neighbor immediately adjacent, the other half of the twin,
and she expressed her opposition. In the meantime, a third neighbor, Mr. Sharp, contacted me
closer to the zoning hearing, asking how he could express his opposition.
um and the right prior to the last zoning hearing um i sent emails both to sharon and to
mr whalen indicating that the neighbors and the councilwoman were in opposition to four units at
this property um so because i had sent those letters before and or those emails before and
nothing had changed i did not send um additional correspondence regarding this um mr whalen
approached me a few weeks ago to ask if there was any way there could be further conversation
about this, potentially for three units instead of four. I reached out to both Ms. Tucker and
Mr. Sharp to ask them if they would be interested in speaking further about this. Both of them
unequivocally told me no and reiterated their concerns, which Mr. Sharp just discussed about
not wanting more rentals on the block that this property hasn't been kept up well um and it's it
it's they do not they they're fine with the two units that are currently in the front and that
have been there for some time but they're not supportive of the commercial being turned into
additional units so that that is the summary of the community's position um i want to give briefly
the summary of the councilman's position um councilman parker is also um opposed to more
than two units at this property. I just want to briefly discuss the history. Ms. Charles purchased
this property in July of 2014. She got a permit to use it as a duplex that November and a rental
license the following year for two units, a license that she kept active until last year.
She previously applied for a triplex at this property in August of 2015 prior to Councilwoman
Parker being the district councilwoman for this area. That was denied. It was opposed by the
community, presumably opposed by the councilwoman's office at the time, and again denied. She applied
in early 2021 for four units at the property. She was also cited in early 2021 by L&I for having a
new use at the property, presumably the additional units plus other property maintenance code and
fire code violations, most of which have been resolved except for the zoning related violations
because that is the subject of the hearing. We find, the councilman rather, finds that there's
no hardship in this case. This property has been used as a duplex since Ms. Charles purchased it
in 2014. While there is a history of some commercial space, a small office and storage
for a prior paint business and then be one other business in its history there is no reason that
this has to be used as residential space or even it continued to be continued to be used as
continue to be used as commercial space, but there's no, there is no hardship. We believe
commercial space but there's no there is no no hardship
also any hardship that Ms. Charles is citing has been created because she clearly has done
renovations to the property and there's no history that the commercial was used as residential
previously. So there was some sort of illegal conversion done at some point for the commercial
to become residential. As we've already stated, the community does not want additional rental
units on this block. This block is comprised of approximately 40 properties. I counted of the 40
properties, four duplexes, one triplex, which was a three-story home. Mr. Whelan showed that picture.
There was one child care center on the corner and one mixed-use property, one apartment and
one commercial on the corner. So probably about three quarters of the properties on the block
are single family homes based on property records by the city. I also, lastly, just wanted to note
some of the neighbors' concerns about additional units may have to do with there being a large
apartment complex at 13th and Nidro, a half a block away that was vacant for some time. It's
now been renovated and additional units as well as an additional building have been added, creating
already an influx of rental units in the area. So that, I believe, is also feeding to the
residents' concerns as well. That is all I have. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Emerson. Thank you. Sean, before I give this to the Planning Commission,
do you have any comments? Yes, thank you very much, Chairman. With regard to a number of the
the issues raised, any decision today by this board would certainly not be presidential in
any kind of way. This is the only building that I'm aware of on the block that is built out like
this. It's one of the few that is actually a double wide lot. We have a very large existing
structure, which, you know, this board is very familiar with coming before it all over the city.
the hardship that miss Charles had to endure when she purchased the project was that you know when
you take something when you purchase something at sheriff sale you're not allowed to enter the
project or the building rather before you know what you're kind of getting your hands on
and she was issued a or provided a copy of a imminently dangerous designation so it was not
her personal choice whether or not to improve the project. She had to improve the project
or completely demo the project. So she was put in an impossible position immediately after
her purchase of the project, which was not of her doing. We have, you know, Ms. Emerson raises
a good point about the property and it not being maintained. Ms. Charles admitted that. She had
noted that and even before this project this process started she had retained that professionally
licensed uh individual in order to be the property manager uh going forward and to address all of
those issues um again you have a very large property uh unlike the rest of the lot it's an
existing building um she's our it already has as you can tell three gas meters four electric meters
It was always set up and intended for multiple use, and I think that at this time, Ms. Charles
is willing to accept a three-unit approval instead of a four-unit approval in an attempt
to work with the councilwoman and the neighbors, even though they refused a second meeting
to allow us to address any of their ongoing issues or concerns.
Thank you very much for your consideration today.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Members of the Board,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at
this location. This appears to be an existing legal two-unit home with a business dating
to at least 2016. There are no unique physical characteristics of the property that would
require it to be used with four units. And since the building has been used for fewer
than four units, four is not the minimum necessary for the applicant to derive value. So the
City Planning Commission is going to recommend that the board deny the use of that.
Thank you. MI 2021-002175-5916 North 13th Street. I vote no.
Harold Tennery, my vote is no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that has any other cases from the two o'clock?
i see no other hands okay we're gonna take a five minute
Okay, we're going to take a five minute break and then we'll get in here and we'll go through
this 330 as quick as we can, guys.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
you can read your spiel okay good afternoon my name is bill bergman i will be chairing this
afternoon's meeting of the zoning board of adjustment with me is carol tenary our vice
chair present ishmael shaheed our board secretary there mr chair thomas holliman our board member
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is our board administrator, Tanya Sunkit, and our attorney, Rebecca Cole.
Before we start, let me talk about our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting tanyasunkit at philadelphia.gov.
2. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
3. 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, please note the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments.
Any comments should be directed to Tanya Sunken, our board administrator.
Let's start with continuances.
I have listed as a continuance number two. MI 2021-003-391-1654-60 Margaret Street is requested by the attorney in order to meet with the RCO. Is there anybody in the virtual audience that has a comment about that?
Number two is continued.
Number two is, pardon me?
I saw no hands for that one, sir.
Okay, number two is continued.
Is there any other continuities that anyone would like to request at this time?
Again, I see no hands, sir.
Okay, so we're going to start.
And the first case that we're going to hear is MI 2021-003-549-5956 Harbison Avenue, Harry Cook.
At this point, no RCO letter from the Wissan-Oming Civic Association.
Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook will be coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Thank you.
hi can everyone hear me we can mr cook can you state your name is all for the court reporter
please sure harry cook h-a-r-r-y c-o-o-k anastasio law do you swear or firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do you i do sir and our vice chair has a few questions for
you sure hi mr cook do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do based on our notes it shows that you have submitted all the required documents is that
correct yes it is okay you may proceed thank you thank you so much vice chair and mr chairman i'm
sorry madam chair it looks like there's no letter am i correct there there is a letter we received
it yesterday okay thank you it was a noming thank you i just wanted to make sure because my notes
were different. Sure, and that just came, and I sent a copy to Solicitor Saleta and also RCOCBA
earlier this afternoon, and it's part of my presentation. Wonderful. You can carry on, sir.
Thank you. I'm going to begin sharing screen.
So today we're going to start with refusal, do an atlas site overview, which will go into
some of the hardship arguments, review the zoning plan, photos, deed to prove ownership,
current NAC certification, RCAO notice meeting letter, the addresses sent to, proof of mailing,
The letter of non-opposition from the Sonoma Civic Association, and I'll call my client as a witness to adopt testimony.
the letter of non-opposition from Wissanomic Civic Association, then I'll call my client.
We are here presenting 5956 Harveston Avenue.
There's a single refusal.
We're trying to change the use from residential to business professional, office, and existing structure.
We're not proposing any changes inside other than repurposing bedrooms and offices and conference rooms.
A little bit about this particular property, if everyone can see my Atlas screen for administrative notice.
This property here is highlighted in blue.
It's very large.
It's almost 4,000 square feet.
It sits at Comely and Harbison and is one of one, two, three, four, five, six points on this intersection.
My client purchased this property in 2015.
He is a seasoned realtor.
Since that time, he has had a very difficult time maintaining a viable tenancy in this property.
Some of the properties next door, 5952, for example, are in pre-court because of different code violations.
This property has no violations. It's well-maintained, as you will see.
Another interesting aspect of this property, a peculiar interesting aspect of this property, is that as far as all of the other properties at this intersection, at this five-point intersection, this is the only one that is zoned RSA, zoned residential.
We believe that in the context of Hertzberg, context matters, and that along with the history here at this property, some of its surrounding neighbors, it is not conducive to residential at this point.
We've received feedback in the past from families with children who did not want to rent this property because of its proximity to this very busy and active intersection.
There's that issue.
And then two, you know, here you have convenience stores, you have delis, you have other sorts of properties that when we go into some of the photos I'll show you, including a bar, that really create a nexus of commercial activity at this intersection.
And again, this is an end cap property on this intersection is at the main four square walk area of the intersection.
And we believe it is more conducive to commercial in that aspect.
We're not suggesting that we put on a Wawa that is directly across the street or a convenience store or a deli or a supermarket.
This is going to be a low intensity use. It's going to be owner operated. It's going to have normal business hours. It's going to have commercial trash pickup. And it's going to, we believe, revitalize that corner in a way that, you know, one also helps other people find homes in the area.
So with that, I'm going to move over to the plans.
Can everyone see my screen?
So here, what we are proposing, it's a two-story building.
As you can see, it's rather large.
There's some outdoor space.
It has a large area here as a side yard.
It has parking availability for prospective real estate clients.
as we come to the interior. Again, no changes are planned. As you'll see in the picture,
this is the current area, the foyer and living room area will be changed to reception with a
reception area here. Conference room in the dining room, kitchenette. Moving up to the second floor,
three offices to replace the three bedrooms that are currently in place.
Basement uses mechanicals and storage. Here you can see it. It's not attached to any other
property. It juts out on that corner of that five-point intersection at Comey and Harbison.
it almost has a look and feel of a physician's office or a realtor's office as it already stands
here is the side area and deck
Here is the side area and deck, another photo of the deck, the driveway
another photo
from Comley, interior, second floor, basement.
As you can see, it's clean and well-maintained
despite the fact that it has not had a viable tenancy in seven years.
My client has been a realtor for almost 30 years in the Commonwealth.
Here's a picture of the property at Comley and Harbison.
You can see the deli bodega across the street there.
At the other corner, there is a restaurant.
Another restaurant in that area.
The Wawa is being refitted out.
That is directly across the street.
convenience store that mentioned earlier.
Here is the deed from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to Skyluck Horizon Realty, my client.
My client is Nick Hewn.
He is the sole member of the entity.
I just want to get down to the nitty-gritty of notice.
This was, so it took quite some time working with the Noming Civic Association to schedule a RCO.
They had not been having RCOs due to COVID, and they had not been transitioning to Zoom.
So in association with John Nolan of Wissanoming, we hosted an RCO on January 6th.
Notice went out at least 14 days prior.
That information showed the context of the block at the intersection, spoke of what we were using it for, included a copy of the refusal, provided the time and link for the Zoom RCO meeting, also provided the time and link information for this hearing today.
uh also the contact information for the honorable maria kimono sanchez 7th council district and
with the gnomic civic association john barden cell phone number he requested that we include that
in our in our um rco notice so that people could call him directly on his cell phone
Um, and again, uh, Wissan-Owing Civic does not oppose this zoning request.
Here is the, our client's tax clearance certificate good through, uh, January 27th, 2022.
Here is our proof of mailing that went out to 55 addresses.
And that went out to this list provided by the planning commission.
to all residents.
And with that, I would like to call on my client,
Mr. Hyun, to raise his hand.
Nick, are you there?
Can you raise your hand?
About to speak.
Sir, may you please unmute?
Sir, could you state your name
and spell it for our court reporter?
My name is Nick Nguyen, N-I-C-K, last name Nguyen, H-U-Y-N-H.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Cook?
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Nguyen, did you hear my testimony today and my presentation of documentary and photographic evidence?
to your uh to the best of your knowledge and ability was it accurate true and correct yes
do you adopt it as your own testimony sir yes thank you questions from the board
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions
no mr chairman no mr chairman
from the virtual or comments from the virtual audience
so some folks has his hand raised i will not speak at this time
good afternoon chairman bergman and zba board my name is
Thank you, sir. My name is Sloan Fuchs, S-L-O-A-N-E-F as in fire, O-L-K-S, representing the office of Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez, room 508 City Hall, 7th District.
Right, right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Proceed.
uh the applicant having met with the coordinating rco and having received letter of non-opposition
the councilman has no opposition to this variance request thank you thank you mr folks
thank you anybody else in the virtual audience
no further hand sir planning commission this is uh ryan bednar city planning
for the court reporter could you spell your name please
first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r right do you swear for him to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth uh while this property is currently indicated for residential
on the city plan given the site's physical circumstances and the surrounding use
context. We recommend the request of variance be granted. Thank you very much, sir. MI-2021-003549-5956,
Harpison Avenue, I vote yes. Harold Cenary, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes. Thank you, everyone. MI-2020-000664,
1000 East Erie Avenue, Attorney James Murray.
Councilwoman Sanchez has a letter in support.
Mr. Murray has been promoted to panelists.
Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. How are you doing today?
James Murray, Litchfield-Cavo, L-I-T-C-H-F-I-E-L-D, space C as in cat, A-V-O, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1220, Telfia PA 19102, on behalf of Speedway.
Mr. Murray, state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Sure, James Murray, M-U-R-R-A-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Murray, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Based on my notes, it appears that you've submitted all the required documents.
Is that correct?
I believe so, yes.
I hope so.
You may proceed.
All right.
Thank you.
Today's application is sorted yesterday.
Today, we are changing out the signage of the gas pricing from the manually changed numbers that are changed by hand with an employee kind of a stick that are backlit to an LED screen gas pricing.
The employee who does it will be doing these as well.
No one's losing their job.
We're not building any additional structure.
We're simply changing out these prices for the LED screen.
The letter from the RCO came in last night about two years late, but better than never, I guess.
I sent it to Ms. Saleta in the ZBA email address, but there was no opposition by anyone, in any way, to anything we're doing.
So here's the on-site Google Maps picture for a better idea of what it looks like.
And again, we're swapping these two boards out for LED numbers.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
No hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
This property is indicated for industrial use on the city plan.
Our adopted district plan recommends no changes to the existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique site circumstances or conditions of the property that were prevented from being used in conformity with the code.
So illuminated signs are prohibited at 200 feet from an intersection.
Therefore, we recommend the request for vanities not be granted.
MI 2020-000664-1000
MI 2020-000664, 1000 East Erie Avenue, I vote yes.
Harold Tannery, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
MI 2021-003383, 201-03 East Sheldon Avenue.
RCO 42nd Ward, Letter of Support with Proviso.
Sean Ward.
Mr. Ward's been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Ward, state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Mr. Ward.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Chairman, just so you know, I have five of the cases on the 330 list, so I will try
and make quick time of all of those.
Just for the court reporter, spell your name, please.
S-H-A-W-N, last name Ward, W-A-R-D,
Attorney for Applicants.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has several questions for you.
Hi, Sean.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
I most certainly do.
Based on the notes,
it appears that you've submitted everything required.
is that correct that is correct you may um proceed there's always a word i forget
okay can everybody see my screen yes yes very good uh mr chairman i've submitted my typical
exhibit packet for this property i represent danny lamb who is the owner of the property as well as
domaso guaba that's d-o-m-a-s-o guaba g-u-a-b-a and anthony reyes r-e-y-e-s garcia g-a-r-c-i-a who are
the tenants uh the property is 201-03 east sheldon street uh this refusal is a result of an
application for a barber shop slash hair salon which falls in the personal services category
with a previously approved two-family use above.
The refusal is for personal services
are not permitted in RSA 5.
Accordingly, we seek a use variance today.
That was A1.
A2 is the deed.
A3, proof of tax clearance.
A4 are the photographs of the subject property,
the interior, and some street views.
A5, as the chair mentioned,
is the RCO letter of support from the 42nd board.
As far as A6 goes,
I believe Hillary Emerson is participating today.
If there is a letter, I would ask that be marked as a six. However, we did discuss yesterday and
ran it by Solicitor Suleta, a proviso with regard to this application. Relevant zoning history,
it has a long history of mixed use commercial and residential. 1968 real estate office, one family,
74 real estate office and one family, 92 a grocery store and one family. In 2007, there was a zoning
granted for a three-unit commercial space, A, B, and C, and one family above.
And we were before this board in 2017, where we did obtain a permit for a barbershop.
Again, personal services.
However, that was a three-year temp, which expired during COVID.
That's why we were late to the prom on this one.
A8 is the zoning map.
A9 is the aerial photograph.
Quickly, the days and hours of operation would be Monday through Saturday,
9 to 8, closed on Sundays.
There are three employees, including two barbers and one hairstylist for women, and all trash and stored and sealed containers in their rear fenced-in yard.
So quickly, we have our notice of refusal, the petition of appeal, project information form, copy of Mr. Lamb's deed, proof of tax clearance,
the aforementioned fenced-in rear yard. This is the subject property. This space here would be
space A, which is vacant, and these two spaces together constitute B and C, where the barbershop
hair salon occupies both of those units at this time. Again, a side view of the space B.
again a side view of the space b again this is the vacant space a
just a couple more photos of the side of the building inside the building this would be space c
the foreground is space b again part of space b
and then you have street views of rising sun avenue
Across the street is the recreation field for Owany, I believe it used to be Owany High School.
I think it's Owany Charter Academy now or something.
Again, the RCO letter.
We met with the RCO committee.
The notices did go out for the meeting, but apparently nobody showed up except the committee members themselves.
And that was a Zoom meeting.
they did provide a letter of support in addition to the summary asking that they support the use
with a proviso that it not be extended expanded from what is existing now we don't have an actual
floor plan however we did work out a proviso i think it's acceptable to the applicant the
councilwoman's office as well as the uh the board uh the zoning map shows that this property
is owned as RSA 5. It is an oddly shaped corner parcel. And again, the aerial map,
or aerial photo, I'm sorry. State Route 1001 is Rising Sun Avenue. Sheldon Street cuts in from
there. And again, across the street is the football field for Polony. So that is the
some and substance of my presentation, I would ask that Anthony Reyes Garcia raise his hand so
he can verify and adopt, or we can stipulate. Don't know how to speak.
Anthony, you got to unmute yourself and you'll be able to speak.
Hello? Yeah, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
anthony reyes garcia a-n-t-h-o-n-y r-e-y-e-s g-a-r-c-i-a right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed mr ward uh anthony you've heard
my representations to the board yes are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
information and beliefs yes and you adopt them as your own testimony yes sir very good
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman
thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
sir miss uh hillary emerson has her hand
yes miss emerson please unmute yourself yes hi miss emerson just state your name you've
already been sworn sure hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman cherelle parker
um and the councilwoman um is is not opposed to the temporary variance in this case
becoming permanent with the agreed upon proviso.
The language that I believe we agreed upon was personal service use
limited to barbershop and or hair salon in spaces B and C,
space A, the front to remain vacant,
use registration required prior to occupancy.
So the applicant sensed his original application in 2017
and expanded in the space and expanded the services,
which which is fine there has not been complaints but we want any further expansion to go through
the the community and the zoning board and we also appreciate the applicant removed some fabric
banners that have been put on the building and were kind of coming apart to make the building
look a bit nicer so we we appreciate that and the community is in support as well thank you
thank you any other comments from the virtual audience
see no further hands planning commission ron bednar city planning while this property is
currently indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical
site's physical conditions and documented use history we have no objection to the granting
Thank you. MI-2021-003383-20103 East Sheldon Avenue. I vote yes for proviso. Use is not to expand beyond the existing floor area.
Can we, can we?
can we can we rephrase that to the agreed upon burbage uh personal services i just i just want
what miss saletta wrote okay but that's that's what what we had here but but if you tell me
what you want i mean well i think we shared it with sharon and she uh she was okay with it
but the language would read personal services use limited to barber shop and or hair salon
in spaces b and c space a to remain vacant registration required prior to occupancy
that's that's fine that's fine okay thank you i vote yes
we heard you yes yes with proviso sorry
james snell yes with proviso ishmael shaheed yes with proviso
Thank you. MI 2021-001907, 2241 North 5th Street. Mr. Nocklinson is the attorney.
RCO NARA Square Alliance, letter of support.
Amazon is coming in as a
panelist.
Afternoon.
Could you just state your name? You've already been sworn?
Of course. Clementa Amazon.
And our vice chair has a few
questions.
Hi, Clementa. Do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Based on the notes I have, all of the required documents have been sent in. Is that correct?
That is correct.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen?
Perfect. So I will be brief. Today I will be presenting 2241 North 5th Street.
During my presentation, I will go through the Notice of Refusal.
We did receive a letter of support from North Square Community Alliance, and it is my understanding that the councilperson is taking the position of non-opposition.
We also have maps of the area, photographs of the property, the proposed plans and drawings, notice that we sent out for the community meeting, the application for appeal, deed, and the certificate of tax clearance.
First things first, we have the notice of refusal, the property zoned as RSA 5, and we are requesting to have a duplex use.
We did meet with the community and received a letter of support of the project, in large part because my client does intend to live in the property and just rent out the other unit as a means of supplemental income.
And we do also have a letter of non-opposition from Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez.
And here we have maps of the area, the view of the front of the property, the view to
the right of the property, to the left of the property along North 5th Street.
Here we have the posting of the poster, the orange notice poster, our proposed plans and
drawings. Again, my client does intend to live on the upper levels and then the lower level.
And this is a, I apologize, this is turned the wrong direction, but this is a notice that we
sent out to the community, which included the date, time, and Zoom information. It was
sent to 195 properties in total. And our certificates of mailing, the application for appeal, project
information form, and deed to the property, and our certificate of tax clearance. So with
With that, I believe my client should be on, Michael Hadida.
Mr. Hadida has been allowed to speak.
Could you state your name and spell it for our court reporter?
Hello, yes.
My name is Michael Hadida.
I'm the owner of the property.
The name is spelled M-I-C-H-A-E-L
Last name H-A-D-I-D-A
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Michael, did you hear my presentation today?
I'm sorry, can you repeat that, please?
Did you hear my presentation today?
I did, yes.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And would you adopt it as your testimony?
Thank you.
questions from the board no mr chairman mr chair no no mr chair
questions from the virtual audience or comments
no further hands at this time sir planning commission
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
this is ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for residential
Our adopted district plan recommends no changes to the existing single-family zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request for variance not be granted.
Thank you. MI 2021-001-907-2241 North 5th Street. I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you. MI 2021-0033...
tanya do you want me to pick up yes may you please sure uh calendar number mi-2021-003386
2328 north 10th street this is sean ward again we have a letter from a letter of support from apm
sean uh can you put your name on the record and spell your last name for the court reporter
yeah sean ward s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d attorney free applicant carol there's a companion case with
this. 2317 North 10th. Okay. Calendar number MI-2021-003891-2317 North 17th Street. No,
North 10th Street. Yeah, North 10th. Okay. We have two letters of support. Do you swear
to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And do you agree to wait
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. It appears to me that you've
submitted all the required documents. Is that correct? That is correct. You may proceed.
Okay. Can you see my screen or no? Yes. Okay. Let me get to the right one, though.
all right are we looking at 10 streets yes okay very good uh i i have no video i can't
but yeah 2328 north yeah i mean 2317 yeah there's no video of me but uh oh there it goes okay um
all right uh again i've submitted my typical exhibit packet uh i referee i represent rafael
Realty, R-A-P-H-A-E-L, Realty LLC, and Finch Development LLC, F-I-N-C-H.
Present on the Zoom call today is Meyer Badouche, M-E-I-R, capital B-A-D-U-S-H.
I would ask that he raise his hand in time so he can verify and adopt at the appropriate time.
Again, it's 2317 and 28 North 10th Street.
We filed applications for a permit for the erection of an attached structure for use as a three-family dwelling with accessory roof decks for each address.
The refusals for both properties, since the properties are zoned CMX, commercial use is required on the first floor.
However, none is proposed.
And the number of dwelling units, two are permitted by right, three are proposed.
However, the third one is in the space that would be the commercial use on the first floor if we
had in fact chose to use commercial use. Ironically, 2317 resulted in two more refusals.
The lot area 1275 square feet is required. However, I believe it's 1033 is existing or
1103, I'll double check that. So there was an occupied area, 80% is permitted, and we're over
by just 4%. And that is because 2317 is a little smaller in size than 2328. So that's why I believe
those two additional refusals resulted. But basically, the proposed structures are mirror
images of one another. Other than that, they're identical. So A2 are the two zoning appeal
applications a3 are the project information forms for both a4 are the deeds for both and a5
together are the tax clearance for both a6 are site elevation and floor plans for 2317 north
10th a7 is the site elevation and floor plans for 2328 north 10th a8 are the photographs a9 are the
RCO letters of support. A10 is the district council letter if submitted. And A11 are relevant.
A-10 is the district council letter if submitted, and A-11 our relevant zoning history for 2317.
Back in 1975, it was vacant retail store and one family, 2328 was a single family dwelling in 1967.
Currently, they're both vacant lots. A-12 is the zoning map, A-13 is the aerial photograph.
So real quickly, we'll just show you the, oh, I have a summary.
So basically what we're going to show today is that multifamily is specifically permitted in CMX2.
Two three-bedroom duplexes by right could be instituted in this project with commercial unit at the first floor.
However, we propose a one-bedroom unit at the first level and two two-bedroom apartments above for a total of five bedrooms,
whereas it's a lesser bedroom count that if we did the two duplexes with a commercial use because we would have three bedrooms per unit for a total of six.
So we submit its lesser density and given the general condition of the neighborhood, the commercial unit would more than likely remain vacant for an indefinite period of time.
So we don't feel that's the highest and best use.
We also discussed with the RCO rental affordability. Obviously, one- and two-bedroom apartments are more affordable than a three-bedroom apartment. And three-bedroom apartments or three-bedroom dwellings are more likely a single-family home, not an apartment.
I would also point out that the odd side is Zone CMX 2 mixed commercial.
There are 10 vacant lots on the 2300 block of North 10th Street.
There are some existing structures.
It appears that only three of those are occupied.
The others have imminently dangerous violations.
They're vacant properties as licensed by the department and also two have unsafe structure
violations.
So it was near unanimous support by the RCO attendees.
It was a vote of nine to one in support.
So real quickly, we have the two refusals.
We have the application of appeal for each.
We have the project information form for each.
We have the deeds for each.
And tax clearance.
Do you have a client here who would like to have him adopt your testimony?
Yes. Mayor Badouche, I believe he may have raised his hand if he could be allowed to speak.
Mr. Chair, do you want to take over?
I'm a listener, but sure, I'll take over. State your name.
My name is Mayor Badouche, M-E-I-R-B-A-D-U-S-H.
okay do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i affirm proceed uh mayor you have heard my representations to the board today
yes i did are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
yes they are and you adopt them as your own testimony yes i do that's all i have for mr
is this 2328 north 10th right and 2317 okay questions questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no other hands mr chair uh planning commission it's uh ron bednar city planning
these two properties located at 2317 and 28 are both indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed
use on the city plan. Our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at
these locations. The two residential units are allowed by right, as was indicated, all the
at these properties, the applicant's hardship, we believe, for three is not supported with
evidence of unique site circumstances nor conditions of the property, which is currently
vacant, that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code. We believe this is an
overuse of these properties. Therefore, we recommend requests for variance for both not be granted.
again mr chairman very quickly uh the two red dots represent our our parcels and you can see
this is the 2300 block of north 10th street and you know it's mostly vacant ground and vacant
structures uh to require some kind of commercial use on on these blocks uh would be foolish or
foolhardy at least so that's all we that's all i have so all right mi 2021-003-891-2317 north 10th
2317 North Tense, and MI-2021-003386-2328-North Tense, and MI-2021-003386-2328-North Tense, and MI-2021-003891-2317-North Tense.
and MI202103.
I vote yes.
my vote is yes to both
Thomas
my vote is no to both
my vote is yes
to both
Ishmael Shahid my vote is yes
to both
thank you very much
MI 2021
003553
North 10th Street
RCO Ward
letter of support. Mr. Ward, could you just sit back with your video and mute off?
Zen Jin, please.
Mr. Jin will be rejoining as a panelist. Thank you.
good evening i i'm mr jen please state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes zen jen z h en last name j i n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa
19103 here on behalf of the applicant all right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Our vice chair has a few questions. Hi, Mr. Jinn. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. It appears that
you have sent in all the required documents. Is that correct? That is correct. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case, the same
exhibit we have already submitted to the board. Can everyone see my presentation on the screen?
yes thank you so we have submitted the copy of the refusal rco letter photos plans
proof of tax clearance and other required documentation i'm going to address the
refusal first this is actually an rem1 property and as the board can see here we are what we're
really requesting is a small dimensional variance almost de minimis in nature the
buy right three unit that we're proposing would require a lot of 1275 square feet.
We have a lot that is 1267.5 square feet. So to have a buy right three unit, even under the
expanded 425 square foot per unit, based on the overlay, we're only off by less than eight square
feet the same can be said for the maximum occupied area we're actually off by 2.6 or not even two
square foot and a little bit less than two square foot for maximum occupied area the design of the
building actually is designed around the size of the lot with 25 open space a 15 foot rear yard
what i'll do is jump to the zoning plan so the board can see what i am stating here to be the
fact as presented on the plans. The zoning plan itself when it was presented for review
includes a 15 foot 10 backyard and includes a little side yard which gives the total open
space of 25 percent. So there's actually 316 square foot of open space. The main thing about
the use difference is that even with the overlay if we had just a little hair more space in the lot
we would be able to have this as a by right project the community supported this because
they realized this is a rather large lot almost fitting of the triplex use and it's not inconsistent
with what's being proposed in the area so we did get ultimately get support from the community i
do want to point out there is a two foot alleyway as well. So again, we have space between us and
the next property behind us, in addition to the base lot size. So based on the small difference
in lot size that would otherwise allow us to have the three units, we're asking the board's
favorable consideration for three units. The layout is very straightforward. It will be basically
one unit per floor. I'm going to zoom out first in order to better see the plans. So it's basically
the first floor and basement is one unit, second floor is one unit, third floor is one unit.
The first floor and basement is one unit, second floor is one unit, third floor is one unit.
We're not proposing a height that's beyond code.
We're certainly providing everything else dimensionally within code.
So again, it is not different than what is being built in the area on even smaller lots.
And again, we have a very de minimis amount of difference between what we could have had by right
versus what we're proposing
based on a few square foot difference in lot size.
So again, I'm happy to answer any questions.
My client is here with us as well
if the board wish to have him affirm my testimony.
Thank you.
Why don't you do that?
Why don't you have your client?
Mr. Bader, Chagai Bader,
can you raise your hand in Zoom
so you can be identified?
He's been allowed to speak.
Thank you.
Hello.
good evening hi could you state your name and spell it for our court reporter
yeah my name is chagai bader c h a g a i my last name is bader b a d e r you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed thank you uh mr bader uh did
you see my presentation to the zoning board on zoom and have you heard my testimony before the board
yes can you verify that my presentation and testimony is true and correct and adopted as
your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board no mr chairman mr chairman no
questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands mr chair planning commission
Brian Bednar, City Planning. This property is indicated for multifamily residential use
on the city plan. Given the constrained site physical conditions, we recommend the request
for variance be granted. Thank you, sir. MI 2021 003553 2415 North 10th Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
MI 2021 002321 3701 Frankfort Avenue.
At this point, no RCO letter from Harrogate Civic Association.
Sean Ward.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Sean Ward, on behalf of the applicant,
S-H-A-W-N, last name Ward, W-A-R-D, 331 East Street Road, Trivos, PA-19053.
Our right share has a few questions.
Okay, Heshwan, do you agree to waive the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you submitted the required documents?
Yes, I have, and it includes the RCO letter of support.
From Harrogate Civic?
That is correct.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
again mr chairman sean ward on behalf of the applicant property is 3701 frankfurt avenue
philadelphia i've submitted my typical exhibit packet which includes a1 is the notice of refusal
this is a permit for multi-family living totaling 33 units in an existing building with all
previously approved uses the refusal non-residential uses and non-parking uses must account for at
60% of the total ground floor area of all buildings on the lot where we propose zero.
Accordingly, we seek a use variance. A2 is the deed. A3 is tax clearance. A4,
site and elevation plans. A5 are floor plans. A6 are the photographs. A7 is the letter of support
from Harrogate. If a councilman's letter has been submitted, I would ask that that be marked
A8. I don't believe we have one. A9 is the relevant zoning history. This is a former public
School. It was known as the George Hand School. It's on the National Register of Start Places and
we are undergoing an adaptive reuse of this property. In 2019 we obtained a zoning permit
for 29 dwelling units and four business office spaces with an accessory gym. We are looking to
change those four business offices into four additional apartments. So the project remains
substantially the same, but for the business office space. A-10 is the zoning map. A-11 is
the aerial photograph. Again, IRMX requires at least 60% of the ground floor space to be
commercial or industrial. All marketing efforts to date for these office tenants has proven
unsuccessful. And therefore, we call for the conversion of those four previously approved
office spaces to residential units, thus increasing from 29 to 33. Those number of
to residential units thus increasing from 29 to 33 those number of dwellings and we believe that
is the highest and best use of those spaces is for residential use so moving on to the to the plans
the red dots indicate the previously approved commercial spaces along with the accessory gym
for the residential units and then there was three apartments on that level and we're just
looking to make these four into uh residential units so this was the previously approved plan
permits were issued and it was undergoing a renovation however spaces one two three and four
uh were intended to be business offices thus complying with the 60 percent uh first floor
or ground floor requirement however again it just isn't feasible at this point because there's no
interest uh this is a picture of the structure it's a frankfurter caster uh a beautiful building
quite frankly it's in a gothic gothic revival i think uh tom holliman would know better than me
but um it's a it's a beautiful structure we look forward to converting it into residential units
and uh that is basically the sub and substance of the uh the application it is in an irmx adjacent
to RSA 5 across from additional ICMX. And that is my presentation. I believe George Groves
is my applicant representative today. If George can raise his hand and he can verify and adopt.
I'll have to speak. Good afternoon. George, could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter sure george hurrows g-r-o-v-e-s uh george uh oh you gotta be sworn in i'm sorry
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir george george you've heard my representations to the board
yes are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
yes and do you adopt them as your own testimony yes questions from the board
no mr chairman mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no other hands mr chair planning commission
from bednar city planning the property is indicated for residential industrial mixed
use on the city plan based on um the uh community comments we recommend the question variance
thank you sir mi 2021 002321 3701 frankfurt avenue i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
MI 2021-003381, 533 East Allegheny Avenue, RCO Impact CDC, letter of support, Sean Ward again.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant.
My name is SHAWN, last name Ward, W-A-R-D, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA, 19053.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Ward, do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I most certainly do.
Based on the notes I have, I see that you've sent in the required documents.
Can you confirm that?
That is confirmed.
You may proceed.
Can everybody see my screen?
Thank you.
Excellent.
Again, Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant.
I represent M&R Property Investments, which is the owner of the property, as well as citywide
Community Counseling, which is the applicant and tenant of the property. They are related entities
with regard to this property. It's 531-33 East Allegheny Avenue. We filed an application for
the expansion of a group medical practice currently existing at 535-39 East Allegheny
to include 531 and 533 East Allegheny. Group medical was not permitted in RSA 5. Accordingly,
we seek a use variance. A2 is the proof of ownership, the two deeds for the property.
A3 are two proof of tax clearance. A4 is a four plan for 533 East Allegheny. 531 is not designed
yet, but I can safely say it would be the mirror image basically of 531, I mean 533. A5 are
photographs. A6 is the aforementioned RCO letter of support. I don't know if we have a district
council letter if we do i would ask that that be marked a7 pardon me uh as far as relevant
As far as relevant zoning history goes, back in 1985, it was a group home for four persons.
zoning history goes back in 1985 it was a group
2012, there was an expansion of a medical office, but that appeal was withdrawn.
I brought this to the board in 2017 for the group medical practice.
Again, that resulted in a three-year temp, which expired during COVID, and therefore
we are now here before the board.
In 2019, we got a permit for the installation of an ADA accessible ramp for the group practice.
there is no zoning history found for 531 that's currently a vacant boarded up building
for 537 through 39 it's been a medical office with three apartments
back in 1990 but has been used for this medical practice for many many years a10 is the zoning
map a11 are the aerial photographs community-wide counseling is a mental health counseling psychiatric
pediatric evaluation, an individual family, a group therapy, and other social services business.
The existing conditions, they're attached two-story structures adjacent to the existing
counseling services center, and the days and hours of operation will be Monday to Friday,
7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. I don't need to bore you with all the exhibits
that I just identified, but they are in the packet. With regard to the floor plans, this is
the floor plan for 533. Again, we were granted a permit for this. It did expire, and we were
seeking to renew that, but also want to include 531. And again, 531 would be, if we're looking at
the first floor, 531 would be attached to this wall here and would basically be the mirror image
of that structure and right now 533 has a waiting room at the first floor front
with four or five offices behind it and a lavatory steps leading down to a basement
which is basically storage and utilities as shown at the bottom of the plan and at the second floor
you have one two three four five six seven counseling offices and again another lavatory
to service those uh there is a emergency egress from the back of the building and as far as
photographs go. You can see these from here over is 535 through 539. This would be 533. And here
is 531. So that would be fully renovated to be incorporated into the whole structure. The corner
property 529 is not owned by us nor involved in this application. That's just an existing peach
shot so just a couple more uh photos of the property it's on allegheny avenue
uh the letter of support from uh impact services uh position is full support
and then we have the uh you know the zoning history of the permits that were granted
for the medical office at 533. that is basically the sub and substance of my presentation i do have
a representative from citywide, I don't know if it's Claudio or whoever's from,
citywide, if they could raise their hands so they could be allowed to speak to
verify and adopt, I would appreciate it. Mr. Claudio Roman has been allowed to speak, sir.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Claudio?
Well, Mr. Chairman, as an officer of the court, I would ask the board to stipulate that Mr.
Roman would verify that my representations were true and correct and that he would adopt
them as his own testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Mr. Sloan, folks, has his hand raised.
I will not at this time, sir.
mr folks good afternoon uh chairman bergman zba board sloan folks sloane fsm fire or lks
representing councilwoman maria quinones sanchez 7th district room 508 city hall
you've already been sworn sir proceed thank you sir uh the applicants having met with the
coordinating rco and receiving a letter of support the councilwoman has no opposition
to this variance request. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission? Planning Commission?
Run Bednar City Planning. While this property is currently indicated for residential use on the
While this property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan, given the physical site conditions and documented use history, I recommend the request for variance to be granted.
city plan, given the physical
Thank you.
MI 2021-003381533, East Allegheny Avenue, I vote yes.
Harold Tsunari, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my business.
Is there anybody in the audience who still has a case pending or didn't hear their case called?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. A lot of work today,
and I appreciate everything you did. Sorry you were this late, but we got a lot done today. So
thank you all. We did. No problem. This is early. Just so you know, Chair, this is early,
but thank you
I do remember the first case
I sat in Frank Hadley
I said we're going to 8 o'clock
tonight
right Carol
don't get carried away
543 is very early
I know it's all day time
but everybody have a good night
I appreciate you all and thank you IT Bill
alright
good night everybody
good night
thank you everyone good night
Oh, Rebecca, thanks for everything, too.
Oh, this is all you.
Thank you, Tanya.
All right.
Bye-bye.