Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Michael, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own test?
I do, yes.
Mr. Chair, because we've got an overwhelming number of immediate residents who've signed a petition, as well as CCRA support for this, what really is considering the adjacent properties at De Minimis request, I respectfully request the granting of this various, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No question.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commissioner?
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Properties indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change in existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property. They're prevented from being used in conformity with the rear yard setback requirements of the code. Therefore, we recommend the request of grants not be granted.
setback requirements of the code. Therefore, we recommend the request of grants not be granted.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000423, 1708, Nordane Street, I vote yes.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2023-004-322-38 South 57th Street, letter of strong opposition from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council, letter of opposition from generationals of Philadelphia, and Council Member Gauthier has also taken a position of opposition.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
Good afternoon, Chairman.
Counselor, you've already been sworn.
Could you just state your name for the record, please?
Certainly.
Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
Right.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Baldev, B-A-L-D-E-V, Sahunta, S-A-H-U-N-T-A. He is the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its act?
I do not with only one caveat. I just picked up this case recently in the last month or so.
there should have been an extra refusal for the legalization of the existing office use
that's just a change in use there's there's no additional dimensional requirements or
anything else and I'm happy to stipulate that that would have been refused
and I'm not sure why it wasn't in the original refusal. Hillary? Yeah Mr. Whalen we'd have to
amend the refusal we can't the board can't do that it's not part of the it's not anywhere
in the scope the refusal would need to be amended to do that i i understand i i was hoping to be
able to just present today and then we could hold it for an amended refusal that would be fine and
just to be clear i did present the office used to the rcos uh at our rco meeting okay i understand
this is a place so okay uh so we're going to keep moving forward here yeah we're going to
we're going to hear it we'll hold the vote okay no problem um sir have you emailed in all the
documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes i have all right thank you please proceed to share your screen thank you
so as i said sean whalen here from vintage law on behalf of baldev so junta the owner of 38 south
57th street you are seeing right now an aerial uh just google view map shows you market street at
the top and chestnut street down at the bottom and we are this property with the red balloon just off
of ludlow street just to give you an idea the basis of our request today essentially comes from
what you can already start to see here we have uh we are zoned rm1 however there's really no
residential use anywhere along 57th street or near us in this corridor
so again what you start to see here we are we are the last building here the only other
still residentially zoned and used properties on the block are these three properties right next
to us. At least one of them is vacant. I don't know about the other two. I couldn't determine
when I went out to the site. The fourth one has a business in it. This property has a business in it.
This building is a church, and these are all businesses. And across the street, you can start
to see i'll show you there's a very large ride aid with a parking lot this is the rear of a fresh
grocer and you know that's just the beginning of the significant heavy commercial use
so again this this shows you we're not asking we are this property right here we're not asking for
any new construction or additions of any kind just a change of use inside the building itself
This starts to give you an understanding.
This is an auto use.
So here's Market Street up here.
This is an auto use along Market Street and a U-Haul rental facility.
along Market Street and a U-Haul rental facility.
So what you can see here, there's a lot of RM1 zoned properties going south and west of us.
However, as we know, Philadelphia is an area of blocks and more specifically located uses.
We are immediately adjacent to a very large commercial parking lot.
And as I said, this is the corner property right next to us.
I'll show you an image in a minute.
That is a neighborhood pharmacy on the bottom.
What you can see, this sort of lower left-hand square here of CIA2, that is all one Rite Aid.
This lower right-hand corner is all an existing Wendy's.
and then the entirety of the top half of this property right across the street from us is a
fresh grocer the frontage is along south 56th street which is where the the l stop is and
we are facing the rear of it and again this next block north of us that you can see
is all heavy industrial use actually i2 heavy industrial behind at the rear end and heavy
heavy commercial use at cmx3 right here butting up against market street
this is what you see as i said before these are the only uh remaining residential uses
along this block immediately our property is vacant it had previously been used uh to
to rent to a residential use that was unsuccessful for a number of reasons one of them being this
change in the neighborhood and how commercial the area had become and again this property is
vacant I do not know about the other two and then you can see this property is being run as a
business and is no longer residential. Sorry, so that's just an image. Here we go. This is
immediately, this is standing on the front stoop of the existing building. This is the large
Rite Aid property across from us. I think I actually go here. So again, here's the building.
This is the side of our building. You can see the large commercial parking lot right next to us.
This is the Rite Aid parking lot and Rite Aid.
I believe that Rite Aid is now vacant and shuttered, making it even more difficult to put in a residence there.
And again, this is the back. This is the L that you can see at the end.
And this is the back of the Fresh Grocer.
On the other side of the parking lot next to the building there, is that residential?
the other side of which parking lot well i i can't where your property is there's an apart
there's a parking lot next one right i'll show some more screens and i'm sure i'm just curious
if there's another residential block i think there is uh i i'm sure i'm sure you're correct
and i'll point out which one i think you're you're referring to um so again this is immediately
across the street this is the back of the fresh grocer um this is i couldn't actually get there
to take the image myself. So this is a screenshot standing in the middle, right just south of Market
Street. You can see this is the auto intensive use and U-Haul rentals. This whole building right
here on the same side of the block, this is all a church and the entire thing is operated as a
church. The RCO is represented that some of it may be residentially used. However, it's impossible
to tell with um you know what what the church is doing at that location and then again we're
we're right there that's the church i already described so here is this is a very large
verizon substation building no access in or out this is a very large
mercy health building the right aid is right on the left here and the wendy's is right down there
so again here this is our building right there this is to catch the neighborhood pharmacy
there are there do appear to be apartments above the neighborhood pharmacy
and i think i can show you share the neighborhood you're talking about
so if you this is uh to the left would be the right aid and to the right would be
our property, and I'm looking south here along South 57th. So when you go further south,
So when you go further south, another block or two, it does become residential again.
another block or two, it does become resilient.
And when you go west a block, it does become residential again.
So and then here we go.
So this is the front door of the building, and you can see it's relatively well kept inside.
this space is what would be used for the check caching area and just to be clear a check caching
facility does require state licensure and they would have certain requirements and demands for
how this this frontage would be built out essentially there'd be about the first 15 feet
of this frontage here would be the check cashing facility. And I know I'll get to it in a minute,
but one of the major opposition points for the RCO had essentially two major opposition points.
One was they didn't want payday lending and they view check cashing as sort of an immediate gateway
to predatory or payday lending. Those are separate considerations or separate identified uses
under 146017G1. And we would certainly accept a proviso preventing any payday lending.
There is no intention to do any payday lending. And that's not of interest. We also did agree
that if we got approval, we agreed with the RCO that if we did get approval, we would agree that
there would be no sale of goods. They were worried that this would somehow turn into a
marijuana dispensary of sorts or paraphernalia dispensary. We are not asking for anything of
the sort and happy to include whatever proviso might guarantee that. So now what I'm doing is
I'm standing at the front door with my back against the front door. Again, this is just shy
of 15 feet to the stairwell. This wall would be reinforced in accordance with Mr. Sahunta has
another attorney who is involved in getting state licensure for the check cashing facilities.
I am not an expert in that, but my understanding is basically this wall would be fully reinforced
as required, and there would be a separate door here leading into the rear office use and the
office use going upstairs. So it would just be the front portion, which is about 10 feet wide
by 15 feet deep. That would be the check caching facility. So again, this is just an image.
Mr. Sahunta is not currently using the property. There was an issue. Mr. Sahunta
is not a native English speaker. He speaks very well, but there was some discrepancy between
questions being asked directly by the RCO of him and how he was using the property. He is not
currently using the property. He just placed, he was able to obtain some office furniture and
place that to show, to kind of stage what this would look like. And again, here's the second
floor in the front. Mr. Sahunta is in a situation where prior to COVID, he owned many taxi cabs with
their medallions and numerous newsstands. And as this board certainly understands as well as I can
say it, COVID and the advent of Lyft and Uber have not been kind to those businesses. So Mr. Sahunta
is looking to begin to really focus his energies on this check cashing facility and also to
utilize this office space. As you can see, this is the rear, not even, this is the rear of the
second floor and there's no office furniture or anything there. He's hoping to, basically he and
his wife would work to do home health aid placements. That's the company that they're
trying to begin. And that's the office use that would go in here. So here are the refusals we
have. Again, I think the issue that happened was two of these refusals got listed twice and the
office use didn't get listed. So if you look here, we have the proposed check caching is within 500
feet of the nearest lot line of residential use is prohibited. And we have the proposed check
caching is within 500 feet of any residentially zoned property is prohibited um again i believe
again i believe those should have been collapsed into one and we certainly don't dispute that
those should have been collapsed into one and uh we certainly
that is a that is a single correct refusal but it is not two separate refusals and there should have
been a uh a refusal listed for office use which we will stipulate and will certainly be found by
any zoning examiner to not be permitted in the rm1 district although we also the zoning district
was listed as cmx2 rm1 so again i think we're going to need some clarification from the examiner
of of what that means and then second the proposed personal credit establishment is
expressly prohibited in this zoning district. I think the irony will not be lost on this board
to say that personal credit establishments like a check cashing, payday lending, or
a pawn shop are actually expressly prohibited in every single zoning district in the entire city,
except for I-3, which is the Philadelphia Gasworks that went up in flames a year,
year and a half ago or so, and the airport, essentially,
and a couple of outliers of environmentally tainted ground.
So the hardship would be certainly trying to put in a personal credit establishment
anywhere in the city uh is is impossible because it's not by right anywhere you can do it by
special exception in some certain um industrial locations and the other main issue that i forgot
to mention coming from the rco in opposition was that excuse me um the uh a lot of uh there used
to be a number of check cashing facilities in this neighborhood, in the extended neighborhood,
and that those have gone out of business and that they believed there is another facility
business on Market Street, certainly within walking distance, that performs at least similar
actions. I couldn't determine, and it wasn't open when I was walking the neighborhood,
I couldn't determine if it was exactly the same type of uses that Mr. Sojunto is seeking here, but it was similar.
And so the community said, no, you should have their position was we only want a single family house here.
That's how this should be built. Residential is fine.
And, you know, check cashing facilities have been going out of business in the greater neighborhood here.
So we don't want to see another one go out of business here after we approve it.
And that's really a gateway to payday lending and predatory lending, which we would agree.
And again, we would be happy to accept a proviso to say no payday lending whatsoever.
So to wrap up, you know, the office would be allowed even in CMX2, which is immediately adjacent to us.
And certainly we have much heavier commercial uses, CMX3, industrial uses, and ironically, auto-oriented uses across the street from us.
And so we believe that the change in the neighborhood and the fact that this block in particular is no longer a residential neighborhood in character or function constitutes a hardship for this property.
Again, we believe that there's no detriment here to the public health, safety, or welfare.
It is a use that requires a state license and we'll have to meet, you know, just because
we got approval here before this board, if we do, does not mean in any way, shape, or
form that that state license is granted.
This is just one of the checkboxes that has to be completed while you're seeking that
licensure.
So there are a lot of other steps, major security functions that will go into place.
security cameras, lighting, all those sorts of things.
And therefore, and we believe, you know,
there's no real detrimental impact from, you know,
the limited office space here.