and the grass area right there we are proposing an underground infiltration
system so it's going to be six foot of static storage so we are proposing a
great style chamber system so it's going to be chambers underneath that about 18
inches below the surface that is going to capture all the runoff that will that
is coming on this side you know the naturally the side slopes from henry avenue towards the rear
so that is why we place the basin towards the rear we're capturing the stormwater in that area
and you know the runoff will be piped back to the uh storm means on henry avenue on henry avenue
okay great thank you um and are there any retaining walls proposed as part of this
No, we may need to put some retaining walls in order to basically account for the, you know, great differences in limited areas to accommodate this infrastructure. Yes.
All right. Thank you.
And they would primarily be back.
Yeah, so I figured in that area, right.
And I'm going to add on to that. So I've noticed in the rendering there were like the whole perimeter of the project was fenced. So that would be the case in that rear area as well with the retaining wall or fence.
So that would just be a fence. We don't need any retaining walls, a budding neighboring property.
Take your question.
oh no okay so i'm maybe it's me but so the entire lot is that the perimeter of the lot not of this
the house is the perimeter of the lot is that fence because i see fencing like i don't know
if it's actually part of this project or if it's just in the the neighboring properties currently
have a fence there we went okay no but i'm seeing fence like a lot of trees but maybe it's just me
is that there's fence there too but it's all existing fence that the neighbors have we're
not proposing new fence. To the left of us in this image, which is just to the south of us,
To the left of us in this image, which is just to the south of us, is the Salt Agricultural School.
is the Saul Edgar.
They have a fence that runs their entire property line.
So that fence is already there.
Correct.
Okay, then what about some more fencing to the right?
If you bring that down a little bit, I still see, bring it, I mean, up, I'm sorry.
We're proposing fencing in the new rear yards that we're creating.
But there's fencing also, I see, to the right, the upper right-hand corner.
is that is that delineated in the title parcel that's i guess my question yeah so the neighbors
currently have a fence their their rear property that was done when the neighboring property was
developed those are existing um single family homes um or twins that we abut um so that fencing
is just fencing to remain all right thank you the questions questions from our attorney um council
I know we, you had exchanged emails with regard to this, you know, that this is going to be a
here and hold because you need to get an amended refusal, which you've already requested because
of the revised plans. Correct. We did submit that to the plan examiner and that should be
currently in review. Okay. And I just also wanted to clarify, I know we had emails on this,
that Epic Investments, who you had indicated was the equity owner is no longer involved in
the project i just want to make sure that's on the record that is correct that's correct the
owner and applicant is 7372 henry llc which is uh who we represent in this matter questions or
comments from the virtual audience no hands planning commission thank you chairman uh and
good morning david vecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsd3 residential single-family detached zoning
at this location this part of the neighborhood still carries its original 1933 zoning this
proposal completed its civic design review in in october 2026 the civic design review committee's
advisory recommendations are not an expression of the city planning commission's recommendation
or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals
associated with this proposal.
If this was a perfectly shaped rectangular lot, the appellant would be allowed to divide
it into 29 single-family house lots.
But since this has an irregular configuration and significant topographical constraints,
we would argue that this would not be suitable for either those 29 units that would be allowed
or for the proposed 32 units as we've stated before zoning is not designed to allow the landowner
maximum use of their land only reasonable use of their property the city planning commission
recommends the board deny the proposed use variance the variance for steep slope disturbance
and the special exception for removal of heritage trees okay so uh uh this is closed we're closing
this other than for you to receive an amended refusal am i correct and what give me a timeline
why don't we just give two weeks just how about two weeks right we'll vote in two weeks but it's
closed thank you and what date with that council the fourth november 4th correct right thank you
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number 14.
MI 2026-003-464-18 West Evergreen.
Adam Laver is the attorney.
Mr. Laver, could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Adam Laver, L.A. V.S. and Victor, E.R., Blank Rome, 1 Logan Square.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly.
Blank Rome represents Jane, J-A-I-N, Jane Property Holdings, LLC, owner of the subject property at 18 West Evergreen Avenue.
The principals of Jane Property Holdings, LLC, are sitting behind me in the hearing room.
we have uh sumit jane uh husband and dr palak p-a-l-a-k jane a wife all right and uh i see
uh several uh letters of uh of uh approval right yes mr and our vice chair has just a few questions
good morning have you submitted your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of this hearing
good morning madam vice chair yes indeed we have okay and do you weigh the reading
of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy yes we do all right thank you you can share
your screen and proceed with your case certainly
members of the board, as I mentioned, we represent the Janes, who are the owners of the property
members of the board as i mentioned we represent
through the corporate entity. But the reason that they have purchased this property is because Dr.
Palak Jane is an active community-based dental practitioner who does business in Chestnut Hill
as Chestnut Hill Smiles. With Us Virtually, great name, with Us Virtually also is Matthew Milan
of Matthew Milan Architects. Chestnut Hill Smiles currently operates at 9 East Highland Avenue.
Dr. Jane has been practicing at this location since 2014. However, with their lease running
out, they do not own that property. Dr. Jane and her husband, Sumit, were excited to be able to
purchase this uh terrific property on west evergreen avenue which they purchased earlier
in the year members of the board it's an ideal location for relocation of their neighborhood
based practice i'm pulling up screen share oh that's not what we meant to do i beg your pardon
i'd like to start with some photographs not my emails it's coming up
here we are
okay this is the subject property as seen from the front from west evergreen avenue the upper
left-hand corner is the existing, I beg your pardon, the upper right-hand corner is the existing
property that we are talking about. And I'll move to the zoning map. You can see that the subject
property in purple is located within the CA1 auto-oriented commercial zoning district. But
members of the board take a look and note that the block includes cmx1 uh it includes uh that's
at the corner ca1 the subject property zoning but also rsa3 residential so there's lots of
interest lots of mixed uses actually on this block and across the street from the subject property
is septa's chestnut hill west train station oh yeah uh here are some aerials for context
The red dot is showing you the subject property, and to the left, you're getting a sense of the train that I just mentioned.
Here we have the subject property with a blue dot, and now I'm taking you to the existing property, the interior.
It's comprised of vacant ground floor office use.
This was formerly used as a security agency, and above the first floor is a single family unit. So second and third floors to remain as a single family unit. Existing setup allows entrance and exit to that from the side, actually from the residential side.
If you remember that zoning map with the residential off to the right, the existing setup, no changes are proposed to that.
And here you see some more photographs of where we find ourselves and hopefully members of the board, with your approval, Dr. Jane will be able to realize her vision of coming in, renovating and making this our own.
But you can see that it is existing commercial office set up already.
Here we have.
And Adam, is that a long term commercial?
Yes, yes.
And once again, this is commercial auto-oriented zoning, which is sort of a strange zoning
district in the city.
But yes, that has been the history.
Here we have the zoning site plan.
And at the bottom, you can also see five existing parking spaces at the rear of the property.
Also, again, we're at the rear.
And I'll show you some photos of the rear in a bit.
But to the right is MJ Test Prep, which is a tutoring and college admissions business.
If you were looking at the property from Evergreen, it would be to the left.
But we are in this image in the parking.
There's a lot of parking in the back, which you'll see.
That's how we're looking at this now.
And then to the left of the handicapped parking, if you will, is a single family residential property and more single family residential properties on the other side of the property, beginning with the adjacent 22 West Evergreen Avenue, who has actually.
beginning with the adjacent 22 West Evergreen Avenue who has actually offered their support
for the project. Dr. Jane identified the existing office property located across from the train
station in a walkable location within the Chestnut Hill neighborhood, not far from Chestnut Hill
Smiles existing. But let's talk about the underlying application itself and then I'll pull up the
refusal. It calls to renovate the existing building, to replace aging additions with a
cohesive space, to create a modest expansion to accommodate a handicapped accessible entrance.
So there is an addition proposed, which you can see where my cursor is over here, a very small
602 square foot modest addition, which will allow handicapped accessibility into the proposed
dental space and create greater efficiency. The proposal overall would sustain a family-owned
dental practice that had served the Chestnut Hill residents for over a decade. Moving to the notice
of refusal. L&I has identified one refusal. The property provides for those five existing
parking spaces at the rear that I referenced. The zoning code would require now and as proposed
nine parking spaces. It is physically impossible to create additional code-compliant parking spaces
at the property the modest demolition and the new addition that i referenced would not change
this equation what is at issue members of the board is the continuation of an existing
non-conforming condition why is it raised now because of the proposed changes modest that they
are requires review. So we believe that by raising and improving the property, achieving
accessibility, and modest functionality upgrades, that really is what takes us here.
I had promised to show you photographs of the rear. So top left photo, you can see the MJ test
prep to the right you can see the subject property to the left where the existing and the proposed
five parking spaces would be i believe mj test prep on the on that left photo has about 10 parking
spaces behind their property top right where the white car is that's where our cars would be parked
And the bottom photograph is showing another image as well.
Of the five parking spaces, three parking spaces are proposed for dental staff, two parking spaces for patients, and the residential user would be permitted after hours only.
This is a Monday through Friday 9 to 5 practice.
And I'll get into that a little bit more, but I'm sure you're thinking about that as I'm talking.
There are two, because the issue before the board is the parking, there are two public parking lots within two blocks of the property.
One is immediately behind the property.
It's owned by the Chestnut Hill Parking Association, which supports the project, subsidizes lower cost parking.
There is two-hour on-street parking in front of the property, although residents have permit parking for unrestricted time periods.
I'm not taking into consideration the SEPTA parking that is separate when I mentioned the two parking lots that are close by.
the property's configuration and the alley which provides access for all of these users to the back
make it physically impossible to add the four additional required parking spaces
the proposed plans for the property will improve the property's aesthetics while preserving valued
green space. For 15 years, Chestnut Hill Smiles has operated along Highland Avenue without
dedicated patient parking, no parking over there. Nearly 40% of their existing patients live within
walking distance, and appointments are staggered throughout the day to avoid peak demand.
Dr. Jane proposes to proactively manage parking by providing specific parking instructions to
patients directly and on the Chestnut Hill Smiles website. Chestnut Hill Smiles staff will remind
patients about nearby public and metered parking options. Notedly, almost all of the appointments
at Chestnut Hill Smiles are for less than one hour, an average of two and a half patients per hour.
than one hour an average of two and a half patients per hour there will be no more than
three employees at any one time dr jane as owner and operator is in charge and on site with a uh
a front desk uh receptionist and an assistant um business hours as i mentioned monday through
friday nine to five not open on the weekends um here are some existing photos uh this these photos
show available parking at 1 p.m uh last september uh here are photographs showing parking availability
at 3 30 p.m in the area behind the property and parking at 6 30 p.m the community parking lot
that is behind the building and is supporting this project is rarely full it has as i understand it
78 parking spaces there is availability of parking on evergreen highland and in the community
parking lot. Neighbors have shared with my clients that busy times for parking are after
school and into the evening during the week and on weekend days, which work very well
with the proposed hours. The dental practice would close at 5 p.m. and not be open on weekends.
Support, we're grateful for the support of the coordinating RCO, the Chestnut Hill Community
Association as well as the Chestnut Hill Business District and the Chestnut Hill Parking Foundation
noting in their letter that I have up here small service businesses are important to the vitality
of the neighborhood this is an established business with excellent owners the Chestnut
Hill Conservancy has noted that the property was built in 1910 and is listed as contributing within
the chestnut hill national register historic district further limiting the possibilities
god forbid of tearing down this property and starting over that's not what anybody wants
the immediate residential next door neighbor at 22 west evergreen avenue laura george has worked
very closely with my clients she notes that she's lived adjacent to the property for some 20 years
She's welcoming a responsible owner, one who's invested in maintaining the property and being a good neighbor.
She notes the current location in Chestnut Hill, that many patients are likely to walk or take public transit,
that there's a very large parking lot nearby.
She's not concerned about the practice having less than the required parking.
We made some modest changes to the plans to move the proposed handicapped accessibility ramp a couple feet farther away from her property, the residential property next door,
And also to change the configuration of the parking, not the dimensions, but the configuration to have the handicapped parking space move with that ramp.
And we've been in touch.
Thank you for the good nature of boards council and working with us.
And I know boards council will talk about this later on, but I wanted to bring that to your attention.
There's additional near-neighbor support on the next page, and the existing site plan is here versus the proposed site plan, members of the board.
I think that this shows you that this issue, which really is not the issue before the board, though, is de minimis.
Once again, we're going from non-conforming to a continuation, but the 600-odd-foot addition requires us to come before you.
and the proposed floor plans show entrance for all from the rear so even those on foot would walk
along the footway to the back and come in through the handicapped accessible into a welcoming