hire from the community uh and uh and be a good business neighbor is that correct okay correct
okay it this this operation has been going on for 30 years is that right is that correct correct
okay and you did purchase the business uh relatively recently from mr fam is that correct
Correct.
And you were operating in accordance with what the business had been operating for all those years.
Is that right?
Correct.
And you were unaware that anything that you were doing may or may not be appropriate based on the past history of the property and the operation.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Do you adopt my presentation before the board today?
Thank you.
mr williams hello mr williams how are you thank you uh are you aware of code violations that were
brought against you at the property that you failed those code violations were brought to us
and then we're told uh not to be uh addressed until we figured out the bigger picture whether
or not we can even operate at this location why would you not why would you not correct the
situation that mr chairman but i'll let me clarify my office we have a i have a compliance attorney
who is dealing directly with ellen i on this matter but i i haven't asked for mr anastasio
and we cannot we can't close out these violations until we clear clear the use
um that's attorney harry cook has been working closely with the inspector and and the compliance
unit basically he's admitting that he has violations but he's not ready to
settle those violations until he gets approval on the special exception that no no no that's not
that's not what's happening that's not what's happening we we we had the violations they
cannot be cleared until we go through this process um and that is that's directly from the uh
inspector these are past violations they cannot be closed out and cleared until we go through
this process that's that's the arrangement that my uh that my office has made with l and i thank
you for the clarification all right you're welcome ms haskins anything further
any questions from the board
i'm muted hello hello miss huskins i was muted i'm sorry someone muted me can you hear me now
yes yeah we can hear you now i i think it would be helpful to the board to know what
what the violations are that he can't correct i think you showed those earlier didn't you not
i did not show what they are i just simply showed the date and that they failed well but we don't
know what those violations are that there are violations okay the second the second question
that i would like of mr williams is it is it isn't it true that you have been painting
cars at this site objection there are no violations for painting uh there have been
painting there for 35. I'll ask him a question. I'll ask the question Mr. Williams do you do
do you do any spray painting of vehicles in your garage? Not at the time no. Not not at the time
have you done in the past and you've been cited? Yes yes yes we were we were not cited for that
when they when the LNI officer came in that was the first time we were made aware
that there were any issues and that we were not allowed to paint and that's when I
So I retained my lawyer and he's been addressing that.
my lawyer and he's been addressing that okay yep and he uh he hasn't since mr chairman um
And he hasn't since.
he's stuck and and we have no and we're removing the booth altogether i mean it's not happening
mr chairman the final question that i had was for mr anastacio to please tell us the vote totals
i'd have to share my screen i'll be happy to i'm happy to get off the screen thank you
I don't know. I can stop the share.
I'm sorry. Please, please, please. We're almost at noon.
Can we please be respectful of each other? Thank you.
While we're waiting for the screen to come up, Mr. Williams,
Was the spray booth there when you began, when you started this lease or was it installed after?
Yes, yes, it was.
The existing spray booth.
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Ms. Haskins?
Well, here's the non-opposition from 12th Ward RCO.
We have non-opposition seven and two.
12 and 12 oppose only one of them is an immediate neighbor
and again the letter the letter addresses that he sent also addresses that
he find a parking area which he has he's working with folks across the street
and the coordinating RCO voted non-opposition
with the near neighbors.
And then we have the additional RCO,
the secondary RCO that did the same.
Non-opposition.
With nine, that's 12 either opposed,
I mean, support or offer non-opposition.
Ms. Haskins, do you have any questions regarding this this vote count?
She's muted.
All right.
Something's wrong again.
Okay, let's go to the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman DiCicco, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
um the uh as we've established this property is within a cmx3 zoning classification the proposed
use is permitted by special electric ian you're breaking up um we believe that the proposed
will not will not yes can you hear me you were breaking up can you hear me okay now chair now
Yes, sir. Now we can. Okay. As we established, this is within a CMX3 zoning district and CMX3
zoning classification, the proposed use is permitted by special exception.
We believe the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond
what normally might be expected for this use. However, we also expect this area to undergo
significant residential and commercial redevelopment over the next few years.
we're going to recommend that the board grant the variance sorry the special exception with
two conditions one no spray painting as has already been established and two that the term
of the special exception be limited to three years. Thank you. MI 2021-002121
4528 Green Street my vote is yes with the following provisos no spray painting
no parking on sidewalk and the special exception I should have started with that the special
exception will be this variance to expire October 1st 2023. Carol Tenere my vote is yes with
provisos. Excuse me board members but if we could add specifically the proviso saying that it is as
per corrected referral dated 10 12 21. so noted thank you confessor plaza yes proviso
james snell yes proviso thomas halliman yes proviso thank you uh thank you mr chair thank
Thank you. We go back to case number five, I believe. MI 2021-002-119, 1838 South 10th
1838 South 10th Street.
Street. Zen Jin is the attorney of record.
Zen Jin is the attorney of record.
East Pass Young Crossing sent a letter of support.
Councilman Mark Squillis sent a letter of non-opposition.
Mr. Jin, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Yes. Good morning. Good afternoon.
Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Ms. Tenere has questions for you.
Good morning or good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you very much. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
This is what should be before the board right now. It's the refusal on this matter.
As you can see, this is a RSA slash CMX1 combined district.
This property was at one time a CMX1 mixed-use property with a business on the first floor and a residential on the second floor.
At some point, the first floor was converted to residential as well.
and my client purchased it in the current condition and found out that it is in fact a
non-conforming use at this point and an application was made to try to correct that.
So this in essence is a legalization of that condition. When we met with the RCO we were given
a letter of support. Majority of the neighbors were aware of the property and the fact that it
in fact has two separate entrances and was in that form for some time. This is not a new
construction. My client simply acquired the property in that condition. As you can see,
the two entrances gives separate entry to the two units, one on the first floor and one in
the upper floor. The units are divided up very straightforward. The plans show that the first
floor is one unit with access to a partial basement that is basically utility room and
mechanicals. Bedrooms are on the first floor. The second unit is essentially the second and third
floor combined with a total of three bedrooms, living room, and kitchen. Again, these are all
existing situation. There's no construction or change really being proposed with this application.
As a result, the community did not have specific opposition, and again, this is a, in essence, a pre-existing non-conforming situation because it was at one point a barbershop and residents above.
So based on the existing non-conforming conditions, we would ask the board's favorable review of this application.
I will be happy to answer any questions, and I believe my client is present to affirm my testimony.
flying on to adopt your testimony yes um can you can you have miss lisa lee um
lisa can you raise your hand virtually so that you can be identified
she's been allowed to speak
hi please spell your first and last name
My name is Shemei, X-U-E-M-E-I, last name L-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Jin?
Thank you. Lisa, you heard my presentation to the board and you saw the documents I presented.
Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes. Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
no mr chairman no no anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand
no further hands mr chair thank you planning commission thank you chairman de chico ian
hegarty for the city planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsa 5 zoning on the site the proposed use of two dwelling units is similar to the
documented prior uses dwelling unit and a commercial unit and so the City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the variance. Thank you MI 2021-002-1190.
Thank you. MI 2021-002-119. 1838 South 10th Street, my vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
number six on our list mi 2021-001-324-2111 west burke street this is a
pro se case second listing is anyone here for 2111 west burke's
i see no hands for that address mr chair thank you uh mi 2021-001324 21 11 west
burke street my vote is to dismiss carol tenere dismissed professor plaza dismissed
James Snell dismissed. Thomas Holloman dismissed. Thank you. We go to case number seven, MI 2021-002164, 2249 North Franklin Street, Attorneys Zen Jin. Mr. Jin, you're still under oath, but please identify yourself for the record.
he's back as panama sir sorry there is a letter of support from the cambria rco
12th and cambria rco and also from the 37th ward rco
hello again um then you're still on the road just identify yourself and this scenario has
some questions for you. Yes, sir.
Zen Jen, Z-H-E-N
J-I-N, 1617
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite
1838, Philadelphia PA
19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Good afternoon.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal referral, photos under
plans of the property five days in advance
of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
We have submitted to the board the refusal RCO letter in support, photos, plans, and related documentation.
I want to go ahead and jump to the refusal first.
This is an application for a residential use in a CMX2 district.
The refusal is primarily for the proposed residential use of the commercial property, required commercial unit, and also a minimum side yard width requirement, which is actually a hardship in this case because of the way the lot is situated.
So the RCO was in support fully of this application, partly because the block itself is mostly vacant.
And there has been a lot of development, and those development has pretty much all been residential.
It is not a commercial corridor in the sense that there are no really existing commercial uses that are available at this location.
we also have what is essentially a middle lot along the entire block and to have just a commercial
use now put in when majority of the other approvals and across the street their applications
are all basically residential would actually make it difficult for this commercial space to survive
as a result the community actually was fully in support of the residential duplex use
which isn't adding a huge amount of density it would not increase traffic and is in fact going
to be very consistent with what is coming up on that block so that is why we received support