I don't hear them, Bill, you there?
Nope, not yet, give me one second.
I'm waiting for IT.
It was on a moment ago, Ms. Sunken.
Thank you.
I'm sorry I'm not sure I'm gonna try to
reach out to him. Hi Bill, we're ready to go live?
We can't hear you.
Thank you.
okay okay chair we ready ready okay good morning uh everyone my name is frank uchiko i'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our board secretary mr confessor plaza and board members mr thomas hollowman and mr james
Snell. Board Administrator Ms. Lakeisha Dandy and our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in
attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded and that this recording will be available to the public on the web or
otherwise. If anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by
hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating
by phone if you wish to testify i'm sorry chair i apologize it appears to maybe be some technical
difficulties because we have no attendees at this time maybe uh they didn't maybe everybody
went home for the day so i don't know bill is something going on i know that i had a text
message from sean ward saying he was trying to sign on hi miss sunka it's ian hegarty from pcpc
our staff can't get in either yeah good morning i think he was saying i'm in a practice session
it says attendees can't join the webinar we're all in we're all in until it goes live
oh okay right so let me start the webinar we're going to wait for bill to come in
come back in we're now live i started it and chair if you could just give us a
Come back in. We're now live. I started it. And Chair, if you could just give us a few moments and see if everybody can join now.
Take your time.
Okay, Bill, are you good?
It looks like I am. You can hear me now?
Yes, and I started the webinar because it wasn't allowing attendees to come in.
So before you rejoined, I started the webinar.
So I'm hoping we're pretty good for right now, but we can monitor.
Thank you, Connie, Bill.
Yeah, sorry about that.
I don't know what.
No worries.
It seems like technical difficulties will be going on today.
Okay, thanks.
So we're still in the holding pattern, Tanya?
Chair, we now have at least 40 attendees.
You can start the beginning spill.
Okay, start from the beginning, right?
Good morning again, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Board Secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza,
and board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Lakeisha Dandy and board attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
second we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that this recording will be
available to the public on the web or otherwise pardon me third for anyone participating by phone
if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute
yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance
statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue. I will repeat that. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I would also like
to advise everyone to please do not attempt to testify in the chat. All comments should
be directed to the Board Administrator, Ms. Dandy. With that, I will begin with a request
for reconsideration for MI 2020-002-588-100 West Duval, MI 2020-002-589-102 West Duval,
and MI 2020-002-57231 West Duval.
My vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
No to reconsideration and rehearing.
No to reconsideration and rehearing.
No to reconsideration and rehearing.
Thank you.
Number 11 on our 930 list, MI 2020-002.
568-4610 North Broad Street,
there's a request for a continuance.
And as of right now, that is the only request we've had.
So I will now ask if there's any other further requests,
excuse me, for continuances or withdrawals,
please raise your hand at this time.
And if anyone objects to the continuance
I read into the record, please raise your hand also.
we have no hands at this time chair okay uh
we have an add-on for 428-30 west thompson i'm going to move that to the bottom of the
at the end of the list of the 930 list because i understand there may be significant testimony
so with that confessor we'll begin with number one on our regular list
Okay, calendar number MI00256.
Okay, calendar number MI-002561-100-02, West Thompson Street.
Excuse me, Confessor, I believe that's the one that we were moving to the end of the list.
Yeah, that's the one that we moved to the end. Thank you, Sharon. Sorry about that.
No, go to number one, Ashdale Street.
Ashdale.
MI 002561.
I'm sorry, 100-02 West Ashdale Street.
Ashdale.
If you're the applicant for this case, can you please raise your hand?
Hi, I see the applicant among the attendees, but he doesn't appear to have his hand raised.
It's Christopher Francisco.
Yes, Mr. Francisco, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
good morning everyone
morning sir please identify yourself with the record spell your full name
christopher francisco c-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r last name is f-r-a-n-c-i-s-c-o
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Sir Francisco, are you an attorney?
No, I'm the applicant.
Have you submitted proof of ownership, tax certificate, deed, photos, plans, five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
Please proceed and share your exhibits with us, please.
It was sent to, it was sent via email.
yeah we understand that are you able to share your exhibits because as board members we don't
have all that material in front of us because we're doing everything is being done remotely
yeah this is Sharon Saleta Mr. Francisco did you have a an architect working with you
yes Ms. Poulos if she is present and able to share the exhibits her role would be limited to sharing
the exhibits but um can we check to see if that's possible yes ma'am
yes i just promoted miss shirl
good morning chair you're muted your full name can you hear me yes please spell your first and
Okay. First name is C-H-E-R-Y-L. Last name is P-O-U-L-O-S.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
You are the architect for Mr. Francesco?
Yes, correct.
Please proceed.
Okay. Can I share my screen?
Yes, you can share your screen and Francisco, Mr. Francesco can present.
Okay, Chris, if you want to start just walking through the current layout, what you're trying
to do.
So what I would like to do at this property is open a convenience store or corner store in the Hispanic community called Bodega.
So what I would like to do with this property is open a...
We would like to sell items such as chips, candy, cereal, bread, sodas, juices, milk, basically everything you could find in your local convenience store.
However, in addition to that, we would like to also serve hot food.
hot foods such as fries pizza fries cheese steaks mozzarella sticks chicken fingers
burgers chicken sandwiches chicken wings just to name a few we have a my direct competitor is right
down the block which is the supermarket called seven brothers so having the hot food will put
me over the edge and allow me to provide a product and service that my supermarket does
not currently offer. It was previously a restaurant, and prior to the restaurant, it was a convenience
store from two prior owners. And from what I'm told from nearby neighbors, that prior to that
was like a deli slash produce place. Is there an exhaust system? It did have it when I purchased
the property. However, it was very outdated, so we did remove it. Once we do have, if I am granted
it uh the hot food um permission i will be uh adding the exhaust system an updated one
will it be roof mounted it will be roof mounted yes okay all right um to the architect is there
anything else we need to have on the record uh no just everything was
already set up really for being used as a commercial space. You can see in the drawings,
you know, it's very small, even though this is zoned for single-family residential, it's not
really, it was never really set up like that. You can just see from the outside,
um it's small and it's it just has these huge windows on the front never really set up for
residential so um all right that's different i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt no you're fine
you're fine i am my understanding is there was a proviso uh that you agree uh was agreed to
by the 42nd Democrat Ward regarding the floor space, commercial floor space.
This is Sharon Saleta.
Ms. Poulos, the RCO is requesting that the board clarify that which space is going to be used as commercial
so that it doesn't extend any further than what is shown on your floor plans.
Correct. It's not currently connected to, even though the deed includes both of these properties, there's no connection, and the 102 West Ashdale will always be used as residential.
So it's only this 100 West Ashdale space.
so if the board were to add a proviso yes dating commercial space limited to space designated on
floor plan stamped by the board today that would be acceptable thank you thank you both all right
any questions from the board uh yes is commercial trash commercial trash pickup
chris do you want to talk about the trash pickup yes so um right in the back uh area um
like right where that door is at at the end right there there there is space for there for a dumpster
which which which was there prior as well so the commercial trash pickup will be there'll be a
dumpster set up there and it is fenced in with a with a door accessible for trash pickup thank you
you any other questions from the board no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand yes chair we have uh miss hillary miss hillary you can unmute yourself
Yes, Chair, we have Ms. Hillary. Ms. Hillary, you can unmute yourself. Wait to be sworn in.
way to be sworn in
Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Hillary Emerson, on behalf of
Councilwoman Sherelle Parker. We're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So a couple of things in this property. First,
um like the councilman um doesn't oppose uh grocery store um use in the designated commercial
um portion of this property um the community we had quite extensive discussion at the community
meeting um the the community was okay with the use with with several provisos outlined in their
letter um they had some concerns based on the location of this property it is directly across
the street from a high school um so they were concerned that this could be kind of a gathering
or loitering spot um and it has been it has been in the past um there's also been an issue um with
with trash um they were concerned about the size of the space and whether um whether it could um
actually have both a grocery store and hot foods so they and they were they were a little concerned
because this is a this type of business had you know can cause can cause issues in the
neighborhood but they were willing to give the owner a chance but they did ask that
the variants only be granted on a temporary basis. They suggested two years.
They also wanted to make sure the hours of operation were limited. There was a suggestion
by the applicant that he could be open until as late as 10 o'clock in the summertime, and the
community felt that that was too late. So they would like to see nothing later than probably
nine o'clock. As we already discussed, the community was concerned that the use could
also expand into the residence, especially because these properties are on the same deed
and appear to be on the same parcel. So the proviso that Sharon discussed would address
that concern. And I don't know if it would need to be noted as well that because I didn't
see on the refusal which includes you know both both properties it didn't indicate that the
residential use would be continuing so I don't know if there should be a note mentioning that
you know with the you know continuing residential use um in part of the property just for clarity
um lastly the um the the neighbors as in when going back to the their concerns with space
They did not want to see hot food in the space.
They didn't feel that there was sufficient space to prepare that.
One of the RCO members went in and did see the space.
And as you saw from the pictures, it is a tight space.
So having grocery and hot food seemed like it would be too much for the space.
So those were the things that came up for the community.
temporary hours of operation limiting the commercial use and no preparation of hot foods
uh mr francisco yes um you heard miss uh emerson uh any comments
yes um regarding the space uh industry standard states that a restaurant or a place selling hot
food that serves up to 30 people at a time uh requires at least 150 square footage of space
i currently in the area that i'm particularly um restricting for like the hot food preparation
has 195 square feet um and i and at this time i won't be serving up to you know more than 30 people
at a time so i definitely disagree with um um lady but um i think i have enough space um
i think i have enough space for the sinks the deep freezers the countertop space the dosal plate
the deep fryer. We're not going to be serving like to the mass, you know, we're not like a
McDonald's. I'm not comparing myself to them. I'm okay with the 9 p.m. closure. That's perfectly
I'm okay with the 9 p.m. closure. That's perfectly understood. And the trash pickup, I have that situated. Also, I'll be working with a company called Eden Green Energy, which is a waste management company based from Chester, whose primary focus is to properly dispose of used cooking oil for renewable energy.
understood.
there's considerable amount of provisos I'm trying to read through them now
all right any other questions from the board no
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair this is Sharon Slutt if I can just for a minute note that
if you do approve this with provisos I have some concern that the floor plan that you would be
approving doesn't include it doesn't dimension the designated commercial space so if we could
request that a fully dimensioned copy of that be submitted please
let's all right anyone else like to testify in this case
no more hands at this time chair
planning commission good morning chair to chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission h-e-g-a-r-t-y we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do please proceed thank you good morning chair members of the board um the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5 zoning at this site however given
the previous use of the building and this section of the building for commercial uses planning
commission recommends that the board grant the variance sorry um i'd like to have some a little
bit more time well you know what let's see i'm looking at the provisos that just been sent over
to me there's a considerable amount of them uh for the time being uh i would suggest that
the record be closed and the board will discuss this at next wednesday's executive session
this is sharon sletic could you close the record aside from the submission of a dimensioned copy
of the already submitted floor plan i'm sorry um miss pulis is that possible for you by next week
Yes, the record closed aside from resubmission of the floor plan with the required dimensions.
Okay. Thank you. So MI 2020-002561-100-02 West Ashdale. The record is closed. The board will
discuss and have a decision that next Wednesday's executive session.
okay good luck mi 2020-001209 1519 west denango street
could i state one thing on the record
sorry about that uh no you have a question i i wanted to state um uh a statement on the
provisos we have them there's a multitude of them and I want to be able to go through them
so we can evaluate what the provisos are and then vote on it that's why we're going to hold
this for executive session okay I just want to state that I'm perfectly okay with all the
provisos with the exception of we're going to review them sir and we'll get we'll make a decision
based on what we decide. Thank you.
Thank you.
Next case, Venango, MI 2020-001209, 1519 West Venango.
Hi, yes. Good morning, Chair and members of the board.
please identify yourself spell your first and last name hi yes my name is lijan lu l-i-j-i-o-n
last name is lu l-i-u we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you excuse me this is sharon saletta ms pulis is also the architect on this case i
believe i don't know whether she'll be presenting the exhibits but in case she needs to be promoted
again. He has been promoted. Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership?
Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Please proceed.
I would like to share my screen, please.
You can share.
Okay, share screen.
So we hear background talking or noise, is that you?
Yes, I believe. Sorry about that.
Alrighty, you can continue.
Okay, I have a vacant lot on Venango Street and we were proposing a multi-family three units
that's prohibited in a RSA 5 residential zoning.
With the three-unit multifamily, we are proposing three units.
The first unit will occupy the basement and the first floor and have three bedrooms.
uh the first unit one would have a square footage of um a 1774 square feet for the second unit it
would occupy the second floor and have two two bedrooms the square footage for that unit it's
about 805 square feet and excuse me sir excuse me excuse me sir do you have drawings can you show
some drawings? Yeah, my architect, Ms. Puglos, will have the drawings. Do you want to see them now?
Yes. Okay, Cheryl, can you? Yeah, I'll share my screen. Thank you. I think you have to
unshare your screen you can continue talking and i'll
yeah i can't really see my screen but uh okay so with the plans
oh sure can you um talk about um the the three units and how i guess how's how's that laid out
before the floor plan sure um so as john already started to describe there's three units
the first unit will occupy the basement and the first floor and there's three bedrooms
the second unit will just occupy the second floor with two units and the last unit will occupy the
third and fourth floor and we'll have three units with a small area roof deck and third and fourth
floor yes there's four floors what will be the overall height of this property let's see
the overall height is 37.4 so we're just under the max allowed and I have
elevations and a rendering I'll share though as John also said this is a
corner corner line so you get the first second third fourths and here is a rendering
Excuse me, could you tell me what percentage of the first floor, the basement is out of
the ground?
The basement is entirely below the ground but there's an egress access in the back for the bedroom.
You can see it right here.
Thank you.
You'd be walking in right into the first floor.
right into the first floor.
Isn't it required 50% out of the ground?
ISN'T IT REQUIRED
I don't think so. Not that I've seen that requirement. I've done many of these before and
usually I've never been told that before. Okay.
just if there's a bedroom down there that you need egress access to get out
john do you want to talk about um other projects like this in the area
oh yeah sure uh we have an ongoing project on carloff street that recently got a variance for
multi-family and that's maybe uh within a two block radius uh close close to broad street
and it's a similar project uh with this a 3d rendering uh we might not we're not gonna go with
the great bricks of facade we're gonna go with something similar to what um the neighbors uh
have more of a red um something more like this something like that and that on the nangle street
um that's up the street on 1600 block and it's uh the whole street there are triplexes and that's
uh they have gotten the variance back in um 2017 um for a uh for three units and
and i you know i would uh do something similar to that by the corner on benango street and um yeah
Yeah, we could change this. This was just for just to give us an idea of the massing of the structure.
But we're open to change the colors and make it blend in with the neighborhood.
Excuse me, can I see the plant, the basement plant again?
You have living space in the basement.
There's a bedroom just used by the first floor tenant.
It could also be an office, but we put a window well down there.
So that would give you three bedrooms for the first unit, right?
First floor basement is one unit. It gives you three bedrooms.
Correct.
How do you have windows in the basement if it's 100% below grade?
We have a window well.
Yeah, but what about the remaining space?
I believe code just calls for egress from a bedroom in a basement.
But to get to that basement, you have a set of stairs that goes through it.
We could always add a window well on the side since we're a corner.
But it's not shown on the plan.
no because um i wasn't aware of that requirement i've never been told that before by the building
inspector well when you come down the stairs you're going to travel to the basement correct
so that's a living space i mean it could be used as storage
does it well you don't want to travel through the storage to get to the bedroom
Correct. I mean, we don't know how this is going to be used, but typically it's just maybe another family room.
But that would make it a living space.
I was never aware. I've done many of these that are in the middle of the block, and there's no way to put a window in the living room space.
It's never been told that we needed a window well, window access for a living room, a family
Well, according to the code, you need a window, natural light ventilation for every living
space.
Not necessarily for a bathroom or kitchen, but any other space it is.
Well, like I said, I've never been told that this project, since it's a corner, we can
add that if that's mandatory, but this is very common to have a family room or some
kind of space, living space in a basement, and a lot of projects that are in the middle
of the block, there's no way to do that.
We don't always want to put window wells on the front of properties.
We don't always want to put window wells on the front of properties.
Thank you.
Is there a rear yard?
There is a rear yard that would be accessed by the, from the first floor tenant through this door on the back.
but all of the tenants would have access to the yard for trash from the side there'll be a gate
somewhere all right uh any other questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Yes, Chair, I have Jackie.
Good morning, ma'am.
Jackie, can you unmute yourself?
Good morning, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with a record first and last name in your address.
Jacqueline Phillips-Clark, 1527 West Venango Street, Philadelphia PA-19140.
Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I'm calling, representing neighbors that we're totally opposed to having this triplex, or I guess it's a quadruplex.
I'm not quite sure what they're going to call it.
on that corner. We already have new construction coming in with three stories from 17th Street to
16th Street, and then eventually Sittenham between 16 on the south side of Benangelo.
All those homes on that block are homeowners, and we do not want to include any more apartments
on that block. My address is right across the street from Sittenham on the west side
of Sittenham. I'm 1527. Those yards are very, very small. We've been living there for
40, for I've been living there in that neighborhood. I was born there and we're totally
opposed to neighbors. I'm calling to represent the neighbors as well. So we're totally opposed
to having that quadruplex or triplex put right there on that corner next to all single family
homes on the north side of Sidney M street as well as the west side of the Nango thank you
anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
yes chair I have a burn Clark
morning
my name is vernon clark v-e-r-n-o-n-c-l-a-r-k and i live at 49 12 pulaski avenue but i've been
a neighbor and have owned property down in that area for a long time you swear to affirm that
certainly swear from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes absolutely please
proceed the the problem i have with this is is going to add to an already dense neighborhood
the area is close to Temple University Hospital that you know I know parking isn't supposed to
be on the table you know but there's a density problem around there to be too many people they're
adding dozens and dozens of apartments to this neighborhood I joined uh all the other neighbors
in opposing this project. Thank you anyone else something new and different please raise your hand
there i have um mr charles richardson thank you good morning mr richardson good morning mr chair
can you hear me firm mr richardson please identify yourself charles richardson from the office of
councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth. I do. Thank you, sir. Please proceed. The RCO, 13-4 RCO, in coordination with
the Swampoodle RCO, held a meeting on October the 29th where the community voted to oppose the
project, citing were density issues and fears that this would change the character of the block and
and things along those lines.
As such, the Councilwoman does support the community
and is opposed to granting the variance for this project.
Thank you.
Any other individual needs to testify in this case?
Yes, I have an internet, Phillips.
Antoinette Phillips. Good morning, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record, first and last name and address.
Good morning, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with a record for-
Good morning. I'm Antoinette Phillips. I reside at 1527 West Benango Street, and our community is definitely...
Do you swear, ma'am, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
Yes, I am a concerned neighbor. I live 1527 West Benango Street. I attended the meeting with the RSO. We made it very clear to the owner that we did not want that type of property. It is very, it is zoned for a single home. And, you know, that's why we're on here supporting. We do not want that in our community.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Sherry Tico, yeah, we would support the neighbor's position. The comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the single-family zoning at this location. It seems that the applicant's
claimed hardship is an economic hardship whereas use variances as you know require the applicant
to demonstrate that the development is restricted by some kind of unique physical condition
and at any rate we feel the variance doesn't represent the least modification possible of the
dimensional or sorry the use regulations in issue and so we would recommend that the board deny the
variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001-209, 1519 West Venango Street. My vote is no. My vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. MI 2020-002-622, 1713 South Street. My understanding we have
do not have any exhibits? Is there anyone here for 1713 South Street?
This is Sharon Sledek, just confirming that we have not received exhibits. This is the first
listing okay mi 2020 thank you mi 2020-002-622-1713 south street is continued
we'll go to the next case mi 2020-000305 1815 south conestoga street
my own it's our understanding that the attorney mr richard de marco is no longer representing
the applicant and we as of yesterday we have not received any exhibits is there anyone here
for 1815 south conestoga street no hands chair this will be the first continuance sharon it was
previously continued on november 3rd i see it i got it yep i got it sorry about that all right so
MI 2020-000305. 1815 South Conestoga. My vote is to dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss.
Thank you. Number five on our list. MI 2020-002563. 1925 North 5th Street.
No hands chair. Thank you MI 2020-002-563-1925 North 5th Street is continued. Number six on our
list. MI 2020-002560. 2000 East Huntington Street.
I have Mr. Sean Ward coming in as a panelist now.
Mr. Ward, good morning. Please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I most certainly do.
All right. We understand there's a letter from East Kensington Neighbors in support
and a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squiller. Please proceed.
Sean, you agree to wait for reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents?
Yes, I have.
And, yep, you have a letter, right?
All right, Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my typical virtual hearing packet.
is for the property at 2000 east huntington street at calendar 2020-002560
my client is fidan basha f-i-d-a-n-b-a-s-h-a a1 is the notice of refusals to a permit for the
erection of an attached structure not to exceed 38 feet with a pilot house roof deck and for use
as a three family dwelling. The application resulted in two refusals, one for open area,
20% being required, 12.3% being proposed, seeking a 76 square foot variance. I would point out that
the minimum rear yard depth is complied with. However, given the width of the lot, we are short
of the 20% required open area.
Additionally, three-family is not permitted in the district,
so we seek dimensional and use variances today.
I need to get this out of the way.
Hang on.
Oh, there we go.
I'm adjusting my screen so I can see what I'm doing.
um so a2 is the zba application of appeal a3 project information form a4 proof of ownership
a5 tax clearance a6 are the site elevation and floor plans a7 are photographs of the subject
property with aerial views uh i would ask that the rco letter be marked as a8 and councilman
squall's letter be marked as a9 as far as relevant zoning history uh in 1946 this was a retail store
and three apartments. Currently it's a vacant lot and we're just seeking to institute a three-family
dwelling with no commercial use. A11 is the relevant zoning history of the other properties
surrounding the subject. I would point out that 2601-15 Emerald Street is a 40-unit apartment
complex approved January 4th of 2018. Although that is zoned RM1, it's 40 units in two buildings
directly across the street from this particular property.
A-12 is the zoning map, and A-13 are the aerial photographs.
So very quickly, we have the application of appeal, notice of refusal, project information form,
proof of ownership, proof of tax clearance.
You'll see 2021 taxes are due, but they're not due yet.
they're due in March. You'll see on the plan that it's a vacant corner parcel. On the one side is
the grocery store. We propose a three and a half story structure, partially a sunken basement.
Floor plans call for three units. Unit A would constitute the first floor and basement.
Unit B would constitute the middle floor, second floor, and then Unit C, obviously, would occupy the third floor.
Unit A has its own separate entrance from the side street, whereas the entrance for the upper units is gained from the front of the property.
Here are a couple photographs of the subject and the adjoining properties.
this was the notice to the rcos that included the uh the hearing date and time
it included a copy of the refusal as well as a copy of the zoning notice indicating the date
and time of the meeting and the login information proof of mailing 163 identical pieces were mailed
out to the neighbors on the list provided by the planning commission we have copies of the zoning
permits i should say three apartments and a store the parcel across the street here is the zoning
permit issued for that in 2018 and this is what it looked like on a google earth photo back in
August of 2019. I have not seen the property, whether it's completed. I believe it is. And this
was the artist rendering of that subject property. The zoning map, the aerial photo.
the zoning map, the aerial photo. Again, we met with East Kensington neighbors. It was two in
opposition, 27 in support of the application. Again, here's their vote count. And we received
yesterday from Councilman Squilla a letter of non-opposition for the application.
That's all I have. As an officer of the court, I would ask the board to stipulate that if my
client was present to testify he would adopt my representations as his own as true and correct
noted thank you any questions from the board no no no anyone else like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand i see no hands chair thank you planning commission
Thank you, Chair Chico, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Chair, in 2016, the zoning map was amended in this area in accord with recommendations from
the comprehensive plan with the support of the community. This parcel was intentionally
not changed from single-family zoning, and we feel that the hardship is not justified here
because it's a vacant lot on the corner with no unique physical characteristics that would
impede development. And also we further believe that the proposed variance is not necessary to
enable viable economic use of the property. And so we would recommend that the zoning board deny
this variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002560 2000 East Huntington Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes my business.
Yes, you may. Have a good day. MI 2020, that's 002-526-2404 South 4th Street.
anyone here for two four zero four south fourth street
michelle you can unmute yourself
Ms. McCurdy, you have to unmute yourself.
Okay, how's that?
Got you now.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your full name and address.
My name is Michelle McCurdy, M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E-M-C-C-U-R-D-Y, 6944 Jackson Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19135, and I'm the attorney for the appellant.
and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do also begin i want to just for the record i want to state that
my understanding is the whitman council sent a letter of support that is correct actually i did
send all over the exhibits in a timely fashion i believe last thursday just a second away to
reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes also have you emailed an exhibit
packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the
refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this, Erin? Yes, I did. Also, have you
met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, yes, I do. Okay, please proceed. Okay, we are seeking use
of a two-family dwelling in a zoned single-family area. As stated in my application, there is no
modification to the existing structure. If you have it, Ms. McCurdish, pardon the interruption,
but if you have any exhibits you can share them with us as you're speaking. Sure, I will,
if you bear with me, I will try to include them. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with this.
Let me see if I can get them up there.
um can you still hear me yes okay um so miss mccurdy yeah once you have your documents open
that you wish to present you're going to hit the green share button at the bottom of your screen
on the Zoom application.
Once you hit that share screen,
Once you hit that share screen, then you click on the actual documents that you wish to present.
then you click on the actual document.
For some reason, I can't get back to my screen with you guys.
Let me see.
You're probably not going to be able to because you're going to be sharing your screen and the documents.
Let me see.
Share screen.
I got it now.
There we go.
It's coming up for us.
Now double-click into the extra exhibit package.
Okay, sure.
Okay, first thing will be the zoning appeal.
Here's my letter.
So, Ms. McCurdy, we're not seeing the documents yet.
So, if you unshare, because the idea is that you should have your documents open, which makes it easier.
If you open up the file, go back to the share screen, click on it, it should close out.
Again, I apologize for doing your...
Did you hit the green share screen down button?
You know what, I don't even see that on my...
Okay, I'm going to take this down.
Okay, now, what I need you to do is open up your exhibit package so it's visible on your desktop or screen.
Okay, sure.
Then you share your screen, and they should present on our screen.
so is your document open yes it is and now what do i hit now hit the green share screen button
you know what i don't see that on my
you don't see it at the bottom
no i don't you might have to exit full screen you might be in full screen view
so go up to your view button and make sure you're not on full screen
how we doing not too well i am once again i apologize can i is there any way i can get
through my case and then try to um get these things to you it's the chair we have the documents
but it's called yeah okay let's proceed yes thank you okay um like i stated uh there was no
modification to the um existing building uh when the appellant purchased the building
uh it was already set up as a duplex i believe at one point prior to that it was the dentist office
and the prior um owner converted that um at the uh at the rco meeting um there were certain issues
issues that were brought up which were which were satisfactory satisfactorily addressed
which resulted in a favorable recommendation from the RCO committee other than that I think
that's that's what I have to present today basically this is a legalization correct yes
all right thank you questions from the board
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair i have a kathy
ms kathy you can unmute yourself
simon simon
Good morning, Ms. Simon.
Technical issues all over the place today, huh?
While we're waiting for Ms. Simon, is there anyone else who would like to testify?
Please raise your hand.
No more hands, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family
zoning at this location. However, the proposed use is consistent in terms of impacts
with documented previous uses and the existing illegal use hasn't caused any
with documented previous uses and the existing illegal use hasn't caused any significant problems
and so the City Planning Commission would recommend that the Zoning Board approve the variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-002526, 2404 South 4th Street. My vote is yes with the proviso.
CO to be obtained within nine months. Yes with proviso. Thank you. Yes with proviso.
Yes, we're for Vizo.
UMI 2020-002570, 327 South 16th Street.
Mr. Crick.
Good morning, members of the board.
Justin Crick, K-R-I-K.
Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 630, Philadelphia PA 19102.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay, so you understand that the onset, we do have a letter of opposition from the Center City residents.
Confessor, please proceed.
Listen, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We do.
Thanks. Thank you. Members of the board, just for clarification, this should be ZP.
This is the ZP number, not the MI number. But nevertheless, the application before the board
is for the erection of a two-story addition to this property at 327 South 16th Street and for
the use of the property as an eight unit uh living household living um we did meet with the
with the rco and i will get into that at the moment we have a letter of opposition from their
zoning committee but i'll detail that after i explain and describe the project um the refusal
is stipulated to as well as its accuracy again we're just in terms of refusals the a two-story
addition is by right but what we were refused for was the number of units allowable in this square
footage with the footprint that we have geographically to get the bearings we are between
spruce and pine street along south 16th right between right by delancy and a little bit better
from an aerial view for you for those familiar with the neighborhood the yards of these properties
are kind of critical in the rear for this two-story addition because while it's by right,
it is our position that the RCO's concern is mainly with the addition and not actually with
the density of the project. We do have Kevin Kaminsky available to discuss a few things,
the architect, as well as Anthony Massiri for the applicant appellate. As you can see from this
cross-section the two-story addition would be placed at the rear of the property and it adds
a significant amount of square footage to allow the uh the additional units to be placed zoning
wise this is again in an rm1 zoning district we have a few photos of the location and a little
bit better of a rendering so you can see the the layout of where the properties are located or
where how it's situated with its neighbors this is a picture of the front facade of the property
although work has been and will continue to be done the applicant is a local and present developer
who has done several projects in this area and and has a very good track record of addressing
the concerns of neighbors as well as historic obligations this is the first floor rear of the
property and the addition would go above this portion of the property right here
and then as far as floor plans go this is this shows you the eight units that we are seeking to
put in and most notably is that these additional square footage to make these units a little bit
more comfortable and not as crowded these two stories on the second floor rear and the third
floor rear is the additional space that we are proposing during our meetings with the neighborhood
Association, there were discussions about possibly obtaining different square footage or additional
square footage without the addition on the back, although, again, by right. We explored expanding
the fourth floor at their suggestion, but Mr. Kaminsky will explain why that is really not a
viable option. In addition, during our meetings and discussions, we first met with the RCO in
December where the neighbors did attend and there were some some community
members available the subsequent meeting where the vote was taken was
the subsequent meeting where the vote was taken was simply the committee no additional neighbors
simply the committee no additional neighbor
attended or voted on that project my client has did propose at one point the combination of these
two um these two studio units into a bi-level single unit reducing it to seven but the application
we are seeking is still for eight because the decrease in units did not seem to be again the
concern of the RCO, but more so this idea of this addition. So here's an existing
cross-section of the rear yard, and then here is the proposed with the buy-write addition.
And again, just a little bit more about the historic facade that's being corrected.
What I'd like to show you now is basically a plot of similarly situated six to 10 unit buildings within a two block radius that are all of smaller, most of which I should say are of smaller square footage, but have also been approved for multi units in this area, despite the RCO opposition.
location this shows you the number of six and seven unit apartments in that area and our subject
property being the red property down here you can see there's quite a few and this is just within a
two and a half block radius there are even some scattered nine to ten unit buildings and then
I'm sorry this is the nine to ten unit buildings a few of them scattered around and most notably
these are the seven and eight unit buildings that are also within the area some most some of which
I should say again most of which have smaller footprints and similar number of units so what
we are proposing is the eight units in an approximately 7,000 square foot building
when you when you include the two second and third story additions what my my applicant in
this case actually did obtain approval for eight units at 1707 Rittenhouse Square which is a smaller
footprint of this building. They obtained that within the last year, again, despite the RCO
committee, zoning committee's opposition. We do have three at this time, three letters of support
from your neighbors. And my client will speak to, if necessary, his efforts with the immediate
adjacent neighbor who would be the most impacted by the additions. But again, the additions aren't
really in our opinion the issue and that the density albeit not the issue of the CCRA is why
we're here for a refusal. At this time here's some pictures of the zoning posters that have
gone up the first page of the deed and the rest is available on public record and or if necessary
any tax clearance certificate. So at this time I'd like to have Kevin Kaminsky who should be on
to explain a bit about the square footage
and why the additional square footage
is not as viable on the fourth floor expansion
versus the second, third story edition.
Mr. Kaminsky, if you could raise your hand,
if you're there.
Yes, I am here.
Hello, everyone.
Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record first and last name.
Spell your last name.
Kevin Kaminski, K-A-M-I-N-S-K-I.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
So once we jump to four stories, we run into two means of egress,
and that is pretty much eliminated the need or the ability to fundamentally develop this into a meaningful footprint in terms of space.
so we kept it to the three stories with a mezzanine which is shown on the uh on the fourth floor and
that's about it and just for the board's clarification as well in our in our lower
level we do have egress windows as well as other air and light to all the units
and and living spaces um thank you mr kaminsky uh at this point i would like to have
my client Anthony Massiri adopts testimony and then also if there's any questions or statements
he'd like to make regarding his experience in the neighborhood as well. Morning sir please
identify yourself with the record spell your last name. Anthony Massiri. M-A-S-C-I-E-R-I.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you Mr.
Mr. Crick? Yes. Mr. Massiri, before I ask you any further questions, have you had a chance to hear
my testimony to the board today? Yes. And given the opportunity, would you adopt my statements
And given the opportunity, would you adopt my statements as your own testimony is true?
as your own testimony is true?
Thank you.
Mr. Masiri, just wanted to ask you, have you developed other properties in this area, in this immediate area in the past?
Yes, we have.
We have an eight-unit building that we developed at 1707 Rittenhouse Square, as well as an eight-unit residential plus one commercial space at 238 South 20th Street, as well as a six-unit building at 1602 Spruce Street.
And is it your understanding that the buildings that you have developed, as well as the others that you have researched and plotted in the area, that your building actually provides more square footage for the number of units than similarly situated properties with eight units?
Yes, actually, the most recent project we completed at 1707 Riton L Square had a smaller footprint, and that was approved for eight units, with some of the units being partially below grade.
this building would be noticeably larger with the same intended use with the with eight units.
Okay thank you and and just I wanted to ask you do you have any other final comments that you'd
like to make for the board's consideration? Just that our experience with working in the
neighborhood working with the historic commission you know we have we have the a lot of experience
in in doing this and all we're asking for is a a use that is very very common as you can see by all
the other properties as plotted on the on the plans in very similar sized four story your typical
four story townhouse in the Rittenhouse Square neighborhood and not just the neighborhood but
just on that street alone other buildings with the exact same number of units thank you members
of the board that concludes our presentation other than just finalizing and saying that we
believe that there's a hardship based upon the consistent allowance of similarly situated if not
smaller properties in the area and seeking the equal treatment on those thank you thank you
questions from the board no no one else would like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand yes chair we have a wade albert morning sir please identify yourself with a record and i'll
swear you in good morning my name is wade albert um last name is a l b e r t i'm counsel for the
center city residents association good morning and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed thank you so and i'll try to keep
this brief um just to to distill the the nature of this that um this is basically a a matter in which
the applicant is uh seeking to build uh enough to have a number of units uh in this property
and in relation to the square footage, the only way to have those units is to build an expansion
in the back, which was discussed above. The problem that the Center City Resident Association
had with this, excuse me, was that none of the other neighbors that are next to this property
have built up their backyard uh to uh to um uh the dimensional um uh properties that we've
that we've seen in this and there there's an image in the applicant's materials which i think are on
page it's actually page seven um if we can we can see that real fast on the the bottom left-hand
corner you can see that uh in all all of the neighboring units they uh that there there's a
fair amount of open space um in in the back of their properties and so the the the ccra zoning
committee believed that as i said allowing this would change the character of the of the block
and it is not consistent with those other properties um and you know while i appreciate
that they were they were willing to reduce the number of units you know we still have the same
problem and we think that they could have explored other ways in which specifically either reducing
other the units or changing the plans in some way or another that would have made this much more
palatable for the neighborhood and for these reasons i just want to point out that the that
that the burden on the applicant in this case is they're requesting a use variance
the burden on the applicant in this case is they're requesting a use variance
which means that they need to show among other things that there are unique physical circumstances
particular to this property and i don't believe that there are this this property is very similar
to so many other properties um in the neighborhood um where um they're able to do whatever they want
to and there's there's nothing special about this property that suggests that a use variance would
be appropriate and on top of that another element is that use variances if authorized will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood and as i discussed earlier we believe that the changes
that they're requesting in connection with with building the addition in the back will actually
change the the characteristics of the neighborhood in relation to the neighboring properties and for
those reasons, we are against it. And we request that the ZBA oppose this application. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
If I may speak to that, Chair, if there's no other hands.
If there are other hands first, please.
Yes, we have Mr. Pierre. Mr. Pierre, you can unmute yourself.
Pierre please identify yourself for the record first and last name and state your address
I'm sorry I don't know where he just went
anyone else
French you can unmute yourself and speak
Good morning. Can everyone hear me?
Yes. State your full name, please.
Yes, that's France Pierre from Councilmember Johnson's office.
France, okay. Thank you.
Yeah, you finish. I'm sorry.
No, no worries. That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I certainly do.
Please proceed.
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow board members.
Councilmember Johnson joins the CCRA zoning committee in their opposition to the appeal.
Thank you. Anyone else?
No more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Crick, you had something else to add?
Yes, I just wanted to clarify that, again, we don't believe that there's any issue with the actual refusal for a variance.
It's just the addition, the two-story addition, which is something that the applicant intends on doing one way or the other, respectfully.
That is a by-right addition.
Plus, the applicant has spoken with the immediate adjacent neighbor and taken agreement with him and made arrangements with him to account for privacy and other items of the neighbor's concern, who notably was not present at the vote and did not oppose this matter.
As far as the character of the neighborhood, you know, I can't speak to why other individuals or other neighbors have not expanded their property in the rear, but they are all able to without further variance or dimensional or otherwise from the city.
So that doesn't mean that they could not do it or will not do it in the future.
And again, it is something that my client intends to do with the property, regardless of the granting of the variance.
The variance being that the similarly situated properties have been approved for this with
smaller footprints, and we would like to receive that same treatment.
The next door neighbor that you reference, is he a property owner or a tenant?
He is the property owner.
Is there a restaurant next to that or not?
I do not believe we have a restaurant next door.
Thank you.
All right.
Anyone else?
planning commission thank you chair to chico in 2019 the zoning map was amended in this area in
accord with recommendations from the district plan and with the support of the community
this parcel was intentionally not changed from rm1 the applicants claimed hardship has to do
with nearby non-conforming uses whereas we feel that use variances should require the applicant
to demonstrate that development is restricted by some unique physical circumstance.
We also believe that the proposed variance is not necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property, and so the City Planning Commission would therefore recommend
that the Board deny the variance. Thank you. I'm sorry, Chair, if I could just interject
the thought. Mr. Haggerty, if you could identify yourself and name and Planning Commission,
identify himself identify yourself and name and planning commission every time you give a
and every
recommendation we have my mistake thank you ian thank you uh mi 2020 that's zero zero two five
seven zero three two seven south 16th street my vote is no my voters no my vote is no my vote is no
Thank you. MI 2020-002567-419 North 33rd Street.
Rachel is coming in as a panelist now.
good morning chairman good morning miss pritzker please identify yourself with the record and i'll
swear you in and then mr plaza will take over sure rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes thank you rachel you agree to waive the reading of
its refusal and stipulate to attack IRC? Yes. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with
the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a
letter? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. So I'm going to share the screen.
This is 419 North 33rd Street. Just as the board can see, this is the refusal for the property.
This is an existing structure in the Powhatan Village neighborhood of Philadelphia.
It's a very large structure and has a history from 1933 to 1977 as being a three and four
unit building, as you will be able to see in two seconds from the zoning archives.
If I can pull them up correctly, sorry, a lot of documents, nope, here we go.
um three family was changed to a single family and after 77 but before that it was a three family
and four family building um four families um it's currently zoned rsa3 um the only uh variance that
we were requesting is for uh use back to a three family dwelling um as the board will be able to
see from the photos I'm about to bring up. The property is not in great shape currently. It's
owned by the property owner who's looking to keep this property and their family and convert it to
three units and do a significant restoration of this property. It's this structure right here,
as the board can see. Here are just some additional exterior photos of the property and then I will
show you the interior photos of the site. So it's kind of got a pretty interesting internal
structure. It's really in not great shape as you can see from the ceiling. It's kind of a little
bit odd in the way that it was laid out. Here's parts of the lower level of the structure which
has like kind of an old kitchen um sort of as you can see the range here and some of this
older furniture as well as you can see the stair is not in great shape um i think some of this was
from the prior use um when it was converted to a single family but it obviously still had some
remnants of the the three family four family the fact that there was a kitchen um in the basement
and as you can see just really in kind of rough shape. I just want to as we move up higher up in
the building as you can see there's some water damage that's been done, there's issues with the
walls. The goal of the restoration would be to keep as much as sort of the historic nature of
the building as possible with some of the wood framing, some of the stairways are in good shape,
things like that as we move up higher up there's some beautiful brick that I believe the goal is
to restore as you can see the stairways are in good shape and there's some this sort of atrium
area is in decent shape but this is a pretty large structure for being zoned RSA 3. It would
require you know a very well-to-do single-family owner to come in to be able to not only restore
well-to-do single-family owner to come in to be able to not only restore this, but
to be able to afford, you know, a building of this size in this neighborhood for a single-family home.
Just want to point out some of the historic details like this fireplace. As you can see,
the walls and the brick are in really bad shape, but, you know, the goal would be to really restore
this and do that in a more affordable perspective with trying to do three units, keep it in the
family of the current owner who grew up in the neighborhood and grew up at this house.
And obviously you see it's really not in great shape. So a single family home is just not really
feasible in addition to the amount of restoration that this building requires and in consideration
of trying to keep some of the historic qualities of the interior. I think the board gets the idea
of the shape of it. I will have the architect go through what we were proposing, but just as far
as sort of the context of the surrounding area, I think it's worth mentioning that, you know,
although this property is zoned RSA 3, there are examples on the same block that diverge from sort
of this single family use. Specifically, 431 North 33rd Street received a zoning permit for
continued use as both a church and a two dwelling units on March 3rd, 2020. 429 North 33rd was
granted a variance for two dwelling units on December 21, 2010. 423 North 33 contained four
units in 2007. And according to the zoning application and the zoning history, it likely
remained as such until at least July of 2019 when five electric meters were photographed, which we
could see on Google Street View. So it's not out of character for this property to be multifamily
on this specific block, although it has an RSA-3 designation. I also think, as you'll see
from the near neighbors, we were able to get support from the coordinating, not the coordinating
RCO, Palatins Village. They, you know, wanted to see single family. They really have a push
towards single family. They did say that, you know, they would support two family. So I do
think that they do have an appreciation that, you know, single family is not necessarily viable
here, especially given the amount of work needed to revitalize this and some of the additional
character of that block. We also did get support from many folks who actually live on the block,
including the block captain. I provided this information to the council office as well.
So there's about, I think, nine letters. This was submitted in our hearing packet
for support specifically, you know, to keep this in this family's, to keep this property in the
family, to convert it to three units. And these are the folks who actually live on that block.
Most of the folks who are actually at the RCO meeting were members of Palton Village's
organization and weren't necessarily folks who live within 250 feet of the property. So the
owner went around and got support from those who actually live on this block. So there's nine
letters in support. In addition, we did get a letter of support from two affected RCOs as well,
both DAPA, which is the Drexel Area Property Association, and Mount Vernon's Civic Association.
so I'm just going to bring up those letters as well. I think I have them.
Give me one second.
That's our hearing packet.
Sorry, give me one second.
I'm going to just stop share while I find these so that I don't have to.
Okay, so here's the one from Mount Vernon Manor.
Their location is 3311 Wallace Street.
They were in support to put three affordable units in this structure.
I believe we also submitted this letter, I'm not sure if the board received it from the
community group as well.
and then as I mentioned there was one from DAPA that I did provide to the council office that
I'm just going to share briefly. While I'm looking for that would it be okay to bring on our architect
Ken to just go through the plans for the board just so that we could show the three different
units as we're considering them and then happy to take any additional questions. Thank you please
proceed. Thank you. Do you see Ken raising his hand? Yes, he's available to speak. You just have
Yes, he's available to speak. You just have to unmute. So thank you very much.
to unmute himself. Thank you very much.
Place name? Kenneth Johnson, 3401 Grace Ferry Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.
Thank you. Kenneth, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes. Rachel, please proceed. Thank you, Ken. So if you could just provide,
oh, here's the, let me just show this letter really quick and then Ken, you'll do your thing.
share. Sorry about that. Here's the letter from the Drexel Area Property Association in support
of the project as proposed, which is the three units. So I just wanted to add that as well.
Ken, if you can just share your screen and go through the plans for the board
as we're proposing it, in addition to kind of sharing some color on the
um kind of current status of the building and size of it since you've actually been in it in
order to do the drawings um that would be much appreciated trying to figure out how to share
this that was look for a link to share no see at the bottom where there's a green uh give me one
second and i can um okay promote him to panelists okay and you should be all set
Yep. Now I can see it. Okay. Everybody can see the screen?
Yep. Okay. So let's go. If you could just zoom in just a little bit. It's just kind of a little
bit difficult to see. Thanks so much. All right. So this is the first floor. You can see my cursor,
I hope. And you come in the first floor. We kept the vestibule. We got a new entry and the stairs
we're going to keep and the first unit is right off the vegetable that bedroom in the front um
you've got the existing bathroom back here we added two bedrooms on the side and we kept that
brown uh stair to the to the basement which is the kitchen area we kept that um and as you go down
to the basement you have double doors to the rear yard and keeping or restoring the kitchen
in the same area that it's at and we're closing off the back of the building and just putting
the utilities back there there's a separate room for laundry and we want to place a small powder
room in the basement so you come up when you come up the stairs to the second floor we just
want to close off the existing hallway that's there keep the existing stairs come into unit
Unit number two, you got a big living and dining room area.
The utility for this unit is up here.
We've got the kitchen on the side, a fairly large bathroom, you got the laundry, and you
got two bedrooms facing the front of the building.
Come back and you walk up the steps to the third floor, you got unit number three, then
you walk in, you got a big living and dining room area, the kitchen off to the side.
utility for this unit and then you have the bathroom on on the side you have your own laundry
and you have two bedrooms um facing the front of the building
and josh would you go back to the basement in the first floor again yes
okay so you walk the first floor has three bedrooms one two three yes
all on the first floor
and then the kitchen
the kitchen and the dining room
the lower room but you got
this door right here is a full door
I mean when you walk down here
this is like you own grade
into the yard
so it's not like you don't
go down to the basement
it's not the low grade
right okay um i'm sorry rachel did i interrupt no no that's that's a fair question um ken is
were you done your presentation or did you have one more florida no no that's it the only thing
else is that each each unit number one is 790 square feet um that's not including the lower
level which is 390 that's being used the rest of is being closed off for utilities um the second
unit is 790 and the third unit is 811 square feet thank you thank you um the last thing i wanted to
unshare right unshare yeah please thanks ken share um the last thing i just wanted to share
The last thing I just wanted to share with the board is just the zoning map, just so that you can see sort of the neighboring properties are mostly multifamily.
with the board is just the zoning map, just so that you can
It's not a block where most of the blocks are all RSA 3.
There's pretty, it's just, it's actually the minority of what's provided here.
So just to add some additional color to sort of the existing uses in the area to kind of help show that the three units is not out of character.
um i believe that um miss laletta has been in touch with the council office um i don't know
yeah we got a deferring to the discretion of the zba yeah um i like i said i did share with them
um the letters of support that we received from the individuals who live on the block
in addition to the two um affected rcos as well um you know again the whole goal would be to be
able to really restore this in a manner that keeps in context with the the historical nature
of the property and to be able to provide some what I think is decently sized more affordable
units and to keep this property in the current owner's family so I would like him to Malik
Carter is the owner if he could just put his name and address on the record and then you know happy
to again take any questions the board has and and move on from there. Good morning Mr. Carter
please identify yourself for the record spell your first and last name. Good morning Malik
Carter, M-A-L-I-K-C-A-R-T-E-R. You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, Ms. Pritzker. Malik, have you heard the testimony
that I've given today in front of the board? Yes. Do you believe that it's accurate and do
you adopt it as your own? I do. Is there anything that you would like to add outside of what I've
provided, maybe speak to the support that you've obtained and any additional information that you
feel you'd like to share at this point? Okay, yeah, definitely. Thanks a lot, you know, guys,
for having me today. So, you know, like I said, but, you know, as, you know, being raised in this
property pretty much all my life, my parents bought it the year I was born and I actually
inherited it four years ago. My father passed away and the condition of the property is reflective
in that I didn't have the, I emotionally really couldn't attend to it for the first year.
When I finally did go in, I found out that the house was actually broken into a vandalized
and also there was some pipes were damaged.
So that's where a lot of that water damage came from, right?
So it's really, you know, definitely want to do my best, you know, to keep the property
and my family.
You know, I don't want to really be forced to sell it outside of my family.
And so, like, realistically, the way to really keep it is to make it for, you know, the three units.
I do appreciate, you know, Powland Village for willing to work with me in a way and make it, you know, to bring it to two units.
But I do believe that, you know, even that two units, you know, including the basement floor still, you know, about, you know, 2,000 square foot apartments, which make the apartments, you know, very huge.
And, you know, my goal is not really to provide essentially more student housing.
You know, my life is honestly 100% different because I was raised on that side of Spring
Garden Street.
And so I really want to provide, you know, housing opportunities for other people that
may want to actually stay in the area. And by providing larger units, then there's no way that
people in the area that live in the area will be able to afford them at that size. So, you know,
that's my reasoning. I'll be glad to take any more questions. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the
board? No. No. Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, I have Deborah. Deborah, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Deborah McCarty? Yes. Please identify yourself with a record, first and last name, spell your
last name and give us your address, please. Good morning. My name is Debra McCarty, MCC-ARTY.
I live at 3608 Hamilton Street, and I'm here on behalf of the Pound Village Civic Association,
co-chair of the zoning committee. Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, Debra.
um can i proceed yes please okay sorry um so we did hold a rcme
Yes, please.
Okay, sorry.
So we did hold a RCO meeting and the consensus was to oppose, but we really, you know, are sympathetic to Mr. Carter's desires and we wanted to work with him and work toward a compromise.
But despite a few entreaties to Ms. Pritzer, we finally heard back that that was not going to be viable, as you've heard.
You know, homeownership or owner-occupied properties in this neighborhood are dwindling and we're struggling with, you know, keeping owner-occupied properties in our neighborhood.
And, you know, dividing this into three units really precludes, you know, any future of an owner-occupant in our opinion.
And I should note that the nine folks who signed the letters that were subsequently provided, only two of those people are homeowners.
Everyone else is in a rental property.
The homeowners reside at 3300 Hamilton Street, 416 North 33rd Street.
But none of those folks attended the RCO meeting.
Not clear why.
Additionally, DAPA did not attend the RCO meeting.
And Mount Vernon Manor is not a civic association.
They are CDC, and they are not an RCO, and we were not aware of either of those letters
of support until today.
So the issue of affordable housing, we very much would love for these to be affordable
units.
There's definitely a need, which is one of the reasons we were so anxious to work with
Mr. Carter.
But I have to say that what that is, it's a pretty broad term, and it's never really been defined what level of affordable housing these units would be.
Is it 60% of AMI, 40%?
That's never been defined.
So, you know, overall, we are unfortunately in opposition to three units, but would be happy to compromise and work towards something with two units.
And that concludes what I have to say. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you for your testimony.
Initially, I was thinking of the two units, but looking at the size of the building, and I think Mr. Carter did raise an interesting issue.
if you limit it to two issues you're going to have some huge apartments there which could
eventually turn into not there's anything wrong with students but could be turned into student
housing typically I would say I probably would agree with the two units but a couple thousand
square foot units are going to be I mean could work against what you're trying to maintain in
that community that that's just my opinion that Mr. Chair that was also we did look at and I
apologize for not getting back to Deborah sooner. I did reach out to her and say, hey, listen, I
needed to get in touch with the client. And I was having, you know, a little back and forth with
them and didn't want to, you know, overshoot the mark with giving her feedback when I had needed
to have some additional conversations, specifically asking him to make sure that we spoke with the
architect about the size of the two units and things of that nature, and also to run some of
the numbers to see. I think the reason we were hesitant about giving information on affordability
was because until he really gets in there, given the damage that's there, we needed to be able to
consider all the cost of restoring it before we gave an answer. And I didn't want to mislead the
RCO to give a number that we weren't really sure of until we get in there. So I think either way,
the thought was, you know, to have smaller units, given how large the building is, you know, and
also to, you know, make sure that we're able to restore it with some integrity and some quality,
given kind of how much damage is there so um from the photos it appears to me it's going to be a
total rehab it looks the way i can see it yeah he'll try to save as much as he can but yeah yeah
and i understand the push and pull from the the community i understand uh miss mccarty's concern
again my concern would be limiting it limiting limiting it to two units uh might actually work
against what the community is trying to protect that's just my opinion so okay thank you anyone
else like to testify in this case yes chair we have a mr george good morning mr george
Good morning, Mr. George. Please identify yourself with a record, first and last name, and provide us with your address.
please identify yourself with a record first and last name
Good morning. My name is George Poulin, P-O-U-L-I-N, and I reside at 3502 Hamilton Street.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Is that within 250 feet of this property, Mr. George?
I don't know the exact distance.
And yes, I do intend to tell the truth.
I just would like to know if that's within 250 feet of the property before we proceed.
I think it's a little far from...
Yeah, I was going to ask how far that is.
How many blocks away, roughly, sir?
It's about a block and a half.
Okay, please proceed.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I just want to kind of affirm Debra's testimony and offer a little bit of context.
So I do serve on the zoning committee of the Palton Village Civic Association and was chair of the zoning committee in 2010 when 429 North 33rd Street did receive a variance for two units.
And at that time, we were similarly supportive of the variance for two units.
the developer came to us with a three-unit project, and through our conversations with them,
they were able to compromise on a two-unit solution, which seemed like both a win for the community
and also for the developer. And we've had no, it's a similar size property, and we've had no
issues with that property since. I also just want to add a little bit of context to say that
The zoning committee's decisions are not, you know, they're not done in a vacuum, right?
There's a couple considerations.
One is our own master plan, which we use and follow to look at strategic blocks where we encourage density
and other blocks where we work hard to make sure that the zoning, single-family zoning
or two-unit zoning, as much of the neighborhood is, is preserved. And so within the last several
years, the community has actually supported several thousand units of new dense development
in very strategic locations. We don't think this location, which really is at the heart
of the neighborhood, is appropriate for that three-unit use. And the other thing I'll just
add is and i appreciate mr carter and and miss pritzker's presentation i'm very cognizant of the
affordability issue um but in in looking at the layouts of the units um there's you know clearly
there there's opportunity to to design those in such a way that um provide uh viable and um well
laid out um you know two units um for instance um when you enter the first floor there's there's a
bedroom facing the front of the building typically we like we like eyes on the streets are you an
architect yes that's correct i i am okay um we like eyes on the streets with living rooms facing
the front and um uh and you know bedrooms that are you know um slightly slightly larger than
those shown in the plan so i just wanted to offer a different um uh kind of perspective and um and
again reaffirm that uh we'd love to work with mr carter for a two-unit solution that that hopefully
meets both his needs but also the the community's concerns about um setting a precedent for uh
conversion of of single-family housing stock in the the middle of the neighborhood so thank you
thank you miss pritchard it sounds like there's an uh some of the they're extending their hand
that continued this conversation yeah i mean i think that um to your point um we'd be happy to
have another conversation but if they're stuck on two units and we're at three units um maybe
we have another meeting and get those from that live on the block to try to show up to that
meeting um i don't know how there's no like a two and a half unit option so um um if the board
can i just be real quick i'm sorry uh rachel sure so um so as someone growing up on that block
the house 429 I think it is like those houses they don't in the daytime they look fine and
it's a great compromise at nighttime those houses turn to party houses when I used to come outside
there would be red cups littered my steps I might there would be a drunk student on my porch
All right, Mr. Carter, I understand that, and no disrespect to cut you short, but I think there's an opportunity to have further conversation.
I don't know if we'll be able to resolve the issues on either side, but you heard my statement.
the issues on both either side but you heard my statement I think you care to the community be
I think you...
careful what you wish for in terms of the size of of one of the units or both of the units if
you limit it to two but it may it may warrant further conversation. I think that I would agree
with the chairman and we would be happy to continue this to have some additional conversations if we
can't get anywhere we'll provide that information to the board but at least I think we'll take the
opportunity to engage in some additional conversations and i did have some concern
about the three-bedroom unit especially that when you come in the first floor i think mr poland
brought that out as well but i'm not going to redesign the building for you that's
we'll certainly take a look at that i think that's please do all right appropriate yep so uh
planning commission
thank you chair chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change in this location to RM1, and so the variance use would conform to the proposed zoning district.
The proposed use is also consistent with documented previous uses on the property, and so the City Planning Commission would recommend that the Zoning Board grant this variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002567.
419 north 33rd street this hearing will be resumed do we have a date tanya or lakeisha
april 7th at 9 30. this hearing will be resumed on april
what was that 7th 7th at 9 30 a.m at which time the board will consider any feedback related to
the rco and the council person's uh council person's position thank you thank you very
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Allow you, Eubectra.
Frank, you're muted.
MI 2020-000316, 4416 Germantown Avenue.
no hands chair no hands no exhibits this was previously listed so mi 2020-000
316 4416 germantown avenue my vote is to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss
Thank you. MI2020-0006684951 North 5th Street, number 5, 5th Street.
Chair, this is Sharon Saleta. We have no exhibits and this is the third listing.
okay just want to check again four nine excuse me four nine five one north fifth street
no hands are up we had a um charles richardson hold on mr richardson uh this case has been
previously listed on two occasions on november the third we call we had a must be heard no one
is here. My vote is to dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Okay, Mr. Richardson. That's fine,
Mr. Chair. I want to ask for that as well. Thank you. All right. MI 2020, that's 002-527-537
in the league street mr perry mr perry is coming back in as a panelist
good morning mr perry please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in
okay thank you roger perry 734 south 4th street i'm i'm here uh you're swearing the firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed mr perry you
agree to waste the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Also, have
you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax
compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes,
we have. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we have a letter from the RCO and
petitions from the neighbors. Please proceed. Okay, can you see my screen? I shared it.
Please proceed.
Can you see my screen?
I shared it.
No, not yet, Mr. Perry.
Now that's coming up.
So I have a, I've shared my screen with you, and this is the package of materials that's
been previously supplied to the board, and I'm sharing with you today.
I represent the owner, who's Susanna Del Rio.
She's the owner of this property at 537 League Street.
It's immediately adjacent to her house.
As we can see from the deed, this property is approximately 14 by 23 feet.
It would be very small to be suitable for any kind of construction.
She has requested that this be used as a parking space ancillary to her house, and she lives at 535 League Street.
two of the reasons that are important for that both the RCO and the board to consider
is that she works when she is working they're laid off now but she works shift work for American
Airlines at the airport and is often coming home in the wee hours of the early morning
and to park you know down in that neighborhood other than next to her house is potentially
dangerous. She is also a caretaker for her mother who lives in Center City and her mother is
partially disabled and so she uses the parking space to transport her mother to her house when
she visits immediately adjacent because her mother is not able to walk or travel from anywhere
regardless of the weather. Let's see what else we've got here. Okay, this is the deed.
This is a notice of the refusal indicating that this is a single-family RSA-5 attached to the project information sheet.
The notice was sent out to all the neighbors.
There was a 191 neighbors.
There was a meeting with Queen Village Neighbors Association.
There's a tax clearance certificate attached.
and here's the plans. This is a request and I've submitted a change form to Ms. Saleto
to add this to show that we've requested a six-foot gate that the RCO, Queen Village
Neighbors Association, requested at the front of the parking space. So this would be a one-car
parking space on this small 14 by 23 foot lot immediately adjacent to her house which is here.
We have a letter of support upon a meeting with the Queen Village Neighbors Association,
which attaches Exhibit F to the package of materials.
And we've also attached a variety of photos showing where this space is, her house.
This is where the car would be.
This is her car, 537 League Street.
We posted the property with a notice.
These are other adjacent properties within the block of her house that have similar adjacent parking spaces here, here.
League Street is just sort of a dead end here where it connects with an adjacent street.
I think there's only three houses on this particular block of League Street.
But the neighbors on Fairhill Street, which this ties into, and as to League Street, have signed a petition in support of this particular application to use it as an ancillary parking space.
So we've submitted the change form.
We would ask that there be a proviso that the plan be stamped, which includes the gate that was requested by Queen Village Neighbors Association.
I can answer questions by the board if they have any.
Do you have a client with you?
I don't know if she's on.
She said that she was going to sign in.
She's not with me.
I meant to say signing in.
Your client's name?
Susanna Del Rio.
Del Rio, if you're there, please raise your hand.
And while we're waiting, Mr. Perry, how many?
Two pages of revised plans?
Actually, there's three, but two pages, I guess we submitted.
All right, Mr. Parley, you were saying?
I'm saying, I think exhibit E is actually, let me see.
We submitted two pages, but there is, I think, a third page.
Yes, there is a third page, just a reflection of the gate again.
Yes, there is a third page. It's just a reflection of the gate again.
So there are three pages that we've submitted. Okay. All right.
I didn't hear if Ms. Del Rio was there. Yes, I believe she signed in under your name. She
just had to unmute herself. Good morning. I'm here. Please identify yourself with the
record and spell your full name? Hi, my name is Susana Del Rio. My last name is D-E-L space R-I-O
and I live in 535 League Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19147. You swear and affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you. Mr. Perry? Yeah,
Ms. Del Rio, were you able to hear my statement of the conditions there and the facts that I
related to the board yes i was okay uh are they true and correct and would you adapt those uh
as your own testimony if so asked yes thank you questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
no more hands chair thank you planning commission thank you chair chico eden heggerty for the
philadelphia city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no changes to
the existing residential single family zoning on this lot however it's clear the applicant's
property is uniquely shallow and the proposed variance would legalize a non-conforming use which
has not caused significant negative impacts to neighbors.
And so the City Planning Commission recommends
that the zoning board approve the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-00.
Excuse me, Chair.
Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but before you vote,
you submitted two plan, two pages of plans, not three.
Yeah, Exhibit E is apparently, I see a three page.
do you want me to resend the three pages is is it absolutely necessary to have the third page
the third page is not necessary okay then we'll stay with the two pages thank you thank you
okay mi 2020-002527 537 league street my vote is yes with the proviso revised plans two pages
approved today. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Thank you. MI 2020-002573. Thank
you. Thank you. 581 Geneva Avenue. We have Vern. Good morning, Mr.
Mr. Anastasio, please identify yourself for the record, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Vern Anastasio, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, PA, 19107.
And Anastasio is A-N-A, S-T-A, S-I-O.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Affirm, are you looking to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, sir.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen.
All right.
581 Geneva Avenue. This application is for multi-family household living, three-family
dwelling in an existing structure. This is a very unique property, as you'll see. It's
a corner property. It has three separate, actually four separate entrances, one in the
rear, two on the side. This already has more than one electric meter. I'm going to pull out a little
bit here. That's the front door on Geneva itself. These are the roll-down gates that it used to be
commercial space on the first floor there's the rear entrance backyard side two doors again
and there's additional space there's an entrance over here to the left that goes to the second
floor there's of course an entrance to the first floor on the side and there's the rear entrance
on the side. And there's the rear entrance to the third floor as I showed you. Here are some interior
to the third floor.
photos. It's been empty for quite some time. I spoke to the immediate neighbor right next door
and they said it's been empty for years. It's been a dark corner attracting
you know uh folks that shouldn't be hanging out on that corner also uh it's a source of trash
uh litter uh snow doesn't get uh shoveled nor does ice get removed so they are looking forward
to my client um now that he owns it uh rehabbing it we've got three units all of ample size
765 square foot on the ground level. Above that it's another 726 square foot on the second and at
the top 596. I think it's important to note as I showed you in the photos there are two side doors.
one of the doors will be an access to the ground floor apartment the other door however is going
to be for a separate common area so that all three tenants can store their trash it'll also
be a place for washer or dryer hookups as well so there is a comprehensive trash plant uh he's
you know the design is well thought out in that regard let me take a take you down
we met with the 40 the new 42nd ward rco
here's a copy of the flyer that was mailed
let me have our deed
and we met with the 42nd ward it was a letter of support it was unanimous
i have a tax certification i also have a certificate of mailing 169 properties were mailed
and um again uh i think a general consensus was folks are just happy that this is going to be
finally rehabilitated and brought back to life given the history of the property and given the
unique conditions of the property uh we respectfully request granting of this variance
and with that i i'd like to uh have pedro my uh client please raise his hand
pedro segura yes he can unmute himself mr segura please identify yourself with the record spell
your full name uh yeah this is pedro segura uh s-e-g-u-r-a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes sir thank you mr anastasio thank you mr chair
Mr. Sigour, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony if need be?
Thank you.
I have nothing else, sir.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, we have Ms. Hillary.
Good morning again, Ms. Emerson.
you're still under oath from earlier yes good morning Mr. Chair members of the board um the
councilman does not oppose the requested variance for three units at this property um this property
has a history of already being uh separate units as Mr. Anastasia noted with the commercial on the
ground floor um it is a large above grade um property with separate entrances um so we believe
that three units would be appropriate at this site. The community that attended the meeting
did support with provisos, the provisos they recommended and we support our certificate
occupancy prior to occupancy and exterior lighting was discussed and Mr. Anastasio alluded to the
dark nature of the corner. And then the last proviso, which we'd recommend to just confirm
what was already planned was interior trash storage so that any future owners wouldn't
be storing trash outside of the building.
Thank you. And the first provisor, was that the CO?
Thank you. And the first proviso, was that the CO?
The CO, yes.
The CO, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else like to...
We, of course, agree to all of that, by the way.
Okay, I'll put that in as a proviso.
Anyone else like to testify?
No more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair DeChico.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing residential single-family zoning at this site.
We recognize the existing building is not built as a typical single-family dwelling.
However, the documented prior legal use of the property is for one commercial space and
one dwelling, and we therefore argue that the variance does not represent the minimum
variance necessary to afford relief.
We recommend that the zoning board grant the variance with the condition that the use be
limited to two dwelling units.
Thank you.
Mr. Anishazzo?
Just that there are already three separate entrances and to have one large unit, the bi-level unit, we think could pose problems with overcrowding too many bedrooms and runs the risk of end up being more of a rooming house than distinct apartments.
these are minimum 600 square feet and they are approachable price points for people in the
community it was okay the proposal was vetted pretty pretty carefully thank you mi 2020 does
000634 6756 guyer avenue my vote is yes with the following proviso certificate of occupancy to be
obtained within the nine-month period and trash in all units to be stored inside.
Mr. Chairman, that's a significant rehabilitation of the property. We may not be able to meet the
nine-month period goal. Well, upon completion of the project, the CO would have to be maintained
within nine months. Very well. Excuse me, Chair. This is Sharon Sletta. I believe Ms. Emerson
suggested that it be obtained prior to occupancy would that work
they go to be obtained prior to occupancy thank you okay thank you thank you Sharon
board vote
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso okay thank you Mr. Chairman thank you
Before we go further, Mr. Chairman, I actually have one matter that you called out and you were kind enough to continue.
It's 1925 North 5th Street.
Excuse me, Chair.
I'm sorry to interrupt again, but I just had a text message from Ms. Emerson.
she believes you may have read the last case as Geyer rather than Geneva before you voted.
She's absolutely right. I did read it wrong. Sorry about that. MI 2020-002573
581 Geneva Avenue. My vote is yes with the proviso of trash to be stored inside
all units and certificate of occupancy to be obtained at the time the project is
complete. Was that what it was, Sharon? No, it's certificate of occupancy to be
obtained prior to occupancy. Prior to occupancy. Thank you. So we need another vote on that,
gentlemen yes thank you yes proviso all right let me go to the next one that i made a mistake on mi
2020-000-634-6756 guyer avenue is there anyone here for this case
we only requesting the applicant
sorry say that again we're only requesting the applicants to raise their hand it's the applicant
here no hands at this time chair thank you and this being the third listing and a must be heard
my vote is to dismiss oh dismiss dismiss dismiss okay uh before we go to the first case that we
were putting off to the last uh on the 9 30 list uh two things i think maybe
on the 9 30 list two things I think maybe the court reporter can use a five or ten minute break
so we will come back here at 12 noon and just a word to the applicants and his or his or her
attorneys we understand that this may have some controversy we're not going to go past
45 minutes on this case because we're required to take a break uh staff has to have a break so
bear that in mind we'll be back here at 12 o'clock excuse me mr chairman briefly may i please
i wanted to i just wanted to bring up 1925 north 5th you earlier this morning uh continued the
matter, and I was to request a withdrawal. Okay, so I'll go back on the record. MI 2020-002-563-1925
North 5th is withdrawn. Thank you. Have a good day. 12 o'clock. Be back.
We're recording.
yeah Keisha we ready yes okay we're back on right uh MI 2020-002-446-428-30 West Thompson Street
all right members of the board I got a new webcam hopefully I look a little bit better than before
you look great um please identify yourself and we'll swear you in certainly members of the board
Good afternoon now.
Leo Mulvihill, M-U-L.
He is in Victor, I-I-L-L.
Address is now 1441 East Oxford Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19125.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Always.
Thank you.
Confessor?
I believe this is our resumption here, is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay, may proceed.
Members of the board, I just texted my client, so they weren't waiting on the line all morning.
They may be joining in a moment.
We'll be Chris Stefano and Marnie Drames.
That's C-R-I-S, capital D-E-F-I-N as in Nancy O, and Marnie is spelled M as in Mary, A-R-N as in Nancy I, and last name is capital D-R-A-M as in Mary E-S.
Leo, if you can just increase the volume a little bit.
i'm trying you know this there you know that's good that's good there we go great i got this
so members of the board last time we had some technical difficulties here's my packet
um this is a contested hearing and i don't want to waste everyone's time with
the continuing uh going over everything but last time we had a couple questions
chairman i believe from you specifically regarding um what we had with respect to
spiral stairs and sun studies and all this stuff so here's what we're going to do i'm just going
to go right to the plans because we have all the other stuff here has been submitted I incorporated
into the record by virtue of reference there's a long history with the RCO which held a vote
without us present after making us wait half an hour after rescheduling a thing without notice
that doesn't matter photos I've already shown members of the board so I'm getting now to the
end of my packet for purposes of the record for the packet that I submitted members of the board
just confirm you can see currently what I am showing on my screen single page all right I'm
going to get rid of myself I'm going to keep myself around so members for purposes of the
record we're looking at page I believe it's 80 of my packet and this is a revised plan um more or
less that's been submitted along with the proviso sheet to Ms. Saleta uh we're proposing just to
remind the board 40 foot tall single family home in a single family district in an irregularly
shaped plot. Won't belabor that point. Chairman, you asked last time about a sun study and about
spiral stairs. So let's just cut to the chase there. Where are we here? So here's our sun study
first. So this is our proposal, 40 foot tall building with no parapet. That's what we are
asking for because members of the board, as I belabored last time, if we did a 38 foot tall
building with a solid parapet, we're actually taller and are putting more shadow and matching
over everybody. So we're not doing that here. So what we have here is a sun study. I've submitted
to opposing counsel. I've received no questions from opposing counsel about that. So here we go
at the top. We have to the upper left, pardon me, for purposes of the record, this is page
88, 87, 88. I can't see. There we go. 88. So at the top left, 621, June 21st, 10 a.m. That's what
the shadows look like no one's house is in shadow 6 21 you know that's summer solstice 12 p.m no
12 p.m., no one's house is in shadow.
one's house is in shadow 6 21 2 p.m
6.21, 2 p.m., no one's house is in shadow,
except for maybe a little bit of the rear yard of the protestant neighbor.
But guess what?
Members of the board, that shadow would be taller if we did any of the following,
which was suggested, namely put a parapet wall up, put an exterior pilot house.
It would just make the building taller, and then their entire backyard would be in shadow.
To the very bottom of this, we have during the summer, pardon, winter solstice.
So this is what it looks like at 10 a.m., bottom left. You see that? Yeah, we got shadows. 12, 21, 12 p.m., yeah, shadows across the street, potentially on the front windows of the neighbors across to the north along Master Street.
And then 2 p.m., 12, 21, you see what the shadows look like. Again, this has all been submitted to opposing counsel. I have no questions received from them.
And just for purposes of the record, now we're looking at page 89 of the Sun Study, and that's
what it looks like if we had the 38-foot tall building with a parapet, which would bring the
massing to 41 feet 6 inches, which is taller than what we were proposing before. The shadows no
longer, everyone's in greater darkness. So by asking for the 40 foot, what we're actually doing
is decreasing the amount of shadows, which was a matter that was brought up before. What I also
have here chair. I thought I submitted it in this packet, but I can't find it. Oh, right,
to chair, what we have here, because you asked at length about whether we could put a spiral
staircase. So I'm looking at page 84 of our packet. So the question was, can we reduce this
variance? And the answer, chair, is no, because while you suggest that perhaps a three-foot
diameter spiral staircase was something we could do, legally we cannot, it's not up to code.
And if we were to take back and set back the roof deck from the all sides, and remember, chair, this is only a roof deck for access to the stairs.
It could maybe fit a set of patio furniture, like a cafe table and two chairs.
That's what we look at.
And you see the red dotted lines that are to the upper left.
They run parallel to the building that we're proposing, parallel to the lot lines.
That's what we would have to set back, the dashed line for the purpose of the record.
that's what we'd have to set back to be in compliance with the code and then that circle
that red dashed circle that's chair a compliant legal staircase can't fit to be hanging over the
edge it's unsafe and against regulations we just simply can't do it so we wanted to make sure that
we gave you the visuals you understood where we were coming from here which is why we suggested
instead having the small deck for access from where I'm indicating now with my cursor these
sliding doors coming out going up the stairs and I believe Mr. Holloman also asked about that
as well. Mr. Holloman also, if I recall, asked whether we could put a pilot house somewhere to
the rear by the kitchen or maybe over here by the stairs. But again, we can't put a pilot house here
by the stairs without generating an additional refusal because it's not set back five feet
and it makes it taller. And we can't put it back here really because again, it's going to make it
taller. There's not really a space to put the stairs. We'd lose a ton of interior square footage.
I guess in theory, we could take the entire massing of the building out of the property
line, but then that increases the massing on the street, which is something the neighbors were
opposed to. So we've really done everything we can to try to accommodate the neighbors.
Before I call any witnesses, because I'm waiting for my client to come on the line, I think it's
fair at this point to address any concerns the board might have, additional comments now,
based on what I've just said, because we tried to address the board's comments.
Oh, members of the board, before we do that, one last thing. We did receive a refusal,
as you recall, for side yard, and that had to do with this. So now referring to page
80. I believe it's page 80 at least. Yep, 80. So there's a lot of hubbub made by the RCO and by
the adjacent neighbors about this easement. And the fact that we originally had this section right
here, I'm indicating it's the bottom right of my screen with my cursor. We originally just
continued this easement straight through. So we changed that to get rid of a refusal for a side
yard. So now there was an elevator shaft here. We pushed that back. So now we're right up against
the property line and our building hugs the easement. So we've eliminated the side yard
refusal. We've actually eliminated the refusal by listening to the neighbors. I believe that
Mr. McElhatton's client wants us to push everything back five feet from the property line,
which would then push us back here. That's going to generate additional refusals for side yard
because we cannot legally build in this alley
because the adjacent property owners have rights to it.
And we would have to go back and get an additional refusal
and a revised refusal from LNI, and we don't want to do that.
We're trying to help the neighbors out.
My clients tried to speak with the neighbors uncounseled.
That didn't work.
They then hired counsel.
And then hired counsel. Counsel has refused to give me any specific objections and any citations to code, whether zoning or the law, in terms of statutes or case law of any sort, to substantiate their positions here that that's what they want.
Counsel has refused to give me any specific objections
and any citations.
So we've come, we've talked to the neighbors, we did our best. We've reduced refusals now. We've indicated to the board exactly why we're looking, what we're trying to do to reduce the overall numbers and variances here.
that's what we've done now with this revised plan um uh is chris tofino on the line right now i just
can't see who's currently calling let's see i'm taking a look right now chris if you are on the
line please raise your hand it doesn't look like chris is on the line unfortunately chris is chris
tofino is my client so is martin right okay and this is our primary residence they'll be living
at this property all right and uh while we're waiting uh questions from the board no no no
now members of the board as my client isn't here yet what i'd like and he's here
yes we're here oh great there you are guys hi chris uh just wait uh state both of you state
your name spell your last name and please give your address for the record and then the chair
will swear you in thank you leo i am chris stefino my last name is d e f like frank i n o and we own
the property at 428-30 west thompson street thank you marnie dreams hello hold on one at a time
please do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you next next person marnie dreams d-r-a-m-e-s you swear and affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you uh yeah chris i'll just ask you and
marnie i'm gonna ask uh uh chris to speak for you just so we don't have a confused record
uh chris do you have an authority to speak for marnie today yes i do marnie your spouse
yes okay uh you've heard what i've had to say today uh today regarding the plans for your house
your home at this property? Yes. And we discussed at length the reasons that we've made these
amendments to this to reduce refusals. Is that fair to say? Yes. Okay. A couple more questions.
Did you try to speak to the neighbor who has objections to this without counsel involved?
Yes. What happened when you tried to do that? We reached out and we didn't hear from them for
about a week, and then they did reply via a text, and they said they'd rather not discuss.
Okay, and then as far as you understand, they hired counsel?
Okay. Now, otherwise, you've heard everything I'd say in this case, both today and at the
prior hearing, which I am incorporating by reference.
Okay, and everything I said is true, correct, and accurate to the best of your knowledge, right?
Okay, do you have anything else you'd like to add at this point?
no i just want to reiterate that marnie and i are decent people and we will be no matter what
what the outcome so thank you and members of the board i just suggest you i've represented them for
many years and some of my favorite clients now as part of my case in chief i'd like to call the
protest and she's on the line uh as in as for cross
good afternoon mr mckelhatton no not mr mckelhatton the actual client herself oh i'm sorry i
misunderstood you. That's okay. I believe her name's Rachel. I don't recall her last name. I'm
sorry. Jessica. Jessica. I always want to call her Rachel and I keep calling her Rachel and
that's wrong. It's Jessica. My apologies, Jessica. Chairman, would you mind swearing in the witness
please. I don't have Jessica. Is Jessica on the line? Is Mr. McElhatton on the line?
Okay I have a Jessica Rodriguez. Yes that's Jessica Rodriguez thank you. Good afternoon
Ms. Rodriguez please identify yourself with a record spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
um i just before i testify i just have a question may i ask a question no you don't ask questions
yet you know you uh first i gotta swear you in okay so yes go ahead uh your address 1244
north lorence street you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you mr mobile hill yes now jessica uh before i start asking your questions is your
attorney on the line? I don't see him. Yes, he is on the line. Okay, so Mr. McElhatton, understand
that your witness is being called on cross if you wish, and can we get him promoted to panelists
so he may object if he wishes to? That's what I wanted to ask, yeah. Of course, I'm not trying
to do anything shady here. Being promoted to panelists now. I'm here. Thank you. Mr. McElhatton,
i have not mr mckelhatton just identify yourself with the record spell your last name and i'll
just identify yourself with the record, spell your last name.
swear you in daniel p mckelhatton mc capital e l h a t t o n you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr mobile hill okay mr mckelhatton i just
wanted to make sure you were promoted so that if you want to object um please do so what one of my
questions face the objection on the records with citations and rules of evidence for purposes of
clarity. I'm sorry. I didn't understand what that was. Okay. So when I cross-examine your witness,
your client, because I've called her in my case-in-chief on cross, if you've wished to make
an objection, because I need a perfect record in this case, I wish for you to do the following.
Say objection. I will stop talking. State the basis for your objection with including citations
to the rules of evidence so that we can ensure that this record is absolutely clear. Is that
okay? Is that fair? You can do whatever you want to do. If I put an objection on the record,
it's up to the chair to decide whether the objection is relevant or not. So I don't have
to follow your instructions, Mr. Mulvihill, and I will follow the instructions of the chair.
This is not a courtroom. This is an administrative agency and administrative proceeding.
Excuse me for one minute. This is Sharon Saleta. Just to clarify that the formal
rules of evidence do not apply to administrative hearings understood um i just want to make sure
for purposes of the record that we have a perfect record uh in case we have to go to a different
higher court in this matter um i just had to stand up so i can grab my pa e um for references in case
there is some sort of rejection made and then i can make my argument as well so um ms rodriguez
we you just live directly let me get actually the sun study okay ms rodriguez are you on so you can
see the pictures? Yes. Okay, so I'm now referring to, for the purpose of the record, you see that,
right? I'm sorry, this SUN study, was that submitted to the RCO, Mr. Mulvihill? I'm sorry,
Mr. McElhatton, would you please direct your objections to the chair? I am not the chair,
I don't make these decisions. Mr. Mulvihill, was this study presented to the RCO? Yes,
they received a copy. And was the revised plan that you mentioned submitted to the RCO?
if you would please direct your question yeah i'm going to ask it was the revised plan submitted to
the rco it was and when was that they received a copy of it as soon as it came to my hands it was
copied in the same email if i recall correctly to ms suletta to mr macklehaddon and to ms ann moss
of the rco which is old kensington neighbors association if the chair wishes i can pull up
the email but i don't believe that's necessary i hope you accept my word i just would like when
was that when did that occur um it occurred when did that occur i can check my email but
ms zuletta if you have sharon if you have it someone just give us a time i'm looking for
timing on this yeah they've sure it's going to take me a minute to find it all right take your
time if i may in the meantime continue the question yeah let's let's move forward and then we'll get
back to your questions mr mckelhan sure so ms rodriguez you live in the corner property that's
located approximately uh here where i'm indicating my curse the upper right hand page of uh page
88 is that fair to say this is your backyard so i don't live in a corner property i live
okay so it's a simple yes or no question where i'm indicating right here
no no this is not you so this is the first one in right which is 100% lot coverage you're right
south of that you're one house south correct correct okay great let's start from there
So you see this.
I'm showing you 621, 10 a.m., upper left-hand side.
You see this, right?
You see the shadows that are cast, right?
Because the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Fair to say?
Oh, so at 10 a.m., your entire backyard is already in shadow because of your house.
Fair to say?
12 p.m., that's the middle picture in the top.
This is what it looks like according to the sun study.
Basically, half of your yard, maybe a little bit less than half, is in shade because of your house, correct?
Or because of the houses directly adjacent to you, correct?
So is half of my house in shade because the house is next to me?
I wouldn't know.
That's not my question.
So listen to my question.
Just answer it yes or no.
This is your rear yard.
Is that fair to say where I'm indicating with my person?
No, that's not my rear yard.
we are. So this is, this is the a hundred percent lock coverage house right here. I'm indicating
along Thompson street, right? So that is not my house right there. So I don't live on, excuse me,
I'm sorry, Mr. Mulville. I don't mean to cut you off. I apologize. It's okay. You, you answer the
questions and I ask them and your attorney can ask you whatever questions they want when they're
done. You do not live on this first property in the second one down the second one. Yes. So this
Yes. So this is the first property here where I'm indicating with my cursor. You see that?
is the first property here when indicating with my cursor. You see that? Right.
Right. So this is the second property down, which is you, right?
Correct.
Okay. So where I'm indicating with my cursor here, this is your rear yard, fair to say.
Again, if you could move down just downwards towards your keyboard.
No, let me just zoom in.
Okay, great.
So these are the property ones, right?
Right. This, that looks like a Tetris piece. This is your rear yard.
part of it's black part of it's white it's like a square yin-yang almost right so again that's not
my rear yard i am one house so this corner is located on the southwest hold on one at a time
ma'am leo like she's saying it's not her house so chairman chairman respectfully mr mckelhaddon
has the opportunity to rehabilitate his witness on direct examination this is i know but i'm asking
what for clarity uh-huh she's saying it's not her house i'm asking what where is her house
chair i as an offer of proof this is a corner property which we previously discussed at the
last hearing and i can show the overhead zoning maps there's 100 lot coverage it's the first
house in the corner of master right here and then i can't recall the name of the street
ms rodriguez i'm sorry and again i'm sorry um mr mulville so the the house that you represented
is 428.
Miss, I did not ask a question.
Miss, I didn't ask you a question.
Here we go again.
Okay, one at a time,
the stenographer is not able
to get an accurate testimony.
So please-
You can direct the witness
only to answer
when I've asked a question.
I know, but I asked a question.
I'm still waiting for the answer.
Where is her house?
She's claiming that it's not her house.
So let me ask that question.
Miss Rodriguez,
you see that red square I just drew
along the property lines?
is you gonna meet yourself yes see that okay that's your that's your backyard and your house
and your property lines right no you have to move over over already so i would say on your keyboard
mr mobile to move your cursor down towards your keyboard okay so you want you want it to be here
where these structures are a little bit further down because my property where and i'm this is
just for the record. And I, you know, take this seriously, my oath. I'm covered currently. So,
so there we go. Yes. Number three. Number three. You're number three. Okay. So members of the
board, I'm sorry, I'm going to clear this. Purpose of the record, we're looking at page 88.
Some study 621-12pm. Ms. Rodriguez, it's your testimony right now that you are number three,
which is essentially at the very rear property line of my client, which as you can see,
has no bearing on this easement that you claim to have access to.
So, I, no, I'm going to correct.
It's two and three, two and three.
Okay, so I'm going to clear this drawing, members of the board,
and we're going to go to the actual red shot.
I'm sorry we have to do this.
Ms. Rodriguez, I'm now going to what has been submitted previously
as page 11 of my packet.
Okay, this is the screen,
I can assert to the board as an officer of the court.
okay this is the overhead shot of the property which was taken by me
at philadelphia atlas ms rodriguez you see that blue pin
yes that's my client's property right yes 1246 that's the property on the corner that i've been
talking about that is not you right correct 1244 that's you right yes okay the easement that we've
talking about, runs perpendicular from Thompson Street, right? Yes. Okay, and it extends towards
your backyard, about 23 feet from Thompson Street, correct? No. No, okay. So how far does it extend,
do you know? Yes, so it is 21, the easement is 21 feet long. Okay. And it is three feet wide.
okay of the 21 feet uh-huh um there's a portion that is directly behind my yard okay great so
it's 21 feet you wouldn't say 21 is about 23 so maybe I got a couple feet off all right that's
fine we'll get back to that you actually you say yes and no so that's what I'm doing yeah it's fine
it's okay listen we're not enemies here I want to help my clients be your neighbors okay that's
what i want to good perfect so here we are 21 you're right 21 feet so this is that corner
property with 100 lot coverage indicating for the record page 80 we are looking at z1 and we're
looking at that corner property with 100 lot coverage the upper right hand side of my screen
miss rodriguez do you agree with what i just said yes sir okay this so this this is the property
yes sir hey this so this this is the property line north property line which extends
line, North property line, which extends.
uh eastwardly and then south property line which extends eastwardly which is also your
property line right correct okay and this is the alley we were talking about three feet wide
21 feet long right yes oh this line right here fair to say this represents your south property
line, right? Yes. So you have rights to this easement to access it, correct? Yes. Oh, so we
all agree on that. Now let us go back to the SUN study, please. Okay, I just want to make sure we
all are on the same page, Ms. Rodriguez. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm just trying to make sure
we're clear. So now getting back to the 12 p.m. that I was talking about before, because it was
a little confusing, I think, without us getting to this photo. So this, see these property lines
here that I'm indicating with my cursor, Ms. Rodriguez? Yes. This is the property just to the
north of you with 100% lot coverage, dare to say? The two boxes? So if everybody sees how the two
boxes, yes. I'm only asking in one box. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to draw a square,
maybe. Yeah, cool. Here we go. Yes, right here. That's the property to the north of you, correct?
It's right next door? Part of the property. It's in red. Yeah, it's not the whole thing,
but that's like the property line i would say that's not the part of the proper line the property
line that goes okay great okay so miss what i'm doing now is i'm just doing three different colors
it's gonna be rgb by green blue cool so the red that's your neighbor right that's a neighbor to
the north yes that's part of their property yeah the green that's you right no again okay
no i'm not trying to argue with you mr mobile are you further it's okay further down
so what it is so thank you um mr de chico so the the house so so their house like you know
this is a real house right so your house with an extension extended shed you could say and it has
an a roof so i guess because this was taken from the top they're making the a roof like two
to um squares so it's the two squares so the red and the green is the size of the um 1246
north lawrence street okay miss miss rodriguez how how wide your property do you know
um off the top of my head no yeah but would it make sense if i told you about 14 15 feet wide
i actually think um i've studied that i actually am a little bit of a historian
my house happens to be a little bit wider than um than the other houses on this block members of
the board i don't want to believe you're the point but we'll just let this go at this point
i don't need to pull up atlas we can take judicial notice whatever ms rodriguez deed says i'm sure
it's public record we can look it up later but we don't have to do that for purposes today's
here now ms rodriguez i'm zooming in oh no i'm just gonna be this blue area this is the easement
you're talking about, right? Yes. Okay. Remember the pictures that I showed you earlier of the
overhead shot? I do. Yes, you did show it briefly. Right. So remember how your property was about
here on that overhead shot and then the other properties of the Southview also had access to
the Seasmoor. Remember that? So again, I'm not 1246. I'm 1244. It's only here. Okay. I'm not asking
you to elaborate I'm just asking whether you remember what I showed you I would say no you
don't remember no that's not what I'm saying okay it's not her property you point you refer to the
to the wrong property no property south of me has access to the easement do you have their deed
um I've seen it yes I've paid the money to to read I've read all the deeds okay well that's
area you have a copy of those deeds with you today miss that you can present to the zoning
board as evidence do you it's a simple question no okay good so you've known about this hearing
for a while though right you got notice about it a long time ago objection mr chair where are you
going with this mr mobile well listen if he's testifying about this then then let's testify
about it so 1240 1242 is miss marriguez's house 1244 okay 1244 okay see how there's an a roof
so when he was taking the photo so miss when we talk about a roof are we talking about 1246 or
what are we talking about correct a roof is means i think you yeah yeah i know what a roof is i just
want to make sure we're talking about the same problem so this is you 1244 the second lot in
okay cool so let's let's put all that aside this approximately approximately is the easement area
is that fair to say what i'm indicating with my cursor right yes okay so i was i was mistaken on
and drawing, and that's fine. I accept that. You have access to this easement, right? Yes. Well,
1246, to the best of your knowledge, has access to this easement, correct?
46, to the best of your knowledge, has access to this easement, correct? Correct. My client
Correct.
My client's property also has rights to this easement, correct?
Previously, you objected to the fact that my client's front door can be located in this easement, right?
So I see my concerns.
Yes, it's a yes or no question.
Mr. McElhatton can ask you anything he wants on direct.
It's a yes or no question.
Just answer that.
So I had concerns about the front door being on the easement, correct?
And, you know, in the new plans that I sent your attorney and to Old Kensington Neighbors Association some time ago, we moved that door to Thompson Street, right?
Correct. Yes. I saw that.
So that's no longer a concern of yours, fair to say?
Okay. So I've spoken with Mr. McElhatton, and he's represented to me.
And, you know, tell me this is right. Don't tell me what you talk with him about because it's privilege.
that your objection now is that you want the entirety of my client's property to be set back
five feet from your rear property line, right? Is that correct? I wanted the side yard variance,
correct. That was my concern. As you said, the sun goes east to west. So in the west,
when the even sun, I believe, because it goes east to west, will be overshadowing with it right
on the south of my property.
Ms. Rodriguez, did you receive a copy
of the email I sent to your lawyer
that gave you a sun study tool in addition to?
I do not recall.
Oh, you don't recall.
Mr. Mulvihill, can I interrupt a minute?
I want to make sure I'm clear on this.
The request from Mr. Rodriguez, you said,
was to set back the property line five feet?
Yeah, so my understanding, Chair,
and I'll let Mr. McElhatton clarify
because he hasn't made it clear to me, frankly,
is that we have a three-foot easement here,
which we cannot legally build on.
We initially received a refusal for side yard
only for one moment share
as I annotate this with my computer.
We received a refusal for side yard
only because this area,
we tried to extend this easement
all the way back to the rear yard.
In fact, it's the rear property lines,
rear building lines here.
So all we did, if I may erase that.
So all we did was then take
this used to be also an alley so that my clients could come in through this common easement and
originally enter their front door, which is here, and also use that easement to get into their
backyard. We did because to reduce the refusal, since the Neighborhood Association said there
was too many refusals, and Chair, you actually suggested that we ought to reduce some refusals.
We did just take this area, which was previously open, and bump it out up to the property line,
And so we removed that refusal altogether.
So there's no longer any side yard refusal based on this redesign because we may not build in this easement area, so that is not considered as part of the side yard.
So this is the only amendment that we made to the side yard.
I submit to the court, and I'm not sure whether our architect, Rich, is on right now, and he could testify that, but I ask you to accept my testimony for purposes of expediency.
We removed the side yard refusal by bumping this out.
Now, my understanding, and Mr. McElhatton, I'm sure, will correct me if I'm incorrect.
I'm doing this in pink, members of the board.
This is approximate.
So what Mr. McElhatton wants us to do, or I guess Ms. Rodriguez, via Mr. McElhatton.
So here's our three.
I'll draw around the easement in.
I don't know.
Let's do purple.
You've got to speak up a little bit.
You're starting to muffle.
I'm sorry.
I've had some issues with my throat being very scratchy recently.
I'll do my best. So members of the board, what I've done now for purpose of the record in that
nice like lavender color, that's our easement. We cannot build in that. It's three feet wide,
21 feet long. This blue area is where we amended our drawing and submitted the proviso sheet to
remove the side yard refusal because this was our side yard and that's why we got a refusal.
My understanding of the objector's complaint is that they wish for us to have this pink area be
entirely open area which is set back five feet which would generate an additional refusal
for us and have us have to go back to this to um lni for a revised refusal because what happens
then is this i don't know if this has been explained to the protest and by council this
area that i just highlighted in hunter green this then becomes a two-foot side yard we get a refusal
for that. So we tried to reduce a refusal rather than maintain or increase refusal. So that's where
we are. May I interrupt at this point? No, this is my presentation. Hold on, Mr.
Mulvihill, please. Let's calm down. I'm quite sure. Mr. McElhatton, what is the nature of your
Mr. McElhutton what is the nature of your I just wanted to point out that when the objection is for
I just wanted to point out that when the.
the five foot side yard setback it includes the three feet we were willing to do that have the
three feet and then two additional feet which would be in effect a five yard setback five foot setback
two feet of their property and three feet of the common easement so that was that's where I was
going i was going to ask that question what are we what is the actual setback was it five feet from
the three foot which it makes it eight foot but you're saying in total it would be five foot i
think that that to to be fair you would include the three foot easement that is common to both
properties take two footies and add two feet to it chairman chairman would mr mckelhatten please
state the section of the zoning code that suggests that an easement is included in the side yard?
Now, what I said, Mr. Bovahill, was that as an accommodation, we were willing to accept that so
that you wouldn't have to go a full five feet from the edge of the easement into the property.
That is the accommodation. And when we explained that, when I attempted to explain that to you,
what your clients did or you did is instead of leaving the space where you said you bumped it
out, you moved the property to be adjacent to my client's property. And therefore, you say it no
longer needs the side yard setback. While that may be technically true, it really does, in my
estimation violate the spirit of the code. We were willing and still are willing to accept five feet
from the start of the end line of the property, including the three-foot easement. That's the
issue. Chairman? What does that do to your client's proposed development? Chairman, before I answer
that question, may I please ask counsel for the board, may I please ask counsel for the board
to consult with the board as to whether the number one we would be required to go back for
an amended refusal if we accepted Mr. McElhatton's proposal and two if if in fact our revised
proposal eliminates our side yard variance which reduces the total number of variances which is
essentially what gets considered at this hearing as a basis of law not the spirit of the code that's
not required. It's not in your checklist members of the board. We all know that. Mr. McElhatton
knows that. We all know that. So I would ask for a brief recess to consult with counsel
to see whether Mr. McElhatton's objection is any basis under the zoning code or case law because
he has cited nothing. And this is not the place to cite the case law, Mr. Mulvihill. Mr. Chair,
I've made the argument. We think that that's appropriate. I have briefly, I could show some
pictures of the actual easement area so you get a sense of it. My understanding was that this
hearing was, you know, put to the end of the list at Mr. Mulvihill's request because he expected it
to take it out, take hours. And you said at the start of this that it was not take no more than
45 minutes. And I don't know how long it's going to take, but I'm prepared to show the videos or
show the uh um if i could share my screen show those photos chairman this is still my case in
chief i would ask mr mckelhatton refrain from testifying during my case in chief number one
well you you just had you you just made a request from uh mr soletta so let's hear about that
exactly chair and i'd ask we take a brief recess so to allow you time to consult appropriately
and then ms soletta may say whatever she wishes to say on the record i just want to make excuse
me, this is Sharon Seletic. Could I first have you go through again what the changes that you
suggested are? Yeah, so here's what we did, members of the board. Our change was simply this.
Originally, what I'll do is I will now for purposes of the court, the board, the body, whichever,
get my annotations. I'm drawing in hot pink. That's a fun color. So members of the board,
initially oh that's not the right thing let's go back
fall x square back let's do this so this shaded pink area
that originally was open area okay what i'm going to do now is to use a nice
blue color to look at the pink this area that i'm now highlighting in
blue for purposes of the record that is the actual easement area
so initially what we had done which i'm now going to use a
different color. Let's do red so it's easy and different to see. Okay so members of the board
originally this area which is now in the interior has blue to the north and pink to the south. That
which now in the interior has blue to the north and pink to the south that was all considered
It was all considered
open area right because it was it was all open area and we received a side yard refusal and
i'm doing this in green hunter green for purposes of the record this area here that i've just
indicated which is now pink surrounded by green that was the only portion for a project that
generated the variance at four side yard. That was it. That is because we are not legally allowed
to build in the existing area. So we eliminated the refusal, which was actually a request of the
RCO as well, if you didn't look to their letters. It was, from my recollection, Mr. McElhaddon
adopted the RCO's position as their own in correspondence with my office. Also, a concern
of theirs, that we reduced the number of refusers. And to the best of my recollection, yourself,
chair and Mr. Holloman also asked whether we could do something to reduce the number of refusers. So
that's exactly what we did. We did exactly what everybody asked and now everybody has a problem
with it. And now Mr. McElhatton and their client, they wish for us to generate an additional refusal
but instead having to go back to L&I and this has never been like brought up at any point prior
to maybe two weeks ago. So this is now in Brown for purpose of the record and it's approximate
it because I don't have a measuring tool. So this brown area, this is what they want us to have as
our building massing. So cut an additional two feet off of everything. So now we have five foot
side yard here from the rear property line of the adjacent properties, right? And then we have a two
foot side yard here cut back from the easement. And I suggest to the board that that's problematic
for a number of reasons because one, everybody who has access to this easement is required to
maintain it, then we have this weird open area. So my client have like a fence here? Did they let
people onto their property? What if someone slips and falls? Did they have to maintain liability
insurance if someone comes in through here or God forbid, Ms. Rodriguez comes in, comes out through
and slips and falls and then she sues my client? No, it's not practical. Number one, it's pie in
the sky thinking and it does not consider the totality of the circumstances here. We reduce
the refusal. This board considers mostly refusals. And if we don't have the refusal anymore,
My suggestion is under the code as written, not under the spirit of the code as suggested by opposing counsel, we cannot cite to the code for any of their objections.
Spirit of the code is not case law, not in the Superior Court, not in the Supreme Court, not in the zoning code itself.
What we have instead is us working to reduce the refusals, which are the issues here, which will be the only thing that this board ought to consider under the law, which will be the only thing that a court sitting in review will consider under the law.
And as the board knows, looking at your checklist that you have, determining whether to grant or deny a variance, that's what we look at.
So we're not reducing, we're not impeding open air. In fact, it's not a refusal, so the board doesn't get to consider it as a matter of law. That's the issue.
So understanding what Mr. McElhatton's objections are, they're not refusals. They are legally irrelevant. And if Mr. McElhatton can cite to case law, which is relevant here because we are making a record for purposes of appeal, and under superior court case law, an administrative agency must have a complete record for purposes of allowing the court on appeal, a court of common pleas in this instance, to review the record and make a determination under the facts in the law.
right that's why we're here whether the federal rules of uh sorry the pennsylvania rules of
evidence apply necessarily or strictly here i must still nevertheless make those objections
on the record to allow the reviewing court the reviewing body in this case the court of common
pleas or god forbid the commonwealth court or god forbid on a petition for allowance of appeal that
gets granted the supreme court of pennsylvania to make a determination and not remand this case
for further determination which only wastes time right so that's why I'm here now taking a couple
minutes extra to not waste judicial resources on an appeal that will last few years that's it
members of the board so Ms. Zuleta I'm sorry I boggled your time after asking you uh that's fine
Mr. Mulvihill but it it's not always clear the line between what can be approved by revised plans
and what requires an amended application just the general standards are that the kind of change that
would be permitted to be made by administrative review if something is significant or if it
potentially generates another variance or intensifies the variance requested originally
that would generally require an amended application in some cases where that's
unclear, I will ask for L&I's opinion. So, Ms. Zuletta, without this being a binding opinion,
So Ms. Zuletta, without this being a binding opinion, understanding is only advisory,
understanding is only advisory, and you are not my attorney. You are...
and you're not my attorney, you're attorney to the zone court. If my client, and I'm not holding
you to this, right, if my client were to, I should redo that, see that Ms. Zuletta, you see where I
just put that brown square again, brown rectangle, if my client were to increase the size of the side
yard that was originally just down here, which would eliminate that variance, but then get a
two-foot variance for this entirety of this 20-foot stretch, 21-foot stretch. Do you think that
LNI would consider that an increased refusal now that we have more of a side yard and a different
side yard altogether than what was originally? I'm sorry, Mr. Mulvihill. I don't mean to be
uncooperative, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to make that kind of statement on the
record. That's understandable. So Ms. Rodriguez, other than that side yard, and I showed you the
sun study so let's get back to that question because we didn't ever get that answer because
your council interjected during my presentation in chief so let's talk about that let me zoom out
maybe okay so your did your council ever show this to you diddy i do not recall okay so i'm
showing it to you now you see this sun study yes okay remember what was the last day that we were
here at the zoning board regarding this case do you remember it was about two weeks ago so i don't
remember the date. I do recall it being Tuesday. Right. Did you call anybody to do a sun study for
you? No. Okay. Did you look online for the, for any sun study tools where you could determine
what a sun study would look like for you? No. Try in any way whatsoever to try to figure out
how to get a sun study in that time. I think, I think Ms. Rodriguez is clear that she, she didn't
entertain any uh uh advice from anyone or any sort of application you got it you're going to
go by what you have and we'll take it from there ms roger i guess you agree with what the chair
just said though you'd adopt his testimony as your own fair to say i would i agree that i did
not look up a sun study regarding that building your partner is an attorney that's fair to say
what why is that relevant does that have to do with anything i'm sorry chairman there was not
an objection and actually it has to do it's relevant because uh ms rodriguez brought that
up at our rco meeting and i believe maybe at the prior hearing i did not bring it up i wouldn't
know it otherwise chairman i'm submitting to the this board but this was the rco meeting that mr
mulville said he didn't participate in excuse me this is still my story all right i will give you
the same courtesy that you are not giving me he's Mr. Mulvihill yes it is 12 47 I understand that
chair we are required to have a break staff I mean it's just the way it is I'm not trying to
rush this but it is what it is I'm going to have to continue this case that's certainly we'll take
another two weeks and I would suggest that if Mr. McElhatton or his client have any problems with
our son's study which has been submitted previously they commission their own because
they have the ability to do that i'm happy jared to elaborate on a factual basis of why i did not
wait around for half an hour while that while old kensington neighbors association did not start a
meeting and i told them i was going to leave because they were wasting my time i'm happy to
elaborate on that oh you're going everybody's going to have another opportunity i don't chairman
listen i have no problem we're going to we have to resume this hearing there's no question about
it and I would ask both sides I maybe I'm misinterpreting this I think it sounds like
there might be some resolution at the end of the day your client Ms. Rodriguez and some of you're
going to be neighbors so I think you may be able to work something out hopefully for all sides
perhaps chairman perhaps anyway understood and the proposal that Mr. Mulvihill
outlined, as I've indicated, would be acceptable. Okay. So I think we may not be as far apart as
it sounds. Hopefully, anyway. I disagree, Chair, but that's another matter. Well, I'm sure I knew
somebody would disagree, and that's okay. All right. Again, sorry to have you guys wait from
this morning, but we knew it was going to be a little bit longer than we thought. So
can I ask a question? This is Christofino. Can I ask a question? No, no, no, no, no, no. You may
I may not ask a question, please do not say anything.
You can talk to your lawyer about it and he'll answer the question.
Don't say anything right now.
I'm a court reporter, I'm sorry for speaking over my client, but you know how this is sometimes.
Understood.
All right.
Do we have a resumption date?
March 24th at 2 p.m.
I'm sorry, 9.30 a.m.
Members of the board might briefly check my calendar to ensure it's a good date.
Please, and Mr. McElhatton, would you check yours as well?
That's ringing a bell.
Let me turn off my screen share.
Thank you.
I just went to the floor.
that is all right okay that march 24th is a good date for me members of the board
that was at 9 30 that'll work for me since i expect we'll all still be remote at that time
correct yeah i mean chair if i might request considering the fact that we've been now through
two hour-long hearings here considering the fact that Mr. McElhatton, I expect, will have a
significant rebuttal. And I'm not even done my presentation in chief at this point because my
cross has been stopped by the clock. Can we get a special listing for this instead or is that going
to be difficult? I'm just asking. I will find, I'll ask staff. There's a request from staff.
How was that? Tanya? We would push it to April. I have the exact date though.
um hey chris can you hear me
yes okay chris uh what do you want to do do you want to have a special listing for this in april
you want to try to do it in march and then maybe have to come back again it's up to you i would
like to take a pause for five minutes and talk to you offline and then come back to this meeting
we don't have that opportunity today chris i'm sorry we don't so i will talk to you in a few
seconds once you finish this well i don't yeah i think we'd rather not i don't know what the
difference is to be honest with you between the march and the april meeting it's just it's a
couple weeks that's obviously the only difference it's up to you depends on the length of
depends on the length of testimony if you haven't come to some uh accommodation between the two
parties that's correct um this is sharon seletti can i suggest that we schedule the march 24th date
and then change that yes perfect that's great thank you sharon i appreciate thank you let's
go with the march 24th and then we can always change it uh if you still haven't uh resolved
your issues great thank you all right so mi 2020 that's zero zero two four four six four two eight
that's three zero west thompson street uh this case will be resumed on march 24th was at 2 p.m
9 30 9 30 9 30 a.m thank you but if i could i'm sorry if i could just interject though it would
again be at the end of the 9 30 listing of course i don't want to be stepping on anyone else's toes
with shorter hearings okay so that'll work you'll get the time on that it'll be in this case i guess
resumed until march 24th at 9 30 a.m at which time we will consider any feedback from the uh from the
RCO and the applicant
and the neighbors.
Great, thank you.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
All right, see everybody back at 2 o'clock.
Hopefully it doesn't go too late for you guys tonight.
Take care.
Yeah, hopefully.
Thank you.
Goodbye now.
And then we'll give...
Okay, and then we'll give...
we are live yeah we're recording again okay thank you so uh i'm not sure if it's jason or
lakisha give you a few minutes you're good to go you're ready okay thank you good afternoon
everyone my name is frank di chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be
participating in today's hearing along with our board secretary mr confessor plaza and board
members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Latisha Dandy and
Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also for those of you who haven't yet participated in one
of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First,
we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second,
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and this recording will be
available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue.
Pardon me, I will repeat.
To enter an appearance statement,
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
call Google 267-270-5548.
I would also like to advise everyone at this time to please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to Ms. Lakeisha Dandy, our board administrator.
With that, I will now read off a list of requests for continuances.
Number two on our two o'clock list, MI 2020-000692, 1739 West Oxford Street.
MI 2020-002336-2222 North Front Street.
MI 2020-000058, 3021 Amber Street, and MI 2020-00351, 400-18 North 5th Street.
Those are requests for continuance that we receive. Does anyone dispute any of those continuances?
If so, please raise your hand at this time.
Chair, I have received a continuance for 321 East Worcester Street.
That's number six on our list.
The attorney's engine of record has requested a continuance.
Okay, so MI 2020-001262.
321 East Worcester Street is added to the list of continuances.
anyone disagree with the continuous list that is right into the record please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you are there any other requests for continuances
or withdrawals on the two o'clock list if so please raise your hand
chair we have sloan folks you good afternoon mr folks please identify yourself for the record
good afternoon chairman chico members of the zba board my name is sloan folks s-l-o-a-n-e f as in
fire o-l-k-s office of council one maria canada sanchez in 508 city hall do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i am thank you mr folks please proceed
Thank you. We are requesting a continuance for case number 8 on your list. Case number MI2020-0001214290 North Penn Street. They have not met with the coordinating RCO. There is a meeting scheduled in early March, I believe the first week of March, March 4th, and we'd like to request that the case be continued until that date.
that's that date thank you uh mr sabatina i'm not sure if you're on is your attorney of record
if so please identify yourself and i'll swear you in john sabatina here representing uh 4290
north penn street uh paul street real estate llc you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do you heard mr falks here's a request from councilwoman sanchez's
office for a continuance uh we'd like to do this here in a hold uh we have been trying to uh deal
with the uh rco on several occasions we don't do here in holds we we would have to either continue
it uh that's the only really way there's no other way right tanya no chair that's the only option
And if we give you a resumption hearing, it's just like us giving you another hearing date.
And it sounds like the Councilwoman's office will work to get a meeting put together with the RCO.
Yes, sir. It's already the RCO's books for March the 4th.
Mr. Sabatina, my suggestion would be we continue this.
We resume this hearing, I should say.
I'm sorry, Chair, you were correct the first time.
This would be a continuance where reposting would be necessary and the continuance will be in June.
We've reposted this thing like five times.
We can't seem to get a hearing date in front of the RCO because we cannot meet their requirements.
because we cannot meet their requirements that they have set up which
so let me ask this question since Mr. Sabatine is testifying that they have in the past
as posted on numerous occasions we now have the councilwoman's office who has a date
would we does it make sense for us to have the hearing
hear all the testimony and but resume it uh for feedback do a resumption hearing i should say
chair it really doesn't because the resumption hearing would likely be the same time as the
original hearing and the rco members wouldn't have an opportunity to participate in the entire
hearing um they would only be coming in after their meeting and they wouldn't necessarily know
that they had an interest in appearing today because they haven't seen the project yet
requirement that they do meet with the RCO and if we could try to be consistent and fair
to the RCO and the community and then we would go ahead and schedule it for a continuous date
However, if Mr. Sabatina does have any kind of issues or concerns with the project that they need to start sooner than later, I can work with him offline to give him a better date.
I think that might be the best option.
So, Tanya, what do I say right now?
We're just going to continue to...
Correct.
continues, date to be determined, and will be posted on the ZBA calendar online.
Okay, so you're so noted for the record. Thank you.
Hello. Yeah, can we get a quick date? I mean, we know that you'll work that out with Tanya offline.
Okay, thank you. Okay. All right, thank you. And let the record show that our vice chair,
Ms. Carroll-Taneri is also in attendance.
All right.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Yes, Chair, I have Zin Jin.
Thank you.
Yes, good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record and I swear you in.
Zin Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103.
i'm actually um i raised my hand because i heard a continuance for a whistler street
um i do not have that as a case i currently represent so i just want to clarify yes i
apologize it's mr clinton sorry then mr clinton is margie is requesting the continuance from
mr clinton's office okay that's fine thank you thank you i have no further uh questions thank
you you any other requests continuances or withdrawals on the two o'clock list
no more hands chair okay so carol we're going to go to the add-ons you have that list
to carol you're muted
that's why i hate to mute um do i have the add-ons no i'll read it okay i'll read the yes yes i do
for two o'clock um three three zero eight nine one three two four frankfurt avenue
this is a resumption hearing limited to feedback on the revised refusal
and excuse me this is sharon saleta i believe mr leonard reuter might be in
attendance to explain the process by which the refusal was amended
thanks sharon
And the attorney is Sean Whalen.
They're both available for you, Chair.
Name and address.
Yes. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone.
Sean Whalen from Vintage Law, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19009.
Mr. Chair, is he already under oath from previously?
I am not.
No. Do you swear for them to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are we waving and stipping on this?
No, actually, the refusals, there's an original refusal, a first refusal, and a second refusal, and that's sort of the only issue.
At this point, I think form over function, we were just waiting to find out what the Fishtown neighbors wanted to say.
Okay, so you may proceed.
Hold on one second, please.
Carol, if you weren't here this morning, for purposes of the record, we can no longer just ask you to wave and stip.
It has to be read in its entirety, that statement.
Okay, good.
but you can read it in its entirety and then we can proceed okay do you also agree to waive
You can read it in its entirety, and then we can proceed.
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy again no i do not and i i think i can
make that pretty clear as to why not uh going forward but if i could i'm sorry if i could
interject a thought chair and mr whalen um i do have a corrected refusal recently issued
by the examiner of record based on Elizabeth Baldwin's information we do have a corrected
refusal and I just wanted to make sure I put that on the record. And excuse me Ms. Sunkit but we also
have Mr. Reuter here who was going to explain in more detail. All right I'll cede to Mr. Reuter for
now um hi thank you leonard f reuter a senior attorney for the city of philadelphia
leonard and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do and do me leonard please spell your last name for the court reporter
sure r-e-u-t as in tom e-r thank you please proceed so i i i wouldn't i wasn't you know
going to get into like the details of the specific uh review by l and i on this matter i know that
there were several stages that the review took place, and I think there were two, maybe even
three revised refusals, and I think they involved primarily, you know, again, technical sorts of
things, but I think this has come up in a couple other cases. I believe Mr. Whalen has, and he can
speak for himself of course uh his position is that um the refusals are still uh there are still
errors in the refusal and you know my position is with respect to some to what the authority
of the board is is that as long as everything is on the record you are reviewing the application
and plans that are now before you so if you were to say grant the variance um you're great you
are approving what is being submitted to you now so if there were errors in the prior refusals
it's it's basically irrelevant it doesn't matter you're approving the project as submitted to you
at this point and as long as it's on the record what the you know specific you know alleged
discrepancies are i think it's it's the record will reflect that you were aware of those potential
discrepancies and nevertheless decided to make the decision that you make so i think it's not
necessary to really um at this point for the city to get in to you know explaining what the various
details or the refusals are because the the only thing that really matters at this stage is what
is on the application and what is being granted it might be different if we if there were questions
about the use um like you know we we would have like an application for a particular use that
didn't fit into any specific category and then trying to figure out how to limit the use but all
of this, I believe, and Mr. Whalen can correct me, all of this stuff in this case, we're talking
about what would be considered essentially dimensional issues. So the plans speak for
themselves. And as long as I don't think anybody or even Alan I suggested that there's errors in
the plans or the calculations, again, you have the plans, you have the application, you can approve
whatever you want to. And if there were things that were missed in the refusals,
that it doesn't matter i mean and back in the day just very quickly um it wasn't that long ago that
l and i would often not issue every refusal they had to they would issue the few big ones
and then other things that would be either subsumed within those refusals
um would just be understood because it was understood that the board basically
at the end of the day just grants a variance whatever the variance is that's being requested
and and this is i believe new construction or well whether it is or it isn't i mean you have
construction plans site plan that's proposed and that's what you're approving and the variance is
to basically allow that and again maybe Ms. Saleta would be able to you know follow up on that but
again the point being is that under the code you have all the authority that L&I itself has
so that includes you could just approve you can approve the plan or not I mean I'm not suggesting
we're not taking any position whatsoever on on on the variance we're just saying that
it would take forever to go through all the refusals and then have another review and all
that. It's not necessary. You have that authority. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Whelan? Yes. So if I could, I'll share my screen and give you
a little bit of this background. Excuse me.
background excuse me
Thank you.
so um what you see hopefully you're seeing i can't tell what you're seeing so hopefully
you're seeing a philadelphia atlas map with an outline of a project
this project was purchased by the client several years ago it is address 1324 frankfurt avenue
you'll see frankfurt is right here obviously a well-known commercial corridor the project
on what we're calling parcel a this is being subdivided basically right down the middle like
this is a large rectangular property parcel a along frankfort avenue that building was fully
approved it is actually probably just a month or two away from a co and occupation um the original
plan was to on this back half you can see it's a large trapezoidal property that front the back
half would front then on Lee Street was to build a number of townhomes, which would have been by
right, fronting on Lee Street with parking. In coordination with the RCO and the public,
they are hoping to make Lee Street basically a pedestrian-only throughway. They don't want car
access here. So the developer agreed to scrap the townhome plan and instead construct an apartment
building. The apartment building would have also been by right under the affordable housing bonus
because we paid under parcel A the original building as to the entire square footage of the
entire property. But in a matter of first instance, the city took the position that the bonus could
not be applied, even though it was for the whole part, that once the payment was made, that was
final and could not be further applied to the rest of the property so uh here we are now and
we're proceeding with again here's a better shot basically right where this line is we'll have a
trap a large trapezoidal property on lee street um the issues with the refusals are i will just go
this is a second revised refusal dated February 11th, 2021. We have just two issues with this
refusal. At this point in time, everything has come around full circle. And I should note,
most importantly, with regard to issues that Leonard raised and whatnot, as far as notice,
this application was submitted last May. We then spent six months working with LNI in
this examiner and his supervisors to get what we believed was a correct refusal. And L&I's position
was when they issued this first refusal, 11-16-20, you can see six months after our first application,
it only had two refusals, that they were the arbiter of the refusal, and they were going to
issue the refusal as they saw fit. Accordingly, we moved forward, and we presented the project,
and the project has not changed in any of its iterations to being presented to any community
stakeholders. So everyone is at all times and has been aware of what this project is.
When this project was presented to Fishtown Neighbors Association, FNA, they raised some
concern that the refusal, this first refusal, was incorrect. We had already stated that in writing
two to them. We admitted that we thought there were different refusals that should be in place.
So you may recall, we presented under this first revised refusal just about two weeks ago, exactly.
And FNA had no objections to the project, but they had concerns that the refusal was still
and correct. And they had actually gone through LNI to get this second revised refusal done.
About eight days later, after the first revised refusal, we got this second revised refusal.
Again, the project has not changed. Everybody has been aware and always has been aware of what's
going on here. And in fact, as I stated before, the project we're proposing was requested by
the community so that we wouldn't put parking and driving and townhomes facing on Lee Street.
So the two issues that we have right now with the refusal and the reason why we could not sign
and agree to waive and stip is that this fourth refusal right here is correct as to parcel A.
However, as to parcel B, they come up with a 77.26%. That's frankly incorrect math.
um it's on all the plans that as to this fourth refusal as to parcel b is incorrect because
that as to this fourth refusal as to parcel B is incorrect because it does meet the maximum 75%.
So that should not be there. And the only other issue is this third refusal shows a we're building
a proposed building height of 55 feet. That's actually not correct. That's including of a
pilot house and everything else. What happened was because the project sort of has this trapezoidal
shape. It caught a corner of the roof deck and the pilot house, and those didn't meet the proper
setbacks. We presented to Ms. Saleta and to the board two weeks ago proviso plans that pull back
the roof deck and the pilot house appropriately to cure that height condition. So again, just to
give you a very quick analysis we're going to have uh on lee street uh vacant commercial that
we're going to try to put in um with uh apartments above everybody has known this at all times and
here's the you know here's frankfurt avenue um and i know we've we've addressed some of this
before so i'll go quickly and just ask if the board has any questions since the only reason
this was continued was for fna's concerns about a revised refusal and to see if they had any actual
objections to the project which they did not last time um so if you're going around uh this is where
the lee street side will be as you can see across lee street is all uh dilapidated and rundown
warehouses or vacant lots um so here are more that that's uh the state of construction on the
new building as of about a month ago um this is what's immediately across the street from us
um so obviously this whole street you know is is a work in progress and this is what fna is hoping
to do is really uh make this street this lee street into a pedestrian walkable friendly uh area
um so again here are just some of the walkways around we have the provised uh proviso plans
and um here you can see where we're uh dividing the line and then this is going to be the new
project um with that i would suggest that uh nothing i've said today is all that new or
different um but i would like to have um uh the project architect just briefly walk through the
plans to explain to you what it is so that we have it on the record as as leonard pointed out as long
as we have it on the record uh you know this board is authorized to make whatever decision they want
um so jose hernandez are you on
No one here is raised by, okay.
Oh, can you hear me?
Yes, Mr. Hernandez, is that you?
It is.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
Jose Hernandez, H-E-R-N-A-N-E-E-Z.
Could you speak a little closer to the microphone, please?
Jose Hernandez, H-E-R-N-A-N-E-E-Z.
He's still a little bit weak, but you're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. If you can speak up a little bit louder, that would be helpful. Thank you.
All right. And Mr. Hernandez, you are the project architect, correct?
And you're from JKRP Architects?
I'm a principal at JKRP Architects.
Okay. And you heard all of the testimony I just presented?
I did.
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
Okay. And now, kindly for the board, because this needs to be on the record,
could you briefly walk through a summary of the project being presented and these plans?
If you want a different page pulled up, I'm happy to do it,
but I have the zoning plan pulled up at the moment.
The zoning plan illustrates the footprint of the building
in relationship to Lee Street.
Again, we're having,
I don't know if the court reporter is able to hear you.
Your voice is very faint.
If you can get closer or raise the volume.
One second.
Thank you.
can you hear me now yes oh much better much better thank you great uh the project you have before
you is the uh the site plan which illustrates that as sean mentioned the footprint of the building
relationship to lee street sean do you have the uh the rco presentation i thought you were going
to ask that so i was just pulling it up okay so i'll briefly go through uh some first few pages
is the information sean mentioned which uh the first page highlights the site i have the orange
portion which is the rear of the parcel of 1324 frankfurt uh go to the next page again this is
It's just zoning, which shows the site as CMX2.
And again, a division of the site plan, the subdivision of the two parcels.
Images.
So this is an image of the original site plan.
I've highlighted the pilot houses, which triggered the initial refusal for the pilot house that's located towards the top was encroaching upon a required setback.
we'll show you the illustrated, the revised portion.
This was in reference to the original proposals, the original refusals, and we provide a clarification
on why those refusals were incorrect.
The portion on the right illustrates the density bonus in the calculation of 16 units
versus the 13 that was initially on the variance.
The second refusal was in relationship to the pilot house, and the lower image on the right shows the new pilot house, which complies with the required setbacks.
And now, Mr. Hernandez, just to jump to the conclusion, the project has not substantially changed in any way from its initial conception back in May when it was first submitted to L&I, correct?
It has not.
This is just a ground floor. The blue indicates a lobby space. The beige or orange color is a
commercial, a proposed commercial use that fronts onto Lee Street. Prototypical floor plan. The
second floor has a small amenity space with units that front onto Lee Street and the roof plan,
And again, that illustrates the setbacks of the pilot house and a limited roof deck with a green roof.
Shadow studies indicating how the project, the shadows it would cast through three times a year.
You're looking at March, June, and December.
Sectionally, the height variance that the 45 feet that we're seeking has a proposed higher ceiling at the ground floor for the commercial use, which takes the project to a 45-foot height.
And again, the pilot house is allowed 10 feet in addition to that 45 foot.
So we have the pilot house, which is indicated at the 55-foot dimension.
An aerial axon just showing the new proposed building in site context with a simplified box for the existing building that's along Frankfort Avenue.
Elevations of the project, materiality.
Our thought of time was to utilize a predominantly brick base with kind of an industrial feel above of a metal material with areas that are carved out.
so you kind of see a differential and in a presentation we have uh in one of the earlier
images that sean had illustrated and shown uh there's there are a few murals around the area
so we thought it would be an opportunity to place a mural on our building um that would be at the
northern end and a perspective looking along lee street of what the proposed project would be
and propose another image looking south with the mural image that I indicated on the left there.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. I would just offer before he signs off,
Mr. Hernandez, for any questions that the board may have.
Questions from the board?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would rest my case. I do have
Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would rest.
Ori Fibush here on behalf of the owner, if anyone from the board would like to hear from him. I
believe, again, my testimony is duplicative of what the board heard in the first iteration of
this hearing, so I don't know that he needs to adopt my testimony, but I can go through that
process as well. And other than that, I think we've addressed all the concerns with regard to
revised refusal that the board had at the conclusion of the first hearing thank you
uh is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission yes uh this is uh ron bednar city planning it's uh
r-o-n-b-e-d-n-a-r do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. The comprehensive plan recommends this property
for commercial mixed use. We do not have objection to the additional height or density.
Both are in keeping with the new development that we have seen in the past.
quishtown therefore we have no objection to the granting of the banks thank you mi 2020 that's
zero zero three zero eight nine one three two four frankfurt avenue my vote is mr will do we have
any revised plans uh yes you should have two pages of revised plans which were previously sent to
I'm sorry, Jose, yeah, Mr. Hernandez, can you confirm that?
I thought I sent two pages.
Hernandez?
Give me one second to you.
I will pull up very quickly the email.
I have it in front of me.
It's pages 18 and 19 in your exhibit package.
okay okay i believe i believe yes i believe i believe it's the plan that sean indicated which
is uh a site plan with uh with zoning information i don't i don't believe there's a second page
yes you you are correct miss soletta i apologize for the confusion to the board
uh it is one page i i was including mistakenly in my head the um actual proviso form itself
but it's it's one page of this okay no worries thank you all right thank you mi 2020-003089
1324 frankfurt avenue my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page adopted today
my vote is yes sorry frank yes yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
Calendar number 1333. Thank you everyone for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Calendar number 1333,
2027 Ellsworth Street.
Carol, this is a resumption hearing and I believe when we left off
there was one or two neighbors had suggested that there may be some other
type of solar panels that could be used to accomplish what the applicant is trying to
accomplish right if you recall that so that's really what the resumption is all about
right and and we also have a letter of opposition
yes but that came from point threes point threes i believe that there was a lady on the i can't
recall her name she had made some suggestions and we said okay we would resume this hearing
right so today mr kane is on he's the applicant i believe that's correct turning
so uh mr kane could you speak to what the lady who uh asked us to for you to reconsider
the material or the way the layout would would appear i can and and before i do that um
just to be clear i believe um the vice chair uh miss tenari mentioned a letter of opposition
that isn't something um i've ever seen before before we get to that let me swear you in spell
your first and last name d-e-r-e-k last name k-a-n-e you're at 2027 ellsworth correct
that's correct you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
So I just want to pick up where you just left off.
You said you've never seen a letter of opposition?
Unless that is from the RCO board that we presented to.
the rco board that we presented to rco point three cdc i believe okay i would take that back
Yeah, the RCO, Point Breeze CD.
then my understanding was it was a it wasn't supporting us maybe that's not uh maybe that's
the same as the letter of opposition um so i apologize yes more or less yes all right uh
so do you have any knowledge of what um again i apologize i don't remember the lady's name i
if she's on if she is would you please raise your hand ma'am yes i'm about to say chair if i may um
i have two people with their hands up i have a caller i believe was it tiffany green that's my
understanding it was tiffany green okay you're right tiffany green is she on i can um check this
caller caller ending in 4637 you can unmute yourself i'm on i'm okay i'm on the meeting
can you hear me yes can you um state your name spell your last name oh yeah tiffany green
good afternoon miss green please identify yourself name and address
uh tiffany green uh 1518 south 22nd street and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes okay if you you heard you heard my statements uh earlier um
And I believe you had some suggestions or recommendations you thought might be able to accommodate what Mr. Cain is trying to do regarding solar panels.
Yes, I do. And I did email them in yesterday. I apologize.
The internet was in and out with the snowstorm, so I had a hard problem.
But I was able to complete the letter and send in copies of what we suggested.
and what we suggested was
there's two types
of, I don't know, were you able to
take a look at the pictures?
No. Hold on
one second. Sharon, do we have that
information?
look forward and email it to you.
Yes, we do. If you like, I can email it
to Mr. Cain as
well as the board members.
Apparently Mr. Cain is not aware of it.
Is that correct? Yes, we just got it yesterday.
That would be correct. I will send it now.
here. All right, Ms. Green, while we're waiting for that, you can continue. Okay, like I said,
some of the complaints from the neighbors was the height of the canopy and why there was a need for
canopy. They felt that aesthetically, you know, just a quick repeat, aesthetically, it would be
impactful in terms of sunlight and skyline and also, you know, and we feel as though, so our
Approvisor suggested was the solar alternatives with the seven-foot setback, which is the code requirement.
One of the things in terms of the setback, the seven-foot setback that we support is because –
what am I trying to – I'm trying to bring – let me bring it up real quick.
Our reason for the setback –
Excuse me again.
someone have a radio or television on we're getting feedback
i'm sorry i apologize okay okay all right the setback was because um
like i said we thought that adding us uh canopy uh when you have a setback sometimes you have
panels and do the wind gusts and when the panels can have can fall off or can
blow with the wind and that means it could fall down on the ground with
pedestrians walking by we think there's a reason why the city or whoever the
Planning Commission put in a seven-foot setback for this particular type of
solar panels and as well as they can be a fire safety panels are known to catch
on fire and so therefore by them being set back it could also be a deterrent
in terms of the spread from one roof to another roof uh so uh that was something that we were
looking at in terms of fire safety risk and why we felt that the five the seven feet would still
be better than the five feet also we let me interrupt if i can for a second so we don't
get too far mr kane you you're not seeing this i assume oh i i've received the email from uh
and i have had a quick quick chance to take a look at it so basically what it looks like to
me and correct me anyone if I'm wrong the panels are there the same number of panels but they're
not elevated to the seven foot height they're reduced to whatever height that is and maybe
that's around like one or two feet yeah. Do you happen to know Mr. Cain speaking to your supplier
if that would work? I can tell you having worked with our with our contractor for over a year and
I can tell you, having worked with our contractor for over a year and a half now on this project, that this wouldn't work.
And there's a couple of reasons.
As I explained before, and I can show photos, we have very high parapet walls on our roof.
And so if you had panels lower to the surface of our roof, they're going to be shaded.
In addition, the way we measure the energy, so we're confident using all the engineering that 12 panels would generate, and just give me one quick second, would generate 5,453 kilowatt hours per year.
that's based on a really quite a complex analysis looking at where the sun is in this particular
place on the planet over an entire yearly basis and it takes into account anything like shade or
anything that's going to get in the way of those panels and for 12 panels um to reach that much
energy um we need to put them on the pergola um as we're asking for and to get that very modest
two-foot variance. Finally, just to address two other things, you know, our biggest hardship here
is to make, you know, it is two things, to get our house fully green, but do it in an economically
feasible way. And the two-foot variance we're asking for allows for that. What Ms. Green is
proposing will actually take away surface area of our roof, so it's actually costing us even more
money to put these panels in. It's putting in more drilling. Each panel has to get a separate
area to be drilled into a roof, increasing the risk, increasing the cost. The pergola,
of course, is one structure that then allows for the 12 solar collectors to be mounted on.
So ultimately, what she's proposing is actually a more expensive way of doing it and isn't going
to get us to where we want to be and where I think we should be, which is matching our energy
consumption with solar energy. Well, what we're talking about is the structure. You're talking
about the collective destruction. Yeah, let me interrupt you if I could again. I apologize. So
I'm clear on this. Your current proposal is seven foot from the top of the roof to the highest point
or no um chairman r everything about our project is within code except we'd like to have it two
feet closer to the front of our roof and to be clear we have a five foot setback by code right
now and we're asking for the panels to end right at that five foot setback so we're not asking to
go any farther than our current setback i understand that the code requires seven feet
requires seven feet so you couldn't hypothetically lower that and and and get it back as far as you
need to meet uh away from the uh from the parapet right we would i i apologize your honor even if
we were to lower the perg if we were to lower the pergola uh we still have our pilot house in the
back and that's really our one of our biggest constraining um problems if it wasn't for that
pilot house we'd be able to do sort of by right and just move it farther back but unfortunately
as i showed in the original presentation there's just no way to get the pergola to work um and get
12 panels right i apologize i mean it's been only a couple weeks but i just want to refresh my
memory i understand thank you for helping with helping us with that all right um anyone else
want to testify in this case i'm sorry i meant to ask any questions from the board
no no miss green
i think miss green wanted i apologize i cut her off i believe
no it was me i kept muting her because we do have four other people which could testify
right but i didn't finish explaining my and why i'm making a recommendation
sure please please finish please uh proceed rather these these structures we're talking
about the mount structure not the actual panel we're talking about the structure that holds the
panels the structures go as low as one foot all the way up to what he is proposing however these
These structures can start as low as $40, or they can go all the way up until $1,000.
So he can have his choice.
But it's the casing of the panels, not the actual panels.
And you can put one panel on it, or you can put up to 12 panels.
There are many different types of solar collective structures and ground mounting,
and that's what we're talking about.
It was the height of the canopy that people felt was obstructing.
And I'm not an expert on it, but I think it's only fair that he put in writing what his objectives are. And we have a solar, somebody who deals in solar structures, some of these companies that I research and address that.
And I'm not an expert on it, but I think it's only fair that he put in writing
Because, I mean, I can't go toe for toe in terms of the actual heating and everything that he's proposing.
But the structure, what I was told was that these structures are just didn't go from one foot all the way up until high as you want.
So he can adjust and make arrangements to have the panels lower on the ground.
That's all.
Thank you.
All right.
Anyone else like to testify?
Yes, Chair.
We have Gamble.
Hi. Hi, Ms. Gamble. How you doing, sir? Hi, please identify yourself first and last name
and your address. My name is Petra Gamble. I am from the coordinating RCO. My address is 2305
Federal Street. And what is the coordinating RCO? Point Breeze. I'm sorry. Point Breeze.
Point Breeze. Okay. Yep. You're right. Thank you. Please proceed. Chair, if I could, I'm sorry. I'm
said she spelled her first name as well we do have a new court reporter sure my first name is p as in
peter i e t as in tom r a his name is gamble please proceed miss gamble yes i just wanted to say we
also have the same views as miss green but we also want to add that the neighbor's concerns were
also that it was too tall they're worried about the shadowing and they're also worried about um
how it's going to be for the taxes. They're worried that this is going to create a precedent
for people in the future to try to do this on their homes as well. And the neighbors just feel
like it can be shorter because they're worried about the views. So I just wanted to go on record
saying that we did send a letter of opposition, as you stated earlier, that the community and
the RCD are completely against this problem. Thank you. Anyone else? Something new and different?
Yes, I have a Ms. Jones.
Ms. Jones, please identify yourself with the record first and last name and provide us with
your address. Hi, my name is Jessica Jones, J-E-S-S-I-C-A, J-O-N-E-S. I live at 2023 Ellsworth,
so two doors down from Derek, and I am in support of his project.
Thank you.
I am in support of his project, not only for the environmental aspects, but also because of the fact that he has done his due diligence working with a solar agency.
There were some concerns that he hadn't worked with a proper solar advisor, but we myself actually got an assessment on panels as well.
So I know the company very well, and they do amazing work and diversity of solar panels, and they do look at each project to see uniquely how what fits best for that roof.
On top of the fact that this solar project, he can build the canopy, Derek can build the canopy on his roof either way.
He has the it's just a matter of having 100 percent coverage of his green energy.
So the canopy would cost more and would still exist within regulation. So concerns that folks have about the sight lines are kind of a moot point because it's still an approved project.
The question really is about the difference between that two feet to the edge, that two feet closer.
So I think a lot of things have sort of been lost in this conversation.
But really, we're talking about the difference of two feet on a canopy project, solar canopy project that he can build either way.
So, from my perspective as being a member of the block and a community member who supports
this project, I think it's important for us to bring in more environmental projects.
I think it'd be great if more businesses did and more companies and homes did more projects like
this, but that is my opinion as a resident of Point Breeze and of his block. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. What is the name of that company again?
Solar States is the name of the company chairman.
Solar States?
That's correct.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Yes, we have a Celeste.
Celeste, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Celeste, please identify yourself for the record.
Spell your first and last name and provide us with your address.
Hi, my name is Celeste, C-E-L-E-S-T-E, Starita, S-T-A-R-I-S-T-E.
c-e-l-e-s-t-e starita s-t-a-r-i-t-a my address is two zero four four ellsworth street so i live
on you swear and affirm you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do thank you please proceed i live across the street and a couple doors up from
the property in question. I've looked into this a lot personally, because I absolutely approve
of the project. I believe that our city should have solar on every corner to light every street
light in the entire grid. But I really what I wanted to point out here today is that, you know,
the City of Philadelphia within the last month just released their new Climate Action Playbook,
strongly in support of solar. In 2017, they initiated Solarize Philly. They chose Solar
States as the pre-approved installer. So they have been vetted and approved by the City of Philadelphia
and the the uh city council um there have been a lot of concerns about the aesthetics
of the canopy the height which again as uh miss jones pointed out is already a
something that they can do by right um i understand and i'm sure everybody appreciates
the efforts of Ms. Green as far as putting in time and research, but I'm going to defer to the
engineers here and say that Solar States has likely come up with the best option for this home.
And I will say that I can quote from the City of Philadelphia Climate Action Playbook when they say
that one of the major goals in supporting solar is to pursue actions to address barriers to solar,
including cost and regulations, while promoting rooftop solar. I believe when they refer to
regulations, this is exactly what they're talking about, that sometimes the seven feet is not going
be feasible because of existing structures on the roof like pilot houses. I think that
part of what it is that they're trying to do is promote solar in new construction as much as
possible. So I mean I think that today is the perfect opportunity to get started with this
call to action by uh approving this project thank you for your testimony anyone else something new
and different mr chair there's an annette rudolph whom i will who's been allowed to uh speak thank
you good afternoon miss rudolph please identify yourself with the records by your first and last
name provide us with your address hello my name is annette a-n-n-e-t-t-e randolph r-a-n-d-o-l-p-h
i'm at 2012 ellsworth street been here for 61 years thank you ma'am ma'am do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth please proceed thank you please
proceed the last time that we were on he was supposed you had asked him yana to present some
documents from his uh company and i didn't hear that we presented ours that's number one number
two who i excuse me i asked yes mr king there it was another gentleman i think that was on your team
that had asked him about presenting some paperwork.
We were supposed to present ours, and he was supposed to present his.
Mr. Chairman.
Is that you, Tom?
Yeah, that was me.
I don't recall what the question you had asked was.
Do you recall?
Yes, he has some data to back up the panels on the roof.
he's saying that
he's saying that he's required
Tom you broke up
Tom we lost you
while we're waiting we have any letters uh any uh from the district council person
while we're waiting
we have any letters
any from
can i also finish yeah i was waiting for mr holliman uh to explain why because i don't
recall what his question was and that may answer your question yeah because that you know he did
not um the gentleman did not uh i didn't hear him submit anything that was requested as we have
request that we have submitted ours also it's not that we don't support what is it do you keep
saying he are you referring to mr gentleman i'm sorry the gentleman that was just offered it the
gentleman that whom you're trying to get back on i'm sorry about the name he's our board board
member mr holliman mr holliman okay i apologize all right no no apologies want to make sure we're
talking about the same people okay and you said you presented yours what is what do you mean from
Tiffany Green. She presented the paperwork that was requested.
Tom back on. Yes, Mr. Chairman. All right, Tom, please. We lost you there.
Yeah, my concern is two. Are there other samples of rooftop
solo panels on flat roof in the neighborhood? And I asked for some data
on the use why he has to set it back seven feet instead of five feet
before you answer that mr king i just want to the only i'm not aware of solar panels in that
neighborhood tom there may be i do know there's a flat roof that has a solar panels uh i believe
it's a warnock street uh right before fitzwater if you drive the 11th and you look east as you
get to Fitzwater, you can actually see it. It's on a rooftop deck. Again, I'm not sure if there's
anything in the immediate neighborhood of 20th and Ellsworth. So the other question was, I guess,
to Mr. Kane. I can address that, Chairman, and I apologize. I think we were a little bit confused
when we finished last time. We did put together all the information and emailed it on the day of
our last hearing. And if the board would like, I can bring up those materials and very, very
briefly show why 12 panels are what we need to offset our energy in 100 percent. You can do that
briefly. We'd appreciate it. All right, panel, I'm showing you what's called a first page that's
called system details. Can everyone see that? Yes. Thank you. So what this is showing is the total
energy that what's called the system size of what 12 panels could do. And as you can see up here,
it's 4.5 kilowatt hours, and that would be sort of yearly.
This next page essentially shows what those panels would do, that system size would do
in Philadelphia over the course of a year. And I mentioned this very, very briefly when I first
spoke. So this is taking into account a lot of information, and you can sort of see that
in the bottom so the sun is always going to be different depending on where you are on the globe
so this actually takes into account where the sun is relative to where we are in philadelphia
does it over the course of the year and so you can actually see that our energy will actually
differ per month as the sun's either getting higher or lower and fortunately for all of us
the sun will be getting gradually higher for the next couple months and so we get warmer
What that ends up producing with 12 panels, as we want to do, is 5,453 kilowatt hours of energy.
You can see that right at the bottom where it says annual.
And then finally, the last piece of the puzzle is how much energy do we use?
And let me just zoom in.
this is a our PICO bill and actually it was our most recent when we originally submitted this
um this is showing um our total energy use over the course of the year and it's 5,439 so it's
matching up almost exactly about as exact as we could ever get it so that's that's all the
documentation to show why we need 12 panels and the 12 panels would have to be as
We need 12 panels, and the 12 panels would have to be, as we're asking for, in order to achieve 100% offset of our energy.
Let me ask you a question. Do the 12 panels have to be all combined in one area? Can it be split up?
um yes it could chairman and we uh we looked at that and in my original presentation which i can
bring up i can show that if we were to do the pergola by right and then we tried to split up
we'd have to find uh four places for panels and unfortunately we can only fit one panel on the um
on the pilot house we can only fit one panel which is essentially here
we can only fit one panel in front in that sort of five-foot setback area,
which would only get us to 10 panels, which unfortunately is way lower than what we need.
So we'd really have to do any – there really is no way to do it by right
and to add panels to get where we need to be.
On that same question, would you not be able to run the panel along the property line
parallel to the
to the pilot
house going from front to back
and the reason I say that the
panels that I talked about
that are on 11 Warnock
Street near Fitzwater
it acts as a canopy for the entire
roof deck
understood I don't think they have
a pilot house so I know you have
to deal with that issue
could you run it straight back
Chairman, yeah, the issue is the pilot house.
We just don't have the room to do it.
And if we were trying to squeeze around the pilot house,
we would unfortunately need to do an entirely new custom pergola,
which I don't think has ever been done before,
one that would sort of be asymmetric.
If the pilot house wasn't there,
we'd absolutely be going that two feet back.
That's the limiting factor.
Tom and I, I guess we're just trying to figure out a way
in which you can get the number of panels you need
and generate the kind of solar power you want.
Understood.
And also address some of the concerns of the community
as it relates to the setback.
I'm sure you've been through this before,
but for us, you know, we're looking at it
really for the second time.
So we're just coming up with some of my thoughts.
I understand.
And I will stop screen share
unless anyone wants me to show anything more
with these four pages.
any other questions from the board no no no is anyone else want to testify something new and
different yes chair we have a tina marie
miss miss russell good afternoon
please identify yourself first and last name tina marie russell
your address 1631 west susquehanna avenue yeah well um you're a bit ways out of the area aren't
you yes i am but i'm from south for the original yeah well so i still i still like to have a
comment though because it's still i i really uh with all due respect you are a former south
it off him i appreciate that but you you're just your testimony is not going to be relevant here
thank you anyone else
uh no one else we can go for it here thank you planning commission
city planning ron bednar comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single
family use. Based on the application submitted, we do not believe that the solar arrays placed
two feet closer to the front edge of the building will have a negative impact on the block. We
therefore have no objection to the granting of the variance. Thank you. I'd suggest that we close the
record and have further discussion. The executive board have a meeting, excuse me, the board have
an executive session and decide on this next Wednesday. We'll be back with you. All right.
So, MI2020-0013332027 Ellsworth Street. Again, the record is closed. The Board will be discussing
this decision at next Wednesday's Executive Session. Thank you.
going to the regular list calendar number 3326 1502 north 29th street the attorney is hank clinton
The attorney is Hank Clinton.
I don't see no hands, Chair.
Mr. Clinton?
That's unusual.
Let's do this, Carol.
Let's go to number two.
Maybe there's technical issues, and then we'll come back if we have to.
calendar number. I'm sorry. He's here now. Okay, Mr. Clinton. He's coming back in as a panelist now.
Okay, thank you, Leticia.
We were on 1502. Hi, Mr. Clinton. Can you put your name, your last name, please?
Sure. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, 13 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, Queen Memorial Building.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, I do, to all of the above.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Can I share my screen?
is that visible yes good afternoon mr chairman members of the board uh thank you for giving us
this opportunity this property concerns uh project concerns 1502 north 29th street uh today's the
hearing date this is my evidence binder containing the table of contents aa through a11
and i'll go through each document my appearance statement this is the refusal
this property is one off the corner on the 1500 block of north 29th street on the west side of
the street and the request is to use this property as two dwelling units in an existing structure
and as you will see when i go through this presentation this has always been a two-family
dwelling up until 2001. And I have a rental license to prove that. In 2001, the owner of
the property decided to let her niece and nephew live with her in the second apartment. So she
stopped getting a rental license and they've continued to live there with her since. Her
daughter, excuse me, her granddaughter and son-in-law have decided to help to renovate
the property because the owner is elderly. And you can see when I get through the floor plans
that the existing property is just going to be reconfigured and that there are already two meters
on the property. So while it may be classified as a legalization of an illegal use, it really
has not been illegal because, as I said, there was a rental license in place in the early 2000s.
And since then, family members have lived with the elderly owner since then.
We did meet with the RCO and we presented the same comments that I've given to the board so far
to the community group and you can see that there's just overwhelming support and or non-opposition
basically 20 to 0 because again the owner who is on the call is a long-time resident of this
neighborhood and everybody on the block knows that she has been letting family members live
there with her in the second unit. These are an aerial photograph. This is a corner property. It's
a CMX2, I believe. This is zoned RSA 5. And again, here's the property here. It's a nice facade. We're
not going to touch the facade or the corners. Everything's going to remain the same. And you
can see on the front of the building, there are two electric meters because that was for the two
apartments in this three-story structure. This is the site plan again showing it
one if one in off the corner. We're not adding anything to the back of the
house or to the top of the house. This is the existing floor plan. There's a
basement, the first floor, second floor, and the third floor. Basically the first
floor was one unit and the second floor were another unit. We're actually going
And we're actually going to keep that configuration.
to keep that configuration here is the proposed plan
Here is the proposed plan.
There's going to be a living area in the basement, storage in the back.
And then on the first floor, there'll be two bedrooms with a kitchen and a dining room.
Basically, similar to the layout that it is now, but this is going to be totally renovated
and upgraded all plumbing, electrical, and HVAC.
And then the second apartment is on the second and third floor as it is now.
but again it will be spruced up and this will be a three-bedroom unit with the kitchen on the
second floor and a living area on the third floor. These are all the perfunctory documents that
are required, the deed. Miss Georgia Smith is living there now and Jonathan Lawson
Layton or Layton, excuse me, is her son. Tax certification or application for appeal,
zoning map. There's our notice letter to the community. And this is a residential license.
This is what I was saying in the beginning, members of the board. This license board is in
place to the early 2000s. And since then, Ms. Smith has let her relatives live with her
in this duplex. So that's basically it in a nutshell. I'm available to answer any questions
and my clients are on the call
if you need to ask them any questions
about their use of the property.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
You want to get your clients to adopt your testimony?
Sure. Dan Ridley, are you on the call?
Mr. Ridley or Ms. Smith?
Yes, I am.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Name, first and last name.
My first name is Daniel.
My last name is Ridley.
What about your last name, please?
That's R-I-D as in David, L-E as in Eagle, Y.
Thank you.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I swear.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Ridley, what is your relationship to the owner of the property?
She's my grandmother-in-law.
I'm married to her granddaughter, Samika.
Okay, and she's there with you or she's on the call?
Yes, she is currently now.
Okay. And have you and Ms. Smith heard my testimony that I just presented to the board?
Yes, we have.
Okay. And do you find my testimony true and accurate? And if you had the opportunity to
testify or Ms. Smith did, would you both adopt it as your own?
Yes, we would.
Thank you, Mr. Ridley. And thank you, Ms. Smith.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair you planning commission
on bednar city planning property is indicated for residential use under city plan given the
documented use history we have no objection to granting the variance thank you mi 2020-003326
1502 North 29th Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you.
Have a good one.
Calendar number 0692, 1739 West Oxford Street.
The attorney is Zenzhen.
he's coming in now as a panelist good afternoon good afternoon can you please put your name and
address on the record yes zenjin z h e n last name is j i n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard
suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
consisting of 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. I will share the
information relating to this matter with the board and I'll address the various issues we
have with the case. So we have submitted a copy of documentation including the refusal, RCO letter,
and also the information, I'm sorry, also other information such as photos, plans, tax clearance,
deed. This application is refused for two primary applications.
is refused for two primary items.
This is a double-sized lot that my client wishes
to put an additional building up.
And at the same time, there's an existing single family
and the new proposed building both to be used as duplexes.
I'll state up front that the community was in opposition
to the idea of additional density.
And they came out strongly in opposition to the density.
Given that situation, I had spoken with my client, and I think what we would ask the board to entertain at this time is whether the second building being on the same lot and the existing building being on the same lot, both being used as single-family housing, would be something the board would consider.
What I'll do is I'll zoom into the site plan because it kind of explains what the situation is with this lot.
So this is on the corner of Oxford. And as you can see, the lot itself is actually about 34,
almost 35 feet wide. So it's 35.7 total width. So it's really two lots kind of combined into one.
The idea here really is to build a new structure, which is essentially a roll home and keep the
existing structure. The part of the proposal also was to extend the back of the existing structure
because it's a very small building, very short, to allow for additional bedroom space. The original
proposal is to have each of these used as a two-family dwelling. However, even if it was
subdivided into two actual lots and built a new structure as a single family, the lot itself
really would support two single family structures, one subdivided, and that is kind of what the
ultimate end result would have been if they had not gone for duplexes on this design.
From a density standpoint, because this is really almost two locks in one, the additional building,
if the variance is given, used as a single family would not be inconsistent with what's going on
with the remainder of the block. In fact, actually remainder of the block are predominantly student
housing, actually does have multiple multifamily buildings as well. But there are also single
family houses and certainly certain residents were against the idea of converting this to
multifamily. So all we're asking the board today to consider would be a variance to allow multiple
principal structures to be used in a form consistent to RSA 5, which would be single
family, and the grant of the addition, which actually did not trigger in and of itself any
refusal. So the addition could be done by right if it was done directly. The other refusal,
which is for the four family, we would be asking in this case for two units, one in each principal
building on the lot. So that would be ultimately what we're really asking for before the board
today given that the community did not want four units there if we were to be forced to go back
if the board does not agree with the request if we're forced to go back it would be a subdivision
application for two single family houses would be ultimately the end result while that is something
my client can do we're here before the board now so i wanted to at least present this alternative
to the board for consideration so that is our request is the board would entertain
at least granting two principal structures being permitted on one lot to be used consistent with
rsa5 if that is something the board can entertain we would certainly appreciate the consideration
i'm certainly happy to answer any questions excuse me counselor yes uh do you plan to
pierce the party wall no there's no actually even right now as you as you see from our proposal
it's two structures that is why there was a refusal for two principal structures on one lot
i'm not clear what you're trying to do oh i'm sorry so um so this building does not currently
exist right now this entire lot has just this single structure single building what my client
would like to do is to build a second, essentially this is open here as a lot, but it's all part
of the single large lot. So he wanted to put a roll home style structure up, but the proposal
that was originally applied for was for a duplex. We were asking if it's possible to put the
structure up as a single family and keep the existing single family that already is on the
lot. So it'll be two principal structures, but because a lot's not subdivided, it'll be on one
But because a lot's not subdivided, it'll be on one lot.
lot. But you can't have
But you can't have two principal on one lot.
But that is the refusal.
That itself is a...
You're looking for approval for that.
Correct.
Correct.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Mr. Van, this is Sharon's letter.
Are you presenting revised plans?
We are not.
Well, so the refusal itself is for multifamily dwelling, which can be simply rejected, because then it would be allowing the multiple principal structures to be used, then that would allow the RSA 5 single-family use.
Okay, so then there would simply be a proviso, should the board approve it, stating one family per...
Should the board entertain it, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
It's not one family per lot.
It would be two single family.
Per structure.
One family per structure.
One family per structure.
Two structures on the lot total.
So it would be two families total, but it's on one large lot.
As opposed to the duplex.
All right.
Do you have your client to adopt your testimony?
I believe he is here.
Mr. Chen, can you raise your hand?
no hands at this time chair
all right mr jen as an officer of court we'll stipulate your client would be adopting your
testimony thank you i do have a question any other questions from the board before i move on
If I'm clear, you're asking for two single family houses on one lot.
Correct.
Thank you.
The original application was for two duplexes.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
That is correct, Chairman.
So you go from four unit, four family dwelling to two.
Right.
But if we were to subdivide the lots, it would essentially end up with the same situation,
except my client hopes to keep the lot the way it is.
So is Ms. Jones available by any chance?
Because we do have a letter of opposition from Council President Clark,
but that speaks to the multifamily dwellings.
Yes, I'm aware of the letter as well.
I would assume based on the opposition letter from the Council President,
as it relates, there's Ms. Jones.
Hello, good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Mary Jones, on behalf of Council President Daryl Clark.
You swear to firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Ms. Jones, did you hear the testimony of Mr. Jinn?
Yes, I did.
So I don't know if you need time or whatever, the position of the Council President.
This is two single family houses as opposed to two duplexes.
um right yes our opposition was based on the uh uh feelings of the near neighbors wanting to keep
a single family use so if that is what is being proposed now then we will not then we could
yeah okay thank you just want to make sure we're all clear on that so uh if we approve it what
what would be the proviso um i believe the approval would be for uh the multi let me let me
re-share with the board the refusal, I think it would help clarify this. And I'll zoom in,
it's currently zoomed out. So one of the refusal is for the proposed multiple principal buildings
on a single lot. I think if the board says that the proposal would be the proposed multiple or
two principal buildings on a single lot to be used as single family house individually,
I think Sharon correct me if you feel additional language will be needed yeah I think that works
two structures each a single family dwelling something each to be used as single family
yes I mean that's that's a little confusing because
Ellen I would still classify this as multi-family because there are two families on so maybe um
two structures one family per structure okay that would work two two structures one family
per structure is that it yes okay thank you all right thank you uh again any questions from the
board no no no thank you planning commission
Ron Bednar. Yeah, the proposed properties indicated for residential use on a city plan
brian bednar yeah the
given the site's configuration with no objection to the granting of the variance for two structures,
single family units. Thank you. So Mr. Jinder, we have, and I think
Shire may have asked this. We've got revised plans.
There won't be revised plans.
This doesn't really...
No, there would not be because this really doesn't
go into...
You're right. Okay. Got it now.
Thank you. Thank you for clearing it up.
All right.
MI2020-000692
West Oxford Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
structures to be used as
each one to be used for single family.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you very much
you uh carol we go to number five number four five number four is okay calendar number
3257 3216 north 16th street
the attorney is Rachel Pritzker
he's coming in now as a panelist thank you yeah hi Rachel can you put your name and address on
the record and spell your last name sure uh Rachel R-A-C-H-A-E-L Pritzker P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R
1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed your exhibit packet with the required
documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos under
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO and
do you have a letter? Yes. You may proceed. I'm going to have my colleague Brandon Saverin do
the presentation for this as he did the work on this matter, and then I'm just here to add support
where needed. So if Brandon could be promoted, that would be appreciated. In addition to Scott
Woodruff, who's the architect, he'll be providing the plans. Brandon, can you put your name and
address on the record, please? Yes, Madam Vice Chair. My name is Brandon Saverin. Last name is
spelled S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N. Address is 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. Do you swear we're firm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. Is there another person, Rachel? Yes, Scott Woodruff. He's
our architect. Okay. And he's coming in now as a panelist. Thanks so much.
I'm just going to share my screen here, and I'll throw it over to Scott shortly, but did just want
to run through the refusal real quickly if everybody can see this. This is for a multifamily
project proposing 27 units on a property at 3216 North 16th Street. It's RSA 3, so the
refusals are for the multifamily use on the first line. At the bottom, you have a parking
refusal we are providing 11 on-site accessory parking spaces but 27 would be required under
the code in rsa3 there is also dimensional refusals which essentially stem from the fact that
we are proposing to build to the front and the side lot lines whereas that's not permitted under
the code in RSA3. Before I get into the plans, I did just want to share, this is a letter
of support we received from Tioga United, who was the coordinating RCO.
This was a wonderful RCO process, I thought, for both my client and Tioga United. I
conducted the first meeting with Tioga United. We kind of showed them our first iteration of the
plan. They gave us sort of two types of comments. One were substantive comments as to the plan
itself. The other was that they wanted to try to get some
The other was that they wanted to try to get some additional folks out to another RCO meeting,
and they asked us if we could go above and beyond the code's mailing requirements to help make that happen.
So what we did is we did another mailing, and then this time for the second meeting,
I also had my staff hand flyer a couple of large multifamily buildings on the block
just to make sure that there were enough mailers in each of those buildings
to sort of have, you know, like a one unit to one mailer ratio occur.
And I suppose that helped because we had our second meeting two weeks later.
We had increased attendance.
My client made these changes that the RCO ended up drafting
into their letter of support here.
um so so scott woodruff the architect will walk through these changes and we have a revised plan
and a proviso change form uh but uh we ended up with unanimous support um after that second
meeting so this was just a really great collaborative process um and i'm proud of
that um i think with that let me um stop my screen share scott if you're out there would
you introduce yourself and share the revised plan? Yes, so I need to put my name on the record.
Name and address, please. Scott Woodruff, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
And do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. You may proceed.
thank you this is a proposed rendering of the exterior of the building we're proposing a
four-story building with first level accessory parking of 11 spaces and 27 dwelling units
this is the zoning site plan as you can see and brandon mentioned we are building to the front
lot line would have a 22 foot 10 inch rear yard we also have some interior courtyards as well to
allow lights in for the unit just to know the existing property is vacant to our left side
and then there's an existing church that is located to our right side which you can kind of see the
outline of here. Looking at the ground level, you can kind of see the proposed
11 parking spaces. This building will be serviced by an elevator to all the
levels and fully accessible. Some of the comments that we received from the RCO
was that they were concerned with some of the security of the building as well
as traffic, ingress and egress, to the parking spaces.
So we had put a keycard gate on the front of the parking for security purposes, as well
as we will be adding audio-visual controls when that gate is operational and cars are
coming in and out to let pedestrians know of such.
Also they had wanted us to add in parking mirrors as well as an internal speed bump
to make sure that some of that was controlled as far as speed goes.
We also have an enclosed trash room that's kind of located at the front here that will
also be serviced by a trash chute, which is kind of in here.
It's probably better seen on some of these other plants.
So we have an internal trash chute that goes directly down into the enclosed trash room.
the trash room itself will be ventilated and then private trash hauler will obviously come and get
that. The units are mostly one-bedroom units ranging from 550 up to around 7, 720 and then
there's one two-bedroom on the floor so a total of three two-bedrooms and then 24 one-bedrooms.
uh no roof deck uh proposed on this as we are under the 38 feet uh threshold for height
the other thing i just wanted to briefly mention was that the site does dramatically kind of slope
up towards the back um so even though the parking is at the first level uh the majority of the
parking especially as you get to the rear of the site is kind of subterranean um and kind of won't
be seen one of the other things that uh we agreed and agreed to add was additional lighting kind of
in these courtyard areas um and kind of at the front of the building uh again for safety concerns
um within the neighborhood uh brandon anything else that you can think of that i've missed
Brandon, anything else that you can think of that I've missed?
um no actually scott
No, actually, Scott, I'm going to ask you to stop your screen share.
I just want to go back to Atlas here on my end.
So I did want to go to Atlas just to sort of discuss, you know, what is the hardship here?
So this is an interesting block.
this property is just shy of 10 000 square feet of land area and it's um sort of a block where
see if i can get satellite view here nope that's not what i wanted there you go um you have a lot
of land vacancy and in fact in a moment i'm gonna um bring on a neighbor in support who owns one of
those vacant parcels um but we have a lot of vacancy this on the the northeast corner of 16th
and allegheny is the saint joseph's retirement home so that is a sort of a multi-family senior
use with an attached chapel um there is a vacant lot directly next to us and then sort of beyond
that is an apartment building known as the allegheny um at 1605 west allegheny which i
believe is an 87-unit apartment building. This is a church which I think does not have much active
use of the building at the moment and is sort of not in great physical shape. So it's sort of
a context that is institutional and multifamily. And that's why, you know, sort of building the
large single-family home that RSA 3 calls for really isn't appropriate here. We envision this
is something where, you know, folks would walk on Allegheny or two blocks away here to broaden
Allegheny and make use of everything in the neighborhood and SEPTA's services there.
We also, in terms of building to the lot lines, that decision was made in coordination with
Tioga United. They really did not want to see like fenced in yards in the front and sides of
the property in the end um i think out of concern for um trash i think the block has a has a
considerable dumping problem and the idea was to have um open spaces that are that are controlled
and not like exposed to the street so we are going to have a rear yard and that rear yard is going to
be fenced in at the rco's request and will be available to the residents um but um that i just
wanted to walk through why we thought multifamily and having a rear yard as opposed to front and
side yards was appropriate here. Matan Shmuel should be out there. And if he is, I just wanted
to allow him to testify as to his thoughts as a neighboring landowner on the block.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. I have a question. You mentioned building to the lot line.
that that was what the RCO preferred is that something that you changed in your revised plans
or was that yeah they should have been sent to you Sharon yes I understand but you understand
that that is too significant a change to do by that was that was not changed Sharon I'm sorry
for any confusion there that that was a feature in the original plan okay thank you
If we can summarize, that would be helpful.
I really just wanted to bring on Mr. Shmuel and then my client to adopt my testimony,
and I think that's all we have.
Thank you.
There you go.
Is Shmo, is Shmo, is it Shumo?
Yes, sir.
please identify yourself spell your first and last name matan m-a-t-a-n shmuel s-h-m-u-e-l
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do your affiliation with this project i'm a near neighbor thank you please proceed
uh i just uh i've been on a few of these zoning board hearings uh i'm in support of
anything anyone wants to do
to improve a vacant
lot in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
And Saddam Hassan
or he might go by Dom Hassan
is the principal of the owning
LLC if he's there.
Saddam Hassan, please
just spell your last name for the record.
H-A-S-S-E-N.
We're not firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
yes and your first name is dom d-o-m yeah uh mr uh sovereign thank you mr chair dom um can you
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dom, can you affirm that my testimony today was true and accurate?
affirm that my testimony today was true
And do you adopt it as your own?
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair.
I have a Tina Marie Russell.
South Philly to North Philly. Hi, how are you?
Hey, I've been here all day since work, right?
So I'm going to defer to Swan Poodle first, if she's out there.
Say that again.
I would like to defer to Swan Poodle first.
Hold on before you do that. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And you're representing?
North Central Philadelphia CDC.
So Tioga United, Tioga, correct me if I'm wrong, Tioga United is the coordinating RCO.
That's correct, Mr. Chair.
We're one of the affected RCOs.
I know that.
I'm asking Tioga United.
Is there anyone from Tioga United on this call?
I don't think so, Mr. Chair, as their letter was sent as sort of their testimony in this
matter.
Right.
Yes, we do have a letter of support.
Yeah, I saw that, I just wanna know
if anybody was here to speak to that issue.
All right, okay, Ms. Russell.
Okay, so is Swampoodle online?
Cause I said he's gonna refer to her Swampoodle first
and then we will go after Swampoodle.
That would probably be Adrienne Fernandez.
Is she the call-in?
hello hello yes adrian please identify yourself for the record first and last name
this is adrian fernandez and uh we are one of the one one of the affected rcos
the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes i do i just want to read my entire name
to record our rco is swampoodle neighborhood parcels association rco please proceed okay
we sent a letter of testimony in overall there are a number of um maybe about four or five
affected rcos on this address and all the rcos are equal the coordinator just coordinates the meeting
overall we are opposed to this project um it's it's an overuse of the variance
address on the record mr chair yeah yeah i usually ask but okay your address uh adrian
uh for safety reasons i'm not going to put my address on the record well let me ask everybody
let me ask you this what are the boundaries of uh swamp poodle uh i don't have them there we're
this is in our boundary we all of us cross boundaries they're in our neighborhood we're
in their neighborhood so um planning sends us our seal notification when the appeal
is in our boundary so planning figures that out before we uh come to testify we do not testify
on addresses that are not in our boundaries.
The terms of the rules,
the reason I'm asking is just
for just affected neighbor reasons
and we have, you know,
those who live on the block speaking in support.
So that just was my question.
That's all.
Well, it's kind of where I was going about
Tiota United is coordinating RCO.
Yes, but many RCOs do testify
and I'm sure Tana, we can answer to that.
There's a problem where
there's a perception being given that the RCO coordinator has
a weight that is greater than other RCOs that are affected. Whenever
there's an RCO notification emailed out, all RCOs are
equal. The RCO coordinator is chosen. The RCO
coordinator, the only difference is that the RCO coordinator
convenes the meeting. The Philadelphia zoning code specifies
that. We understand. You don't need to educate. We're just trying to get a
sense of where you are. Okay, you're asking me, so I'm explaining. So in other words,
we do not testify where we are not affected.
So there's times when in our neighborhood, Tioga is testifying.
Understood. Understood.
Understood. Please continue forward with your testimony.
Please continue with your testimony.
Carla, you can unmute yourself.
Hello.
hello hello yes okay i was muted by the uh host that's what the phone told me
Hello.
yeah okay because i kept asking you to continue with your testimony you just kept
all right please go forward with your testimony yeah i was muted that's why you didn't hear can
you please go on with your testimony yes i can thank you we sent we sent in a letter as i was
saying that we are opposed to this project because this
is an entire RSA 3 block
in that area of our wider community.
The larger multifamily buildings
that are usually about three or four stories are on
Allegheny Avenue, and this is around the corner, which is a single
family district. That's typical in that part of our community where the
Multifamily buildings are on the avenue, which is Allegheny Avenue, and on the side streets are the residential districts.
That property, the address being on 3216 North 16th Street, that property is currently, from what the record said, it currently has a variance for four units.
The proposal is for 27, which is an increase of 625%, which is a lot.
There's no hardship to show that we need to spread the low-rise apartment buildings onto our single-family districts that are on the number streets around Allegheny.
um one concern or a first concern is we recently learned that i believe it's next door at 3220
north 16th street is going to be demolished i believe that's the church that was being referred
to that is um possibly not in use and um putting a 27 unit apartment building at 3216 would create
the precedent of large apartment buildings spreading from allegheny avenue to chairman i'd
like to object to that as speculative that's that's all speculation the board hears each case
and makes decisions on an individual basis okay there's a there's a daily permit in a daily
permit record there's a permit that's been issued for demolition of 3220 so therefore i also would
strike any testimony as we don't i don't have any information about just just assuming there
is a demolition permit that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to whatever that gets
proposed to be put in place of that church will be approved you know that adrian you've been
around long enough please i i didn't say that i said that that space being torn being demolished
proposed to be demolished and having a 27 unit apartment building next door would create a
precedent to i just answered i just answered that we adrian i just answered that we look at each
case on an individual basis i understand that but i'm speaking to precedent which i have a right to
do okay okay okay all right all right what else who's next just add for the record mr chairman
that we did um do two rco meetings and um this organization and um uh the one that miss russell
is a part of were not at either of those meetings they did email me saying they couldn't get into
the meeting but the meeting they tried to get into was the zba meeting and they did they use
the incorrect uh link so i just want to add that all right miss russell
One second, Chair. But we have Mr. Charles Richardson on the line.
Thank you. Mr. Richardson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, sir. Just identify yourself. You're still under oath from earlier today.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Please proceed.
Just wanted to say that Councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Chair, did you still need Ms. Russell?
Well, she yielded to the swamp poodle.
I suspect she still has something she wants to say.
Pardon me.
Something new and different.
Ms. Russell, you can unmute yourself.
Thank you.
are you still there
any questions from the board can i just add for the record mr chair that based on her prior
testimony her address is 1630 on west susquehanna which is over a mile away from this property
planning commission
i'm bednar city planning uh this property is indicated for residential use on a city plan
based on our recommended district plan remapping proposal we have no objection to the granting
events. Thank you very much. MI 2020-0032573216 North 16th Street. My vote is yes. Were there
revised plans? There are. There are two pages. Two pages with proviso. Two pages approved today.
My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
so thank you uh that concludes the two o'clock list uh what time is it that's um we'll take
a 10 minute break get back around four o'clock and we'll go into the 3 30 okay okay thank
you thank you everybody appreciate your time yes we are live and you are recording
do you need any time no chair we ready when you are hey thank you good afternoon everyone my name
is frank t chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our vice chair miss carol tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board
members mr thomas holloman and mr james snell board administrator miss lakeisha dandy and our
board attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet
participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can
expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that this recording will be
available to the public on the web or otherwise. Third, for anyone participating by phone,
if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute
yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise
your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself. Finally, to make an appearance
statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at
issue i will repeat to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property and i would also like to remind everyone please
Please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to our Board Administrator, Ms. Dandy.
With that, I will now read off a list of continuance for the 330 list, MI 2020-002603.
That's number one on our list, 100 East Allegheny Avenue, request for continuance.
also request for continuance for number five on our list MI 2020-002-605-2721 West Cabot Street
and I'll ask anyone if they object to those continuances to raise your hands at this time
no hands at this time chair
Thank you. I would now ask if anyone would like to request a continuance or withdrawal
to raise your hand please. Chair, I have Richard DeMarco. Mr. DeMarco you
can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance. Mr. DeMarco, good afternoon. Please identify
yourselves by your name and I'll swear you in. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me okay?
Hi, we're here on the MI 2020-002683-3959 Lancaster Avenue.
I represent SAM Development, LLC, which is the neighboring...
I represent Sam Development, LLC, which is the neighboring property.
And you're asking for a continuance?
Asking for a continuance.
I can report that I spoke to the applicant's attorney, Sherman Toppin, yesterday.
You should probably promote him to a panelist as well.
He's the applicant's attorney.
I spoke to him yesterday.
uh to summarize the good news is he has agreed to the continuance and to a another rco meeting
my client was um unaware okay we we do have that from uh mr tober so that your okay will be
continued okay so that's that's fine i understand it is agreed to so um we wanted we do want to
state on the record, though, we do want to attend an RCO meeting, and I believe Sherman has agreed
to that. That's all, Mr. Chair. Very good. Thank you. So MI 2020-002583-3959 Lancaster Avenue is
continued. Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals? Yes, Chair. I have Mr. Allen.
Alan you can unmute yourself. All right thank you very much. Good afternoon. Please identify
yourself for the record first and last name. Yes good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockamson of Nockamson PC 123 South Broad Street Suite 1600 Philadelphia PA 19109.
We're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth. I do Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes, we are asking for continuance of 1713 Cybert Street.
Okay, that's number two on our list. MI 2020-002-607-1713. Cybert Street is continued.
Mr. Chair, we would ask that it must be heard. We've been trying to get in front of this
uh community group for some time and i just want to make sure that if we cannot
if we cannot get a community meeting by the next hearing it must be heard
so noted that case will must is continued must be heard thank you mr chair thank you
anyone else
oh man i lost everybody
no more names at this time chair okay uh carol i believe we go to number
three on our list calendar number 0085 1800 west ontario street
the owner is janet mcdaniel
she's coming in now as a panelist um miss janet you can unmute yourself
can you hear me
Miss McDaniel can you hear me? Yes I can hear you. Can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name please? Janet McDaniel M.C. D as in David A.N.I.E.L.
and your address 1100 Whitby Avenue Yadin Pennsylvania 19050 do you swear or affirm
to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes and have you emailed an exhibit packet with
the required documents they consist of proof of ownership tax compliance of 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 no I don't have a letter um is it yes is it yes to everything else
yes you've met with the RCO I met with the RCO twice um and I didn't meet with him a third time
they were not able to another hearing pardon me they wanted to postpone it because some people
were not able to make it to the uh last rco meeting we have to continue this
um excuse me chair she's had two meetings she has met with them twice
you're right she did say that yeah
you're right she did say that yeah apologize ma'am you said you met with them twice
Thank you.
yes and they were they were still asking for a third meeting yes why don't you tell us what
your uh talk to us about your application tell us where you are um you and by the way excuse me
you own this property right are you not are you an llc or a uh non-profit no neither one
okay so please proceed um i own the property at 1800 west ontario street i also own the property
at 1802 west ontario street um at the first rco meeting there was concern um the proposal
at the first rco meeting there was a proposal to um for six apartments and um i could leave
the space on the bottom for a commercial space i went back and we redid the application
um because if that was a concern for the rco i didn't want to have any objection the next time
so ma'am pardon the interruption do you have any exhibits you can share with us um let me see
which one what well some floor plans what the prop you know layout of what you're proposing
to do with the property uh yeah uh someone else is doing that he has that is that someone else on
It should be.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
Patrick Jones is assisting her if he could present the exhibits.
Will he be able to raise his hand?
Well, he was on.
I'm not sure.
He was on.
He's coming in now as a panelist.
good afternoon chair members of the board my name is patrick jones p-a-t-r-i-c-k jones j-o-n-e-s
my address is 944 east rittenhouse street i am the uh expediter for the for the um the owner of the
building well the owner has to testify mr jones but do you have any exhibits you can put up while
she's speaking yes sir please do that thank you and do you swear well they swear and affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Again, the owner, Ms. McDaniel,
she's the one who has to testify.
I understand.
So if you can get your exhibits up,
Ms. McDaniel, you can follow the exhibits
and briefly explain what it is
you're proposing.
Ms. McDaniel,
you can unmute yourself.
currently the property at 1800 West Ontario street is a single is zoned as a single family
um it had been vacant for a long time now I'm proposing to put a put four apartments two on
the second floor I mean I'm sorry on the third floor and one on the first two a two-bedroom
on the second floor and the two-bedroom on the first floor. Again, it would be helpful,
Mr. Jones, if someone could put up some exhibits. I shared my screen. I'm not sure
why you're not seeing it. Not coming up. We have nothing. I've shared my screen.
Mr. Jones, did you hear it go? Coming up now. Okay. Excuse me. This is Sharon. Can I say that
I did find a letter from Tioga
United, the coordinating RCO.
They said they did not reach an agreement
on the application and
are not taking any position.
Thank you.
Mr. Jones, we got
some of the floor plan, but we got
a lot of the other stuff, like
an index. So if you can
clean that up, that would be helpful.
Yes, sir.
how's that
slightly larger would be helpful
I can slide it around if you if you need me to so as she talks about each floor
I can slide it around to you that would be helpful thank you there were exhibits actually
submitted I'm not sure if you guys have it in front of you or not
The board does not, but our council does.
So, Ms. McDaniel, if you can continue. Thank you.
Okay. On the third floor, I'm proposing to put two one-bedroom apartments. On the second floor,
um two um no i'm sorry it's one uh bedroom i'm sorry two bedrooms on the second floor
and two bedrooms on the first floor so it will be a total of four apartments um
what's what's all like you said two on the first floor two no a two bedroom on the second floor
a two-bedroom on the first floor, two one-bedrooms on the third floor.
Oh, so it's six units altogether.
No, no, four units.
A two-bedroom on the second floor, two-bedroom on the first floor,
and two units on the third floor.
Oh, okay, the bedrooms as opposed to units.
Okay. So it's four units. That totals whatever it is, bedrooms, four bedrooms, six bedrooms, whatever.
All right. Do you have any photographs of the property?
Mr. Jones had the photographs.
Is there a rear yard?
Was it accessible for all tenants?
For trash purposes?
I'd like to see if we can see some photos of the property.
if you can enlarge that that would be helpful all right so
all right so it's currently a vacant building yes
you got a shot of the back of the house or side real close to the back
All right.
Tayogi United, Sharon, has not taken a position.
that's a rear um no uh looks like they said they could not reach agreement okay thank you
uh miss mcdaniel uh that gray one story looks like one one and a half story building is that
part of your garage that's a garage is that part of your property yes is there a yard you said
there's a place for the yard between the um back of that garage but no it's the side of the garage
where you where the tree is i know you can get that in there so between the back of the house
and the garage your space yes with the width of the house yes
any questions from the board no no i'm confused if it's six units or
four four units four units six bedrooms right okay okay right one two yes right
all right um anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
yes chair we have mr charles richardson thank you mr richardson you're still under oath please
identify yourself. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of
Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 312 City Hall. In so much as the RCO requested another meeting
and they could not come to any conclusion at the end of the last meeting, the Councilwoman is
urging them to at least try one more time to meet with the RCO. If they choose not to, then she is
not going to take a position and we'll leave this uh at the discretion of the board excuse me mr
richardson can i just point out that this the refusal in this matter was issued in august of
2019. So this has been going on for quite a while.
Well, again, you know, we believe that at times conversation can solve a lot of things.
And from what my understanding is that they were very close, but they just did not get there.
well you know i don't know the original meeting was because of the when i got started was because
of the um it was the proposal was six units and uh a commercial space in the basement area
We went back and changed it to four units, I'm sorry, from six units to four units to have, eliminate the commercial space and to just use that as a storage area and washer and dryers.
and um that was because that was the uh concern for the first meeting because of the
the number of units the second meeting was because of the um i think somebody uh some person
one person or somebody couldn't make the second meeting they weren't uh sure about something and
wanted to continue it they felt like it was um not enough people i think we had about 10 or 11
people they felt that it wasn't enough people to make a decision so we've tried to i'm sorry
and there is one person who's requesting another meeting yes okay thank you all right thank you
Questions from the board
I think I asked already
Chair if I could interject
We do have a hand
That was raised
If it's allowable for them to
I'm sorry I thought nobody had
It's Tina Marie Russell
Okay here we go
Ms. Russell
Here we go Mr. Chico
So I am
Hold on Ms. Russell slow down
slow down i don't know if i ever got to swear you in earlier so please identify yourself and
i'll swear you in tina marie russell north central philadelphia cdc okay and you swear
and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please
proceed so first of all not only am i the rco but i am a resident of the area for both this one and
other one so anyway what i'd like to say is that i would prefer we have we are overwhelmed and as a
homeowner we are overwhelmed multi-family homes it is imperative that we try to as much as possible
protect the the the zoning that's in our area for for maintaining single-family homes i mean the
And most we should be, if I would, my proviso is that we do a two, you know, just two, two
families and that's it.
But, you know, we kiss, there's too many, there's too many high density units moving
into the community.
And I would really like to the board to have the applicant come back into the community.
I know she says she's been here a while, but the ZBA process, excuse me, the RCO process has been having several hiccups because of COVID, and the RCO process has not been moving as smoothly, and this is one reason why she's experiencing some of her hiccups.
But I really feel that we should have her come back, and we can talk about the simulations and the like.
all right miss russell did you attend any of the prior two meetings um because i have not
gotten a notification um i did give this one but it was on a wednesday which is when we have our
hearings so it's hard for me to do that i think last couple weeks we got out of the hearings at
what seven almost 7 30 6 30 so it was an all-day thing like today is an all-day thing so it's
So no, I did not get to that meeting.
And the one before that in 2019,
like again, when you have hearings on Tuesdays,
you have meetings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays,
it was very hard to do both.
So no.
Let's get the planning commission.
Planning commission.
I'm Bednar, city planning.
The property is indicated
for single family residential use on a city plan.
We believe the applicant has not demonstrated
necessarily hardship regarding the requirements of the code the application represents an
The application represents an inappropriate overuse, not consistent with our adopted district plan.
inappropriate overuse not consistent with our
We recommend that the request for variance not be granted.
Thank you. I do believe that there's an overuse myself.
MI 2020-002607, 1713 Cybert Street. My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
excuse me chair did i wait we're not voting did you say cybert street yeah we're not voting
we're not voting on cybert
one wasn't i missed it i apologize 1800 west ontario street i did that twice today sorry
about it um all right mi2020-000085 1800 west ontario street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
thank you calendar number 2592 2516 north 5th street the attorney i believe is cheryl gaston
hello i'm sorry
yes ms gaston
no i think that was someone else who got one accidentally
i know that can you raise your hand please
and she's coming in now as a panelist
hello hi miss gaston please please identify yourself spell your first and last name
My name is Cheryl Gaston, and I, it's C-H-E-R-Y-L-G as in George, A-S as in Sam, T-O-N.
I'm at Spruce Law Group, which is at 1622 Spruce Street.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Carol?
Yes, do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with required documents consisting of 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?
Thank you. You may proceed.
I'm sorry. Let me start with the video. Okay. Oh, there. Now you can see me. I'm sorry.
I am still getting used to this whole process. Okay. Again, this is a, well, I just introduced
myself. Also here with me is my client who is Guy Malau, if we can make sure that he
can be heard when necessary. We also have our architect who is Mr. Robert Bernstein and I'm
not sure if he's on at this minute. But the application is concerning 2516 North 5th Street.
The application proposes to create a unity of youth to create one parcel for zoning purposes at 2516 and 2518 North 5th Street, and they will be known then as 2516 North 5th Street.
We are asking to have seven dwelling units total by reducing the existing number of approved multifamily units from 10 units to seven units.
There'll be three single-family units per building at 2516 and 2518, and then we want to convert a non-residential structure at the rear, it's a garage, to a three-bedroom single-family dwelling.
There'll also be an accessory parking space.
We only need a variance for that conversion because it creates what they call a condition of more than one principal building on a lot, which is not permitted in RSA 5, even though what we're doing is we are putting in a single family.
what we're doing is we are putting in a single-family dwelling which is consistent with RSA 5,
the zoning for the district. So that's what we are here for, just the approval to have the
conversion of the non-accessory building to a principal structure or a single-family dwelling.
And we have met with the, in case you want to see what's going on,
Okay. Can I have permission to share screen?
Screen. Yes, you may.
uh where are we i'm sorry sorry share screen okay
share give me a second
I don't know what this is saying.
So I thought I'd take you to some pictures.
I don't know what it's doing.
Can you see the screen?
Okay, great. Fantastic, wonderful. So this is the site plan. These are some of the floor plans. The buildings facing 5th Street will have one unit per floor.
So there'll be five two-bedroom units and one one-bedroom unit because 2516, the third floor only goes halfway back to the rear of the property.
And these are the, this is a site plan for the single-family dwelling.
this is the dwelling itself this is 2516 and 2518 again I'm sorry and again we have what's my picture
okay I don't know what it's doing
Sorry, they were there. Hold on, let me see if I can. Okay, let me do it again. Sorry.
I don't know what it's it's telling me they're having a problem with the
storage or something but I had put it up before ah there we are okay all right
no this is the other one large that's a little bit please no I'm sorry that's the other that's
my other one. I'm sorry. What are you doing? I'm sorry. You do have a letter of support
from the RCO? Yes, I do. We had two meetings. There was a preliminary meeting and then there
was another meeting. And I did submit the packet. I'm sorry.
All right, why don't we do this? We'll, let me ask the board if they have any questions
and then we'll move on because you have the next case coming up on Germantown Avenue.
Yes, I do.
Okay. Any questions from the board?
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair we have slone folks thank you good afternoon mr folks please identify yourself for the record
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Fulks. Please identify yourself for the record.
Again, good afternoon, Chairman DeChico, ZBA Board, Sloan Fulks, Office of Councilman Ria Quinona Sanchez, Room 5.
You're still on the oath from earlier. Sorry for that.
That's okay, sir. That's okay, sir. Thank you very much.
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO in the community and having received a letter of support,
the councilman's office has no opposition to this variance. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Planning Commission. Sir Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for residential use
under city plan. Based on this proposed unity of use we have no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-002592. 2516 North 5th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Cheryl, don't move. Calendar number 2594-4637 Germantown Avenue.
The attorney is Cheryl Gaston. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Again, Cheryl Gaston. I'm at Spruce Law Group 1622 Spruce Street, and this concerns 40...
Well, you're still under oath. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with documents consisting of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, I do. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay, so let me try this screen sharing thing again. Okay.
All right.
Okay, all right, again, this is a,
Okay. I'm not quite sure what's going on here with the screen sharing because everything
is in there. It may be because some of the plans are so large that when you try and do
it on here it's not showing because this is okay these are smaller plans all right okay so let me
do it this way uh I have on my client who is uh Lorraine uh uh Drake and uh there should be Nicole
Cole White, who is also involved with Wilson Drake, and the architect, who is Ken Johnson.
So they are all on.
So this proposes, again, creating a unity of use to create one parcel for zoning purposes
is at 4637 through 39 Germantown Avenue.
And it's going to be known as 4637 Germantown Avenue.
We want to demolish the existing building
at 4639 Germantown Avenue,
which I think is, I don't know what's going on here.
Where are my pictures?
Maybe there.
um okay uh my paralegal is on uh christine
uh christine schlosser it is
let me let me stop here for a minute and maybe go back to it and see if i can get this to
Ms. Christine, I am having such trouble here with this screen sharing. I'm not quite sure why.
Would you like me to share mine instead because I have this presentation and I can see everything.
That would be helpful. Thank you. We're going to ask you to identify yourself and spell your full
excuse me chair she's coming back in as a panelist now
great thank you schlosser i'm pronouncing that right would you please identify
thank you schlosser i'm pronouncing that right would you please identify yourself with the
record spell your first and last name hi it's christine c-h-r-i-s-t-i-n-e the last name is
s-c-h-l-o-s-s-e-r you swear to the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do and your affiliation with this application i'm miss gaston's paralegal
Thank you. And you're going to share your screen with us, correct?
Yes. Yes. Thank you.
This is why I asked her to be on.
Okay. Can everyone see?
Okay. So again, starting from the top, we're going to create a unity of use here.
to create one parcel for zoning purposes.
We're going to demolish the existing building at 4639 Germantown Avenue.
As you can see, 4637 is just a vacant lot.
And construct a new three-story building at what will be 4637 Germantown Avenue.
And it will be a multifamily building.
There will be three dwelling units per floor on the combined lots, along with all the site improvements, landscaping, lighting, and safety security systems.
If you could go, Christine, to page 25, I think that'll show you, I think it's 25.
Is that 25? Sorry. Yeah, this shows the elevations for the building. And we will be, we need
a variance because it says multifamily use is not permitted in what is now an RSA 5 residential
zoning district. However, multifamily use was previously permitted when this was a C2
slash CMX2 district and the properties themselves 4639 was previously approved as a single family
dwelling and the lot which is now 4637 was previously approved for use as a grocery store
and four dwelling units and we have certificates certifications from the city which show the prior
uses that were allowed there which my client obtained when they bought the property. So
So our main argument is really we only need permission for three of the nine units, but we should have been given credit for the five units that previously existed.
There was also a grocery store, which we're converting to what would be a use which is compatible with the current zoning.
um in addition there's a concern and this was um brought up at the um uh rco meeting uh crime
and safety in the area this is uh an area where uh there are a number of vacant properties and
or vacant lots. And at the last page of this, there's a grid. Can you go to 70? Now down to the
here. We put in a map that kind of shows all the vacant houses which are around there
and also the vacant lots. So the idea of having these units with lighting and a new
building with a lot more tenants, they will have more eyes on the street, and that will be helpful
in terms of helping with the crime and safety issues, which were a great concern to those who
attended the RCO meeting. In addition, the city's comprehensive plan, the 2035 plan, encourages
City's comprehensive plan, the 2035 plan, encourages multifamily housing near public transportation, and this location is a two-minute walk to the renovated Wayne Junction train station, and it's on the 23 bus route, and it's also within walking distance to several other bus lines.
Parking is not a problem because across the street is Loudon Park. You can see from this
drawing that there's a park that's across the street. So there's no like housing along there
where you would need to deal with parking. So parking is not an issue. We have agreed
with the community group to do a brick facade for the building which will make
it look more compatible with other housing in that particular area and we
did meet with the RCO and what I just wanted to go through a little bit about
how that worked because i think there may be some things that will come up later that will
be talked about but um excuse me counselor yeah can you bring the floor plans up again please
Could you enlarge them?
Is it 26?
what is the trash plan
we're going to have of course commercial trash you know pickup
which you would have with any multi-family building
all tenants have access to the rear yard
thank you okay um uh we do have a letter of support from the coordinating um rco which is the
the Wakefield 49ers Community Improvement and Development Association. What they asked
us to do when we sent out the notification letter, the RCO notification letter, they
asked us to also have a form, which is on page 46, is it? Christine? Yes, 46. There it is.
They also asked us and my client did provide this additional letter that they asked because they said that some of the residents there are not necessarily tech savvy or might not necessarily pay attention to the letter that was sent.
They asked us to also provide this virtual meeting zoning notice and asked for people to return those to the head of the coordinating RCO, Ms. McKelvey.
So we did that as well. And we also canvassed the area, my client canvassed the area and got some signatures from adjoining or nearby neighbors, which we showed at the RCAO meeting and then provided after the meeting was over.
Ms. McKelvey, and I don't want to speak for her, but what we discussed and what she told us was
that she actually verified whether those signatures were valid by contacting those people
herself. And so there was a meeting where there were a number of people in attendance.
There was also the form that people could return, and then there was also the canvassing that we did.
And then there was also the canvassing that we did.
And then afterwards, there was a confirmation, if you will, of those approvals by Ms. McKelvey and the coordinating RCO.
So I just wanted to, and again, they did send a letter and the meeting summary form of support.
Do you have, do you want your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes. Lorraine, where is she? Lorraine, it's Lorraine Wilson.
Hi, it's Lorraine Wilson Drake, and I corroborate her testimony. I don't know if I need to be sworn in.
Yes. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Ms. Baskin?
If your client, if she adopts your testimony.
Yes, I do.
Oh, yes. Ms. Drake, do you swear and affirm that, you know, the testimony that I've given
is correct and adopted as your own? Yes, I do. Thank you.
Questions from the board? No. No.
Anyone else like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, we have a Mr. Charles Richardson.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Richardson. Please identify yourself. You're still on the roof.
Yes, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
The Councilwoman is supportive of granting this variance. The Wakefield 49ers,
the coordinating RCO, was supportive of the project. Our office also received an email in
support of the project from the 13th Ward RCO. Our office has also received a number of petitions
and statements of support from the near neighbors. The site is actually two blocks
up from our district office in an area that has some properties that are deteriorating
and in fact one house down the street from the project collapsed down onto Germantown Avenue
from neglect. We feel that this would brighten up the area and also spur as a catalyst for other
projects that may take place going up and down Germantown Avenue. Thank you. Thank you again.
Planning Commission. I'm sorry. Hold on one minute. Anyone else?
Yes, Chair. We have a Rosalyn.
Rosalyn McCauvey, please identify yourself with a record spell, your first and last name,
and provide us with your address. Good afternoon. My name is Rosalind McKelvey. I'm a president of
the Wakefield 49ers. I live at 4926 Wakefield Street, the Wakefield 49ers. This is in our RCO
district. Ms. McKelvey, would you please spell your first and last name? Rosalind, R-O-S-A-L-I-N
is in the NCD. Last name McKelvey, M-C-K-E-L, B as in Victor E-Y. Thank you. You swear and affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Please proceed. We were asked to be
the coordinating RCO for this project. We also overlap, so other RCOs came, Faith LLC, I mean
CDC, and we did get letter and input from 12th Ward Democratic Committee. We met, and before having
this RCO meeting, I would like to say that they had submitted some plans and had some questions
to me and other neighbors, and the near neighbors were concerned with the frontage staying in the
looks of the neighborhood. So they changed as they showed in their pictures that they were willing
to do a frontage with brick and change the windows on the avenue as to blend in more with
the neighborhood and existing houses. We did find that due to the challenge of Zooming elderly
neighbors, handicapped neighbors, and absent and vacant buildings, that it was hard to get people
to a Zoom meeting as they didn't have the technology and the ability to get to the Zoom
meeting, but they did have a letter from me and also circulated as I requested with the
cooperation of the applicant, and we got back nothing but positive answers of this.
of the applicant and we got back nothing but positive answers of the near neighbors.
I had one neighbor that's on an old Stanton asking us to please get someone in there
because we've had such crime and hanging out of the neighborhood and we've had even a dead body
and pardon me to say it on there. A new woman found one block away in a car at Wayne Junction
and um they're asking if someone could just get in there the building to be demolished
it has rodents it has uh overgrowth that's not taking care of it's empty and there's two houses
as she showed you on sylvania street and both houses have requests the owners of the houses
said they would lovely welcome what they're bringing on to the block we're hoping that if
this does for town watch reasons and for security of the neighborhood um we even had one neighbor
that moved during covid she moved to the northeast she said she just couldn't take it anymore
and also expressed and sent back and i mailed in um to with our um i mailed in
with our report um i believe there was when we say near neighbor since they couldn't come the
Wakefield 49ers is three blocks away, the headquarters, and three of our people, they also had agreed because we do the town watch and the community cleanups down at that end, along with other areas.
And I believe even Mr. Ken Weinstein, who is one block away, a realtor, and tries to help preserve the neighborhood, he said he would see where demolishing the one and getting something up down there would be good.
And we put all that in our detailed list in our summary so that they would know that near neighbors that couldn't come did signatures.
I personally walked around, met a very elderly man on Ash, I believe he was the last one at the bottom on Abbotsford, another woman on Old Stanton, the two on Sylvania, and the two at 4641 and 4631 spoke to them.
So I made sure I canvassed the near neighbors that couldn't come to the meeting, but sent in their written and checked and confirmed their support.
So we had no objection of any near neighbors on the list or within three blocks.
No objections of those.
Other people attended the meeting, but they lived between eight blocks to two miles away.
And we had no one with concern of life and death on the block or the crime, but there was a concern about the buildings.
And we really appreciate her changing the front facade as to blend in with the neighborhood where it can.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your hard work.
Anyone else?
Something new and different?
Chair, we have Solo.
White Solo?
I think the RCO group.
yes allison weiss
can you hear me good afternoon please identify yourself with a record
yes good afternoon allison weiss solo germantown civic association a double l i s o n w e i s s
we are an overlapping rco to this you swear and affirm you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed yes we were in attendance to this meeting
we were not aware however until just now that there was a pre-meeting to discuss designs so
that is something that we're just learning also we're just learning about absentee ballots we were
not aware that the absentee ballots were something that was an option and or bringing letters from
neighbors. We attended the meeting. There were no near neighbors at that meeting.
And I would like to point out that this property that is being demolished is on the National
Register of Historic Places. Of course, I should say that Germantown Avenue, for those who may not
know, is a National Historic Landmark and this property happens to be almost at the entryway
to the district and is right across from Loudon, a historic mansion built in 1801
by Thomas Armat for the Logan family, the same Logan family as down the street at Stenton.
the same Logan family as down the street at Stenton. So we're concerned with the preservation
of the historic fabric and character of the street, and we're certainly concerned with safety.
Nobody wants an unsafe neighborhood or to have people that don't feel welcome and safe when they
come to visit historic
Germantown.
Ma'am, not to interrupt,
but get to the point,
state your position, if you're support
or not support.
We're in opposition.
For the purpose of?
For the purpose of
preserving
the building that they plan to demolish
in order to put up
a new structure.
Has this building been vacant?
Quite a few.
we know if they have you been to the historical commission yet this isn't local it's not on the
local register it's on okay it's not all right thank you all right if you can summarize miss
weiss we'd appreciate it okay miss weiss you're going to meet yourself
Ms. Weiss?
Sorry, thank you. I just wanted to say that at the meeting there were five community members
in support, there were eight in opposition, there was one in non-opposition, and solo
Germantown Civic Association board is in opposition. Thank you very much for your time
and we favor preserving history and its importance and there's no reason that a developer can't come
into our community and try to do the same with our historic properties. We welcome development
but we welcome development that recognizes and preserves the past.
Thank you.
Anyone else testify in this case, something new and different?
Can we just ask Ms. Weiss to put her address on the record, please?
I think I did, but if she failed to do it, I apologize.
4908 Wayne Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19144.
so she is not a near neighbor either just about equidistance of wakefield 49ers hold on hold on
ladies okay thank you uh anyone else else she's unmuted here thank you thank you no thank you
anyone else no new hands here is it possible is it possible to correct
I think, hold on, Ms. McKelvey. Planning Commission?
I'm Bednar, City Planning. Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan,
given the proposed use conforms to our recommended transit priority objective adopted in our district plan.
We support the grounding of the variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-002-594-4637 Germantown Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, members of the board. That completes my business. May I be excused?
Yes, you may. Have a good evening. Stay safe.
Thank you.
Thank you. Bye-bye.
calendar number zero zero one two seventy five strike that 71 58
torresdale avenue the owners are jay and sylvana monbron
and there's a letter of opposition from the rco tacone civic um for
address we recently received a continuance request
from emily rodriguez is there anyone here on this case and if so do you object to a
continuance being granted excuse me chair was that 7158 that you were calling yes
The property owners are Jay and Sylvana Monbrun, M-O-M-B-R-U-N.
They have submitted exhibits.
Could we check to see if one of them is here?
Is there anyone here for 7158 Torresdale Avenue?
I only have a Tycone Civic with their hand up.
I only have a Tycone Civic with their hand up.
No, they shouldn't be speaking.
So if there's no one here, we'll continue this case.
So I'm sorry, if I could just mention that I received not long ago at 225 a letter from
the attorney, I believe, Emily Rodriguez's office, that they wanted to continue the case.
Thank you.
Thank you.
didn't have an attorney listed in their correspondence. Yeah, I believe it's Jeffrey
Young. Okay, thank you. So MI 2020-000012, 715A Tarsdale Avenue is continued.
Let me call this one, Carol. MI-2020-001196, 7424 Revere Street. Anyone here on this case?
I have a Zong Zing.
Mr. or Ms. Zan Jing
Yes, Chairman
Are you here for
7424 Revere Street
Have you submitted exhibits
Please identify yourself with a record
Spell your first and last name
My name is Zong Zhang
Z-O-N-G
Z-H-E-N-G
Your address?
7424 Revere Street, Philadelphia
Pennsylvania, 19152
Where in front of Tell the Truth
The Whole Truth, Nothing But The Truth?
Hello?
Hello?
Where to Tell the Truth, The Whole Truth, Nothing But The Truth?
Are you the owner?
uh have you submitted exhibits i have i can't hear you i have yes excuse me this is sharon
saletta i've received nothing on this did you copy me on the submission oh i sent in the
submission and i had a return back mail saying it was received did you email it in or i mailed it
in. No, you can't mail it in. It had to be emailed five days in advance of the hearing.
I have not done that. All right, so Sarah, we're going to have to continue this case.
It was already listed once. What was the problem the first time? I'm not aware of the process. I'm
not familiar with the process. So I thought I'm mailing it in was my process. All right,
We're going to allow you another opportunity.
Normally, we would dismiss the case.
We are not ready to second case, but we will continue this.
Thank you, Chairman.
Am I 20?
Yeah, I'm sorry, Sharon.
I'm sorry, it's Tanya, Chair.
If I could just mention to the applicant to please review totally your email from the zoning board.
it expresses in detail all requirements to come before the zoning board of
administration i just want you to understand you will keep being denied to put your case on if you
do not do everything that's required okay if you have questions call the number on your documentation
okay and we'll help thank you tanya and sir remember that we're actually normally we would
not continue because it's already been continued uh but please follow the instructions that
just gave you and uh because we just can't keep continuing cases i understand all right so thank
you thank you i believe that concludes the 3 30 list anything left out no that's it we're all done
Appreciate it again as I say every week
Thank you especially to the folks who
Are in the background making all this happen
And making all this work for us
We appreciate it
Have a good night everyone
Good night everyone
Take care
We appreciate you
Bye Tanya
Bye bye
I appreciate all your assistance today
You're the best
Have a good night
Bye bye
Thank you.