Thank you.
Thank you.
good morning everyone we will be starting shortly
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearing.
With me is our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tenetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
he's there um i just got off the phone with him our board member tya winn president mr chairman
and our board member ryan mcadams president mr chairman also president is the board attorney
hillary emerson our zoning board director ian haggerty and our board administrator lakeisha
dandy a recording of this hearing will be posted on the zba website by participating you consent
to be recorded. This is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities. Whether remote or in-person,
if you call to speak, you must state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in. Once you've
sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony. Any person may enter
their appearance to become an initiative party to a case. There are three ways. You can identify the
case property address in your Zoom webinar. You can see a staff member or you can call the ZBA
appearance line by the close of business tomorrow call 267-270-5548 leave a message that includes
your email address the address of the property of the appeal case following guidances for our
remote attendees when directed by the chair you will raise your virtual hand in order to be
recognized to speak if you're called to testify you'll be prompted to join as a panelist please
accept the request and turn on your camera the webinar q a is for questions about the hearing do
not comment on cases in the Q&A. And if you're participating by phone, please press star
nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. For our in-person attendees, please refrain
from talking, eating, or drinking during the hearings. Verbal and a physical aggression
will not be tolerated. Restrooms are across from the elevators. A water fountain is just
outside the room to the right. When speaking on the record, you must speak directly into
to the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees
and a court reporter.
In the event of emergency, please
follow the directions given over the public address
system or by the staff.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear.
The nearest stairwell is to the left outside the doors.
In case of evacuation, the rally point
is Love Park, which is directly across Arch Street.
Please remain there so we can account for you.
Let's look at our schedule for this morning.
Number one, MI 2023-005-052-2021 Van Pelt Street.
That case is continued until 3-4-26 at 9.30 a.m.
Number five, MI 2024, 004-473-1000-52-Frankford Avenue.
That case is continued until 3-4-26 at 9.30 a.m.
Number six, MI 2024-006-071-328 East Rittenhouse Street.
Sherman Toppin is in the audience.
This may be a request for continuous.
Mr. Toppin.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
This is Jason Hand.
I will be your co-host for the session.
Mr. Toppin has been allowed to speak.
good morning mr chair good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer oh yes my name is sherman toppin s-h-e-r-m-a-n-t-o-p-p-i-n right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do um for 328 east
rittenhouse could you give us an update yes i'd like to give you the update this is one of those
cases that have fallen into two cracks the first time the rco meeting was scheduled with the chewing
neighborhood neighbors community the rco chair had omitted to circulate the zoom to his own board so
we had to continue that and when we came before the board the last time the board zoom wasn't
working and all the cases were postponed to this meeting so then we we had another rco meeting
scheduled last last month the end of last month and everything would be noticed all the affected
neighbors for that and i had an emergency on the day before so i couldn't we did not have an rco
So I couldn't, we did not have an RCO meeting.
meeting so to date the two rco meetings that were scheduled
So to date, the two RCO meetings that were scheduled to notice did not occur for those
two reasons.
And we're seeking continuance so that we can have a successful or actually have an RCO
meeting.
So MI 2024-006-071-32080 is Rittenhouse.
Our cases continue until 3-4-26 and will be marked, must be heard.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Ms. Chair.
Number nine, MI 2025-001-560-2050, Welsh Road.
That case is continued until 3-4-26 at 9.30 a.m.
Number 11, MI 2025-001-578-2605, Germantown Avenue.
That case is continued to 3426 at 9.30 a.m.
And then number 12, MI2025-001581, 2900 North Taylor Street.
Abdul Ibrahim West is the listed owner.
The applicant is Stephen Robinson.
We have no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
We also have a request for a contingence from Swamp Poodle Neighbors Parcel, RCO.
Sorry, Abdul Abraham or Steven Robinson, are they in the audience?
Morning again, Mr. Chair.
I do not see either individual in the virtual audience this morning.
Thank you.
So this case is the first time it's listed, no exhibits.
So MI-2025-001-581-2900-NorthTaylor, that case will be continued to 3426 at 9.30 a.m.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up from Joseph Vaccaro. I have allowed him to speak.
Good morning. Can you hear me?
Mr. Vaccaro, I can hear you. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Good morning. My name is Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, on behalf of Melody Gwynn, N-G-U-Y-E-N.
Hold on. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Vaccaro, where, what is the address?
Six zero one Devereaux.
Do we see that, Hillary?
Number 18, Mr. Chair.
Okay, so I was getting ready to call that.
We do not have any exhibits.
This is the first listing.
Yes, and we'd like to have a,
we're working towards having a second meeting with the RCO,
and hopefully the negative response from the RCO meeting can be reversed,
and we might have a more positive response.
Your client is here?
That's your location?
601 Devereaux?
I don't think my client is there.
Hold on.
All right.
All right.
So MI 2025, 001-676, 601 Devereaux Street.
That case is continued to 3426 at 930 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.
All right.
And let's see here.
Number 10.
Do you have a request for a continuing, sir?
Yes, sir.
garnett morris address is 4623 cloud street uh spelling my name g-a-r-n-e-t-t-e-m-o-r-r-i-s
the property is listed under bald hair printing company llc okay um do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir that's number 19 am i right
That is number 19, Mr.
So could you give us an update of where you stand with this case?
We do not have any exhibits.
No exhibits, and I need a counsel.
Yes, I just want to make sure that was going to be my next thing, make sure you knew you needed an attorney.
So, okay, not a problem, sir.
Okay, so MI2025-001-686-4623, Cloud Street.
Cases continue to 3426 at 930 a.m., sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Take care.
So number.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have a hand up from Ron Anastasio.
From who?
Ron Anastasio.
I will allow him to speak if you wish.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Vern.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, sir.
It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
What case?
You may have called this.
I think I did.
I called it.
I continued it over there.
1925, East Clearfield.
No, probably not.
Let me see.
what number is that okay i was just getting ready to call we don't have any exhibits
yeah right i i don't have anything ready because we need to continue thank you all right good so
mi 2025 001 561 1925 to 27 east clearfield street cases continue to 3426 at 9 30 a.m thank you sir
and number two
number two um mi 2023 00622 1654 to 58 north 57th street um that case has been withdrawn
okay we're going to go to our add-on list
so um do we have a spanish interpreter for the person yep we do
OK, thank you. The Spanish interpreter, please. Come on.
And my name is Stephen Aubain, S-T-E-V-E-N, last name A-U-B-A-I-N, interpreter ID Y-M-2-8-8.
All right. Do you solemnly swear to a firm or a firm that you will interpret accurately, completely and impartially from English to Spanish and from Spanish to English to the best of your ability?
Yes, I do.
I am going to call case number one, which is MI 2024-003-374-630 West Mayfield Street.
Why don't you start with that?
Así que vamos a llamar el primer caso, que es el MI 2024-003-374, la dirección 630 West Mayfield Street.
right and the um yasina and jose antonio adila bilen is the current owners they don't have to
they don't have to come on mr chair yeah yeah but i thought maybe yes you well you can just yes
mention that and i see their their expediter is um raising their hands so they are in the audience
thank you good all right so um for that case i vote yes with proviso certificate of occupancy
to be obtained michael johns my vote is yes with proviso maybe you want to
así así que para ese caso este yo voto que sí con los este condiciones de
certificado de ocupancia que obtenga un certificado de ocupancia
proceed
did he do that? Michael already voted. Oh, you already voted. Okay, Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
with proviso. Cheryl Gaston, el voto es sí con los permisos. Taneta Graham, my vote is yes with
proviso. Taneta Graham, el voto sí con las condiciones. Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with
proviso. Ryan McAdams, el voto es sí con las condiciones. Taya Wynn, my vote is yes with
Interpreter, thank you very much for your help today.
We appreciate it.
No problem.
Is there any other case that requires interpretation?
No, I don't believe so today.
All right.
Well, thank you for using the service.
All right.
So we're going to go to our first case, which will be number 20.
Mr. Chair, I believe there's another add-on.
There's one more?
Yes, there's one more add-on.
Number two.
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
MI 2025-001-557-6012 Hasbrook Avenue, I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl.
I'm sorry.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is no.
Hyowin, my vote is no.
We're going to go to our first case that we're going to hear is number 20.
MI 2025-001-754-3317 North 16th Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team RCO.
Who would provide those?
Good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, it's Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Did you identify your client in relationship to the property?
One second.
I'm going to pull up the document.
So it's Nadal Hassan on behalf of WCQ Properties LLC, which is the owner of the property.
or board member tenetta graham has a few questions okay good morning morning you submitted your
documents five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusals
and stipulate to their accuracy yes okay thank you you can show your screen and proceed with
your case thank you and can we promote um brenna uh deck from um for our architecture firm on
behalf of i'm sorry brenda merch sorry um on behalf of gnome architects llc sure bring her
bring her one and then uh one when she's ready to test files swear just have her ready okay
thank you so can you see my screen yes okay so this is uh 33 17 north 16 street
This project proposes the erection of a semi-detached building with a roof deck
and two roof deck access structures for the use of seven multi-family units as per our plans.
It generated two use refusals and three zoning refusals. I'm going to go to
the site so you can see it as I go through the refusals. Here's our project information form.
the deed for the property
zoning map so this property is owned rsa3 as are many of the other properties on the surrounding
blocks although there is multi-family specifically seven units on the adjacent properties and a lot
of vacant properties as well in this area as you can see from the aerial here this is these
long-standing vacant lots, sort of scattered vacancy on this block, and as you can see,
the properties on this side of the street, a lot of long and deep properties in this area.
Additional aerial view, again showing these lots.
This is the front view of the lot as well. Zoning posters.
This is zoning permit that we have for the adjacent site as well, just showing what we're
proposing and also the variances that were approved adjacent to the site.
this is just to show that on this block in particular and for this property it has a
long-standing history of multi-families since back to 1964 that's three units for proposing
seven but obviously this was back in the 60s so prior to that there was obviously one single
family home but since then there's either been multi-family or a vacant lot on this property.
This is just the zoning code section showing that as the board well knows multi-family is not
permitted in RSA 3. The other refusals that we generated for the project, one was for the use
obviously for multifamily. The second was generated due to insufficient side yard where
three feet is proposed, eight is required. Our architect will go through that, mostly due to
the thin nature of the lot and the surrounding structure. The other refusal was for rear yard
depth, proposing 10 feet instead of the 20 feet that was required. Again, that was for the RSA3
nature of the property the fourth refusal was for proposed occupied area we're proposing 64.8
whereas rsa3 is 50 or less and then the last refusal was because for rsa3 you required one
parking space per unit it's not really an ability given the grade here and also it would be out of
character provide an off-street parking space in this neighborhood nobody has off-street parking
on that side of the street and also given the grade you'd probably be taking a car and a half
off the street to maybe get one on and have to dig sort of into the side of the hill again
given the grade. We met with the community back in June 17th virtually as mentioned with the
as mentioned with the Nicetown Tioga improvement team.
Nice Sound Tioga Improvement Team.
We sent out all the proper mailers
and we got a letter of non-opposition from them with some considerations around the
floor plans which we've changed. So maximum of seven apartments, a bi-level unit, two bi-level
apartments with the certain square footages. They just wanted to be clear on what square
footages that we were actually going to be proposing and to build out. We included things
like egress, enclosed rear yard for trash, recycling storage, and removal of that storage
at least once per week. It'll be commercial trash pickup, given it's six or more units.
They want us to prioritize low-income and long-time local residents as tenants and accept Section H
vouchers, which we absolutely will do, given you cannot discriminate and not accept vouchers.
To keep the rental rates at the following monthly rates, which we have on here as well,
which we discussed with them. Importantly, matching the front facade with the existing
structures, including the bay windows, porch structure, ornamental details, and red brick.
Allow roof access for maintenance only. And they want us to share the property managed information
with the RCO and hire locally. So share with them around construction and subcontractor jobs
and using some of their resources to help with that. And also have the owner attend monthly
meetings to help updates on the project. I'm going to have Brenna go through the plans for
the project, which will help kind of better explain some of the refusals that we have mostly
based on the RSA-5-based zoning for this, and then happy to answer any questions.
Brenna?
Good morning.
Good morning.
Brenna, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Brenna March, B-R-E-N-N-A-M-A-R-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Do you have the plans, Brenna, or do you want me to go through them?
um you can continue with this presentation okay so we'll start here okay starting here similar to
what rachel had explained before we're a rsa3 lot along north 16th street moving to the next page
we just included a few aerial views of the site as you can see there are a lot of vacant lots
but the other properties along this area are built as twins so we're continuing in that fashion
So just our view on our site, as you can see the yellow portion is where our proposed building
will take place.
It will be attached to this existing twin with the white bay next to us.
And just a view on the other direction.
Moving into some nearby context, most of the properties around this neighborhood have a
redbird facade. Many of them have a pretty detailed bay, an ornamental cornice, front porches. So we
really wanted to tie in with that existing contextual nature. It's also worth noting that
this one is new construction right here. I think that's 3323 North 16th Street, if I'm not wrong,
and that was approved by this board for seven units under permit number ZP 2021-002887.
Just a few more examples of the nearby context.
Again, the same notice of refusal.
And then moving into our proposed zoning plan.
So as you can see, we're proposing seven dwellings in a three-story structure.
Our building is set back to match the adjacent property for the primary building,
as well as providing a bay that matches the width and depth of the bay.
And then a one-story front porch that, again, will match the neighboring structure.
our property width is just under 20 feet. So as you can see, we held off a side yard of three
feet for access to the rear yard, but we are not proposing the full eight foot side yard in that
space. And then again, the rear yard is at 10 feet deep. Just so we're clear, what's the width
of the lot, Brenna? 19 foot 11. So if we were to provide the full, what is it, eight feet,
how much building space would we have? Just what would that do to the project if we provided the
full 8 feet? 11 foot 11 inches. So it would be small for walls and all the requirements.
Moving into the zoning section, as you can see, we're proposing a three-story structure in line with all the neighboring context, as well as a front porch and a bay.
Moving into the zoning section, as you can see we're proposing a three-story structure in line with
We have two pilot houses accessed by the upper units.
Again, they will be for roof maintenance only.
At the floor plans, as Rachel discussed, we did talk through this with the community group.
So at the first floor, we have three bi-level units. The front unit is the largest. It is a two-bedroom unit. The living spaces are on the first floor and the two bedrooms are in the cellar. And then we have at the rear of the building two additional one-bedroom bi-level units.
Again, the living spaces are at the upper floor and the bedrooms are in the cellar.
All units will be entering through this main porch and then every unit will have access
to the side yard which allows you to get to that proposed trash area.
And then moving up to the second and third floor, at each of these levels we have two
one-bedroom units.
The front unit is on the smaller side and then the rear unit is a little bit larger
but again one bedroom and then at the third floor we transition to units that do have access to the
roof deck it will not be a shared common roof deck. For the proposed design of the building
we're proposing to try to match the existing twin as best as possible so we're proposing a red brick
exterior a covered front porch and then a metal bay with some important nape detailing at the
cornice and the bay. The proposed structures to the right are those projects that were
approved that have a zoning permit. They have not yet been built but we did show them for
reference as part of the streetscape. And then looking in the other direction and you
can see down that alley we're returning the brick for a portion of the building just so
it continues that brick facade that is prominent in this area and again a view of the other side
i think we went you went through the zoning plan okay um
that's all we have as far as our presentation and i'm happy to answer one of you why don't you bring
your client on to adopt your testimony. Yeah, is Nadal Hassan in the audience?
Do we see anyone?
Chair, counsel, I do not believe I see them in the audience this morning.
Okay, Chairman, if as an officer of the court, I can...
We understand that your officer of the court will take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Firstly, I just want to tell you, I appreciate the fact that you really took time to match or at least closely relate to the existing fabric of the block.
So that is very much appreciated.
I think it, from an elevation standpoint, it really, it works well.
I think it'll be an asset to the neighborhood.
I do have to ask the question that I normally ask, and that's, what's the depth of the basement below grade?
So we do have some sloping on our property.
So from the front, we actually are, I think, five steps above grade.
So if I were to pull up the section here.
So because of that, because of that, we're not as far beneath grade.
So in certain areas, we might get down to about six feet below grade, but we are pulled up above grade.
So it shouldn't be too deep. Right. So that that's a good thing, too, because you've got that height.
You're able to bring that that basement level up.
I would just encourage you, particularly in the rear area, if you can, if there's a way to kind of lower the grade to get more of a window well, a deeper window well, potentially access out from the from the lower level to the yard would be great.
I know you can't do it on the the the side yard, but there may be some opportunity there to do that and possibly in the front also.
But those are my comments.
Thank you, Michael. Questions?
I think my concern is about the three foot width of the side yard. I think that, yes, you've done what you could to try to mitigate the depth of the basement, but I do think it's going to be really dark and you've got three units now.
the depth of the basement, but I do think it's going to be really dark, and you've got three
units now with principal living happening in the basement and regular window wells. I guess my
question for you is, what's the plan to try to get more light into those spaces with those windows
along an alley, and you've got the porch overhang? Yeah, so I think the primary concern would be for
those front two units, since the rear one will have larger access at the back. Along that side,
we'll have the full depth window well to leave the basements, but we should have some depth as
well that we can add some additional transom windows along that facade. So that should help
add in a little bit more light. And then again, the properties currently next door are vacant,
but when buildings get built there they will have a side yard as well so we'll have greater than a
three foot side yard for the light capacity in that area and then my second question is like
explain the hardship that requires us to have seven units i think the two one bedroom units
having the spiral stair spiral stairs are very difficult to navigate it makes it hard for people
who might have mobility challenges it makes it hard for people who are trying to move in
furniture, and they are the middle unit. So that's also the unit that's going to get the
least amount of light. And so on a plan where you had space to sort of let the plan breathe a little
bit, I just want to understand the justification for needing to add the seven units to pack them
in like that. So, I mean, I can't speak to the financials as well as the owner, Ken. I think we
were putting together something that was similar to the project we had done across the street that
the community was supportive of just to add enough units to keep the price point down as you well
know Tioga is a more difficult neighborhood financially for brand new construction so
to keep some of the price points where the community had wanted them so that people from
the neighborhood could live in them it's just what my understanding from discussions with the owner
what the economics would allow for brand new new construction.
We had done one like a year ago directly across the street.
And we have a couple other projects.
We had tried to do four units and three units that have been sitting vacant
and have never gotten built in that same neighborhood
and even on a little bit closer up block on Venango.
So just to be able to make sure, one, the price points stay where they need.
And then also that the building can include like the front facade,
the ornamental details and things of that nature.
The community wasn't as concerned with some of the smaller units because when you have like some one bedrooms or even the smaller two bedrooms, you're not typically having three, four people in there.
So we tried to include some of the larger units where we could to include families just because of concern over transient nature.
But it just was what had worked before that actually got built was also consideration, given the cost of some of this stuff, in addition to making sure, like I said, that the facades are nice, the materials are nice, and we can accommodate price points that are not unrealistic for this area.
So, and we changed the layout a bit. We actually had had, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Brenna, we had had more one bedroom units when we first went through the process. But the ask was to add some, you know, additional space as far as like bedroom counts. So we didn't initially go in with as many two bedrooms as we have now.
Yeah, and to be clear, my issue wasn't the size of the units. It was specifically unit two, and it's both layout and with the spiral staircase.
I think in terms of the design of unit two, this is a pretty preliminary plan.
We do have 700 square feet there.
I think there is an option that we could add in more of the switchbacks stair that you see in the rear unit and still have a functioning unit here.
So that is definitely something that we could incorporate in the permit drawings.
Okay. Any other questions on the board? Yes. How many units are one bedroom, two bedroom?
What are we talking here? Yeah, sorry. It is hard to see. I apologize.
If you make it too much larger, then you can't see the whole thing on.
Yeah. So I think unit one, it looks like it's two bedroom, one and a half bath.
um unit two one bedroom one and a half bath unit three that's five
unit three one bedroom one and a half bath unit four one bed one bath unit five one bed one bath
unit six one bed one bath and unit seven one bed one bath so we have a few one two bedroom
one and a half bath a couple one bedroom one and a half baths and then one bedroom one
One and a half bath, a couple, one bedroom, one and a half baths, and then one bedroom, one bath.
Did I get that right, Brenna?
All right.
Thank you.
And again, I'm having the problem with the whole idea of seven units.
There was a permit issued in 2021 for four units here.
so yeah and as mentioned that had sat not being built for now four years um and like i said there's
another project that we just did 2323 north 16th street that was for seven units which got built
and i believe there was one more um you can find it in my notes um that was eight units that got
built so i think originally when we went through and thought and then 1820 venango got approved
for four units that's been sitting for four years not being able to be built so um we went back
through just given some of the approvals that we got could not get financed or build at all
so then they just sit vacant um which i don't think anybody wants so i i hear you and again
like in there originally we would go through with smaller amounts but then if you get a zoning
permanent, nothing can be built. Is that valuable in a neighborhood like this and in a city that
needs, you know, housing? So the other consideration is like the less units you put, not necessarily
on this lot, but in particular, the cost goes up because it's a supply and demand issue, right? So
sort of balancing that out. And then again, keeping the price points reasonable. So
just some of these economic considerations and some of the more fringe neighborhoods just make
the numbers difficult to be financed and then built with a quality material, especially with
some of the ornamental details that don't lower the cost. But to Michael Johns's point, they just
are more respectful of the neighborhood and they provide a product that looks like you're not
putting something out of character in a neighborhood that's been standing for 40, 50, 60
years with these nice architectural details. So it's a balance. The other one, just so you have
it is um 3320 north 16th street it's eight dwelling units that was uh issued via variants
by this board that's zp20 23004396 um so those are the more the recent ones in the last number
of years last five years that have been approved and actually built and then there was a few that
again to your point were issued but never built no no building permits ever pulled
that's economic hardship not unnecessary hardship well i think the economics is a factor
um in the statute it's not you don't have to show that that it's you can't build anything but
we also have to consider especially when you have we went through for four got it approved and then
it can't get built um i think it does matter the economics um because it has to live in a real
market so and again we had discussed this at depth with the community who had rather seen
something get built than have vacancies especially mid-block vacancies where you have trash build up
and dumping and other activities that go on next to residential units and spaces so um it is a
balance and i think if we could have gone in with a single family home or again the four units and
built it, I don't think we would be here. As you know, this is a six to nine month process that's
not inexpensive or not time consuming to go through. And of the concerns that the community
had, it wasn't around the unit count given they wanted the price points to be at a certain place.
So it's a dance, right? And also because there were, again, two other projects that have gotten
approved and built at both seven and eight units. It wasn't like we were proposing nine or 12. It
It was in line with that.
So while the economic hardship isn't the only consideration, obviously, it does take into consideration because all these projects live in a real market that has to be based off of the ability to build the projects as well.
So we're trying to just do our best with this one to to provide something that gets built and that is beautiful and that keeps the price point as far as the units rent down to something reasonable that can that isn't setting the market on this block.
OK, thank you. Yeah.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr.
The virtual audience for the current audience here and Mr. Richardson is on his way up here.
good morning mr richardson just please state your name it's spelled for the stenographer
good morning mr mr richard and just please state your name
certainly charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city
hall do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please
proceed sir the councilwoman has no objection to granting the variances thank you very much
for coming in here we appreciate it is there anyone else in the audience or the virtual audience
i do not see any hands raised mr chair planning commission
good morning chair and members of the board michael gall with the philadelphia city planning
commission m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-l-l do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i so affirm you proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsa3 residential single family attached zoning at this location the proposed
use is not out of character with the context but does represent a continued recent trend of
dimensional and density overuse of the properties along this block in their already dense context
and the units being created are of a smaller size than is needed therefore the city planning
Commission recommends the board grant the requested variances for multifamily household
living use, maximum occupied lot area, minimum rear yard depth, minimum side yard width, and
minimum parking spaces, but with a recommended proviso at a maximum of four units.
So if I could just respond, Chairman, I think that we, again, have already gotten four units
approved and it's now sat for four years. If the board would be comfortable, we'd be okay with a
minimum of six units, given the concern over that smaller unit. But I don't want to go back to four
units, which we already have gotten and haven't been able to build. Okay, so what I want to do
with this is I'm going to hold this to when we come back October 1. I'll take it to executive
session so everybody can really take a look at this and see what we think about it. And we will
we'll vote October 1st at 9 30 a.m would it be okay for us to provide to you ahead of time um
for the if we drop a unit what those floor plans would look like for that you can
consider that in your review just because you've only seen the seven Hillary
if the board would like we can close the record except for receipt of updated
plans the record and you provide this office with that and I'll make sure the
board gets a look at the plants okay thank you very much thank you very much yep or we're gonna
go to number seven mi 2024 007 015 53 36 wayne avenue charlena and sean aldoff are the owner
applicants. There's support from the 12th Ward
Democratic, request a 10-year
variance, and a letter of non-opposition from Solo Germantown
with a 10-year temporary variance.
There's also seven letters of support from parents and service
providers.
Good morning. Good morning. Could you please state your name
it's spelled for the stenographer yes charlena adolph c-h-a-r-l-e-n-a-a-d-o-l-p-h
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do so this application is for use as a group child care as part of an existing single family
dwelling in an existing semi-detached structure whereas the proposed use group child care is
prohibited in the RTA-1
residential zoning district.
Tenetik Rand
has just a few questions for you.
Yes. Good morning.
Good morning.
Have you submitted your documents five days
in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Okay, and this is the per se, so I asked her
about the, did you weigh
the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. Okay, thank you.
You can proceed.
Okay. Yes, I've been doing the child care in my home for 10 years, eight years as group already.
I just have to go before the board every three years.
So I was originally asking for a permanent variance, but during the RCO meeting, we agreed on a 10-year variance so that I wouldn't have to come before the board every three years.
I've been doing this.
I'm a star for a facility. I utilize my first floor. I reside in our home. We've been residents of this community for 50 of my husband has for over 50 years.
I have for the last 20 years. We inherit the home. We don't plan on moving.
I have for the last 20 years we inherit the home.
We don't plan on moving from this home, but I do.
Why don't you, why don't you do this?
Why don't you present your plans and we can, as you're talking,
we can look at what you have. Okay.
Okay. So I've never done the presenting of the plans before,
but the plan, so do I have to put it up on the screen?
Yeah, you should be come up on the screen.
Okay. Let me see if I can share.
Um, I've never done this before. I just thought once I submit the documents that it's there, so I don't have it actually put up anywhere. This would be my first time doing it this way. Um, let me see if I can get everything up real quickly. Um, I apologize.
You see, you should probably see your documents, open them and then push the green button at the bottom says share.
okay uh let me go open this right i'm sorry i lost you guys um
yeah i'm sorry i this i'm very new to this
why don't why don't we do this we we have several other cases okay i have two other cases that are
people presenting okay go on to them and then you can try to get your stuff together
and then we'll come back to you, okay?
But I should be back to you within a half hour.
Okay, thank you.
Sure, so number eight.
MI 2024-007-046-1513 Conlin Street.
Carlette Johnson is the co-owner, it's a pro se.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I do not see that person in the audience.
Okay. Is this the first listing, Hillary, for this?
i would have to check mr chair um there was also someone who uploaded the exhibit
um named jermaine oats i don't see them here either um
i guess i guess we'll need to i would since we did receive the exhibits i would just continue
this must be heard okay all right so um we're going to continue this and it's the second listing
okay all right so i'm going to thank you yolanda okay continue this mi 2024 007 046 13 1513 conlin
street this case is continued to 3426 at 9 30 a.m we're going to move on to
Number 13, MI-2025-001-582, 5844 Whitby Avenue.
Samaya Carter is the owner.
This is a group child care.
There's a letter of non-opposition and deferral from the third ward executive RCO.
They have no opposition to the variance
and will leave the decision to the zoning board.
We're coming back in as a panelist shortly, Mr. Chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. My name is Samaya Carter, spelled S-U-M-A-Y-Y-A-H, last name Carter, C-A-R-T-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
This application is for proposed use group child care in an existing structure, whereas the proposed use group child care is prohibited in the RSA 3 zoning district,
whereas no more than one principal use is allowed in the RSAD, RSA, A, and RTA zoning district
except as otherwise expressed in the zoning code.
Tanetta Graham, one of our board members, has a few questions for you, okay?
Good morning.
Have you mailed your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
And I think the chair read the refusals, so do you agree to the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
Yes. Thank you. You make sure your screen and proceed with your case. Okay.
Thank you.
you make sure your screen and proceed with your case. Okay.
This is it.
Can you guys see my screen? I don't. No, no. It's a little, I can't express what it looks like.
Okay. Let me try again. Sorry. Documents. Okay. I think this is it.
Okay. Can you see my screen now? Yes. Okay. So based on the list that was provided to me,
I had to basically show proof of ownership. I just bought the property in 2023. So
everything is still under the previous owner i think when you look it up
but this is the settlement documents just to prove that i do have owners over this house
let's see could you show us photos of your property yes why don't you do that sorry that is way at
the end. Okay, so this is the front lawn. It is a twin, so I do have my neighbor on the left,
but my house is the one on the right with the white siding. That is a fairly large lawn, so
I do plan on gating that off to provide the children that area to play, weather permitted,
and it will be fenced off in the next few weeks or so.
And this is the backyard.
Same thing applies.
A very spacious room for children to play
and it's already like fenced,
but I'm going to add an additional fencing
similar to my neighbor to my right,
like the barn look.
This is the inside of the home.
that is a kitchen that currently has a gated off area
so that the children are not in the kitchen
when they're not allowed to be.
And that is kind of the living room slash lunchroom area.
And we also may use that as a play area as well.
And then as you go further back to the house,
that's again, a closer look at the kitchen
with there's a gate there currently,
but it's not in the photo.
this is one of the classrooms slash bedroom that i converted to a classroom
um they're about 200 square feet per room that's just another view this is the second room with
another view and then that is the restroom um and i'll probably put a like a child toilet there
just so that the children are a little bit more comfortable and then that's that's like the
property. This document here is just a tax clearance, which I had to provide. This is,
of course, the notice of refusal and then my application. So basically, I'm currently zoned
to only have a maximum of six children,
but I'm requesting a variance
to have a maximum of 12 instead,
just because I do believe my property
is large enough to provide care
for those additional six children.
Even if it's not all 12 children at once,
I just would like to be able to provide care
for more than just six.
All right, questions from the board.
So, yes, question.
are you using the entire property for the child care? So it's currently a duplex. I do live on
the second floor. I'll be using the entire first floor as the child care facility. Oh, okay. All
right. So you live upstairs and the child care will be downstairs. Yes. Is there a basement in
the property? There is a basement, but that will not be open for child care use right now. Okay.
And so you're going to have how many classrooms on this first floor for the children?
So there's two classrooms and then just like an open floor space.
Which you're going to use for play when the weather is in cold.
Play, lunch, you know, activities, reading.
Thank you.
Other questions?
Other questions? How many employees do you plan to have on site?
How many employees do you plan to have on site?
So I will be one of the employees. I do work from home, so I will be able to care for the children while I'm there.
And then I do plan on having an assistance from a relative.
So if you were able to go up to 12 students, you plan to have you and one additional person for 12 kids across three rooms on the first floor?
Yes, but my intention is not to have all 12 children at once. I just wanted that allowance so that when I am ready to grow and take on more children, I will have that capability. But my goal starting out is not to have 12 children at once.
Okay. And then for the play areas, you mentioned fencing in the front yard.
Are you trying to fence in the entire front yard? And what's your thought around fencing? I'm looking at your block and most of the other houses don't seem to have fences with the exception of the corner and it's not fully enclosed.
So, yeah, I do plan on off the entire front lawn, separating my lawn from the neighbor directly next to me and then just enclosing that space so that the children are not able to walk out side of the like the property lines.
And then what's your plan for drop off? It does look like you're on a major thoroughfare. Whitby's a pretty important street in West Philly. So what is your thoughts? Because you are not on a corner. So you're sort of infill on the block.
Yeah, so I'm maybe two houses from the corner, but directly across the street from me, there's a very large, empty, I don't even know what you would call that, just very empty space. And there's always parking directly across the street because there aren't any homes there. They're planning on building a school there. So there's always ample parking on the other side of the street.
and then what's the current use of the basement so uh for me right now that's just storage
and then is your upstairs unit already separated or is your idea that this is going to stay one
home and you're just going to operate the daycare out of the first floor and then use it as your
you know as part of your home when the business is not in or not in operation no the the house
is completely and totally separated they are they function as two totally different units with
separate bathrooms kitchens and everything else okay i have no further questions i have a couple
so have you run a daycare before i have not no okay but i've worked with children in the past
all right and the neighbor that is your twin um are they in support of the project
um they have not reached out to me um during my rco meeting no one attended um so there i took
that as no opposition from the community. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. And I have one more
question. What age children are you planning to have? So my goal is to have children between,
well, yeah, children between the ages of three months to four years old where they're able to go
to preschool. All right. Thank you. Are you familiar with the state requirements for the
required square footage for children in ratio to a supervisor for a job? Yes. Can you tell us what
they are? So from my understanding, I'm allowed to have two infants along with three toddlers
at one time for one adult. And then if I wanted to do more infants, so I think I wouldn't be
able to care for just as an individual there only can be two infants and three toddlers per adult
and the square footage per student or child so the indoor space should be depending on the child's
age it does vary but i have here that indoor space should be 40 square feet per child of any age and
then outdoor play space should be 40 square feet per infant, 50 square feet per toddler,
and 65 square feet per preschooler. And based on those numbers, you believe you can get 12?
I do. Maybe not at all at once, all the time. I did run the numbers and it does come to about
11 children, but depending on schedules and if a child is coming and a child is leaving,
I should be able to still provide that number.
All right. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
I would just note if the board is inclined to approve this one
indicating the use is on the first floor
the first floor and that there's a single-family household living above so
and that there's a single...
that it's clear what's happening household living above you think single
family household living above thank you questions or comments from the audience
or the virtual audience I do not see any hands mr. chair planning unit planning
morning mr chair michael gall with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa3 residential single family
attached zoning at this location there is no unique condition or circumstance of the property
that would prevent it from being used in strict conformance with the zoning code this use uh
therefore the city planning commission recommends the board deny the requested variances for group
child care use and multiple principal uses so mi 2025 001 582 5844 whitby avenue i vote yes
for a temporary variance that will expire 9 17 28 with um maximum six children and uh first floor
It will take place on the first floor and the second floor will be single family living.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso.
So let's go back to number seven.
I'm sorry, able to ask a quick follow-up question.
Yeah. Just to be clear, is it a temporary variance of six additional children or am I capped as six children maximum?
Six children.
Maximum.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2024-007-015-5336, Wayne.
Charlena Adolph, please come back.
It should be coming back in as a panel
shortly, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
how are you how we make out thank you i am sort of having an issue because i can't get it my
apologies i cannot get it on okay all right so so so i i think what we're going to have to do is
we're going to continue the case and um is there any way to get this back in quicker
okay all right so here so what we're going to do is we'll continue the case and then
yes we'll continue it until same time but 11 19 25 at 3 30 11 19 25 at 3 30 and please call the
office and we'll have some people try to help you get through this. Okay. Thank you so much.
Thank you. No, thank you, ma'am. Have a good day. Yep. So here we go.
Number three, MI 2024-004-403-289 East Walnut Park Drive. David Orphanides is the attorney.
there's support from upper north coalition of community councils
vote was 51 in support one opposed
mr orphan 80s
i'm back another panelist sir
good morning mr chairman good morning council could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer certainly my name is david orfanides my last name is spelled o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do could you identify your client the relationship to this property
certainly my client is l hyphen m e m real estate llc and our board member tenetta graham has a few
questions for you. So good morning. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance
of this hearing? Yes. And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to the accuracy?
Yes. And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to the accuracy?
Yes. Thank you. You may proceed with your case. Thank you.
Share my screen.
Very good. See that? We can. Okay, great. So, good morning. My name is David Orfanides,
And again, I am representing LM Real Estate LLC, the owner of the subject property.
You have a photograph of the subject property here up on the screen right now.
It is a very large lot upon which is located, presently located a two-family dwelling.
The properties are, you can see in the zoning map that I'll show to you in a second, that
the property is zoned RSA 5.
However, and you can see this right here. However, most of this neighborhood, in fact, all and most of it was originally constructed as either two family dwellings at the end of the blocks or as one family dwellings mid blocks.
blocks and I'm going to zoom in here because you can see throughout this I'll call it a development
at the ends of the bookends of most of the blocks there are lots and partially it's because of the
configure the way the streets are laid out and they're carved and they're not or curved and not
at right angles to one another but you do have large parcels at the ends of the cul-de-sacs
some dispersed mid-block but predominantly at like corners and intersections where streets
are intersecting. You have larger lots, and on those lots over the years, they have been
granted zoning approval for more than two family dwellings, for four family, five families,
sometimes even with some type of non-residential use like a doctor's office. Our application today
is to convert the lower level of the property which goes out to the rear of
the property behind it fully above grade into an additional unit they're
presently a unit on the top level unit on the second level and then it's again
to convert the lower level to another unit I will show you some photographs
Here we go. So here's the view from East Walnut Park Lane. And here's the front. You can see the house is considerably wider than the house next to it. 287 East Walnut Park Lane.
um the uh the owner of this property was actually at the meeting spoke uh out vocally uh in support
of the application believe he may be on the call i'm not sure um this is coming around the side
from that in the first picture that you saw along ferriston
and then here's the rear um at one point and you can see here as you look up there's a driveway
that's behind the property and as you often have um the look sometimes the garages that the driveway
leads to uh have been sealed up and turned into interior living space this uh my client purchased
the property with the with already the garage sealed up and the interior uh as set up as interior
living space but um the um currently these are the what the each of the floors look like
This is the, I think, the second floor unit.
This is the third floor unit.
So nicely appointed, nice units.
And then, unfortunately, this is a seller right now, but which will be converted into the fourth unit.
I mean, to the third unit.
I apologize.
Here's a site plan showing the property.
Again, the size of the lot, I'm going to take you down to the zoning table.
Not that this is only a use application.
There's no proposed change to the height or area of the existing structure.
But the lot is 3,526 square feet, as you can see right here.
It's about at least twice the size of the other properties that you see mid-block, including the property located next to it.
It's about 1,800 square feet, and the other property is extending down the block.
So this is a very large block, a very large lot.
The structure only occupies, I think it's about 25% of the lot you can see here in the zoning table.
Obviously, RSA 5 corner lots, it's allowed to occupy 80%.
So it's not densely developed in terms of the structure.
Each floor is about 890, 194 square feet.
Each floor is about 890, 194 square feet.
The total interior square footage is pretty, as it presently exists, again, not utilizing anywhere near how much of the ground that could be utilized there.
The interior square footage is 2,659 square feet between the three floors.
So it's a very large house.
as mentioned and I'm going to just show you here in terms of some of the other lots and I'll show
you in a minute the zoning archive so this property that's located across the driveway from us
which is 236 Feirston already has a zoning permit for five it's been that way five units been that
way for a long time this property which is across the street on the corner has a zoning permit for
four I mean all these properties at the ends of the blocks a couple of them are still twos but
But again, most of them, because the houses are two to three times larger than the other houses, sometimes four times larger, have been approved and permitted for more units.
My client wants to develop this and turn the lowest level into another unit to provide housing for a family member.
You can see our refusal is simply a use for refusal.
As I mentioned, the property is owned by RSA 5.
But again, this development was done as a mix of two families and five families.
And this property was always, this house was always a two-family dwelling since it was developed in 1955.
I'm going to pull up, and here you can see an aerial image of the development, similar to what you saw with the zoning map.
Here's a little closer image.
And you can see how much larger this lot is than the house is as well.
And then here's 236 Farriston, and you can see the same type of situation existing there.
Continuing on with the exterior photos.
Again, drive the alley leading up the back.
You can see here people parking behind.
Some of them already closed out.
this is 236 fairston the five-family dwelling that's located across the driveway you can see
the meters on that house the front of that house and then this is just the other views
that are properties across the street which are again utilized and zoned for
two three sometimes four family dwellings this is just leading out of the development
You can see here.
This is the property.
This is the one right here on the end that's presently zoned.
This is a four-family dwelling.
As mentioned, we met with the community group a week ago Monday.
It was very well attended.
It was a long meeting, not for our presentation, but council member Phillips was there in attendance as well.
as members of the staff and you could see from the letter that we received um just the other day
from the upper uh unccc um that it was a near unanimous uh support by members of the community
there were a number of people from the block like i mentioned including the abutting property owner
who may or may not be on the call today um and so that spoke out in support of this proposal
the need for this type of housing up in this neighborhood, and that the impact upon the
abutting properties and nearby adjacent properties and nearby properties would not be something of
concern to any of the neighbors. And again, I think the one person that had opposition or had
concern, didn't vote in support, was a little confused by the materials that were mailed out,
somehow had a copy of the notice of refusal, which we handed out at the meeting,
And that seemed to confuse the person.
But other than that, again, it was nearly unanimous.
I mentioned the zoning archives for some of the other properties.
This is the 236 Fairston, which is located right across the alley.
And again, you can see a five-family dwelling was granted by variance in 78.
You know, 260 East Walnut Park Drive.
I don't know if I actually hit that tab.
I just said 151.
and you can see historically it was a doctor's office and a four-family as well.
We do have, as you can see on the floor plans, I know there's been some talk in the prior,
some of the projects that were presented earlier about how much of is below grade, how much
is above grade. Again, as you can see from the photos, this is the back. There's the existing
door. There are the existing windows fully above grade. There is this window that's right here in
There is this window that's right here in the bedroom where we may be expanding that.
the bedroom.
And then here's a common laundry area for the whole building.
It does have two windows.
And then you have two windows over here also at the kitchen.
And those are higher.
We may be expanding those as well.
But each of the units are a good size.
As mentioned, 894, 891 square feet.
As a two-family dwelling, as you may be aware, you can have up to three unrelated people living together.
So as in its current arrangement, it could have six bedrooms with six unrelated people, three per unit.
Presently, there's only two bedrooms, and then we're only adding one more.
We're not trying to jam a second one into the lower level to have six.
So we have fewer bedrooms and would otherwise be permitted as a matter of right.
We did try to explore the possibility of just, and we spoke to the architect about this at length, of possibly just, you know, as an alternative, expand, although this unit is intended for family members, a separate unit, of converting this vestibule area where you come in, which presently goes down to the cellar and goes up through the door or comes into the unit, through the door to go up to the upper units.
the existing two units are into a door, uh, into the ground, or I'm sorry, into the unit above.
This is the, uh, the second level, the existing unit to second level. And, um, it would be
extremely difficult and extremely expensive because of the, um, the configuration, uh,
in order to kind of seal off this area, um, this area to get from the ground floor to the lower
level, you'd have to relocate the front door. There's a lot of stonework there. And we're not
sure that we would even have the required landing areas or landing spaces with door swings and
whatever else in order to do that. So we explored that as an option of increasing the size of the
ground floor unit, expanding it into the lower level. But again, it would appear to be either
structurally or cost prohibitive and wouldn't serve the purpose that we were looking for, which
is to add a separate unit down below um for the family could you explain how um the other two
units on the first and second floor get it how do they get into the sure so so the laundry area
yeah sure so right now you come in so this is the door that is right here yeah on the side okay
So you come in, and then there's a stair that goes down,
and that goes right now goes down to the basement area,
which everybody can access.
You can come in off the vestibule here, and you make a left, turn left,
and there's a door that goes into the level, I call it level two,
the second story, the lower level is the first story.
This is the second story.
and then there's a door at the bottom of the stairs that then takes you up to the third story
at the top level and they have they haven't there's a door both at the bottom and there's
a door at the top as well does that answer does that answer your question yeah we're okay yeah
and again so the upper floors you know large large living room dining room kitchen kind of
all-open floor plan, as you saw in the photographs, and then two bedrooms with closets, a good
amount of windows facing, you know, towards the street, and then on the side, you get
windows that face towards Ferriston.
I did reach out.
We got, like I mentioned, we got the letter a little late.
I'm not blaming the community UNCCC about that.
The meeting was just last Monday, and I did forward the letter to Council Member Phillips
office but uh had not heard back from them as to what their position is and again they were in
attendance during the meeting i think they could have seen for themselves um that there was almost
again near the unanimous support from a well-attended uh meeting with that so just for a
point 55 years this was used as duplex and now the owner the owner is saying well i want to move a
family member into the third into the basement is that what you're saying yeah and to the lower
level, the lower story, correct?
Bring your client on.
We'd put it at about 65 years, yes.
Amir, can you raise your hand, please?
Obviously, while he's getting promoted to panelists, we do have an architect involved,
as you can see here, and this would be, obviously, we would go through the process of securing
building permits and getting a certificate of occupancy, securing, making sure all life
safety codes are complied with.
We have had discussions about the need to actually, one of the benefits of this project
One of the benefits of this project is that right now it's not presently sprinklered.
is that right now it's not presently sprinklered.
And in order to add the lower unit, we'll need to sprinkle the whole building.
So this will be converted from a non-sprinkled building with two units to a fully sprinklered building with three.
It's also nice that with the access off the back, this could be modified at the ground floor level for ADA access if we were able to make that work in terms of bathroom sizes and turnarounds, which is something we have also discussed.
because you can't now presently get into even the unit that's at the ground grade level
off of East Walnut Park Lane because of steps.
Who's the client on?
El-Tab El-Hasan.
I'll allow them to speak briefly.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
amir could you please yeah i can could you could you turn on your video first
uh let me promote him to our panelists and then he'll be able to do some please hold sir
there's becoming a back end sure
hi everyone my name is amir al-tayyib al-hassan of lm real estate
could you please spell your name for the stenographer yes uh a m e e r and then al-tayyib
E-L-T-A-Y-E-B
last name Al-Hassan
E-L-H-A-S-S-A-N
do you swear or firm
to tell the truth
the whole truth
nothing but the truth
can you turn your video on please
oh it's not currently on
thank you there we go please proceed counsel
oh yes yes amir did you um did you hear the statements that i made to the board this morning
yes i have and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes and you you were at
the meeting with me on last Monday evening, correct? I was. And it was a very well attended
meeting, correct? Yeah, I would say at least 50 people and more people than were at the first
community meeting that we actually did in winter 2024. So very, very well attended and it was nice
to see there was actually attendees who had never joined a meeting before in the past and this was
their first time and they had been living in the community for 20 years. So definitely got to hear
a lot of voices that needed to be heard and address any concerns that people had and alleviate
them thank you i have no further questions right um questions from the board i have no questions
i have one quick question so when you go into down the basement to that common area you're not able
the the basement apartment is not um has access to that common area through that door but that's
not their main entry correct no no their their main entry is that like it's the existing door
that's right at grade off the back i can show you another picture of it if you would like okay no i
i thought that was it thank you yeah okay and my only question is what is the plan for trash
so we did talk about that and i'll show you on the safe on the plan so right now the plan is to put
to not store it outside and we have it shown here um at there's going to be an area that's
either kind of off in this area right here i mean obviously not right at the bottom of the stairs
um but there's going to be an area in the cellar where we're going to have trash storage for the
units but there's no doorway public doorway from the cellar to the exterior of the home correct
so yeah no there is it's this common hallway here so you would come up and you would come out
the front door right so there's they'd have to carry the trash up the stairs but yeah that's
fine i just wanted to make sure yeah i mean they would store it in their unit but if they didn't
if they had too much for their unit there was there'd be an area to store it inside
which is which is not what's most a lot of most of the people in the neighborhood just put it out
back in their driveway so we were trying to provide as much area as we can inside to keep
trash out of the uh the open the open space all right other questions yes um question um can you
make the uh uh common area the not the common area the lower level a little bigger sure how's that
all right well this is where the new unit is being proposed correct
so am i reading this correctly is there there's a the proposed living room and then next to that is
So am I reading this correctly?
Is there, there's a proposed living room?
the bedroom so it's going to be a one bedroom unit correct correct yes and then am i seeing that the
sorry go ahead go ahead that the bathroom is over here on the other side where the
kitchen is is that yes it is off the kitchen yeah with the stand-up shower that's the that's
the config keys sorry keep sliding it open that's a configuration right now we we have discussed that
and seeing if there's a way not to have the shower right off of the kitchen
um and that would involve you know possibly relocating some of the you know moving some
things around in this area um but it was the way to get the biggest bedroom and the biggest living
right now well i i guess my concern is you know again i and maybe this is a pet peeve of mine
but um you know when you get up at two o'clock in the morning you have to wander all through here
to get to the bathroom go through the kitchen to get to the bathroom i find that to be um
not the best configuration if you will for a living space yeah i mean we have played around
with the idea of putting it in over here right off of the living and the bedroom but then obviously
we end up with a pretty large kitchen you know they can eat in area and then not having um you
know as big of a bedroom um or living room so that that is an option though because we have
that does lay it does lay out in this area to be able to do it here well i thought you just put it
there because it'd be easier in terms of the water sources well there i mean yes there is that aspect
Yes, we're back right up to the washer. Yes, for sure. I mean, and it but again, it allows for a larger bedroom and a larger living room. You know, do you need that large of a kitchen? So for multiple reasons, it was why we put it back in this area. But I mean, if it were a concern, you know, walking, you know, I don't know, 12 feet, or, you know, maybe 15 feet to get to the bathroom.
um you know it could be located in this area at three o'clock in the morning that's a long 12 feet
okay that's all my kids do it but i guess you know they're younger it's not so
yeah that's that's even with them that's a little we haven't had any problems but thank you
questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the audience
hands up. Wait, I have a hand up from a David
Nelson. I will allow them to speak. Sure.
David Nelson, please unmute.
Yes, can you hear me? I can. Could you
please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is David Nelson.
D-I-V-D-I-V-I-D
Nelson. N-E-L-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Mr. Nelson, could
you turn your video on, please?
Yes, I can.
I'm going to put my glasses on.
You could start your testimony.
My name is David Nelson.
I am...
Then we're rejoining us,
Panama, shortly, Mr. Chair.
Excuse me.
And I talked to the neighbors
when they posted the zone in Heron.
A lot of neighbors walked up to me
and asked me what it was about,
and I informed all the neighbors
but it was about the zoning herring that's why a lot of people came out to the rco meeting
and they you know and they're and i talked to them about you know what was going on they all
was okay with it you know i lived around here for 28 years i know all the neighbors when they saw
the um the herring notice they all walked up to me and i explained it to them they all was okay
with it and in the back and they do have excess in the back to get in and out for a trash if they
do want to go in and out the back they do have an entrance in the front an entrance in the back
they have enough room for two cars to park back there thank you david where do you live
a 287 right next door to white fence adjacent property oh you're the adjacent owner okay great
that's my thought thank you anyone else in the virtual audience
do not see any hands mr chair planning commission
michael gall with the philadelphia city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing rsa 5 residential single family attached zoning at this location the
property has a documented history of multifamily use dating to the 1950s and the appellant has
demonstrated that the proposed use would not cause undue detriment to neighboring properties
beyond what might be expected therefore the city planning commission recommends the board grant
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed special exception for multifamily residential use.
the proposed special exception for multifamily residential
Thank you.
Mr. Orphanitis, we're going to hold this until October 1st.
We're going to just talk a little bit about it in the executive session.
Understood.
And we'll vote at 9.30 a.m.
I'm sorry, on what date, October 1st?
October 1st, 9.30 a.m.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right, so I think we have a lot of people in the audience for number 21, MI-2025-004-704, 4045 to 61 Main Street.
Adam Labor is the attorney.
so um this is a uh a reconsideration hearing um hillary i'll start with the preamble
okay the evidence and testimony from the original hearing in this matter
are incorporated into the record for this hearing the scope of this hearing is the applicant's
request for greater height variance than previously granted by the board after the original hearing
for a point of information the applicant will make a presentation the board and council will
have questions there will be public testimony only on the issue relative to the height and
planning commission will then make a recommendation and before we start
hillary emerson has a letter that i believe she wants to read into the record
um yes good morning mr labor um morning members of the board um we received a letter um from
council member jones that he asked to be right into the record at the start of the hearing so
i'm going to do that now um dear chairman bergman and members of the zoning board of adjustment
thank you for the board's extensive review of this very important case along manny young's
main street in the heart of my councilmatic district for years i along with other stakeholders
have been striving to positively transform this area, and this project has the potential to finally
do just that. Following the ill effects of Hurricane Ida in 2021, the former G.J. Littlewood
& Son Incorporated site at 4045-61 Main Street, the subject property, has sat empty and desolate.
The subject property has been under contract multiple times with different developers who
attempted to devise viable development schemes yet none were successful. The current proposal
is a game changer. The site is arguably one of the more challenging sites to develop in Maniunk
creating tremendous hardships for any developer including a significant floodplain elevation
that extends higher than the height of a typical floor. The rear neighbor 11 Shures Lane is
markedly higher than the subject property due to its position atop the bedrock and rock
outcropping. Additionally, the rear of 40, 45 to 61 Main Street is adjacent to an elevated railroad.
These combined factors make rear-facing residences on the first and second floors of the subject
property impossible. The subject property is located within the Maniunk Main Street Historic
district requiring that the proposed development incorporates much of the existing civil war era
industrial facade into the plans for state-of-the-art modern residences for these reasons
and more excuse me for these reasons and more the pending request for variance relief to allow an
additional eight feet nine and a quarter inches in height is warranted and necessary lower main
Street struggles with vacant retail storefronts, exacerbated by the impact of Hurricane Ida.
The proposed redevelopment would be a shot in the arm for Main Street, bringing 163 dwelling units
to patronize our stalwart businesses and to attract new businesses. The proposed project
has the potential to jumpstart investment and development along Lower Main Street,
which is desolate, isolated, and by many accounts, depressed.
Unlike other areas of Main Street, Lower Main Street struggles to attract investment and attention.
I firmly believe that the success of this project will encourage additional private investment along Lower Main Street,
whereas quashing this proposal would set back Lower Main Street even further,
dissuading private investment and serving as a signal to developers that Lower Main Street is not worth the investment risk
compared to other areas in Philadelphia.
The project, as presented, has received an unprecedented amount of
The project, as presented, has received an unprecedented amount of support from impacted
near neighbors, including 48 impacted near neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property,
residences, businesses, and a house of worship located directly across the street from the
subject property.
Thank you for the Board's continued consideration.
Sincerely, Curtis Jones, Jr., Councilmember, 4th District.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes chairman bergman you know as you know we had a great deal of testimony
we do that a couple times yes sir let's take a few times so um why don't you start your
presentation and and as stated this will be about why you need additional height
is that right yes we are uh absolutely agreeable and appreciative of this opportunity
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, as the board is aware, I have the privilege of
representing 4045 Main Street LLC, which is an urban convergence entity, and Andrew Zakroff,
who is sitting here in the physical hearing room today, Vice President of Acquisitions
and Development.
In addition to Andrew, Robert Littlewood is in the second row.
Mr. Littlewood is a fifth generation member of the family business G.J. Littlewood and son
who cares greatly about this property. In a public hearing vote on May 21st of 2025
this board granted variance relief in this matter with the condition that would reduce the proposed
project height by eight feet nine and one quarter inches from the proposed 68 feet nine and one
quarter inches to 60 feet even urban conversions respectfully sought reconsideration of this
condition in light of several factors and we will pinpoint uh and contain our testimony today
to the to this point historic preservation objectives and requirements uh to keep
a little bit closer i beg your pardon thank you historic preservation objectives and requirements
to keep the new floor structures from being visible through retained historic window openings
thereby increasing overall height of the new construction this mr chairman and members of
the board is in keeping with the philadelphia historical commission's july 23rd 2024 approval
which is part of the submitted record additionally we sought this opportunity to appear before you
to review building sections, which establish that any residences at the rear of the second
floor level would be non-viable. We've described them as subterranean, and Mr. Layden, the architect,
will share additional detail on that momentarily. This is due to topographical conditions that are
particular to this site natural rock outcroppings for example which necessitate raising
functional occupiable areas in the proposed new construction this is different and distinguishable
for example and it's actually uh shown in this slide that is on the board from the property
along Shores Lane just next door, 11 Shores Lane. 11 Shores Lane, very interestingly,
has effectively a natural base in that it's raised higher up. It does not suffer,
is not burdened from the same conditions. And we'll get into that. As well as market-driven
data, which necessitates, based on well-accepted principles, a 10-foot, 8-inch floor-to-floor
height in new construction projects, which allows for 9-foot-high ceilings.
Site challenges, as well, necessitate that the project be built with 5-over-2 construction,
with five over two construction which is a term of art which means five stories of wood frame
which is a term of art, which means 5-over-2 construction.
construction over a steel or concrete podium and that other construction types would not be
economically viable or practical so that you have these conditions at the site physical conditions
which exacerbate a problem significantly we are very grateful mr chairman and members of the
board for the opportunity to share additional information specific to this one issue. Architect
Eric Layden will testify regarding the physical limitations of the site, followed, we hope,
by Dr. Peter Angelides on market forces. Also available, only should questions arise, is
Ryan Aide, Senior Managing Director of Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc., an expert on current
market conditions and a consultant on this project before bringing mr laden uh to uh testify before
you we've gone over what the board approved we are aware of the difference uh in what has been
presented uh compared to what uh currently has been approved uh the record reflects uh council
member jones's support the overwhelming support of near neighbors the historical commission
approval the uh rcos absent mnc and mnc i know will speak for itself but manny on development
corporation manny on special services district 68 total near petition signatures uh etc and you
You can see that in this documentation to refresh where we are.
At this point, and in the interest of time, I'd like to ask Mr. Layden to please come
up and present an overview of the physical limitations at the property, which relate
specifically and solely to this issue of height.
Mr. Layden.
Mr. Layton, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, my name is Eric Layton, E-R-I-C-L-E-I-G-H-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Layton.
Let's get right to the heart of this.
Could you please go over the physical limitations of this site in your expert opinion for the
board and i'll be happy to uh advance the slides as you wish absolutely thank you mr labor um what
we're looking at right now just as a refresher for everybody is an aerial view of the existing
condition at the site the magenta line is at the property line and it is more or less an assemblage
of 27 different constructions um that are all sandwiched together on this site um the historic
commission did grant approval to could you get a little closer oh sorry i'll move it up
is that the mic one it is yeah here maybe this will be better um the historic commission did
um grant a hardship approval to demolish everything that's on the site upon receipt
of approvals for a buildable project um if you could advance the slide please uh so what i want
to start with here is to to demonstrate why we need the proviso to be um increased to 68 nine
and a quarter or to eliminate the 60-foot proviso limit, is start with this ground floor plan,
which you see is primarily parking. And what's indicated there in magenta are three section
markers, which I'll go over in a minute. And then you see six photograph dots there. I think some
of them are underneath the photographs of the participants in the meeting off to the right.
but if we turn the page I will demonstrate what the photographs are for. So one of the really
really unique situations at this site in addition to the floodplain limitation are these rock
outcroppings that exist as you see here within the building and just to be clear in addition to
these photographs the interior of this building was scanned with a laser so when you see these
rock outcroppings in the drawings. The dimensions and the heights are pulled from a point cloud
into the computer for us to create the sections that we're about to see. These are two views of
the rock outcroppings behind the building, more towards the railroad. And then if you could
advance the slide, please. The one on the right is also rock outcropping in the vicinity of the
railroad so the the north edge of the property and i just want to point out on the left side
on the left side that is the parking lot at 11 shores lane there's a building being constructed
that is the parking lot at 11 shores lane there's a
there right now um this photograph was taken prior to that this is actually the top of the
rock outcropping that we were seeing in the interior photographs just to demonstrate that
even back in the beginning when these buildings were built they had to deal with with these uh
these steep slope and rock outcroppings and they just built the walls right on top of them
and use the rocks as the walls inside the building.
What I think is difficult to fully appreciate
in these photographs is the reality of the scale
of these rock surfaces.
They are upwards of 20 feet plus at their highest points.
They're difficult to perceive scale-wise
because we have to keep in mind the context.
The rooms on the inside are large rooms.
These structures that you see around them
in these photographs are large structures just to keep the scale. Well to your point Mr. Layden I
believe the photograph on the right I think that I actually am standing there during one of our
walkthroughs so the board can get the sense as to a knowing knowing my basic height how a human
compares to some of these natural rock outcroppings correct? Correct thank you. If you could advance
the slide the next three slides are the sections that we were seeing with the markers on the floor
plan. And this first one is cut closer to Shores Lane. In fact, it's cut through the project that's
currently being constructed on the left side there that's got the gray tone over it. That is 11
Shores Lane. And then you can see at the bottom center of the image, you can see the rock out
cropping and you can see that we've noted the top of it. It does vary and undulate as it goes along.
That's why you see the various lines running through it there. And you can see that that is
right at the property line at the most narrow part of the site. And then off to the left you
will see the notation for the property line at the deeper part of the site. We will get to a section
of that in a couple minutes. You can see there the railroad and the coal spur or the railroad
siding that also are quite substantial structures on the north edge of this property. While we're
on this section, you'll see that we have dwelling units on the second floor. So the first floor is
parking. The second floor is a dwelling unit facing Main Street, but you'll see that we have
no dwelling unit on the other side of the corridor, and that is due to it being at the level below the
rock outcropping and is what we consider to be the subterranean undesirable, therefore not viable
dwelling unit right where the cursor is pointing right now. I also just want to point out that the
gray wall at the first floor at the right hand edge of the first floor is against the main street
sidewalk. That's the existing wall. We will see a blow up of that shortly to demonstrate where the
windows are. You could advance the slide please. This is a view a little bit further east on the
site and here you can see we are no longer cutting through the building at 11 Shores Lane
but the rock outcropping is in fact still present in this section. You can see a
little bit more of the impact of that railroad siding on the left-hand side of
the image and you can start to see the windows in the existing wall on the
right-hand side of the image. And again the one dwelling unit on the Main Street
side of the second floor corridor. You could advance the slide. This third
section that was indicated on the plan, this is cut through the wing that
extends at the deepest point of the site. And what's significant here is that what's
colored or infilled in magenta is the lobby at the first floor. It is the only occupiable space
on the first floor. And then you can see the rendered in the tan color above that are the
dwelling units on the typical floors and the dwelling unit on the second floor. Within the
yellow bubble, what that's demonstrating is those are the areas that are again
subterranean, windows with dwelling units, dwelling units with windows, I'm
sorry, that would have views or be inhabitable and viable from a renter's
perspective just are not possible at this compromised location. If you could
advance the slide. So here we have some floor diagrams, and I'm just going to
start with the one in the upper left-hand corner. And these diagrams, so we saw
with the sections and the photos of the rock outcroppings how the rock and the
floodplain both impact the height of this building, which cause it to need to
be higher than the proviso by eight feet nine and a quarter inches. Through these
by eight feet nine and a quarter inches. Through these plans we'll demonstrate the impact of the
THESE PLANS WILL DEMONSTRATE THE IMPACT
rock and the floodplain on the typical plans. So in the upper left-hand corner is what we consider
a typical floor plan. It's a pretty simple double-loaded corridor bar parallel to Main Street
with a shorter wing running along Schur's Lane and then a deeper wing at the deeper,
a longer wing at the deeper part of the site. The count for that typical floor is 34 dwelling units
so we're going to use that as a basis for the typical if we go to the lower left hand corner
of the screen that's the second floor plan so a couple things are happening here that reduce the
unit count everything that's colored in the beige color in the lower right hand corner of that plan
is the lobby uh leasing offices some amenity spaces that ordinarily in a building like this
would be at the ground floor but because we cannot have occupied space in the floodplain
we're faced with putting them on the second floor so they occupy space that we otherwise would use
for dwelling units at the upper left hand corner of that plan you see the area that's rendered in
gray that is back of how um a little bit lower than that uh mr labor thank you right there that's
the loading dock coming in off of shur's lane and some associated back of house spaces that are
rendered in the gray color. Those also ordinarily would be spaces that we would have at the
first floor, but again, due to the floodplain and also due to topography on the site, they are in
fact at the upper or the second floor level, further reducing the ability to have dwelling
units. So you can see in the blue, we have nine dwelling units. The magenta line that's dashed in
there represents the outline of the typical floor with 34 dwelling units and so if we do the math
you'll see that it is a reduction from 34 uh it's a reduction to of 25 dwelling units if you subtract
nine from the 34. so again where we would typically be able to have 34 dwelling units in this case we
can only have nine and then if we jump to the sixth floor which is the plan in the upper right
hand corner, we will see that we have amenity space at the left hand end of this plan. We
originally had this at the seventh floor, but due to some massaging of the massing through the
historical commission process, we lowered the amenity spaces interior and exterior to the sixth
floor. This further reduced the dwelling unit count. So on this floor, instead of the 34 typical
units, we're down by five units. And so to make up those units that we lost at the second floor
and that we lost at the sixth floor, we have introduced the seventh floor of the building.
And you'll see there that that is pretty much the basic double-loaded corridor that we see in the
typical floor. It is not quite the 34 units that we gain back, but we regain 26 of them.
We lost 30. We've regained 26. So that's a demonstration looking at the plans of why
we need the height of eight feet nine and a quarter inches above the proviso height.
If you could advance the slide.
Okay, so as I mentioned earlier, this is a slide that shows in a little bit more detail the
condition at the existing street wall, which is the light gray rendered wall that's along the
main street sidewalk. This is the portion of the historic facade that we committed to preserving
as part of the project through the historic commission process. And there you can see
our second floor structure would ordinarily only have to go to the magenta line. And you can see
that the magenta line is labeled as the design flood elevation. It's a relatively high flood
elevation. This is one of the lowest spots along Main Street. So that increases our first floor
height. I'm sorry, second floor height. But then you'll see that we bumped that second floor up.
And I think Mr. Laver already spoke to this a little bit. We pushed that second floor up in
order to have its structure not be visible behind those historic windows. And one might
suppose that we could have put a thinner structure there, but I will point out that it is occupied
space. You'll see that we pulled the front of the second floor units back behind the existing
parapet to give them the benefit of some outdoor space. It gives that historic facade some relief.
That also was part of the Historic Commission process and approval.
Um, but it is occupied space. So structurally, it gets treated the same way as interior occupied space. So the structure can get no thinner. And I also would add that we are using the structure of that second floor to brace the top of the existing wall, um, so that it doesn't topple into the street nor back into the into the parking level.
But it is occupied space, so structurally it gets treated.
So there are other structural reasons why it is, in fact, not a lesser structural area, but in fact, maybe more robust at that point.
So architecturally, you're addressing a site challenge directly through this vehicle.
That's correct. That's correct.
So that puts our second floor two feet seven and a quarter inches above where the flood regulations require it to be.
the plus the plus of that is that we um have built-in resiliency uh down the road we're so
we're exceeding by two feet seven um what the minimum requirements are now um and then but
but that contributes to the necessary eight feet nine and a quarter inches above the um the proviso
height and the record reflects this we're not bringing back uh akrf as an expert because we're
limiting this to additional information that speaks to the issue before the board yes let's
continue on okay if we want to advance the slide please so these next two slides are um an example
that is less than a third of a mile down the river on the opposite side of main street from
the proposed project this is uh 3750 main street also known as the bridge five condominium um what
I want to note here is that this project was approved with a zoning height of 75 feet which
is about six feet three inches more than what we are asking at the proviso plus eight feet nine and
a quarter inches if you could and I'll just in the upper right hand photograph that's the river
side of this building and where the dash lines are we'll see in the next photograph is where
of that building is raised on columns.
You see them in the lower right-hand corner more vividly.
And if you could imagine with our project
and the rock outcroppings,
imagine those columns or stilts, if you will,
being another floor taller than that.
Because if you remember our sections,
our second floor doesn't have units on one side.
And I'll also point out that on the left side photograph,
there is a minimal screen between the sidewalk or the public facing side of this building and the
parking that's underneath it. I think it's fair to say that our project benefits from keeping the
existing historic walls and that's what we're presenting to the public, not an open parking
area under a building. If you could advance the slide, please. These next two slides are about
historic context. There's been discussion about there being no buildings that were on Main Street
that were as tall as what we proposed. These slides on the left-hand side are different images,
and we found different images from different eras of the same buildings that were on Venice Island.
in order to count the number of floors
and verify that in fact these buildings
were eight stories tall.
And you can see in the middle image
on the right-hand side
that although they're not directly on Main Street,
they are a tenth of a mile from the proposed project.
Just to give some context
that it is not unprecedented historically
for buildings of this scale to be in this neighborhood.
And if we want to advance the slide, please.
This is another pair of historic images
that also demonstrate that while not buildings,
there were significantly scaled historic structures
right adjacent to this project.
On the left-hand image, what is rendered there
or colored over in yellow is the existing buildings
at 4045 Main Street.
And you can see right adjacent to it,
colored in the magenta color,
is what was a gas storage tank.
And you can see how massive that was.
And in fact, in the right-hand photograph,
a little bit. I think that's a little bit. I mean, I think I heard things he said before,
but talk about historic pictures of tanks, I don't think is where we'll move along. Fair enough.
This slide demonstrates something that we felt that we needed to look into as a result of
receiving the proviso at 60 feet, the height limit at 60 feet. If we take the podium height,
So the second floor and the third floor, the dimensions due to structure, the construction type, transfers of structure, transfers of utility.
structure, the construction type, transfers of structure, transfers of utilities that happen at
the upper floor of a podium. We take the podium height, again, floodplain, the rock outcroppings,
take that as a given. So if we say level three is a given, we wanted to understand what would it take
to get a building of the number of stories that we need to achieve the unit yield. Could it be
done within the proviso height and so the section that's on the left demonstrates uh what we
attempted which was to suggest that this be an all concrete building uh our thinking is that
concrete floor structures would be as thin as you could get them and uh so we were looking at a nine
inch slab and then we reduced it to a nine foot ceiling height that goes without saying we didn't
attempt to needle in the, or thread through the HVAC sprinkler pipes and all the mechanicals,
the plumbing. And you can see here that when you add, when you do the math, you can see at the
very, very top of the image that even with all concrete, we still would need three feet above
the proviso height. And I would add that suggesting that this building would be all concrete would be
inconsistent with what is typically done for a building of this scale concrete is a very very
expensive construction method we know that if if one were to go to the city's eclipse website and
go to the the development tax calculator they cite the international code council
dollars per square foot for a construction type of what we've proposed versus the concrete and the
concrete is indicated to be approximately two times the podium with the stick framing above it,
which is what we've proposed. So what we're seeing right here is specifically in response
to the challenge, if you will, of build this building to 60 feet. And in the effort by CBP
architects to look at two different scenarios, correct? Correct. And the section on the right
is what the proposal is for. And there you can see again the proviso height of 60 feet is indicated
just above the level six, the level six marker. And you can see there that's where the eight feet
nine and a quarter inches is necessary to get to the the roof deck on that section. And so this
sort of, that last slide sort of coalesces the concerns or the reasons why in order to make
this a viable project, have that upper floor, we need the eight feet, nine and a quarter
inches. These last two graphics are basically just to reinforce the floor plan. This adds
the outline in the yellow color in the upper left hand corner is actually the footprint
of the project that's currently being constructed on that site. And it shows the close proximity
that we come to it. We've tried to position our building so that we knew about it early
enough to position our building to keep away from it you could advance the slide and this is what it
looks like on the typical floor and if we could advance the slide the next series of slides we
go through very quickly they're simply a reminder of uh the potential of this building um to improve
this stretch of main street um you've seen these before um thank you mr layton uh in the interest
of time, I'd like to call Dr. Angelides for a much briefer presentation, but we appreciate that
important review. Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer? Peter
Angelides, A-N-G-E-L-I-D-E-S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Counsel? Good morning, Dr. Angelides. Can you please
comment on market constraints concerning the height limitation that's currently associated
with the approval of record?
I can.
My testimony here really builds upon what you just heard architecturally.
Eric described the physical constraints that come from the 60-foot height limit.
And my testimony is to take it one step further and say, what does that mean from an economic and market perspective?
And I've really looked at three things that speak to that.
The first is that there is discussion about construction techniques.
And I think Mr. Labor referred earlier to 5 over 2 or 4 over 2, the idea that you need some steel or concrete podium.
The idea that you need some steel or concrete podium for structure, and then you can build relatively inexpensive wood framed on top of it.
So the limitation a 60-foot height limit would put on it would be to reduce effectively a seven-story building down to a six-story building.
So what the applicant is proposing is a five over two, five wood frame over two concrete or steel.
And the height limitation reduces that to a four over two.
So the question is, are there any four over twos?
If that's a viable or advantageous configuration, you would expect to see examples of buildings that are built like that for wood frame over to steel or concrete.
And so my team looked at buildings that had been built in the city over the last 10 years to see if we could identify any buildings that matched that configuration.
We went to COSTAR, which is the data source for commercial buildings, including apartment buildings, and identified all recently constructed buildings.
We found 35 six-story buildings built in the city over the last 10 years.
None of them are four over two.
So all the buildings that were built have a different configuration, either five over one.
And so we could not identify any other building that would be configured the way that a 60-foot limit would require this building to be built.
That's the first point.
The second point concerns ceiling height.
So one way of getting in a seven-story would be to reduce the ceiling heights
and use her testimony on the ability to do that
with using very expensive concrete construction throughout.
Another idea is, well, why not just reduce the ceiling height,
and therefore you could cram in an extra floor that way?
And obviously you can do that from an architectural perspective.
If you could have lower ceiling height, but these buildings exist in a marketplace, you
have to be able to rent them.
And a nine-foot ceiling is really a standard ceiling height.
So if you built a lower ceiling building, you couldn't rent it for the same amount of
money, which means their financials go poorly.
So we also looked around to identify recently constructed buildings in the vicinity, and
And all of them had either 9-foot ceilings or 10-foot ceilings.
So that's just speaking to what the market demands.
And the market dictates essentially what you can rent it for.
And what you can rent it for determines how much you can afford to build.
And these points really feed into the final analysis that we did, which is a financial feasibility analysis.
So if you do reduce the number of units that are permissible,
essentially by reducing down to 60 feet you're cutting down the number of units so what does
that mean financially the and we looked at two scenarios one in which we simply lop off the top
floor and lose the 26 units that are up there but keep everything else the same the one-to-one
parking and the rest of the units and removing units reducing the size of the building obviously
reduces how much it costs to build the building
because you're not building as large a structure,
but it also reduces the
revenue potential. And because
there are fixed costs that you
have to incur,
dealing with essentially the
two floors of podium,
the rock outcropping, the need to
preserve the
facade, that
makes this building expensive to build
before you even get to the first unit.
So the revenue goes down a lot
faster than the cost
goes down, which in a technical term messes up your financials. So the current proposal
has a series of financial metrics that are important for investors to realize, otherwise
they're just not going to fund the project. For example, the internal rate return, which is one
of the metrics, is currently 21.4%. It would reduce down to 15.5% if you got rid of the top
floor and the yield on cost goes from seven percent to six point two percent uh we ran another
scenario in which uh we reduced the parking ratio we tried to shave some more costs basically build
a five over one building um but that also uh because the reduced unit count doesn't work
But that also, because of reduced unit count, doesn't work.
The financials are a little bit better.
It goes down to 69% internal rate of return, 6.4% yield on cost.
But those are still significantly lower.
My understanding, in speaking with Mr. O'Day at JLL, which is a consultancy brokerage,
that current market conditions require 7% yield on cost
in order to get financing, this is well below that.
So the conclusion from all of that
is that by shrinking the building down to 60 feet,
you essentially render the building impossible to build
from a financial point of view.
Thank you, Dr. Angelides.
Just for purposes of clarification,
Is it your belief that anything less than a two-story podium at this site is viable?
From an architectural perspective, it certainly doesn't seem that way.
And financially?
Less, no.
But you're not stating that 3 over 1, 4 over 1, or 5 over 1 does not exist in Philadelphia,
just that it's not applicable to this site, correct?
That's correct.
Thank you.
Nothing further from Dr. Angelaitis at this time, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Thank you.
Do you have anyone else?
We have JLL only if the board has any questions.
All of us are available for questions.
I know that there are members of the general public who want to speak.
Right, right.
So thank you.
I'll hold concluding remarks if I may.
So what I'm going to do is open it up for discussion, unless there's anybody from the board that would want to have a question.
Obviously, if we get through the discussion, we're probably not going to vote anyway.
I'm going to take it under consideration.
I have two quick questions.
The first one is you guys have been referenced in 11 Shores Lane.
Do you guys know the height of that in relation to this property?
We can go back to that slide.
It's one of the sections.
That's what I wanted to pull up.
That 11 is actually up higher on the hill.
Definitely.
So here we see the section of it, and you can see that it is a four-story structure.
It is a parking level, and I suppose they have a lobby facing the street.
But above that, they have three floors of residential.
And that site is high enough up Schur's Lane that it is outside of the floodplain.
So they had the benefit of that site being raised.
It's right against the railroad.
It's almost misground.
Yeah, if you look at the image here, you can see that building takes up a decent amount of its site,
and it is within very close proximity to both the property line and the railroad.
Right, so I guess I'm trying to figure out, is it going to be, even though I know that it's elevated more,
is it higher than your building, or your building would still be,
with the requested amount of variance that you guys want, would it still be higher?
Well, so in this section, their building is, I think, fairly accurately represented because we were able to see their zoning application drawings and get information from that.
And so you can see on the left where their roof is.
You can see it labeled right at the top of that building.
Mr. Laver, if you could just move the cursor.
That's their roof there.
That's their roof.
Go down a little bit.
That's their roof.
And then you can see on the right-hand side, that is our building adjacent to it.
okay and then my next question is um you guys i appreciate the education with the five over two
for once how much since this uh um how hard can you go up with the two feet of concrete
in general uh i'm trying to i want to make sure i understand your question so the number is five i
mean can it be eight can it be ten can it be eleven over two like uh we've done a building
that's 27 stories tall out of over two oh no no that's what i'm saying so all concrete pretty
much the maximum of the stick frame construction is going to be five stories okay and so you need
to anything below that it's essentially for all intents and purposes it's building one building
on top of the other and the concrete or steel podium so the first two floors would be the more
robust construction pretty much from a well from a structural and a fire code perspective and then
the stick frame which could be metal or wood non-combustible construction essentially would
be five stories above that so it's a lesser it's a lesser construction from a fire safety perspective
but it's a very I mean this is as Dr. Angelides indicated this example of construction is all over
As Dr. Angelides indicated, this example of construction is all over the city.
Okay. And lastly, going up the additional feet will not put any kind of stress restraint on the historic part that you guys are trying to preserve.
Quite the opposite.
Yeah, no, I was going to say that we're really not bearing and we've gone out of our way to not sit this building right on top of those existing walls.
they certainly i think it's safe to say would never support that kind of weight but we are
building our structure behind or within a certain distance behind um and then just uh for lack of a
better way to describe it our structure will reach out to the back side of those walls to make sure
that they don't go back and forth this way it almost cradles it also i'd like to just uh confirm
that 11 shores lane the property that that you were asking about ms graham is is supportive of
the project as presented as the next door neighbor okay questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair it's from the turnoff uh audience for the virtual audience and john
why don't you come up first glad to see you in person john the last time we had you on video
thank you for remembering that sure so we're sure we remembered it um could you state your
name and spell for the court stenographer actually it wasn't video it was just uh voice recording
you didn't have to look at me we met seeing you um yes uh john hunter there we go john hunter
H-O-N-T-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing
but the truth? I do. And Mr. Hunter, obviously this is
the hearing about the height, and that's where we're going to concentrate on.
I've clarified that with Ms. Emerson. We're quite aware of that, and we won't
get straight on that. Sure. Leach machine, sir. Also, just to note that
we did actually submit a letter of opposition. We have it.
We have it. So, in a way, just to
explain. I'm the zoning chair of Monon neighborhood council, which is the coordinating RCO for this
project. Sure, I understand it's a little. How's that? That's really good. All right.
We have no idea how you arrived at the proviso height. We would love to have been in the room
as a fly on the wall, but a few discussions,
but we know the proviso high that was suggested.
I listened to the testimony given so far,
and it pretty much exclusively, except for one point,
is a repeat of what was conveyed to you before
when you made that decision.
The testimony from Mr. Layton was the same.
The only difference in his testimony was that some additional sections
where he clarified, explained in a little more detail
some constraints that he has been working with.
Obviously, the testimony from Mr. Angelides is different
and more complete than his previous testimony.
But what we want to sort of try and address is the counterman's point,
which is something that he has taken on board
that if you don't got that extra floor
there's no other way that this building will be built
and therefore nothing will be built
and we challenge that.
We don't agree with that.
We're not part of that conversation.
We haven't had a conversation with the councilman
to convey our viewpoint
but as an architect and I'm a registered architect
there are ways of incrementally reducing
the height of the proposed building
without losing all of the unilaterally one floor.
26 units is what is said.
And I think one of the constraints that is suggested
is at the lower level,
which is trying to design the building
around the 12 or 14 historic windows
that are in the wall of that's being retained.
And it's being retained, as in the original testimony,
at the request, so we are led to believe
by the letters submitted of the Littlewoods family
who asked that part of the building be retained.
It's in their testimony, it's in their letter.
So, but we accept that.
We think the use of it is good,
and we acknowledge that it is complicated
to retain that substructure.
But at the same time, I think if you know Mr. Leitner's from when we first met.
Mr. Leightoners, from when we first met, which is 20 months ago now,
we were presented at the very end of the meeting with just two members of MNC on site
with an 82-foot-high building with 200 units and 99 parking spaces.
Since then, the only thing that's changed is the number of parking spaces
increased to almost one-to-one parking by going up to the second floor on part of the site,
which is what we recommended at the first meeting. But beyond that, nothing has changed about the
project other than manipulation of the facade. Our concern has always been not with building
the building, not with its use. We understand all the constraints of the flooding and of the
rock outcrop it's the mass of the building on Main Street and I assume our
concerns which were conveyed were taken into account when you came up with a
proviso height of 60 feet and we still believe that is the major concern what
we would challenge the design team to do is to go back and reconfigure parts of
the building which architecturally I think could be reconfigured to get the
the majority of the accommodation that they're proposing
within that 60-foot height mass.
And we think it can be done, and there is a viable scheme.
Incrementally, there's not one simple thing
which has been suggested here,
is you have to just take off the top floor.
That isn't the issue.
For instance, there's been great suggestion
in the document submission about nine-foot ceilings
being an absolute necessity.
You asked Ms. Gasson about next door.
We double-checked.
The height of the building next door is 38 feet.
It has floor-to-floor heights of 9 feet 6.
It has floor-to-ceiling heights of 8 feet 6.
The developer is a smart developer.
He does buildings in the immediate area.
He's experienced.
He's building it now.
It's on-site during construction.
He's building a four-story building in 38 feet, and he is not doing it out of charity.
He has tested the market, and he believes it can be marketed.
This building is seven stories, as proposed, the full height is 82 feet.
It's double the height of the building, and only the first 15 feet can really be attributed to the flooding problem.
That's all, that 15 feet.
If you just said that 15 feet was a giveaway
and then you built the building above that,
it's still almost double the height of the building next to it.
Now, whatever research is done that Mr. Angelides did,
all around us in Maniunk and Roxburgh,
there are buildings that are built,
multifamily units that work,
and most of the developers are pursuing by-right projects,
So they're working within either a 38-foot height, which is what the 11 shows line did, or a maximum of 44-foot height.
And they're making buildings in the last three years, and we've submitted it in our testimony for Ridge Avenue.
They're on seven buildings that have been built that are no higher than 38 feet or 44 feet.
And one of the buildings, which is in less than half a mile on Venice Island, which is the isle, which was built now 10 years ago, is one over four.
It's four stories of multifamily over one story of parking because it's on Venice Island and it floods in just the same way.
And that's viable and it's fully occupied.
It's been fully occupied for 10 years.
So what we cannot understand is this disconnect from the reality that we're surrounded with on Ridge Avenue and parts of Maniunk where smaller buildings are being constructed and being occupied, completely occupied, and they repeat doing it.
So obviously the finances work, and yet we have here a proposal which is totally unable
to accommodate criticisms, suggestions, and a proviso from the zoning board to work within it.
It almost to us seems to be just an arrogant posture that this is what we think we need to do.
this is the calculation and we won't change anything and we just think that is something
something that the councilman should have addressed.
that the councilman should have addressed if he thinks this building is so important
If he thinks this building is so important,
he should have gathered a group together
to try and come up with understandings and suggestions
of what worked, not just make almost an implicit threat.
That if this building is not allowed to be 82 feet high,
then it will fail, it won't work,
and we'll be left with a non-viable scheme.
I'd also like to point out in the councilman's sort of letter
because I was just hearing it, I'm trying to think of it,
that he talked about other developers
who've been interested in the project
and had not come up with a viable sort of solution.
That is not our experience and what has happened.
We've talked to four different developers
who were interested in this site,
moved forward with plans for it and then they failed but really what was the main problem was
the problems of the site obviously but also the um the valuation of the sale of the site which
was high and it was too high the only way that it seems to us that objection mr chairman can we
speak to the issue before the board on reconsideration so John yeah concentrate
on all right worry about sales and things okay so what we believe is there
is a solution that is viable based on what we're seeing all around us in terms
of multifamily developments, and we've sited them,
and we've given you photographs of them,
and most of them have been built within the last three years.
And they are significantly lower in height.
Now, we're in a difficult position here
because we don't have the information,
I don't expect to be produced,
to be able to assess the validity of what Mr. Angelides
and JL in their testimony and Mr. Lever said about financial viability.
So we can't challenge that.
We don't know.
But what we can point out is all these other schemes that have been built.
But most effectively is we have a scheme immediately next door,
which is four stories of multifamily units over parking,
and it's being built.
And the one next door to it, the height above the flood problem is almost double the height.
And we don't believe that that is the solution, the only solution, and that the height can be less.
And it seems that your discussions in giving a 60-foot height overall confirms that.
And there's nothing so far that we've heard that expands on testimony that was given at that time that led to your decision.
There's nothing here.
It's just repetition.
It's saying the same thing over again.
And there's no absolute clarity of why they can't work within the limit.
All right.
Hold on.
Questions?
I'd like to address you.
But I'm saying you have questions for that.
I don't know that.
question will be necessary but i'd like to address a few discrete points raised in to try to be uh
respectful to mr hunter and just get to get to the points for the board um we have on the record
mr chairman that there are unique physical limitations to this site so for mr hunter to
uh point to 11 shores lane which is a very distinguishable site from the subject property
that has essentially a naturally built-in podium that raises it up
and does not have the like challenges of floodplain,
of the historical fabric, and the rock outcropping.
It's simply an apples-to-oranges comparison.
But we were not given the courtesy of the apparent letter
that was submitted to the board by MNC.
However, I heard the testimony and quickly was scrambling to be able to respond to these
examples that have been given to the board.
And I'd like to share with you.
Adam, let me ask you this.
Is your response to Mr. Hunter going to be lengthy?
I need two minutes, please.
I would like to respond to two specific examples that were given here.
with screen sharing going to city of philadelphia department of licenses and inspections records
With screen sharing, going to City of Philadelphia Department of Life.
so mnc has provided an example of 6174 ridge avenue as an example quote of four over two
construction lni records show that we have four stories of wood frame construction
over a steel or concrete platform, as it said.
But what we see here is the second floor at 6174 Ridge Avenue
is nine feet, eight inches in height,
which denotes a wood frame floor.
This is, again, not an apples-to-apples comparison.
The second example that I'd like to share with you,
which is a misstatement of official records,
concerns 6910 Ridge Avenue.
Mr. Hunter has suggested that this is three over two.
However, L&I records clearly show, and these are not my records, this is pulled right off
of Atlas, that this is a four-story building.
So we are not comparing apples to apples here.
And that's Dr. Angelaitis presented information to the board, which is accurate in terms of what the argument that we are making.
Interestingly enough, and this is the last point, 6515 Ridge Avenue is cited by MNC.
This is an example of five over two, and it is consistent with what we're bringing to the board.
So there simply are not examples of two-story podium structures,
two-story podium structures with less than five stories above.
All right, thank you.
John, thank you very much for your testimony.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the pastor immediately across the street,
Pastor Walter Shaw, may be trying to raise his hand.
Do we see Mr. Shaw, Reverend Shaw?
Yes, he'll be rejoining shortly, Mr. Chairman.
How many hands do we have up?
one more i think got two more ways all right thank you mr o'brien may be here as well
who's known to the board bill o'brien testified the first time right you want him to testify
again about that on the specific issue okay sure mr reverend shaw
hey good afternoon hi good afternoon reverend could you please state your name and spell for
with a stenographer yes my name is walter shaw w-a-l-t-e-r last name s-h-a-w you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes um please start your testimony
all right uh like i said my name is walter shaw one of the pastors of city light church which is
right across the building or right across the street from where this project is taking place
it's right behind this window you can see on my screen behind me here as a representative of
City Light Church I can say I have no concerns about the height the additional height which is
the issue at hand in fact we're excited to see this project get developed bringing some more
vitality to lower Main Street you know we do quite a few events at night and there's not as much
activity down here we're excited to see this area of main street get some more activity at night we
do grief share and uh some of our elderly folks coming out 8 39 o'clock it's dark and uh there's
not a ton of activity where further up on main street there is so we're excited we have no
concerns about this uh height increase and we're excited to welcome this uh project to be our
neighbors. Reverend, thank you for taking the time to calls. We appreciate it. Next hand, please.
Have a hand for Mr. William O'Brien. I will promote them.
Mr. O'Brien.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Pardon me?
Mr. O'Brien, we're not hearing you.
Can you hear me now?
Oh, yeah, we can.
Mr. O'Brien, could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
And if you would, try to raise or get closer to the mic.
William O'Brien, W-I-L-L-I-A-M, O-B-R-I-E-N.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. And as you know, Mr. O'Brien, this is a court, this hearing is about the height. So could you please give us your feelings?
i do and as you know mr o'brien this is a court this hearing is about the height
so could you please
Mr. Laver already introduced bridge five. It showed the image of the structure and its location's proximity to this site. The street address and OPA address for that structure is 3750 Main Street.
I was involved 20 years ago, a little over 20 years ago, representing the Manioc Neighborhood
Council, the WSIC and Interested Citizens Association, WSIC and Neighbor Civic Association
in the development of that site. The zoning records are at the ancestor address, 3742 Main
Street. In those records, you'll see an agreement between the developer tower investments and the
three civic associations where they supported the development and the similarities between
that development and this proposed development of 40 uh 45 are remarkable with both south one
main street was south of shores lane uh they're both in industrially zoned so they both included
a change in use to an unpermitted use residential and they're both in the flood plain the bridge
five building uh was approved for 75 feet and seven stories the similarities are remarkable
it's been a landmark on main street bridge five has for more than 20 years uh and it's great to
have that development on the south side i want to support what the pastor said a minute ago
thank you thank you very much uh one more hand please
Yes, Jeff Woolery. I will promote him.
Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me?
Hi, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Jeff Woolery, Jeff G-E-O-F-F-W-O-O-L-E-R-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Jeff, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I live in Maniunk on Venice Island.
Right.
Are you in favor of this project or against?
I am against it.
You've heard a lot of testimonies or anything you can tell us differently relative to the
height? I just wanted to say, I don't know if it's different, but I certainly support development
in that area as has been talked about by many people and think continued development in
particular that end of Main Street is welcome. It is simply the height that I think is much
higher than it needs to be as other testimony has come in. And so I'd love to see the area
developed. I just think the height is too much for that end of town. Thank you. Thank you very
much for taking the time to call us. We appreciate it. Is there any other hands? No further hands,
Mr. Chair. Planning Commission. Michael Gall with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing I2 medium industrial zoning at this
location. However, this was placed due to the active industrial use of the property at the
time of the writing of the district plan. Since then, the industrial uses here have closed.
Similarly, the character of Lower Main Street has evolved over time, and industrial uses are
becoming increasingly rare as the land use has shifted primarily to a mix of commercial and
residential uses. The additional height at this location would not fit the character of the
immediately surrounding area, and there is still not sufficient evidence to support the additional
height requested. This is especially due to the property's low relative base flood elevation and
its high potential for height-related impacts to the rights to light and air of nearby residential
and commercial properties, which are much closer in proximity to the proposed building here at
4045 to 61 Main Street than at similar approved variances for tall residential conversions
elsewhere along Lower Main. Therefore, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission stands
by its original recommendation and recommends the board deny the reconsidered request of the
variance proviso for building height. May I have a 90 second closing, Mr. Chairman? You can take
120. 120. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, since Hurricane Ida, there have been several
attempts to redevelop this site. All have been unsuccessful. The site is burdened by a significant
flood elevation. It is pinned in by rock outcropping in an elevated railroad. It is subject to the
Maniank Historic Main Street Historic District Controls, which further limit what can be done
with an already compromised site. Fortunately, in this instance, the Philadelphia Historical
Commission has endorsed the proposal that is pending before this board in full. PHC recognized
the appropriateness of the height, as well as the massing at this location, which has been embraced
which has been embraced by neighbors, near neighbors, immediately adjacent across the street,
by neighbors, near neighbors, immediately adjacent across the...
not those who have to walk several blocks to actually see the site.
The scant opposition seems to be, as a matter of principle, which I respect,
but those who are not immediately vested.
Maniank Development Corporation and a Maniank Special Services District
have extensively reviewed and endorsed the proposed plans.
there's an unprecedented level of support by those most impacted, including the House of
Worship across the street. There is a record of both current and historical precedents
for supporting the height of this project, whether we look towards Bridge 5 condominiums
located 0.3 miles to the east, seven stories and 75 feet in height, or historically to the
Economy Mills and Schuylkill Mills complex, 0.1 miles away and eight stories high. The proposed
project itself includes second floor rear parking. Why? This is the only practical responsible use
for the second floor due to the tall rock outcropping, the flooding concerns. Residences
that would have otherwise been located in this area and would have been at any other site have
been relocated to the proposed seventh floor, permitting the project to have a sufficient unit
yield to create the necessary financial return based on conventional market industry standards
to construct this project. But the heart of this matter is a true hardship at this site
in ways that are quite unusual. The impact of the 60-foot height limitation would pose a true
challenge and clearly reduce the project by one full floor. The development team and their
consultants and new information that you saw this morning attempted to develop a viable project
with that height limitation in place but were unable to do so. We looked at a typical five
over one construction type as well as the atypical actually four over two. Both options would result
in below market expectations below the threshold to justify construction and to take on the
development risk. In closing, the team also looked to shrink the seven-story project to adhere to
the 60 feet unsuccessfully. The few inches of height for each floor would not reduce this
to that proviso. Urban conversions has been a reliable steward when it comes to preserving
Mount Young's historic character. They have won numerous Preservation Alliance awards, for example.
they previously redeveloped two mounting on properties to national park service
historic standards the same mindset would be brought to this project we hope to have that
opportunity thank you mr chairman and thank you um we're going to vote on this on october 1st at
9 30 a.m after a discussion um in the executive session i want to thank your presentation john
i want to thank your presentation for coming in purpose and person and we're going to move on
thank you thank you hillary we have about five cases left i think around yeah and i'm gonna i'm
gonna get try to get the one now well so it's number 16 we had a request um because they are
in court if we could go ahead with that one okay mr chair this is ian hegarty executive director
just a reminder we do have a hard stop at 1 p.m for staff i'm aware thank you that's why i was
trying to just making everybody aware thank you chair devins hillary yes mr chair all right so
mi 2025 001 611 1323 north 49th street devin upta is the attorney um there's unanimous non-opposition
from cathedral park community development total of three votes
You'll be rejoining as a panel shortly, Mr. Chair.
Hillary, after this, should I list the cases we're carrying over?
Should we just say all cases that are left?
We'll hear it, too.
I mean, we can see how long this takes.
There's another case in the list that has said it's very quick.
I'm just pulling that up now.
But we can see where we're at after this.
You heard Ian, right?
Oh, I know.
I know.
you you heard and and you know i have cheryl next to me too so
we're not messing with anyone's lunch don't worry
uh good morning mr chairman good morning board hi devon could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer devon uqdah right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth uh firm yes could you identify your client a relationship
to the property uh michael carter he is the sole member of the llc that owns the
uh michael carter he is the sole member of the llc that owns the property sure and tenetta graham
has a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents five days in advance
of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes okay thank you you may share your screen and proceed with your case one second sorry
How are we doing, Devin?
It's coming up, Devin.
Coming up. All right. Let me know when you can see it, please.
Sure. And Devin, we have all of your paperwork. Why don't you go to the
the refusal and start your presentation.
Okay. So this is the letter of refusal. So the property
address is 1323 North 49th Street. This
property is currently RSA 5 residential, single family residential.
The letter of refusal states that for the proposed use of two-family household
living within an existing structure. Sorry, just like AI
stuff. Sorry.
i'll propose uh for the pros use of two-family household living within an existing structure
so this pro this property is you know a single family house it always has been
basically set up as a duplex so we're trying to legalize it
why don't you show us some photos please sure it's the de we have all your we have all your
paperwork uh surrounding property so this is a presentation that was given to the rco
This is the address legalization of existing property.
This is the layout of the museum out some so you can see it.
so here is
i'm gonna go to the first floor i apologize it went down really quickly when i
all right so property this is the front of property the exterior of the property
um it's two floors this is the first pictures of the first floor as you can see the property's
already completed it's additional pictures of the first floor so it's one bathroom it's a kitchenette
the bedrooms this is the second floor which is another unit stairs that go up bedrooms hallway
again this is a kitchenette it's one bathroom and a bedroom um i also have a floor plan
right here so you can see this is the first floor floor plan it's one bedroom again the kitchen i
saw one bathroom in the living room there's the first floor and the steps that go up
there's the second floor again two bedrooms bathroom it's a little kitchenette living room
and these are the stairs that come up from the first floor it's another picture of the exterior
that we went through so it's one bare one bedroom on the first floor one bath second floor is two
bedrooms um one bath both have the kitchenette um justification is basically you want to legalize
it because it's not new construction property was acquired the property was acquired by the
owner under an llc when it was acquired it was already set up as a duplex so we're seeking to
legalize it it's going to be additional affordable housing in the union in the unit i mean in the
neighborhood i apologize since it was already used as a duplex when he acquired it so it's like
no significant increase in traffic.
He did send out notices with the proof of notices to the neighbors.
Devin, people on either side, are they in favor of this?
Yeah, so he has no opposition.
He has no opposition to this.
I believe, and I mean, a good part, in his defense,
a good portion of the block is also vacant property.
and there's commercial space across the street so it's not like it's residential
on both sides across the street is like a corner store and
some apartments above and then the end of the block
is also commercial I think it's like a tire shop
there's proof of posting at the property
Devin there's no
there's no there's no living or any household living in the basement am i correct no no sir
no no no chairs no living in a basement it's a letter of support
why don't you bring your client on sure uh mr clark
he should be in the audience
It's been coming back in as a panel shortly.
Thank you.
I got it.
Yes, hello. Good morning.
Hi, Mr. Carter, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Michael Clark, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, Clark, C-L-A-R-K-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Devin.
Mr. Clark, can you state your relationship to the property?
I'm the owner of the property.
By, through what?
Through a single member LLC.
And did you hear my testimony?
Yes, I did.
And do you agree that it was truthful and accurate?
Yes, sir.
And will you adopt my testimony?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No questions.
when did you purchase the property?
I believe I purchased this property back in 2015 or 16.
And we're just asking to legalize this now?
Yes, ma'am.
It was one of the situations where I needed to be compliant with the city of Philadelphia
and make sure my documentation is in order.
and it was just more of a price point type of situation for me to to get representation because
it was under the llc okay so for 10 years it's been like this yes ma'am that's correct
okay thank you welcome yeah yep so the first floor unit do they have access to the basement
uh yes they have access to the basement however it's not livable it's just for storage purposes
only and it's just the first floor they can use that for storage yes ma'am okay and is there
also a rear yard that they can access uh yes there's also a rear yard they can access to as
well okay so where's the trash being stored for the second floor unit uh directly in the front
in the front of the house. We have
trash cans available.
Trash goes out, I believe, on this
block on Tuesday,
every Tuesday.
Other questions?
Questions or comments
from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission?
Michael Gall, fellow of the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing RSA-5 residential single-family attached zoning at
this location. There is no unique condition or circumstance of the property that would prevent
it from being used in strict conformance with the zoning code. Therefore, the City Planning
Commission recommends the board deny the requested variances for two-family use.
Thank you. MI-2025-001-611-1323 North 49th Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
i am mcadams my vote is yes thank you um thank you uh counsel so hillary should i
mention the cases we're going to hear okay thank you appreciate it okay so let me see here
right with you
one more I got to grab here
yeah so
four MI20
all these cases will be heard
at 2pm
number four MI2024
004-415
Walnut Street
also number
Number 14, MI 2025, 001-583-332-34, West Gerrard Avenue.
David Orfanides is his attorney.
Number 15, MI 2025, 001-587-5034.
15 MI 2025 001 587 5035 Spruce Street.
Tameka McCoy is the attorney.
Let's see here.
And then number 17 MI 2025 001 674 254 South 11th Street.
Joseph Counsel is the attorney.
We will take those cases first at 2 o'clock,
and then we will then immediately go into the 2 o'clock list.
Is there anyone else in the audience who has not heard your name called?
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thanks, everyone. See everyone at 2 p.m.
This is going to be a continuation of the 930 meeting.
So we're going to start with.
Number four, MI 2024-004-415-5338 Walnut Street.
George Gossett is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
Do we see it, George?
So MI 2024-004-415-5338 Walnut Street, George Gossett Jr. is the attorney.
Is he there?
okay so I'm sorry Mr. Chair I do not see him in the audience great thank you so
okay so MI 2024-004-415-5338 Walnut Street that case is continued to 2426 at 2 p.m.
it's 0-2
that's 2 p.m
oh I'm sorry
I'll see who it is
sorry about that
I thought I was doing good
getting my list out
Nafisa Woodlock you can unmute yourself and speak
I think one got the move
Okay, so MI2024-004-415-5338,
Wallace Street, that case is continued to 3426 at 9.30 a.m.
Number 14.
MI2025-001-583-332.
Can you hear me?
Army. Hello. OK. So number 14, MI 20, 25, 001, 583, 332 to 34 West Girada Avenue. David Orfanides is the attorney.
David Orphanides will be rejoining us as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Orfanides, you've already been sworn. Just for the record, state your name.
Certainly. My name is David Orfanides.
Right. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is Prosperous Group LLC, and they are the owner of the property.
Okay. Tenetta Graham has a few questions.
Okay. Tenetta Graham has a few questions.
Good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Good afternoon.
I did.
Okay. And I think this is a referral. So do you stipulate to the reading of the referral? And are you okay with its accuracy?
Yes, I am.
All right. Thank you.
And we also have a letter of support from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association with some enforceable provisos. And Councilman Young, too.
oh did councilman young today chime in yeah he sent a letter of uh non-opposition oh okay
because originally on the email from the planning commission um designated northern liberties
nlna is the coordinating rco they had copied uh councilman school council member squilla's office
so i contacted them and they wrote me a letter as well so we have we i guess we have two letters
because I haven't seen Council Member Young's letter yet.
All right.
So as you know, David, we're behind.
Yeah, I'm just going to rock and roll through this.
Exactly.
Can you see my screen?
Okay, fantastic.
So this is a special exception case.
It's a special exception because the ground floor and cellar of the property
is going to be utilized as a takeout restaurant.
up on screen right now you can see a photograph of there's two phases to this project one is
taking an existing one-story structure and renovating that one-story structure and putting
an addition above that was done by right so that was phase one and that what you're looking at is
what the building is going to look like when that construction is completed this is the as part of
that permit there were four residential dwelling units above and to the rear and then there was a
vacant commercial space at the ground floor. The property is CMX2. My clients presently,
they started their business. They have a Papa John's down at 713 West Girard Avenue. This is
their Papa John's. And they've expanded their business. They have one of the busiest Papa
John's, I think they said, in the country at the community group meeting. They run a great
operation. You can see in the interior photos, extremely, extremely clean. Amazing. It's
incredible how clean their operations are right now. They've been operating here since 2014.
That's when they had their lease. And they eventually, they bought the building down
the street. Again, we have photographs of the existing building and I can show you in a second.
Here's the existing structure as it presently stands.
So they bought this building, and as mentioned, they did two phases.
They did the buy rate addition with the residential units above, and then they've come back with the application to move their business up the street from Girard Avenue, from 713 West Girard, down to this location.
This property has a history of being used as a restaurant.
um you can see here well it was originally 1938 was a gas and service station 1961 there's a
zoning permit for a restaurant 62 66 66 it's a pizza eating and takeout 98 restaurant david i
think we are you know i don't think you got it through everyone why we have no worries i'm not
i'm not looking at each one i'm just telling you what they were so the um the other thing is is
that um yeah so there's been a pizza place here the street view images the historical street view
images show a pizza place being at this location um we're located on west gerard avenue obviously
a very busy commercial corridor um the other properties on the block most of them have been
granted use variances i went to 338 west gerard for use variance 342 to 54 west gerard which is
a large development project has a use variance. Again, so this, what we're looking to do is
simply to utilize the ground floor of the subject premises. And you can see floor plans right here.
Give me one minute.
Near the floor plans. So the restaurant will be in the front portion. There'll be an area where
people come in and pick up their orders. Here's all the prep. Again, there's a unit to the rear,
And then they're going to utilize the downstairs, some storage, but mostly utilities for the building with the apartments above.
As you mentioned, we did we did meet with Northern Liberties there.
They have a letter of support. They do have provisos in their support letter.
We are doing also doing a community benefit agreement with them to not only pick up these these provisos to the extent any of them or even if they are to be picked up by the zoning board.
um and then um so david so you know here's what we have venting through roof interior trash storage
commercial trash pickup three times a week hours of operation 10a
commercial trash pickup three times a week, hours of operation 10 a.m. to 3 a.m. And we have a
question if that's daily or not. That's daily. It's seven days a week. Thank you. Yep. And that
was part of the, you know, we had two commute meetings with Northern Liberties to hash out all
the details. We wanted to make sure that my clients are awesome. They run a great operation,
but we know zoning runs with the land. And the idea was to make sure that in the future,
sure if they ever don't operate here, there's not going to be a problem. So between these
provisos and the ones in the CVA, everybody felt comfortable moving forward. I have a copy of my
deed showing my clients purchased the property in 2024, tax compliance documentation, the notice
for today's hearing, the posting photographs both on West Girard Avenue and on North Oriana,
which is a side street. And then again, we had two meetings with the community group,
one on April 7th. We have a certificate of service and a list of addresses. And then again,
on August 25th, we met. And I have not seen Council Member Young's letter. I don't know
if you said that that was a letter of support. I will have Hillary send you a copy over.
That'd be great. So I'm assuming it's supporter, non-opposition.
Non-opposition. Yeah, great. So we believe the criteria for the granting of a special exception
have been presented in this case. There's nothing about this operation and it's any worse
than what a takeout restaurant would normally be.
In fact, we believe that it's going to be better with my clients.
And for those reasons, we respectfully request that the zoning board grant
the application for a special exception.
Could you bring your client and have your testimony adopted?
Thomas Ludovic.
What's your client's last name?
Ludovic Thomas, or it's Dennis Oker,
a.k.a. O-K-U-R
or Thomas?
Ludovic Thomas is coming back in as a panelist now.
Fantastic.
Yes, hi, good afternoon.
Hi, sir, good afternoon.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Ludovic Thomas, L-U-D-O-V-I-C-T-H-O-M-A-S.
Could you please turn on your video?
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ludovic, did you hear the statements I made to the zoning board?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Correct.
You adopt them as your own?
Okay, thank you.
I have no further questions.
I do have the architect on, but I don't think it's necessary for them.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair, can you hear me?
I can, yep.
I just want to note that this was listed erroneously on our calendars being in the 5th Council District.
That's why we got a letter from Council Member Young and also a letter from Council Member Squilla,
which is the district that this property is in.
So I just wanted to clarify what happened there.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX2 commercial mixed use at this location.
The appellant has demonstrated that the proposed takeout restaurant
in the multi-use building would not cause detrimental impacts
beyond what would reasonably be expected.
There are several similar businesses along the stretch of the commercial corridor,
and it would not be out of character for the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission therefore recommends that the board grant
the requested special exception for a takeout restaurant.
Thank you.
um mi 2025 001 583 332 to 34 west drada avenue i vote yes would provide those limiting use
to unit number one venting through roof interior trash storage commercial trash
pickup three times a week hours of operation 10a to 3a daily
can we can we clarify the unit one to be i don't know if we actually specified units um just to
figure out uh hillary yeah the unit one is what was listed in the lease okay that's why i put it
put it there oh no no no that that lease is for 713 the lease that's in there is for 713
um that i have up here this lease
this lease there's no lease in the ownership because my clients own the property so this
there's no lease in the ownership because my client
lease that's in there is for 713 not for not for the subject premises that was just showing their
other operations that they have and when they stop provisions there okay all right then we can strike
that proviso yeah because i don't think actually these days ellen i'd in from terms of zoning
doesn't specify where in the building they are unless it's something that's specific with the
Read it again, Hillary.
Yes, please.
Thank you.
MI 2025-001-583-332-34 West Gerrard Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Venting through roof, interior trash storage, commercial trash pickup three times a week, hours of operation 10-8-3-8.
Daily.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
I am McAdams. My vote is yes. We'll provide those.
Thank you.
Okay. Number 15, MI 2025 001 587 5035 Spruce Street. Tameka McCoy is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from one on Hill Community Association, 12 in support, one opposed.
Tameka McCoy, please raise your virtual hand.
Tamika?
She's coming in as a panelist now, too.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Tameka, sorry, by the way, the delay, but I see you have a couple cases this afternoon anyway.
So could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's T-A-M-I-K-A.
Last name is M-C, capital K-O-Y, Tameka McCoy.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You identify your client, their relationship to this property.
Sure. The property is 5035 Spruce Street. My client is Dr. Reginald Banks, who owns the premises. I'm going to share my screen.
And Tanetta Graham has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
On the screen is the notice of refusal.
This is a proposal for a multi-family dwelling unit that proposes four actual dwelling units.
Each of the units are two-bedroom apartments.
I'm going to move quickly.
This is a photograph of the exterior of the proposed property, and this is a photograph
of the exterior of the proposed property with an adjoining building that has the exact same
floor plan as what is being proposed.
Essentially, the final project is going to result in a structure where both units look
exactly like this unit that has already been presented and completed. The notice had been
affixed and the plans that are submitted are the plans that were exactly the same as the other one
that's next door. This is the existing floor plan. It shows essentially one, two, three, four
floors that includes the, or that doesn't include the basement. The basement is the fifth.
What is being proposed essentially, and I'm going to just turn this so that it's easier for you to
see. Okay. So the first floor unit is going to occupy the main front entrance where you enter
the unit this way. They also have two stairwell. The back stairwell is going to access a storage
space in the lower level basement for that first floor tenant. The basement has windows that goes
along the side alleyway of the property that allows natural light there. And then the other
And then the other three tenants are going to have storage space in the basement in the
three tenants are going to have storage space in the basement.
front section.
There's a separate entrance that allow for access directly into the basement, and there's
an exit at the front and an exit at the back for emergency purposes.
That's the basement.
The first floor has two bedrooms, a living space, kitchen, and two bathrooms, one for
each of the bedroom units.
When you go upstairs, there are scissor steps that basically exist at the front and at the back of the property.
So each apartment has two stairwells that it can access.
But each has two bedrooms.
There's a living room, a kitchen, and two bathrooms in each of the units.
In the back, one of the provisios that the owner made with the local residents was to utilize a Juliet door in the rear of each of the unit, rather than a full balcony, and the community was in agreement with that slight modification.
So the balcony door here says Juliet because it would essentially be a Juliet door with safety brackets, not a full balcony.
The community is the Walnut Hill Community Association.
six members that voted in favor were present there was one who did vote against but after
we were able to reach the agreement with regard to the rear balcony I believe the community was
in support of the project and as I had indicated what it will do is bring the project around full
circle so that the building essentially would mirror what is existing exactly next door in the
area uh 60 of the block have multi-unit um apartment living um in this particular community
and on this particular block because of the size of the houses it's really it's a really large
space. And with that, I would ask that Dr.
Burks be admitted to the meeting to adopt my testimony
and address any questions of the board.
Dr. Burks, please raise your virtual hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay. Counsel, you're not sure the court will
take your testimony. Okay, very well.
Questions? Go ahead.
Do you want to say anything else, Tamika? No, I was just going to address any questions you guys
had. Sure. Questions from the board. Is this
a tear down? Are you tearing down the house and then re-erecting it
as the copy of the other side? No, it
wouldn't have to be tearing down. Essentially, the existing
building will be there. What happens is the third floor is going to be reconstructed to
redo the roof line. And then there would essentially be a bow that would be erected
that will go the length of the building, the front of the building. But the existing structure
is going to remain. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from the board?
Yes. I guess, can we go back to the floor plans?
Yes, of course.
Okay. So each one of us has little pet peeves.
I don't like when bedrooms are so far away from bathrooms
that you have to kind of wander around in the middle of the night
going through the kitchen to get to a bathroom.
So that's just something that I think, you know,
somehow or another we need to be closer.
You know what I mean?
That's one of my little pet peeves about this layout.
otherwise i mean i'm not and the bedrooms in the front have bathrooms right there
yes yeah so the the first floor both of the bedrooms are actually immediately adjoining
the bathrooms right yeah it's only when you get to yeah when you get to the other floors
It's only when you get to, yeah, when you get to the other floors.
yeah we'll put the younger people in the
We'll put the younger people in the back bedrooms so they can make the long trip down the hallway.
But the one is immediately.
Counsel, that's pretty being quick on your feet.
I'll tell you that.
Yeah, and I think I heard that earlier today.
The young people back there, then it will matter.
But, you know, any other questions from the board?
I guess the only comment is make sure that in your living room you've got some windows
because right now you don't show any windows.
Okay, I can talk to the architect about that.
They need to hang the TV, though.
They need some light and air more.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience?
i see no hands share planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa3 residential three family
attached zoning at this location there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of
the property that would prevent it from being used in strict conformance of the zoning code
the community was involved in remapping in this area in response to the west district's plan
recommendation in 2019 and chose to intentionally retain single-family zoning of this block.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for
multi-use, maximum occupied area, and rear yard setback. Thank you. Hillary, do we have revised
plans on this? That's a good question, Mr. Chair. There was a reference to the revised plans by the
RCO, but I didn't see anything submitted or a proviso form by the applicant.
All right. Thank you.
Ms. McCoy, are there any changes to the plan since they were reviewed by L&I?
Only to show the basement windows.
And that's what...
Okay. Okay. So if there were changes that you want incorporated, we do need to adopt
revised plans and we need those submitted along with the proviso form.
So that is what was. Go ahead. That is what was submitted.
OK, so there wasn't there weren't any changes since Ellen and I reviewed the plans because the RCO referenced updated plans.
So the only modification was to show the actual windows in the basement.
And when we realized that that's what was submitted to the board, and so that's what we are showing here, are you proposing that we submit that somewhere else?
Well, are those the same plans that were reviewed by L&I in order for the refusal to be issued?
If so, then there's no revised plans.
That's what I'm asking.
If there is changes made since L&I reviewed them in order to issue the refusal, and you want those changes memorialized, we'd need revised plans and a proviso form for the board to adopt.
So, but it doesn't sound like there were any changes.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
All right.
I see no hands, Chair.
All right.
Planning Commission already stated.
So MI-2025-001-587-5035 Spruce Street, I vote yes.
Michael Derns.
Michael.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
I do have another matter.
I'm not sure if...
So I have to wait. This is still the morning group, right? So I'm going to come back to you.
You have two issues, I think. Well, it's one, it's two properties. Yes. And I'll get to you
probably in about a half hour, if that's okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sure. So MI24,
next case 17, MI2025, 001-674-254, South 11th Street. Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Mr. Consul is coming back
and he's a panelist now, Chair.
There's also a recommendation
of unanimous non-opposition
from Washington Square
and a letter of...
We believe it's a mistake.
But Washington Square
has a letter of non-opposition,
unanimous.
Yeah, there's a second letter
yeah there's a second letter for this property but that case is not being heard for a couple
from this property,
but that case is not...
months so just focus on the unanimous support please i got it right so so mr counsel first
of all we're sorry we we made you wait so long um could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer yeah it's joseph console j-o-s-e-p-h-c-o-n-s-o-l-e you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes.
Tanetta Graham has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon. Did you submit your documents five days in advance
of this hearing? Yes. And I think this is
a referral, so do you stipulate to the reading of the referral and its accuracy?
Yes. Thank you. You make sure your screen and proceed.
All right. My screen should be up with my referral.
is it up yes it is joe okay i'm here today on behalf of my client which is the llc roxburn
254 llc its representative mr neil mcgraw is on this call to adopt my testimony we are here
to legalize a long-standing chiropractic office use in the property it's zoned cmx1 and uh because
of that, approval for this chiropractic office requires a special exception.
Here's the photos. You all are probably familiar with this stretch of 11th Street. It's got middle
child on it. All the properties with maybe one or two exceptions are set up the same with some
kind of a commercial type use on the first floor and units above were here just for the chiropractic
office that exists on the first floor and has not properly been legalizing. It's been successfully
operating. I'll go show you some interior photos for more than 10 years. The historical zoning
records, which show a consistent pattern of professional and commercial use for over 60
years in this property. I won't go through everything. It was a real estate office in the
60s. It was some sort of a wireless communications office in the 80s, and as far back as my client
knows, it's been a chiropractic office. My client recently became aware that this long-standing
use lacked the proper approval and is now taking the corrective steps to bring it into full
compliance. Not a new use. It's to formalize the existing use. We met with the Washington Square
West folks. They voted 10 to 1 in non-opposition. That's their letter. We believe that this is a
textbook case for a special exception. The use is permitted by the code. It's the legalization
of a longstanding and harmless existing use and has full non-opposition, which I'm told is
the best we can hope to hear of the community. And we believe we've met our burden and request
that the special exception be granted.
And with that, I'll call Mr. McGraw
to adopt my testimony.
Neil McGraw is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
are you new
mr mcgraw
yes i'm joining hi how are you sir could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer yes neil mcraw n-e-a-l-m-c-g-r-a-w you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel good afternoon
neil did you hear my testimony just now regarding the first floor of your property at 254 south 11
street i did joe do you adopt it as your own i do all right nothing further questions from the board
questions questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just briefly mr console i believe there were some um interior photos that we didn't receive
um in your original packet so if you could just please upload those by close of business
tomorrow that would be greatly appreciated oh sure yeah no problem thank you
um questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands share planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx1 commercial mix
use zoning at this location the appellant has demonstrated that the opposed use would not cause
use zoning at this location the appellant has demonstrated that the opposed use would not
cause detrimental impacts beyond what would reasonably be expected therefore the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested special exception for group
medical dental and health practitioner office thank you mi 2025 001 674 254 south 11th street
I vote yes. Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes. Diane Wynn, my vote is yes. Thank you, Joe.
Thank you, Board. All right. Is there anyone in the
audience who had a 930 case that they had not
heard their name called? I see
no hands share. Good. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
With me is our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanetta Graham.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Board member, Michael Johns.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Taya Nguyen, who just stepped out for one minute.
In fact, here she comes right now.
Our board member, Ryan.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Ryan McAdams.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording in this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name, then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter their appearance to become an interested party to a case.
There are three ways.
You can identify the case property address on your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member, or you can call the ZBA appearance line by the close of business tomorrow.
Call 267-270-5548.
Leave a message that includes your email address and the address of the property of the appeal case.
Following guidance is for our remote attendees.
When directed, you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak.
If you're called to testify, you'll be prompted to join as a panelist.
Please accept the request and turn on your camera.
Third, the webinar Q&A is for questions about the hearing.
Do not comment on cases in the Q&A.
Fourth, if you're participating by phone, please press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
For our in-person attendees, refrain from talking, eating, or drinking during the hearings.
Verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated.
Restrooms are across from the elevator.
Water fountain is just outside the room to the right.
When speaking on the record, you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court reporter.
In the event of an emergency, please follow the directions given over the public address system or by the staff.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear.
The nearest stairwell is to the left outside the doors.
In case of an evacuation, the rally point is Love Park directly across Dark Street.
Please remain there so we can account for you.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Hold on.
Number three, MI 2024-006-030-2100 Benton Street, that case is continued, attorney-moving party.
Number 12, by the way, is there any other requests for continuances?
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host for this afternoon.
I see no hands at this time.
Thank you.
So number 12, MI2025-002-666-9313 Busselton Avenue.
We have no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
Rachel Pritzker is listed as the attorney.
Azuri, Inc. is the listed owner.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, so that's the first listing.
We will continue that to 2-4-26 at 2 p.m.
And then I have number two.
Number two, MI-2022-007-295-5737 Elmwood Avenue.
Number two.
That case has been withdrawn.
And number five, MI-2024-007-285-610 Christian Street.
That case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
Number one, MI 2023-007-281-8014 Caster Avenue.
I vote yes.
Proviso per amended refusal dated 8-23-25.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tenetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ty Owen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number two, MI 2024-002-432-739 Tyson Avenue.
The vote in this matter will be rescheduled upon receipt of supplemental documents requested by the board at the hearing.
Number three, MI 2025, 002, 343, 1233 to 37 North Front Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA, September 17th, 2025.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Brian McAdams, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Number four, MI 2025-002-347-2117 East York Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johnson, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Brian McAdams, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Number five. MI 2024-005-350-401 West Penn Street. I vote yes, with proviso. Maximum, two dwelling units, no basement.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes, with proviso.
And number six, MI-2025-000470, 3110 Aramingo Avenue.
This is a request for reconsideration.
I vote yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Okay. We're going to move to our regular list.
What am I doing here?
Mr. Chair, do you want to read number one into the record because it's being continued?
Hold on a minute. I'm looking for something here.
I did later. Yeah, I did. What was that again now?
Number one, the vote is being continued.
You want me to read it in, right?
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Number one, MI 2022 007 291 430 West Burke Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, October 1st at 930 a.m.
And Hillary, we have a pro se at four, right?
And number four, MI 2024-007-282-10784 Lockhart Road.
Ann Siegel is the attorney.
There is a letter of support from Somerton Civic Association, 16 in support, 6 in opposition,
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member O'Neill.
and single please raise your virtual hand it's the one we want to hold right hillary
we want to hold this
she's coming back in as a panelist now chair
I want you to explain
We'll hear
Miss Siegel
There she is
There she is.
Hi, Ms. Siegel.
Hi Miss Siegel
Yes hello can you hear me
Yes, hello. Can you hear me?
I can. Do you have your video one?
Just a second.
There you go.
All right. Could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
My name is Anne Siegel, first name A-N-N-E, and the last name S-E-A-G-A-L.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Sigel, this application is to convert an existing interior parking space.
Required accessory off-street parking space was removed.
An existing two-family detached structure.
No plan review associated with this application.
One other refusal.
One off-street accessory parking space is required per units in the RTA zoning district, whereas two spaces are required and none are proposed.
Our attorney, Hillary Emerson, wants to mention a few things to you.
Yes, good afternoon, Ms. Siegel.
So in reviewing your documents, I noticed that you were not eliminating the parking.
you were eliminating the interior parking, but now you have
surface parking spaces. And I did see you submitted something to L&I
that they did not review. And I think
really what your refusal should say is for the elimination of those parking
spaces, or basically the relocation of the parking spaces
to the driveway, and your refusal should be for having parking spaces
in the front yard, because L&I considers the driveway the front yard.
So you need a variance regardless, but I think your refusal is wrong.
So we're going to hear the case today, but I'm going to have a conversation with L&I
to see if we can get the refusal changed, and we'll probably need you to submit a request
to amend the refusal, but I will give you further instructions on that once I've had
a conversation with L&I.
But I just wanted to kind of clarify where we were at.
We're going to move forward today as scheduled.
you present the information that um you provided to the board um and i will have a conversation
with ellen i and let you know about next steps so we can make sure um you're getting approved what
you're actually seeking if the board does approve it okay does that make sense yes okay and our
board member tinnitus graham has just a few questions okay yes hi good afternoon um did you
um email all your documents uh some of them five days in advance before this hearing yes i did
Okay, and you already affirmed about the refusal with our attorney, Hilary Animas, and so you can proceed and share your screen.
Can you see?
Can you see?
Sorry.
So this was our first violation, can you see documents?
We can.
So the first is violation notice I received, it was 2021 November, I'm sorry, and it was
application
this is actual refusal
I received
next application for appeal
okay and project
information form
we have all the forms here
I'll go
sure go down and I'll tell you when you should start
so this is deed
all the documents
yeah this is the actual picture it's a real why don't you go a little bit we're having a hard time
seeing that oh like move it up move it a little bit or make it bigger okay well so why don't you
show it this is a this is my parking spot over here um 1078 for a locker road okay yeah um on
In my driveway, I can fit two parking spots, so this is showing how much street parking
in the area.
It's not congested over here, and it's enough space for parking.
This is my plants.
This is the plants, and this shows ... I'm sorry, my voice is just a little bit ... Can
Can you hear me?
you hear me?
What is the size of the existing
This is a size of the existing driveway that shows that two cars can fit on my driveway.
So this is next one, Ariel.
It shows where my property is.
And the next one is picture.
So we understand this.
at some point your garage was closed off yeah it was closed um with the wall and two windows
right right right and then you started to park in the front of it instead of the garage
yes and i all right uh-huh because the garage is small yeah so um um uh picture over the car
you posted your zoning yeah and you can see the parking that the the car actually fits and
And it's enough space for the car.
And your neighbors park two cars in front, usually two.
Yeah, we actually can fit even truck on the drive.
So this is the posters.
And I'll go faster because this is the picture of the front of my property,
which I want to put the door so I can have space for myself.
so i can easily easily access the space when after the surgery when i cannot do steps okay
and this is inside of the uh garage that was um enclosed with the wall and windows okay
yeah uh i'll try to scroll and stop me if you need me this is all the pictures
okay and this is the condition it's inside okay okay
this is uh you can see the slope uh on my driveway so yeah water from the street go
down and we had flood in the garage area like two or three times everything was bad so
So it really helps with the water, keep the water off the property.
And this is just area.
You can see how much space we have.
There is trucks parking on the streets.
We have enough outside for other people.
So it's not like really congested.
A lot of people parking the trucks over here.
And this is view from my window at night.
and how much parking space and how many cars are outside.
So, over the time, this is the cars they parked in front of my house.
So, I only have a small car, you know.
So, this was the picture, and if I understood correctly,
this is the proof of mailing, the meeting of the...
law rco happened and you saw the letter of support this is the picture can you see it yeah i can
this is the letter of support and the meeting yes it happened april 9 2025 and this is a letter from
my neighbor actual this is the only one neighbor everyone else is rental rentals so the only one
owner on my left and this is support uh letter from the owner of this property that he's okay
and he support my conversion and he do not oppose it you know he actually have older 94 years old
mom who act who cannot do the steps so it's really helpful to have this kind of conversion okay
okay i think this is all documents okay all right um so the board's going to ask you a few questions
relative to it and then we'll eventually have take some testimony if there's anybody online
but then we're going to hold the vote okay so questions from the board good afternoon um so
you took out the garage area correct yes and you're going to make are you making an apartment
there are you just using that space just to open it up a little bit uh at the moment it's a space
for my extra stuff and the treadmill because i have to i have to walk and i have to exercise
um i i do not have plan to have run thank you it's only for me
it's only for me do you have a drain at the at the bottom of the the slope right at the front of the
do you have a train at the
at the
i do have drain but sometimes it's over it's too much water and when it's really um i we had
like maybe more than food of the water in the past okay but you have a drink it's so severe
the flooding in so fast it just go down in the drain sometimes can be cloud in the past when i
was working i couldn't get to the drain and clean it in time and it's just okay okay thank you um
do you had a licensed contractor do this work for you no uh what happened four years ago my ex-husband
And he accidentally backed up in the garage door.
So he and his friends just did put the wall instead.
Garage.
So is there work that still needs to be done to it?
I heard you mentioned you wanted to put a door there.
That's what I was asking back then in 2022.
22, let me put the door for myself, entrance door.
So that means you're going to have to get a contractor to come and put the
door in because there's no door in right now, correct?
It's only windows and just simple.
And also I have to finish the, finish the wall.
You see the condition is, you know, it's, it's not finished.
Thank you.
Did you do any electricity and new plumbing in that space?
In the space, everything was like, it was the only thing we put insulation in the ceiling
because it was really cold and in the walls and put some of the boards, they put some
of the boards.
So you insulated it, you didn't have to run new electricity, so your treadmill could be
plugged in?
No, I don't have, there is no light, like, you know, there is no light, only the one
that was.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Amberson.
No questions.
Just to reiterate, I will be in contact with you
and just let you know what's happening with the refusal.
So you don't have to do anything else.
I'll be in touch with you, okay?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rta1 residential two-family zoning at this
location the appellant has demonstrated that the history of flooding through the garage door
presents unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would
prevent it from being used in conformance of the zoning code and that the change would not
cause detrimental impacts would to neighbors the planning commission recommends that the board
grant the proposed variance for parking in the required front yard setback.
Chair, excuse me, Chair.
We have Alice Udovich with her hand up.
She has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, Alice.
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board.
Just for the record, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Alice, A-L-I-C-E, Udovich, U-D-O-V-I-C-H, on behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Sure. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed.
Chairman and members of the board, the councilman has no objection to the granting of this variance as long as this property remains as a two family dwelling and that a garage space not be converted to a third unit.
Alice, thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
Thank you.
So, Miss Siegel, we're going to hold the vote on this and we'll get back to her.
we'll get back to you when we're ready to move, okay?
Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, before we move on, I just need to
correct the record on number 12
MI-2025-002-666-9313
Old Busselton Avenue. That case was actually
rescheduled to, sorry, one second,
was rescheduled to november 18th at 9 30 a.m so i'm sorry we had that was that was a miscommunication
on our part that had been already rescheduled as i said is that okay yeah so so not it's not
going to be scheduled for february it's november 18th all right good at 9 30 thank you and sorry
one board one more administrative item can we please let miss siegel note the date of the vote
um i well i don't we don't know yet because um i we have to get an amended refusal from l and i
get an amended refusal from l and i oh my mistake thank you yeah no problem we'll get it we'll get
oh my mistake thank you yeah no problem
her back as soon as possible so so mr knockamson not i don't want you to come up yet but we're
waiting for a leonard all right so as soon as leonard gets here we'll hear your three cases in a row
sure uh let's see here
all right um number nine and ten we're going to hear together number nine is mi 2025 002 585
and number 10 is mi 2025 002 592 6103 cal hill street to make it mccoy is the attorney for both
There's a recommendation of support from HMC Squared RCO.
The vote was seven in support.
Five abstained for both.
Chair Tameka McCoy is coming back and is a panelist now.
Good afternoon.
Hi, counsel. You've already been this form, but just for the record, could you please state your name?
We're going to hear both of these at the same time.
Sure. Tameka McCoy, T-A-M-I-K-A. Last name is M-C, capital K-O-Y.
Counsel, could you please identify your client and the relationship to these two properties?
Sure. My client is Ms. Eloise Jones of Booker Investment Group, LLC.
see. Ms. Jones actually is not attending today. She just had the passing of her grandson and she's
mourning that. I did share my screen. Yeah. So Tanetta Graham has a few questions before you
start. Okay. Yes. Good afternoon. Have you submitted documents for both cases
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And do you stipulate to the reading of the refusals
for both cases?
And I mean, the reading and their accuracy.
Okay, thank you.
Let me begin your presentation.
So I'm showing now the refusal
and it basically shows that a hearing
addressing the multi-unit was had
on January 17th of 2024, it was approved each of the units for six dwelling units within
The matter before the board today is essentially to address an addition that would be required
on the third floor of each unit for the previously approved six dwelling units.
I'm going to go to the pictures so that it will make a little bit more sense.
So these are the two adjoining properties that we are addressing on Callan Hill Street, 6101 and 6103.
Ellen and I specifically requested that we present to the board the approval of this portion of the third floor.
they specifically wanted a approval separate from the one that had already been presented to show
that the board was in agreement with allowing for this third floor to be built out completely rather
than have it be a partial third floor as the existing structure is these plans were the
original plans that had been submitted when it was previously presented in 2004, it's just to
address that one particular area for you to address today for both buildings. I'm going to go to 120.
to make it to make was that 2004 you said 2024 okay oh okay yeah i think it
everybody was thought it was 2004 we thought wow
no so as it currently exists it's a partial third floor and the plans require for the third floor to
be one full length. But as I said, the request from LNI was to just have the addition to that
third floor approved.
Do you have plans for that today?
Why don't you show the plans?
This is for 6101.
These are the proposed elevations.
Can you enlarge your screen and maybe reduce the sidebar?
the sidebar helps me kind of move through
can you go back to the
you're saying the units were approved
yes but what l and i
saying the addition wasn't approved
Yes, they specifically wanted the board to address the addition.
So the addition is the third floor addition?
Yes, that's correct.
This rear part.
Right, and so go back to the third floor plan.
It's like the third floor and the second floor has an addition too.
Correct.
Right, so can you go back to the plan again?
it's just kind of hard to tell on the plan what's the addition
right it's not kind of designated i guess the lighter gray is the addition on the third floor
that is correct the lighter gray is the addition on the on the second floor okay correct all right
we're gonna just zoom in once more so that that makes it easier for you soon okay
so there are two there are two units on the third floor and one is an efficiency in the back and the
other is an efficiency in the front right okay all right and then the same thing on the second
floor is two efficiencies all right okay and what was approved where were the where the four units
is a total of four units in the building it's a total of six units in the building that was what
was previously approved um ellen i just wanted a specific approval for for the addition okay
okay and i guess that makes sense because they don't work unless you have the addition
you can't get six units in there right all right thank you um can we walk through i know this is
before I was on the zoning board can we walk through the history of this property trying to
so there's six units in 6101 and in 6103 that is correct okay and but 60 they both had a former
commercial space on the first floor correct the owner actually grew up in the building so it used
to be a bar and it had residential living at the top and the owner had lived there pretty much all
of her life and so the prior presentation was for the actual multi-unit living and when L&I
reviewed it they just wanted for the board to specifically go over whether there would be an
approval for the addition in the back to allow for the units
to be erected. That part I understand. I'm just trying to understand
how we got to 12 units and two row houses on the corner
in a neighborhood. So how many
units were in the building when there was a
commercial space on the first floor of both? So this
is the existing and I believe
I could just have a moment.
I'm looking for the
previous plan. I'm not sure that it's depicted what the existing was it has just the proposed
was it has just the proposed
you don't know the property zoning
was it already a multi-family with a commercial space?
do you know how many units there were before the commercial space was converted?
let me see if I can go back
And then can you know I just have a sense of me that it was reducing from seven to six units in each building.
This was back when it was originally presented.
Were they units or was it a rooming house?
Because I see there's a change of use that was filed.
Because it was a tavern before.
It was a bar tavern before.
And do you know, when was the last day that the tavern was in operation?
Oh, it was quite some time because it had been dilapidated for many years.
I want to say more than 20 years.
More than 20? Okay.
And then walk us through, because you, I mean, you've already had an approval to move forward.
Walk us through the decision-making around the addition.
So in order for the plan as it was presented to be effectuated, that third floor has to be extended.
So I understand that as you presented it to us, but walk us through your client's plan, like what led to them making the decision to do the extension.
So essentially, the intention was to have for additional living quarters to be available in this particular community at the 6100 block of Callahan.
and their plan essentially was to essentially make a dilapidated property habitable and so
that's what the intention was for why they presented what they presented. I understand that
but this could have been habitable as a single family home so I'm trying to understand
how we got to six units with an extension in the structure.
okay but what just what but i guess what i'm trying to understand right is that
this the six units have already been approved so we're not really is am i right correct six
units were approved but they now need the extension so i'm trying to understand
the plan around the extension like what drove the decision for this extension oh there's no way
i can tell you there's no way you can get i don't mike i'm asking i'm asking i know what you can see
at the time this plan was originally presented for the units it contemplated for the third
floor to have the addition l and i wanted it to be specifically addressed so there was no way that
the six units could have been accommodated without having the extension on the third floor and the
plan that you see now was the plan that originally was contemplated when six units were presented
you say contemplated you mean that this plan had been presented to the zba yes prior yes so i can
actually um ms mccoy if you don't mind i can i can jump in and explain a little bit here so
So when the six-unit proposal came before the board for both of these properties, it was presented to L&I as a change of use.
The addition was planned at that time.
Unfortunately, it wasn't included in the application, so all the board could consider was the six dwelling units.
And now that you are expanding a use that was granted by variance, you need to extend the variance essentially into the new portion of the building that you're proposing.
So the addition was previously proposed, but it could not be considered by the board because it was only a change of use application.
So now it is under consideration by the board.
Okay, other questions?
Can I ask a controversial question?
If you are not granted the extension, what is your client's plan with these properties?
um it would essentially create a detrimental hardship to her and the property will probably
It would essentially create a detrimental hardship to her.
remain dilapidated I you know I don't know that she would be able to continue without
um the units you know as they were so as as the argument is that the hardship is that without
putting 12 units in these properties that they're not financially viable
well in terms of the cost in in in doing the project yes okay so tamika let me ask you this
why don't you explain what happened when you went to the rco sure the rco voted what seven
nothing for it in favor yes how do you talk about that so a part of the um
development of the community was to have people who are vested in the area actually improve the
properties that are there. That's why the overwhelming support with the RCO, as it was
documented in the letter that they had submitted, is also there. There are multiple other buildings
on that block that have a similar extension.
And so it will essentially reflect the
design of
pretty much what's already there. So it will be a continuation of what's
developing on this particular block.
Other questions? Questions or comments
from our attorney, Hillary Emerson? Not at this time,
Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I've seen
no hands, Chair. Planning
Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
This testimony is for
6101 and 6103
Callow Hill Street.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
in zoning to the current RSA
5 residential single
family. The proposal
came before the board under
ZP 2023-006635 at 6101 Callow Hill and under ZP 2023-006637 at 6103. At the time, the Planning
Commission stated that there were no unique physical conditions or circumstances of the
property that would prevent them from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission maintains that recommendation to deny the requested variances
for multifamily.
MI 2025-002-585-6101 Cal Hill Street
and MI 2025-002-592-6103 Cal Hill Street,
I vote yes for both.
Michael John, my vote is yes for both.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes for both.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no for both.
Maya McAdams, my vote is yes for both.
I win my vote. It's no for both.
Thank you. You have your votes.
Thank you. Have a good day.
Number 11.
MI 2025
002 643
Southampton Road.
Carrie
Carrie
Nase Paust is the attorney for the owner.
Chair Attorney Paust is coming back in as a
panelist now. Okay.
Good afternoon, board.
Hi. Carrie Nase Paust. And could you spell your name for
this stenographer, please? Yes. Carrie, C-A-R-R-I-E.
Last name Nase, N-A-S-E, hyphen
Paust, P-O-U-S-T. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Cigars on Southampton, LLC, and they are the owner of the property.
Okay. Tanetta Graham, our board member, has a few questions for you.
Hi, good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And do you stipulate to the way of the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you. You can proceed and show your screen.
Just for a point of information, I see Parkwood Civic, 20 votes total,
unanimous support, and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member O'Neill.
Is that right?
Correct.
Okay, please proceed.
Thank you. I will share my screen. Can you see my screen with the exhibits in front of you?
can you see my screen with the exhibits in front of you i do great thank you i will try to be quick
i know it's been a long afternoon and you still have more following so this property is located
at 2990 south hampton road it is located in the i industrial zoning district just for
administrative matters quickly. I will go through exhibit A1 is a copy of the notice of refusal
setting forth the relief that we're requesting this afternoon. Exhibit A2 is a copy of our
appeal application. A3 is a copy of the deed confirming my client's ownership of the
property a four we did obtain the necessary certificate of tax clearance a five is a copy
of the notice to the neighbors regarding the meeting with the civic group as well as the
hearing this afternoon also following the notice is a copy of the proof of mailing
a six is a copy of photographs showing the notice of the zoning
notice posted on the property as required.
This property is located on Southampton Road. It is located between Townsend Road and Thornton Road.
It's here with the mark as red. Attached as Exhibit A8 are photographs of the current conditions of the property.
You may recall some of you that were still on the board two years ago, we were in front of this board requesting zoning relief, which we were successful in obtaining to redevelop this property to be used for a smoking lounge, as well as retail sales of consumer goods.
The owner applicant cigars on Southampton LLC is an affiliated entity of Holt Cigar, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with.
um we are currently in the process of redeveloping the property in accordance with the site plan
that was approved by the zoning board two years ago is currently under construction we're hoping
to finish construction and open for business in november uh in front of you here just for point
of reference is a copy of the zoning site plan here is thornton road you have south hampton along
the top of the plan and to the left is Townsend Road. Just for your own reference I also just
included a copy of the building elevations which we reviewed at that time showing what the
facade of the building will look like when completed.
In connection with the use and the redevelopment of this property, the applicant did submit
a zoning permit application to L&I requesting permits to install certain signage in connection
with this use. I also have here in front of me, this is just a copy of a zoning site plan. It was
not in your exhibit packet. If you'd like me to submit it, I can certainly do so. But this just
shows generally where the signs will be located. So again, Southampton Road, we have a wall sign.
We also have a freestanding entrance monument. And then along the facade fronting on Thornton Road,
there are four wall signs that are being proposed. We have two H's that are next to the door. Both
of them are approximately 9.47 square feet in size. And then you also have in the top corner
Holt Cigar Company, which is 29.32. In addition to that, we have what's being in front of you here,
this H, which is the Holtz logo, which is the need for the variance today. So under the regulations
for the industrial zoning district, you're only allowed to have 100 square feet of signage along
any frontage of a building. Because of the fact that we have four signs along that frontage facing
Thornton, we did receive a notice of refusal for this H. When you total all of the signs that I
just showed in front of you, the total square footage is 105.87 square feet. However, this H
However, this H itself does comply with the requirements and it measures approximately 57.61 square feet.
itself does comply with the requirement.
As a result, we are requesting relief of variance to exceed the maximum permittable sign area of 100 by an additional 5.87 square feet.
So the total, again, would be 105.87 square feet.
um the reason that we do need this uh logo to be this size is as i showed you here it really
this h is going to be here on the corner of the property and again the purpose of this h is it's
a logo of holtz so it's to identify the property and customers that are coming to the site however
the distance from the building to Thornton Road is over 300 feet in distance. It's approximately
304 feet. So in order for that H to be visible and for customers coming down Thornton to be able
to see it, recognize it, and make a left-hand turn in time to get into the Holtz parking lot,
it needs to be a certain uh size given that distance what i have um marked as
see here exhibit a12 is a photo um simulation i'm not sure i can try to turn it it'll turn
on the end there right there you go i'm going to turn it this way so this is um a photo simulation
of what the H would look like from Thornton Road.
Again, as I indicated, that's approximately 304 feet away.
This is just a, let me see if that,
sorry, I lost my, somehow I got back to A7.
Sorry.
My apologies.
I don't know how I just lost my place.
There we go.
um yeah so this is the um a photo simile of showing what that h would look like you could
see so again purpose being that people recognize that it's the whole logo and then they can turn
into the site we believe that this is necessary in order to provide the proper visibility
as indicated previously we did meet with the parkwood civic association back in may
we reviewed the sign with them we had a good crowd there that evening no one had raised any
concerns as you can see we have a letter of support that was submitted with the unanimous
consent to agree on this approval of this sign that is also included as exhibit a3 so we believe
that again due to the location the fact that this property does have three frontages given the
distance from Thornton we believe that there is hardship to support the grant of the variance
along the along the same lines I would also argue that you know approximately five square
feet is a de minimis variance and it would not create any adverse impact on the surrounding
community. I do have my client here. Why don't you bring your client on? Yep. Mr. Michael Walter
is here as well as the sign vendor, Dennis O'Hara, in case you have any questions regarding the sign
itself. Mr. Walter, could you raise your hand to be let in? Chair Michael Walter is coming back in
as a panelist now. Okay, thank you. Mr. Walter?
michael you're on mute there we go thank you mr walter could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer michael walter m-i-c-h-a-e-l w-a-l-t-e-r you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you mr walter
could you please identify your role at Holtz Cigar? Vice President of Operations. Great. Thank
you. And were you present during the statements that I gave this afternoon regarding the sign
and the need for the size of the sign that's being proposed? Yes. And do you agree that the
statements that I made are true and accurate? Yes. And had you provided testimony yourself,
would you agree to adopt the testimony as your own?
I have no further questions for Mr. Walter.
Questions from the board.
Questions.
Actually, I have one question. Is the sign going to be illuminated 24-7?
Actually, I have one.
No. What are the hours of operation that you plan to have the sign illuminated?
I believe available hours are open until midnight.
Okay, so the sign will be turned off at close?
Correct.
And is there any additional exterior lighting on the building?
other than the backlight from the sign itself.
All the signs except for around the door? No, all the signs are backlit.
Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission. Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive
plan recommends no change in zoning from the current I-1 light industrial. The requested
deviation from wall sign area is de minimis. The Planning Commission recommends that the
Board grant their requested variance for wall sign area. Thank you. MI-2025-002-643-2920
Southampton Road, I vote yes.
John's, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
I win. My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Nackamson, are you ready to go on
13th Street?
Yes. Mr. Reuter
will be available in a few minutes, so we can
go ahead. Yeah, I just want to let you know. He's almost
here. I know he said right after
3.30, but I saw Mr. Nackamson
getting a little anxious back there like he wanted
to go.
okay so mi2025002576933 south 13th street alan knockamson is the attorney mr knockamson i think
it's the first time you've been here today right it is mr chair wow okay so could you please state
your name as bell for the stenographer alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you
identify your client and relationship to this property? My client is,
let me have the right one in front of me, Stephen Krupnick
Revocable Living Trust. He's the owner of the property. And to
my left is one of its representatives, David Krupnick.
So before I give it to
Netta, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition vote
was 39 in support, 8 in non-opposition.
I think that speaks volumes.
Tanetta Graham has a few questions.
Good afternoon.
Have you emailed all your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay, thank you.
You can proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
All right, so this board actually heard this project in 2018 to legalize this triplex.
unfortunately uh due to a miscommunication with prior counsel and the property owner
they never got the co they got the rental license they didn't realize they have to
also get the co which happens a lot unfortunately people don't realize that so
the way we found out is ellen and i revoked our rental license and we said what's going on and
they said you don't have a co and that's where we're back here today uh so quickly we can go
through this this is an r1 property oh okay how about that's a first mr chair
let me go through the presentation oh wait so but this r1 property given this last square footage
we're allowed two two units as a right we're requesting three units uh you don't see this
very often but we have a significant uh of uh support for this property to a degree uh that's
almost unheard of i think of uh so anyways what yeah the well the hardship um is the well how
about this this board approved it last time and due to a miscommunication prior counsel
So it's already been established, that use.
So the hardship is the fact that to have to recreate it back to two units would be a hardship
to my client.
And here's the paperwork showing the zoning permits, the previous notice of refusal, the
notice of decision, again, just showing the licensing for this property.
and again you know this is an rm1 property it's a corner property
This is an RM1 property. It's a corner property. Photographs of the property from 13th Street
from Carpenter. Zoning hearing notice postings. 13th Street to right, to left. Carpenter to right,
to left. Interior photos. He's purposefully kept one of the units empty because we're allowed to
two units as a right so he didn't want to have an illegal use he he honestly did not realize
what happened here and he was shocked so just a couple things there's no uh living
there's no living in the basement it's open you just basically go through the front door
you go down steps there's some washer and dryers but there's no living down there and and go oh
sorry garbage is stored in the rear back here so everyone has access to it but you know there's a
unit on the first floor and that's a two bedroom one bath two bedrooms uh and the baths here and
then you have the living room here and then you have two other units partly one and they're by
levels um so uh you see here it's a it's a living room in the kitchen and you go up to
the third floor is two bedrooms. Here, this one. On the second floor, you have a living room and a kitchen, and then you have one bedroom.
Then we met with the community. It was a very well-attended meeting on August 18th.
Proof of mailing, our application for appeal, along with the notice of refusal in the project information form.
Here's the deed showing that my client owns the property.
And our certificate of tax clearance.
I would ask that David be sworn in.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
David Krupnick, K-R-U-P-N-I-C-K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
David, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Is it true and correct?
and do you adopt this your own testimony yes specifically oh all right
uh yes yes yes all right thank you questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands share planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive
the plan recommends no change in zoning from the current RM1 residential multifamily zoning.
The property was granted a variance for three units in 2018, and the three-family configuration
is existing. The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their requested variance
for three dwelling units. MI 2025-002-576-933 South 13th Street, I vote yes.
John's, my vote is yes. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Iowa, my vote is yes.
Thank you, sir.
All right, so we're going to first hear a...
Mr. Nockman has a complaint against Del and I.
Leonard?
Leonard, we waited for you.
He wanted to start without you.
I said, I'm not starting without you.
Exactly.
I could.
Mr. Knockerson, just state your name for that.
Alan Knockerson.
Right.
And, Leonard, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Of course.
Leonard R. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I understand, Alan, you also have a variance case relative.
Do you want to handle this first?
Yeah, I believe this is appropriate, Mr. Chair.
Why don't you go?
Yeah, the board does not grant the L&I appeal.
Then we'll go to the variance appeal.
So Mr. Reuter told me this is actually a case of first impression in front of the zoning board, where 1835 Diamond Street is a historic property.
It's in a historic district, corner 19th and Diamond Street.
And because it falls within the confines of the historic designation incentives in the Philadelphia Zoning Code, where if you have a property that's historic that has a prior use that's non-residential of at least 2,500 square feet, basically by rehabilitating it, reviving it, having some residential use, you will convert the zoning here, which is RM1, to CMX3.
where it's based on far this property is the lot size is 2500 square feet if
this property is the lot size is 2500 square feet if we're under base zoning for this property we
would have five units as of right no parking the issue is that we're in the north central
philadelphia overlay district where there's two requirements of us in generally in this
overlay district where if it's an rm1 property the unit count is based instead of the first
1440 square feet you get 361 unit per 360 square feet and then 480 thereafter it requires 425
square feet per unit so we would be allowed i guess we would be allowed four where if under
the base overlay under the base zoning we'd be allowed five we're seeking six but we're trying
avail ourselves of this historic designation incentive program within the Philadelphia
zoning code. The second portion of the overlay is when you have more than three units, then
going forward you would have a parking requirement such that we now have two parking spots required
of us. There is a conflict in the Philadelphia zoning code where I think that the historic
designation incentives should apply over the overlay um again i gave a very detailed brief
here and and you know you if you read it you would see that like it the the code these code
provisions for the historic designation incentives were designed to give uh value to people who want
to like revive these historic properties such as this and it's this property is not just a historic
property on its own and i think it's been historic since 1986 it's also in the the diamond street
historic district which you know you'll hear time and time again we we've presented matters before
them where they're they're very proud of that district and um to encourage this type of double
element we've we thought we were shocked that we were actually not going to get it i actually
thought that this these provisions in the code which basically converts an rm1 property to cmx3
zoning where we would allow six units and because we're not expanding the actually building envelope
we wouldn't fall within the cmx3 requirements of parking of usually three to ten there is no
parking requirement and if you look at the pictures that on you can go on google street view
you know on the 19th street side there's this beautiful like stone stone like fence so the
again for the variance point of view the only way we can get that parking back there is to destroy
that stone fence which the historic commission would never let us do anyway so that's our
hardship there um so we think that if you read the code this is essentially an overlay and this
overlay the historic incentive designation overlay should override this overlay given
the intent of the legislation thank you letter so uh this is kind of a a little again it is a case
of first impression in the sense that um you have heard actually not that long ago the uh
the house that was owned by the hara krishnas where this provision came into into play yeah
um but this is the first time where this uh you know alleged conflict between uh the section so
it's the exemptions from the use tables uh which is just for the record i'm not going to bother
sharing my screen i think i can just cite the provisions this is um 14602 sub
seven so it's used tables sub seven and it's the exemptions exception to use tables for certain
historic structures so um everything mr occamson said for the most part is is correct the property
is historic it is uh contributing to the diamond street historic district since 1986 it's actually
the first historic district um in the city first historic district that was created in the city
because we weren't able to designate districts until the mid-80s when we put it into the code.
The property definitely qualifies.
I believe they actually even, and they went to the Historical Commission.
Dr. Farnham, the Executive Director of the Historical Commission,
confirmed that the property was historic and that it had the certified prior use
that would qualify it for the exemption.
All that's correct.
the problem is uh again what mr notkinson pointed out is that the overlay provision
uh in 14501 of the so 14500 is the overlay is a chapter of the code dealing with the overlay
So 14500 is a chapter of the code dealing with the overlay districts, and 501 is the
general provisions, and under 2, sub 2, it says that the overlay, basically it says that
the overlay district, when, so all applicable zoning code regulations apply in overlay districts,
except that when overlay district standards conflict with standards that would otherwise apply under this zoning code,
the regulations of the overlay district govern.
So, as Mr. Nockamson alluded to, the overlay in this case is the North Central Philadelphia overlay district,
and it basically has a restriction on the number of units per lot size.
And it was L&I's position that that provision, because of 501, sub 2, that the restriction of the overlay takes precedent, that it preempts, and because there is a conflict, the overlay provision governs.
And honestly, we wish, in this case, especially with historic property, we agree, the purpose
of that provision was to incentivize adaptive reuse of historic structures so that people
wouldn't need to come in and ask for a variance to potentially demolish a building or build
something else.
And again, there's some discussion about whether we would try to change this in the
future.
um you know again there's there's arguments on both sides where you know certainly communities
may still want their overlay provisions to predominantly you know to take precedent over
the exceptions for for historic properties but it's the city's position that as much as in this
case we may uh want the historic the exemption for the exception from the use tables for historic
properties to apply the overlay provisions dealing with the interpretation of the overlay
and basically you know if there's a conflict who wins clearly states that the overlay provision
wins in this instance and the ncp just won't won't allow this as a permitted use we don't think just
Just to address one of Ms. Narkinson's other arguments, as of right now, the exception
for historic properties from the use tables is not an overlay.
It's literally just what it says.
These are exceptions to the use table.
So it wasn't intended at the time to constitute its own overlay.
I mean, you could argue like historic districts themselves are kind of quasi overlays.
But as of right now, we don't have overlays for historic properties per se in the code.
But so, you know, the city's position is that, unfortunately, we believe that the language of the code is unambiguous and that the overlay provision has to prevail here.
Alan, do you want to respond?
I just think if you look at this special form of legislation that was passed, I do believe that the spirit of this legislation is that it would trump the base zoning and that an overlay, an unintended overlay would not affect the benefits of that legislation.
That legislation applies to every single property in the city of Philadelphia.
It was meant to live above the base zoning and the overlays, and I think the intent of the legislation, maybe not artfully drafted, and maybe they didn't think of that consequence, but still I do think that the intent is to allow this project to go as of right and that the L&I appeal should be granted.
right so mi 2025 002 399 um appeal denied all right thank you and then we'll go right to the
well get the vote first
my vote is appeal denied michael johns my vote is appeal denied
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is appeal denied.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is appeal denied.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is appeal denied.
All right, so then we're going to move right to the variants.
Thank you.
MI 2025-01-001-580, 1835 Diamond Street.
1835 Diamond Street. Mr. Nockmson, just for the record, state your name.
Mr. Nockleton, just for the record, state your name.
Alan Nockmson.
And I would say there's a letter of non-opposition from Strawberry Mansion Community Concerns with enforceable provisos.
I am glad that we do have the non-opposition of the community.
I think that this project, whether it should be through an LNI appeal or a variance, it should proceed forward.
with taking a historic property.
Could you identify your client
in relationship to the property?
My client is 1835 W. Diamond, LLC.
And to my left is Nicholas Payton,
who's one of his representatives.
So why don't you start your...
All right.
So as you can see...
Before you start,
I noticed that our attorney is leaving
and Ryan McShary will take over
as our attorney.
All right, great.
And then I think I have to have Ms. Graham ask me some questions.
Sure, Ms. Graham.
You've said it an awful lot, but go ahead.
Good afternoon.
Did you know your documents five days in advance in this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do with reservation of right as to my L&I appeal.
Thank you.
Got you.
Thank you.
You may share your screen and proceed with your case.
uh so you've heard a lot about the case i think we don't need to look at the refusal
um you know we're looking to do six residential units and this historic property
um we actually had a really productive meeting with the strawberry mansion uh community concern
we have no objection to any of the provisos so there is no basement use there no issue um
everyone has access to it so in terms of trash the trash will be stored in in the basement as
i told told miss cummings and obviously we have no issue for co because that's a requirement as
you saw from the last presentation i did on 13th street so what's the hit there's something about
that building you remember and i can't remember what it is what was the history of it i don't
know um i think it was a doctor's office that's the only thing i i saw of public record it's a
beautiful building very unique um and we're looking forward to like you know revitalizing it
not out of character and by the way we're an r1 property too so multi-family it's not out of
character and then you know just the two refusals the one for parking we're not going to knock down
a stone uh fence we even if we wanted to the historic commission wouldn't let us so that's
one refusal gone and we we wouldn't we don't want to knock down we it doesn't make sense because
the two parking spots would be a zero sum for the neighborhood. We take two parking spots off of the
street and put it just for our own benefit. It makes no sense. Then in terms of the unit count,
not out of character to have properties, have six units. 1828 Diamond Street, six units. 1827 Diamond
Street, six units. 1829 Diamond Street, six units. Aerial view, you can see here we are, 19th and
diamond zoning map you know again i don't think we question where we are in terms of density in
terms of r1 rm1 zoning here we are in the neighborhood as well uh photographs of the
property just very unique uh you know we're obviously going to have to put all new windows in
uh you know deal with the facade and cleaning it up uh you can see here that they've noticed uh
posters uh you know there's a discussion here about whether we're going to preserve this
lettering of course we are i mean obviously because you know but it just has a great look to
it uh diamond street to the right diamond street to the left north 19th street to the right north
19th street to the left interior photos so my client bought it hasn't touched it you know wants
to you know you know obviously hopefully get their approval and then start doing work but here's
existing interior photos and then our plans and drawing. So first things first,
you can see there's independent steps for the lower level and it will have a
trash room down here somewhere else. But none of the units can, the first four
units, there's no buy levels. So let me just make sure I get my notes here. So
So you basically look at this, you know, you make it go into the common area, a common entryway, you make a left, that's unit 1B, that's a two bedroom, one bath.
So here's a living room, kitchen, two bedrooms, you know, washer and dryer.
You make a right, you have a two bedroom, one bath as well.
You have a living room, kitchen, bedroom, bedroom, bathroom.
and you go to the second floor up here
and you go to the second floor, up here, let's see, you have, trying to see here, you have 2B,
which is a one-bedroom, one-bath, so here's the open floor plan, and then a bedroom,
and then you go to the right which is uh two a which is a two bedroom one bath so living room
two bedrooms and a bath and then you go to the third floor and you have to the left you have a
two bedroom one bath you have a you have a living room in the kitchen two bedrooms and then a bath
right there and then a very unique part of the house or the property is you go to the right
and that's actually a four bedroom two bath and existing right uh well we'll we'll ask you when
you get sworn in but you have a oops let me just do this trying to get to the uh worth one where is
So, you have a living room, two bedrooms on this level, and a bath, and then you go to the interior by-level, and you have two more bedrooms, and actually a family room, and another bath.
So, we met with Strawberry Mansion Community Concern September 11th, and then here's our proof of mailing for the community meeting.
our application for appeal notice of refusal project information form deed to the property
showing that we own the property 1835 w diamond llc and then finally which we added just this
afternoon we're part of a payment plan so we do owe some taxes but we're part of a payment plan
with that being said i would ask that mr payden uh be sworn in mr michael
yes hi sir could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer nicholas payden
n-i-c-h-o-l-a-s-p-a-d-e-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel oh yeah nick you heard everything i had to state
today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes and do you adopt this your own
testimony thank you questions from the board just oh no i just had a question about what's going on
with the back the rear yard it's open to i think the rear units on the first floor it's not a
common entry okay yeah and and no trash is be restored just for that unit this trash will be
stored in the low in in the basement it has everyone has access to it okay thank you that
was brought up by miss cummings and we stated i stated to her i would state to you that's where
restore the trash yeah but biggest concern i have is for the two bedrooms that are on the right the
second floor and third floor if you go back to the plans there's barely living space dining area for
those two bedroom units um so i'm concerned about i understand that you're reasoning for six bedrooms
six units but my concern is really livability of those those particular units because the
The two rooms that are sort of on the left
are decent, have decent-sized living rooms,
dining area, you know,
for folks that would be living there,
but the ones that are on the right
are just very tight.
They probably work better as one-bedroom units.
Yeah, let me try to get to it.
I'm having some technical difficulties here.
So notwithstanding the fact that,
You know, it's commendable that the developer wants to keep the building and its historic character.
I think that's that's great. So those the units, if you look at the one that's on the right.
With the tarot, there's very little with all the with all of the doors going into that space.
it's kind of difficult for a family of two to to kind of live there as opposed to the the unit
that's on the right on the left rather um a fairly decent sized living area
same thing with the unit above yeah the only thing i would say is yes it's it's a more micro
type of unit um but you know what we would see is that probably it would be a person who would
live you know have it would be one person and and it's you know would have a secondary
room as an office um but you can guarantee that though no you can't guarantee it but
No, you can't guarantee it, but the consumer chooses, right, ultimately?
but you know the the consumer chooses right
Well, the developer chooses, Alan.
Well, the consumer chooses what to buy and what not to buy.
Yeah, but you're calling it a bedroom.
If the intent is for it to be a den, then call it a den, but it's a bedroom.
My concern is that the overall sort of living space is inadequate, in my opinion.
i i can tell you that some people want to take care of things like a lot of space and some people
don't so i think well one of the things and there's always been a criticism right is that
when you don't show furniture and you don't show furnishings right it's kind of difficult for you
to or us to to really determine well not me necessarily but a lot of folks to determine
how that space really works. If you look at the size of the living
dining room for this one bedroom that's on the left
is completely different than the size that you have for this two bed room
on the right.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.
Right. You see this unit and then you see this unit.
You see the living room. You see this living room.
comparable to one is a two-bedroom
and one is a one-bedroom, right?
That's my concern.
So my concern is that not necessarily the six units.
My concern is maybe the layout.
So that's sort of my biggest issue.
So, Mr. Payton, do you have any issue
of putting that as a one-bedroom instead of a two-bedroom?
Not at all.
one of the issues we had was because it's historical we had to work within the window
spaces and i think that's why it's a little crammed because the windows didn't exactly line up
and we aren't able to move them because of the historic factor but we have no issue making it
a den or one bedroom all the questions can we talk about this walden stairwell at the rear
what's what's going on which this one right here yes uh can you explain what's going on with that
staircase that i'm not sure the prior use i believe it was a doctor's office but it's a
staircase that goes from the first floor to the third floor but with no exterior access
yeah so what are you just gonna wall it off just gonna close it off yeah
so um that's that's odd it seems like a missed opportunity i don't know it is but unfortunately
even for like access to each other floor it's i mean even if you did it as a light well or i mean
trash you lay well there's there's but that and then obviously you know you're gonna have to go
through a co process uh at this point how much of this property has already been subdivided into
these units and how much is work that's still left to do there's nothing that's been done yet
nothing's been done yet cleaning out the yeah the pictures show that but i guess the subdivision
What's the condition of the property?
If I was walking through that property,
how many units would you say are in there?
Or is it just one big?
It's just one big space.
One big house.
And then generally,
what is your floor-to-ceiling heights on each floor?
They're very large ceilings, I believe, 14 feet.
On each?
All the way up?
All the way up.
You know you're going to have to do sprinklers.
Yes, I do.
All right.
Oh, that he knows.
He's already counted that in.
Any other questions?
Questions from our attorney?
Brian McShury.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location, RM1.
the appellant has demonstrated the historic designation and the existing physical configuration
of the property create unique circumstances that would require relief from zoning board
i'm sorry from the zoning code for lack of parking the requested number of units is not the least
minimum however a fifth unit would be a diminished deviation from the required lot area the planning
commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for required parking
and grant the requested variance for multifamily unit count with proviso max six sorry max five
units and you erased them for six and yes and given you know the condition of the property
we do need it to be six that's you know and and it's not out of character as you saw i think it
was 1827 29 and there was one other property i think 26 or you know that all are six units on
that barge. So MI 2025 001 580 1835 Diamond Street, I vote yes.
Michael Jones, my vote is yes.
michael johnson my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
tenetta graham my vote is yes my mcadams my vote is yes tayo and my vote is yes
um good luck that's a beautiful property thank you really really nice yeah very nice
um i thought we do we alan alan the provisos you you were okay with the provisos
Sure, we'll put the proviso as well.
So, MI 2025-001-580-1835 Diamond Street, I vote yes with proviso.
No household living in the basement, interior trash storage, and a certificate of occupancy must be obtained.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Teneda Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with provisos.
I win, my vote is yes with provisos.
I'm surprised she didn't call me.
You know, I'm surprised she didn't call me.
All right, thank you.
We're going there now.
We're doing better.
We're doing okay.
I know. We're good.
Well, we moved a little quicker.
MI-2025-002-707, 921 South 20th Street.
Murder, the Ferliger is the attorney.
Sharon, Murder, the Ferliger is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is 1127 South 20th Street, LLC, which is the equitable owner of the property under agreement of sale,
represented here today by Nathan Cohen.
And I would note that we have a letter of opposition
from South of South Neighborhood, SOSNA,
and we also have a letter of opposition
from North Washington Avenue.
But you have given us a petition with six signatures.
And additional letters of support
that I will also address in my presentation.
Thank you.
And Tanetta Graham has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
I sure did.
Oh, great, great.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do to both.
Okay, thank you.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Last, as usual, on your two o'clock list this afternoon.
The request before the board today concerns 921 South 20th Street.
and represents a truly and legally qualifying de minimis request for a three-family dwelling.
You have an exhibit packet that contains 16 exhibits. To summarize the basis for today's
request, this application requests the erection of a new three-family dwelling to match the
already approved three-family dwelling immediately next door and also being developed by my client.
Due to a de minimis lot size difference that I will explain, the next door project at 923, which is the corner, was approved by Wright.
This one at 921 was not.
Tax clearance is included in the packet at Exhibit 2, and the agreement of sale with an addendum is shown at Exhibit 3, establishing my client's standing to pursue this request.
let me first orient you to the location of the property as you can see on the zoning map i've
shown here at exhibit six the property sits on south 20th street just off the corner of carpenter
street uh in my introduction i mentioned the next door neighbor property that's also under
development by my client and that is the corner property that you see here
you will also note that the property itself is zoned rm1 similar to the rest of the block
aerial photographs are also included at exhibit 11
at Exhibit 11. From the north view that you can see up on the screen right now,
from the north view that you can see up on the
you'll see that the property is a part of two separate lots that currently make up a parking
lot serving the pizza shop at 919 South 20th Street. You can see this condition a little
bit better in this eastern-facing view. From the west, you'll note that this block itself
is a mix of residential multifamily uses and commercial uses.
Something else for the board to take note of in this particular image
is that many, if not most, of the adjoining structures here on South 20th Street
extend close to or just before the rear lot lines.
And you can really see that in this rear image here.
the existing conditions of this property are better shown here at exhibit 12
again this view here from south 20th street shows the voluminous existing curb cuts that interrupt
a significant amount of the sidewalk wrapping all the way onto carpenter street and eliminating a
fair amount of available on-street parking. From the corner, the board may note how the
parking use of the site served as an interruption to the otherwise residential and commercial
character of this area. And again, this is the two lots, 923 is the corner, which is not before
the board, 921 is the interior portion. From Carpenter Street, you'll again see here that
the curb cut extended nearly the entire length of 923, which is the adjacent lot.
From the southern-looking direction, you'll also see some of the new construction in the area just
across the street on the corner. Several of the developments that are visible in this image
were approved for four dwelling units apiece, just in terms of some context.
And then looking across the property on South 20th Street, you'll see the predominant multifamily and commercial mixed use of this area, although it is zoned RM1, as you saw.
And we did also include photographs of our timely posting of the lot.
Two images of that.
Just for context, I did at Exhibit 13 include a copy of the zoning plans that have already
been approved by L&I for 923 South 20th Street, which is that corner parcel of the parking
lot fronting on Carpenter Street.
As you will see when I move to the plans for 921, both projects are intended to be absolutely
identical.
9-23 South 20th was approved by Wright for three dwelling units.
And as you can see here is the Eclipse screen.
It is pending payment.
And again, you'll see the site plan here that you should be able to very quickly get a sense of the intent here for two identical developments.
The zoning plans for 9-21 are now shown up on the screen at Exhibit 7.
This proposal contemplates a three-story structure of only roughly 35 feet high to better blend with the three-story character of the existing block.
From the section, you'll note that the lower level is over 5 feet out of grade and only 4 foot 11 below grade.
I'll call your attention to two measurements before I move on.
First, in the zoning table, you'll see that this lot is 1,056 square feet.
You'll also notice that the proposed open area is 20% instead of the required 25%, which applies to an interior lot.
The difference between those two percentages in terms of actual lot coverage area is 50 square feet.
Practically speaking, and I'll bring the zoning plan back up, but practically speaking, the backyard of 921 more than meets minimum rear yard requirements at 17 feet long versus a required 9 feet.
and, as I will continue to harp on, is identical to the project slated to be built next door.
Regarding the lot size itself, in the table, you'll note that this lot is 16 feet wide,
and therein lies the problem. The adjoining lot at 923 South 20th Street is 17 feet wide.
The adjoining lot at 923 South 20th Street is 17 feet wide.
So at 16 by 66 versus 17 by 66, the code calculations deprive this lot of one dwelling unit by just 24 square feet that would have been needed to garner that third unit by right.
Floor plans are also shown at Exhibit 8, and again these are identical to the ones that
were submitted for 9-23. I will call the board's attention to a few things.
First, this project was designed similar to its immediate neighbor to ensure that each unit has
its own independent outdoor space. Unit 1, which is on the first floor and lower level,
has access to the full rear yard. This is a large one-bedroom unit of roughly 1,500 square feet
with ample living and flex space. Unit two on the second floor has an exterior deck off the back
that you can see here and is a two-bedroom unit. Unit three is also a two-bedroom unit and will
have exclusive use of the roof deck, so really independent outdoor space for each of these units.
Units two and three are roughly 750 square feet each.
Each of the units has in-unit washer and dryer and a ventilated trash storage closet, which is marked on the plans that you can see in each of these units, a large ventilated trash storage area.
While L&I does not require plans that are any more detailed than we've presented to the board today, my client did also just recently develop a similar project just around the corner.
So we've included a photograph of that development at Exhibit 9 to give you a sense of the design intent of this project in terms of aesthetics.
Similar to the character of the block, the front exterior will be predominantly brick, with large windows to allow ample light and air.
And again, this would be for two identical developments side by side.
Now, regarding the refusal, as you've likely gathered by now, this application was refused because the lot is deficient a mere 24 square feet to entitle it to that third unit by right.
Furthermore, it was refused for proposing a coverage of 80% versus the required 75%.
As you have figured out by now, that corner lot is entitled to 80% coverage being a corner lot.
First, this board has significant discretion to grant a variance when the request is de minimis in nature and not counter to public policy concerns.
Said differently, you are not obligated to find a hardship in order to grant the request today.
That said, we do submit that the board can find several hardships that further entitle the applicant to relief, aside from its de minimis nature.
At Exhibit 10, I've included some historical permits of this lot, which contained a structure
with three independent units, albeit one that was a commercial space and two dwelling units.
Today, that commercial use would not be permitted in the RM1 zoning district.
Furthermore, as I described, my client is under contract to purchase both of the lots
that comprise this corner, and responsible and reasonable development principles would dictate
that two identical buildings be constructed to ensure that the facades, the elevations,
and the rears are entirely uniform without any unnatural and unnecessary deviations.
Ensuring that these units in adjoining buildings are identical will further contribute to effective
marketing, leasing, and equitable design of the spaces. Additionally, as I noted earlier,
this is a predominantly multifamily neighborhood with developments of similar density in the
immediate vicinity. In terms of the open area itself, the visual implications of complying
with the code are actually fairly instructive here. And I'll bring up the zoning plan to try
I make this point. If you look at this site plan, in order to comply with the code and eliminate
5% coverage, 5% of the back of this building would have to be removed. So that would essentially be
about four feet. Imagine then what it would be like to be in the backyard of 921. To the right,
you would have the pizza shop wall, which I indicated earlier extends nearly to the back
which I indicated earlier, extends nearly to the back of the property line.
of the property line.
To the right, you would have about four feet of the extension of the wall of 923,
which is, of course, going to be built as it's permitted.
And then to the rear, you would have the sidewall of a newer construction home on Carpenter Street.
So complying with the code in this case would artificially close in the back of 921 with no logical justification for it.
Granting relief today will ensure that the rear yards remain open and allow ample light and air.
That's not in building extensions.
As a de minimis request, this is inherently the least minimum request to ensure that the two developments can be built in an identical fashion,
but for a difference of one foot in lot width difference of these two lots.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air.
And in fact, we submit that the development will eliminate a very large swath of curb cuts
and potentially put parking back where it was previously eliminated.
One extra unit in this case will have no discernible impact to the surrounding community.
particularly one that's comprised heavily of multifamily. As always, more detailed analysis
is included in the Memo of Law at Exhibit 14. A brief note about the RCO position.
As the board saw, Sazna did send a letter of opposition in this case, which I'll bring up
on the screen. First, we would make a couple of points on this to request that the ZBA
disregard the letter in this particular case. First, SOSNA objected to the apparent lack of
information provided. Board, we provided them with the same documentation that was presented here
today. SOSNA was seeking detailed elevations that are neither required by L&I but are also
unnecessary and unrelated in any way to the requested variances. Secondly, most of the letter
surrounds concerns over the pizza shop and its parking. Respectfully, Board, that's not my
client's prerogative to address. He's under contract to purchase these lots and has no
relationship whatsoever to the pizza shop, nor can he possibly address the fact that they are
going to lose parking when these lots are developed, no matter what. Third, as you'll see
from the vote sheet, many of the actual community members that were in attendance actually voted in
support of the project, with the final vote here coming in at a near even 14 to 14, except for the
addition of the SASNA board members. So you can see that this garnered quite a bit of alternating
views. My client, as Mr. Chairman mentioned, elicited further input directly from near neighbors,
And we did include both a petition of support as well as independent letters of support, which totals an additional 13 near neighbors who did express support for this project.
So we would respectfully ask the board to give the RCO position its appropriate weight under these circumstances and grant the requested de minimis relief.
At this time, I would ask the administrator to look for Nathan Cohen to have him unmuted.
Nathan Cohen is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen?
Hello.
so i'm mr cohen how are you could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes nathan cohen n-a-t-h-a-n-c-o-h-e-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel thank you uh nathan have you been present and
heard all of the testimony and evidence that i offered in front of the board today yes i have
do you agree that that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had
given it yourself yes i do happy to answer any questions questions from the board
yes i have a question i understand your uh perspective on the sosna letter but can we
address why the other rco also sent a letter of opposition in and any feedback that you might have
And any feedback that you might have gotten about the coordinating RCO?
gotten about the coordinating RCO.
So the coordinating RCO in this case was Sazna.
We do understand that the other RCO sent a letter.
They were present during that same meeting.
They did not necessarily, at least not to me, approach me in terms of any additional opposition that was different in any respect to what was discussed during the meeting.
So I do understand that they also sent a letter of opposition, but that was not based on a separate meeting.
That was based on the exact same meeting.
And so while you and your client were in the meeting, apart from obviously the dealing with the parking and the exhaust from the pizza shop, were there no other conditions or concerns that the community members brought up?
Not specific to the variances.
I mean, a lot of the concern was over the pizza shop.
Were there any other concerns that the neighbors brought up?
I didn't ask if it was related to the variance.
I just want to get a sense for what has driven their concerns or opposition.
A board member, it was predominantly relative to the pizza shop.
There were a handful of community members who simply didn't want to see these lots developed
at all.
There were a few that would have preferred single family, which is, of course, not even
dictated by this zoning district.
but it was, at least from my perspective, and Nathan certainly can comment if he believes that
I'm misrepresenting, it was really predominantly about the loss of the parking lot and the fact
that any development here is going to impact that. And considering both lots are being purchased by
the owners of the pizza shop, did the owners of the pizza shop address this with the other residents
at all not not to my knowledge board member i mean again my my client is is under contract to
purchase them i mean they were marketed he went under contract to purchase them so i certainly
can't speak to what that owner may or may not have done any direct conversation with a neighbor at
915 south 20th street i didn't see them in the um in the signature sheet and their house they're
the first residential property that would be you know impacted by this uh this construction 915 is
on the other side of the pizza shop understood but nathan were you able to speak with that
particular resident in your efforts no i don't i was not other questions no just just a comment
i appreciate your attention to the depth of the basement below grade i think you've done
the appropriate analysis
in terms of
usability and livability
with regard to that.
And I appreciate the fact that you
have furniture in your plans because that's very
helpful for board members to understand.
Mr. Johns, I harp on that
with all my clients.
I just want to brag about that, Michael.
My other question, though, is
so I noticed on the plan that you have it listed
as living space, but there's a full
bathroom down there and two separate rooms.
so just wondering for the other property you've already developed how have you handled the use
of the basement yeah so the just to be clear the other property hasn't been developed yet
uh and we've only done 23 the one that you showed us the photo of that's down the street that's
already occupied oh i see the one that's down the street i believe that one was a duplex i believe
No, this one's a triplex, Nathan.
Sorry, this is 1127 South 20th Street.
So that one is a tri-thot.
I thought we were talking about 1006 South 19th Street, which is a little bit closer to this property.
I believe this one was the basement did have living space at the lower level.
And then are you managing, are you doing your own property management?
Yeah, all my property management, assuming this is kept as a rental, would be done in-house.
We don't hire any third party management and we don't do any management for any third parties as well.
So everything that we manage is owned by us in-house.
OK. And are you opposed to commercial trash pickup?
Am I? I honestly don't know enough about it. I guess in theory, I am not opposed to it.
I typically do smaller multifamily development, so I've never had to have to cross that bridge.
um but i i mean i don't i don't i mean i i pay the city of philadelphia fee i don't mind paying
a commercial pickup a fee okay i think my concern is just this is a corner property we're putting
six units back next to a commercial use it's a lot of density on a site that's currently
open parking and trash storage so i do want to be aware of like there is an impact that's
happening in this neighborhood at the street level questions from our attorney no chair
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Murray Spencer with their hand up.
Chair, we have a Murray Spencer with their hand up. They're coming back in as a panelist.
They're coming back in.
I'm unmuted. Hi. Yes, you are, sir. Could you turn your video on?
Hold on a minute. Sure. Yes. All right. Hi. Mr. Spencer, could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer uh murray spencer m-u-r-r-a-y s-p-e-n-c-e-r you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do mr spencer you're from the rco right
correct i'm chair of the zoning committee yep please proceed sir so the primary objection to
this application is that we had i've been on a zoning committee for 15 years and chair for seven
and this is the first project and all the time i've been on the committee that has basically
They refused to just show us elevations.
They're building or they intend to build 923.
They had no elevations to show of that.
And I had emailed the attorney several times before the zoning meeting that, you know, that's a requirement.
It's listed on our website.
We want to see elevations and plans of all projects that are seeking variances.
And she came to the meeting without them.
We usually only allowed people to come to the meeting without them.
But I thought that maybe she would bring some with her because we didn't get plans at all right before the meeting.
And the first part of the meeting basically was with all the committee members.
And there were five of us present, you know, having the same complaint.
And two of the architecture review committee members were also there with the same complaint.
You know, she mentioned elevations in some of her presentation.
But, you know, all the stuff that I've seen today and I've been on since two o'clock, everyone who has requested anything has had elevations along with plans.
And that's all we asked. So that's the primary reason for the refusal. The parking lot was discussed, but that's not the primary reason. There was just not enough information for us to make a determination as to what kind of buildings it was going to be, what material was going to be in the exterior. And that's something that, you know, we have been mitigating for, like I said, the 15 years that I've been on the board. And even before that, when I had to present as an architect at the board, I always show plants and elevations. And that's all we asked. We didn't get them. And that's why we're opposed to this.
okay mr mr mr what wait mr spencer i did notice quite a few people voted for it
yes they just didn't care about the plans or well they were i think they'll be their tenants or
people that live nearby okay okay yes but i mean zoning committee we have four zoning committee
members who live within you know with or in the night down the block of carpentry street one on
20th street so and they were all opposed just because of the lack of information okay thank
Thank you. Meredith, do you want to respond?
Do you want to ask any questions?
No, I don't want to ask any questions.
I just, you know, again, with all due respect to Mr. Spencer and to Sazna, you know, typically elevations are really effective when you don't have a real life example of what is intended to be built.
And so in this particular case, L&I only requires a section, which is what is included on the plans.
And that's why we included the photograph of a development that was just developed by my client to show exactly what is intended in terms of the exterior elevation.
So providing an elevation would have essentially just been a black and white two-dimensional version of what you see here.
So we certainly respect that position, but, you know.
But you're going to build the same building next door, and you don't even have drawings of that either.
I mean, I just want to say, I'm an architect.
That's how I base everything.
Listen, Meredith, we're not going to, you know, are you done with your comment?
I am done with my comment.
Mr. Spencer, thank you.
We do appreciate you calling in.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have George Leon. They are coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is George Leon, G-E-O-R-G-E-L-E-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Leon, are you a neighbor?
All right. Please proceed.
Okay. I am in your neighbor. I'm directly across the street at 918 South 20th.
I also happen to be on the SOSNA board and was at the meeting.
I want to first point out in the attorney's testimony a couple of mischaracterizations.
In fact, the block is not predominantly multifamily and commercial.
and commercial. It consists of seven single-family homes, three two-unit condo buildings,
It consists of seven single-family homes, three two-unit condo buildings.
one three-unit condo, which is on the corner of 20th and Montrose, so the corner property can be
three, plus two apartments over each of only two commercial properties on the block. That is what
the block consists of. So it's actually predominantly a single family on my side of the street all the
way along the line. Our problem, the other issue, you know, the attorney mentioned that,
geez, you know, the lot is 16 by 66. And, you know, because it's only one foot short on one
side, then it's, you need a variance for three. Yeah, there's a reason for that. Every lot on
that block is 16 by 66, including my own. So that if we permit that unit there at 16 by 66 to go
for three units, then it really sets a precedent that each and every property on that block could
be converted, right? In other words, on the SOSTA zoning committee, we are extremely careful about
setting precedents that can boomerang. And this is a classic case of that. And it's one of the
reasons that I'm surprised the attorney didn't mention that. That was one of our main objections
was a precedent that it sets. So then why can't I subdivide my property into three units
and request a variance and do it? Why can't virtually every property on that block
be converted to three units.
There was also mentioned that the applicant
had no relation to the pizza shop.
That's not really true.
He's purchasing the property from the pizza shop owner.
And you can see that that building is rather old,
the pizza shop.
There's two apartments over top of that.
There would be absolutely no reason
why the pizza shop owner
who was selling the parking lot property
to the applicant can't come back and say, you know, we want to demo that property. And since
the property next door at 921 has received a zoning variance for three units, we're also going
to apply for three units for each of those. So that would give us potentially a total of 12 units
between from 9-17 to 9-23, South 20th.
So again, the problems.
So you think the pizza shop's going to?
Well, I mean, there would certainly be an economic incentive to do so
if they had a fair degree of confidence that they could develop it to six units.
I just want to be clear.
We're not purchasing the lot from the owner of the pizza shop.
We're purchasing a lot from the landlord that has a tenant that is a pizza shop and he currently has a lease.
All right. I appreciate your comments. Good. Mr. Leon, please proceed.
Yes. So, in fact, there was there was a number of objections besides the the parking.
But I also want to comment on the the what the attorney noted about the curb cut.
You'll notice even from the photo showing there that there are cars parked on the 20th side, 20th Street side,
even though there's a curb cut there, that is legal parking. There is signage there.
So it's not like that's currently not parking. The concern of the parking is not only would
the cars from the parking lot and the pizza, that's understandable that even if somebody
built a single family home there, it's going to eliminate that parking lot. The concern is
we're going to have that parking on the street plus from six units, right? From six units
and potentially over the years from 12 units.
So what we really see, even though it's characterized as a de minimis variance,
it, in fact, through precedent setting, gets us down a slippery slope
that could potentially change the character of that entire block.
From a relatively low-density block right now, like I said,
seven single-family homes, three two-unit condos.
I'm sorry, three two-unit condos, one three-unit condo.
And the two apartments, it's relatively low density. We could see that density triple over the years if this if this variance is granted.
And and I also just want to mention that NOAC, in fact, is a co-coordinating RCO for for this neighborhood and that their third letter should carry as much weight as as the letter.
So that's all of my testimony.
All right. Hold on. Hold on. Yes, sir. Meredith, you have any questions?
George, you mentioned a lot about the potential precedent setting effect of,
you know, granting a de minimis variance in this case. But of all the properties that you've
mentioned on South 20th Street, are any of them currently vacant lots? No, they are not.
are any of them currently vacant lots no they are not okay that's that's my only question all right
Got that.
thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience chair we have madeline she's coming
back in as a panelist now do we have any other hands up all right thank you no chair we have no
more hands. Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Ms. Shacumba, please unmute yourself.
Chair, I don't know if she's having technical problems or not.
It looks like she's unmuted.
Try one more time.
Madeline Shacumba, please unmute yourself.
I think she's on the other RCO, am I correct?
All right.
She's not coming on?
No, Chair, I don't hear anything.
All right.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change in zoning from the current RM1 residential multifamily.
The requested deviations from the land area per dwelling unit and occupied area requirements are de minimis.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variances for land area per dwelling unit and occupied area.
Meredith, I'm going to hold this and I'm going to talk to the Board about it, and we're going to vote on it October 1st at 2 p.m.
Noted. Thank you very much.
And thank you for everybody who got involved.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience who their two o'clock case has not been called?
Let me see.
Anybody in the audience?
I see no handshare.
All right.
We're going to take a five-minute break because I think we're going to get a little bit of a change in planning, right?
So take a five-minute break, and then we'll come back, and we'll go through the list.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be sharing this meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is
Tenetta Graham, our board member.
President, Mr. Chair. Board member Michael Johns.
I'm sure he's there somewhere.
He'll be back. Board member
Ty Wynn. President, Mr. Chairman. Board member Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our attorney, Ryan McSherry, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
A recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you can consent to be recorded.
This is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter an appearance to the interested party in the case.
There are three ways.
You can identify the case property address in your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member, or you can call the ZBA line by the close of business tomorrow.
Call 267-270-5548.
Leave a message that includes your email address and the address of the property of the appeal.
Following is for our remote attendees.
First, when directed by the chair, you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak.
Second, if you were called to testify, you'll be prompted to join as a panelist.
Please accept the request and turn on your camera.
Third, the webinar Q&A is for questions about the hearing.
Do not comment on cases in the Q&A.
Fourth, if you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
So let's see what our schedule looks this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2023-005-986-7250 Woodland Avenue.
That case is continued.
Attorney moving party.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Javette Benton. I'll be your co-host for this afternoon.
I see no hands at this time.
And I have one more case.
MI 2025 001-791-714-North-24th Street.
That case is continued until 3-18-26 at 3.30 p.m.
3-18-26 at 3.30 p.m.
And number...
And number five, MI-2025-001-786-2713 Federal Street.
That case has been withdrawn.
Let's go here to our...
Case number two, MI-2024-003-189-2230-32 East Venango Street.
Isaac Slepner is the attorney.
Mr. Slepner has been promoted to panelist, Chair.
Good afternoon, Counsel.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board.
Isaac Slepner here.
Yeah, could you please spell your name for the stenographer?
Sure thing.
My first name is Isaac, I-S-A-A-C.
Last name is Fletner, S-L-E-T-N-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Counsel, could you turn on your video where I'm not seeing you?
I'm certainly trying to.
Give me a moment here.
I think I know what I'm doing, what means to be thrown over.
Thanks.
Michael Johns, I'm present here, Mr. Chair.
I told him you're there somewhere.
I knew that.
All right.
What are those blockers?
Oh, there we go.
I have the afternoon chair of members of the board.
Isaac Klebner here.
Right. Good. And I've already sworn you in. Am I correct?
All right. And Mr. Slepner, could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes. My client is 2230 E. Venango Street, LLC.
That is the LLC that owns the property at 2230 to 32 East Venango Street.
And one of the principals of my client is here on the call, George Grove.
All right. Good.
And I noticed that there's a letter of unanimous support from Harrogate Civic Association.
19 votes total.
And Tanetta Graham, our board member, has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
Have you emailed your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you.
You may proceed with your case.
Share your screen.
Thank you.
I will be sharing.
so members of the board this is a pretty simple matter this is an application for
a variance to allow the use of the property as a commissary kitchen no
dining facilities not a restaurant in an RSA 5 zone so the first document that
I'm showing you now is a deed in favor of my client, 2230 E. Venango Street, LLC, and that
was recorded in April of 2023. My client obtained a tax cert last week, showing that it is compliant
as of 9-925 through 10-925. This is the letter of unanimous support from Harrogate Civic
from September 5th of 24, 19 in favor of zero again.
This is the original application for appeal,
which was filed by Sean Ward.
I have substituted appearance for Mr. Ward
since he had originally started the case.
That's the notice of refusal, again,
just showing that we are seeking a change of use in RSA 5.
These are photos of the zoning poster.
posted at the property.
It's a corner property, the corner of East Venango Street and
Danny Street. So this is a poster on the
door on the Venango Street side.
This is a photo on the Danny Street side of
the poster on one of the roll-up grates.
This is...
I guess I only have...
This is a close-up on the roll-up grate, and this is a close-up on the black door.
This is just to give the board kind of an idea of what is planned to cite.
of what is planned at the site.
It's basically a prep kitchen, a production kitchen
with tables, table space, refrigerators, sinks.
There's a restroom for employee use, hand-washed sinks,
and an office area, and then general floor space.
I was asked actually this morning to send interior photos.
We've got interior photos.
this is a photo of the office space this is a photo of some of the meal prep that's going on
at the space this is another photo you can see some of the commercial size refrigerators in there
some of the doors a photo of another angle of the office space a photo of some of the
prep area, and some of the convection ovens, the hood, and
water, the walk-in refrigerator.
And those are my exhibits.
I would like to
call my client, George Groves, who's a principal of the
ownership LLC. So, just out of curiosity,
so this has been an operation, and it's... Correct. Why are you
hear now i mean tell me what happened uh we had received a notice of refusal in i believe trying
to get a co um and i had actually taken a case over from sean ward right so
the the way it was um explained to me is it's been operating they operate um
like Meals on Wheels for Elderly
and other
charitable needs organizations.
And they are the production site
and they were using the space
to do that,
needed to get it legalized, and are now here today.
Okay, so you've been using
this and at some point you realize you had to legalize it.
Is that right? That's correct.
Okay, all right. Bring your owner on, please.
I'm going to call George Groves
at this time.
George, you out there?
Mr. Groves, please unmute yourself
George Groves, please unmute yourself
I see his name, Chair, but he's not unmuting himself
Yeah, I'm texting at him
Hello, hello
Hi, George, George, could you first state your name and spell for the sonographer?
George Groves, G-R-O-V-E-S.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
And if possible, George, could you turn on your video?
How do I do that now, Mr. Chairman?
Oh, there we go.
Oh, there you go.
You did it. You didn't even have to.
I mean, you know, you didn't have to get me to tell you how to do it.
Please proceed, counsel.
George, good afternoon.
Are you a principal of 2230 Eastern Angus Street, LLC?
Yes, sir.
And did you hear all of the testimony that I offered and see all the exhibits that I just offered to the board?
Yes, sir.
And would you adopt all of that testimony and those pieces of evidence as though you would offer them yourself?
Is there any other information specifically about the use or anything about this property that you wanted to offer to the board at this time?
No, it's used as the commissary kitchen for the senior program, for the state of Pennsylvania, for the health insurance companies.
And the people who are operating are Wilson Beef.
George, how long have they been operating there?
Mr. Chairman, they've been there probably about a year.
It was a commercial property forever.
And when Mr. Higgins filed the paperwork, it came back as RSA 5.
okay thank you questions from the board yes how are you exhausting uh from the events
there's a hood in there there's a hood in place the exhaust hood in place
for exhaust and for fire suppression yes is that going up through the roof or is that going out
through the exterior there's a house okay and then how are you managing um your trash storage
at the site it's in the front there's a roll-up door a trash store there and um what do you call
commercial trash pickup three times a week and is that the same location where you're handling any
uh deliveries yes it's a it's a pretty it's a pretty wide door it's like 22 foot wide
it's a roll-up door and has there been any conversation with the neighbors in the area
And has there been any conversation with the neighbors in the area as you've been operating about issues with deliveries, whether like timing of the deliveries or the trucks?
as you've been operating.
Well, so there's there's a minor deliveries because Wilson Beef is a high end store on the Ironman Avenue, which is a half a block away.
So a large delivery, though, to what deliveries are brought over there by Wilson employees.
okay understood any other questions questions more attorney i just want to ask a council to
make sure to submit those interior photos so they can be made a part of the record
uh i will i sent those uh i would say about 12 30 today to um who had requested them at about
10 this morning but i'll resend them if you need me thank you i received confirmation that we did
received them but thank you we just wanted to double check thank you questions or comments
from the virtual audience i see no hands share um planning commission and i should should mention
nathan dorfman is uh one of our new planning representatives and this is the first day he's
working with the zoning board and we welcome him and nathan could you state your name and
spelled for the court stenographer. Nathan Dorfman, N-A-T-H-A-N, Dorfman, D-O-R-F-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed, sir. The comprehensive plan recommends no change from the RSA-5
residential single-family zoning at this location. The appellant has shown that there are unique
physical conditions or circumstances that would prevent the property from being used in conformance
with the zoning code the planning commission recommends the board grant the requested
variance for commissary kitchen thank you mi 2024-003-189-2230-32 east venango street i vote yes
my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes i am mcadams my vote is yes i win my vote is
yes. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Mr. Groves. Thank you. Number three, MI 2024-004-386-170
Eastern Street. John Marshall is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from OSACDC.
The vote was four in opposition and three in support, but it's a letter of non-opposition.
and letter of non-opposition
John Marshall please raise your virtual hand
letter of non-opposition from council member
Lozada
John Marshall
is coming back in as a panelist now chair
thank you
Mr. Marshall
please state your name
and spell it for the stenographer
Yes, John Marshall, first name J-O-N, last name Marshall, M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L.
I'm an attorney.
Yes, go ahead.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, their relationship to this property?
The client is LJG Group Incorporated.
It's a corporation that owns the property.
All right.
And Tenetta Graham, our board member, has a few questions for you, sir.
Hi, good evening.
Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, you're right.
Yes, Tanetta, although I may.
Sorry, I'm used to saying that.
Excuse me.
You may not be upset, I know.
The thing about it is that we did get a letter of non-opposition from the district councilwoman also.
I believe it might have been put in afterwards, though, the five days.
We have it.
You have that.
So you have both of the non-oppositions.
The one was pretty much due to the fact I think people asked for affordable housing in the area, and that was their reason for non-opposition.
It's in the letter there, I think.
I have one other question.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Definitely, yes.
No question.
Okay, yes.
All right, so you can proceed with your case and share your screen.
Yes, I would also ask that Alberto Perez be allowed to participate.
He has my photos and the meaning, can you bring him on so he can put them in?
Yeah, I can bring him.
you'll just have to make the presentation right exactly yeah i i can't say i'm as quite as tech
savvy as he is so he's putting them in for me mr perez
They're coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
they're coming back in as a panelist now
Thank you.
I want to make sure everybody can hear me still.
Obviously the property is 170 East Sterner Street.
Let me tell you where that is. Lehigh Avenue and A Street meet. It's a small street just north of there on A Street. It faces A Street, and across the street from it is a large parking lot, which is zoned ICMX.
The other side of it is a property at 163 East Lehigh, which is zone CMX-2-0.5.
It was a drugstore, which is currently closed.
Let's hold on that screen for now.
The CMX-2.5, that was a drugstore, but it is now closed.
We're talking about the property right here, which the first floor faces A Street.
Across the street's a parking lot, and obviously just the other side of CMX 2.5 there is Lehigh Avenue.
The first floor, we have a person that wants to open up an insurance office as an offshoot of another office currently located, which has been there for a while, at 3727-29 North 6th Street.
Sort of a block or so from Little Flower High School.
and they have an ongoing insurance office
and they'd like to put a second office
in this neighborhood here in this community
for the community
where people could get auto insurance
and homeowner's insurance, that type of stuff.
If you look at the property,
the second floor is an apartment.
It has two bedrooms and a bathroom and a kitchen.
The first floor on the other hand
is only commercial space
and one restroom in the back corner.
There is no kitchen or anything of that form for rental.
So we need a variance to give them the right to use it for commercial space in what will be a, shall we call it a very quiet commercial space?
You're not getting a lot of traffic.
You're not getting parking.
You're not getting people with takeout food.
You're not getting alcohol.
You're getting nothing there.
But people coming in to make financial transactions and buy insurance.
And even then, once they get the insurance, they don't come back every year.
They come back when there's a concern or a problem, or they have an issue where they have to put a claim in of some kind.
If you're familiar with them, they're all over the city, and I don't know where there's one in this area,
but I tell you, I think it can use it because people in the neighborhood do need to buy insurance.
If you look down the street on Sterner also, there's another commercial property right on the other corner.
The address would be on Front Street, though.
It's the northeast corner of Sterner and Front.
Now, but wait, let's go back.
Let's go back.
This is another.
Okay, go forward.
Okay, here's the property.
Let's go back one more.
Okay, there's the current property.
That's the Sterner Street frontage.
The A Street frontage, however, the second photo,
that is the doorway for what would be a commercial business.
All the ingress and egress for the insurance office would be on A Street, period.
There's a small yard to the left of that photo where there's a trash can,
and obviously the drugstore is right behind it, which, again, is now closed and is commercial.
If you look in the neighborhood, there are a number of nonconforming uses for different,
I think they're called bordegos, different stores that open up, like this one here.
That's at A in East Somerset, a couple blocks down.
Now, if you go back again, let's look at the floor plan again.
Okay, here's the, let's go for the interior now.
Okay, here's the interior. If you look at the first floor, it's been redone. Obviously, it has some snazzy carpeting. The second floor, on the other hand, is residential with a one-two bedroom apartment with a small living room kitchen combination.
We talked to the zoning, sorry, the RCO, and they asked that we offer them a separate metal collapsible fire escape that can be kept in the property.
We agreed to that, and it will be put in there.
As we go forward, here's our zoning drawing, obviously.
So as you look at the drawing on the bottom left bottom, there's the frontage on A Street and there's the frontage next to it on Sterner.
Again, it's an insurance office, very quiet in the neighborhood.
They really had no concern about that.
The only concern was the affordability of the second floor.
uh otherwise they were for it and there is no opposition
Otherwise, they were for it and there is no opposition.
i believe we have a tax clearance i see it on there yep okay there's nothing owed
uh obviously there had been probably a decade ago some lni violations uh they're long gone
the place has obviously been fixed up the color of it has been changed obviously on the outside
So, Mr. Marshall, our attorney wants to explain something to you first.
Ryan McSherry.
Thank you, Chair.
As the proposed use here is an insurance office, it's not a personal services use.
It's a business and professional office use.
Right.
An amended refusal is going to be needed if this is the use, you know, personal services and business and professional office service use are in different use categories.
We can't make this change via proviso.
So, again, we will need an amended refusal.
Can that still be incorporated today?
So what we're going to do is we're going to hear your case.
We'll ask the particular questions.
Planning will make a recommendation, but then we'll get back to you once this is done.
All right.
All right.
All right.
So how about, do you have your client available?
See if Iris Contreras is on.
Yeah, to adopt your testimony, right?
Right, correct.
I believe I asked that she tune in, but I asked her about 15 minutes ago.
All right.
What's her name?
Iris Contreras.
First name spelled with a Y-R-I-S.
She's the insurance agent.
Do we see anyone?
Iris Contreras, please raise your virtual hand.
They're coming back in as a panelist shortly, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
hello everyone i'm here hi how are you could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer sure it is contreras y-r-i-s contreras c-o-n-t-r-e-r-a-s right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel
yes could you explain what you want to do on the first floor of that property
Basically, an insurance agency.
I do already own an insurance agency.
Here, it will be a small space where two, three individual masks will be employed.
And it will be for personal and commercial policy, like U.S. data, homeowners, renters, life insurance, and things like that.
Do you think there's a need in the neighborhood for that?
Definitely.
Yes, I do get a lot of customers from there, and I know that within the Kensington Corridor and the NKCDC or New Kensington Community Development Center, we get a lot of referrals for customers that they get that are in that area, and they are commercial customers that are willing or hoping to have someone close to them.
So it's your opinion that it will make it more convenient for people to come see you for insurance needs?
All right. So, Mr. Marshall, you might want to have your testimony that you gave earlier adopted by your client.
Yes. Did you hear what I testified to earlier?
Yes, I did. I did.
Right. Would you adopt that as your testimony in this matter, too, regarding the insurance office?
all right thank you mr marshall questions from the board yes what can we talk about the use of
the basement the basement right now is for storage that's the only thing in there and does the is the
commercial unit the only uh place that has access to the basement let them tell you i'm gonna have
to ask my client here miss contreras does she know if the front first floor has access to the
basement it would be only the commercial units here that have access to that basement okay thank
you and where are the meters located for the residential unit that one i don't know uh
iris do you know where the meters are i'm sorry the meter for that building um i believe that
I believe that they are in the basement, but I am not 100% sure that I recall at this moment.
What is your plan for the property management, given that the commercial space is the only place that has access to the residential meters?
What is your plan for the property management, given that the commercial space is the only
Are you planning to rent the second floor unit or live in it yourself?
We were planning to rent it if possible, but I mean, if we need to occupy it ourselves, that won't be a problem.
But the initial thought was to rent it.
okay that was my understanding also other questions from the board
questions from our attorney ryan mccurry uh no chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
the planning commission will provide its comments in the form of a letter
regarding the future um rolling on this case
we have a letter for that
hold of it we're gonna have
okay um okay um we're we're gonna it's just an internal thing that we're looking at
when uh would the city planning commission be able to deliver written testimony on this matter
or within the um within um seven business days okay thank you why don't we put this on for
october 1st then we'll bring us back mr marshall we're going to bring this back october 1st planning
is going to have a recommendation for us and then after we get the recommendation we will vote on
this okay that for this point the matter is closed except um you would have an opportunity
to respond to planning and i probably should tune in and i believe we're also in need of an amended
refusal right so that's right and the amended refusal too uh and mr marshall this is the
integrity that the executive director could you also please um get in contact with the board
office to enter your appearance as attorney for the case we have you registered for today but we
don't have you on the case as attorney i thought i was on there right i thought i was already on
there sorry because i had written some letters before for what happened is we went back to the
rco with this to make sure they were good with it and uh wanted to make sure they were uh you know
okay with the property okay okay thank you so we'll we'll october 1st okay okay all right thank
you all right all right and number four number four mi 2024 007199 9372 clark street this is
to be continuing until november 19th at 3 30 p.m and our last case mi 2025 001 794 4632
master street jermaine harris is the attorney
mr harris please raise your virtual hand jermaine harris is coming back in as a panelist now chair
good evening
uh mr harris could you uh just just out for a point of interest last week you were our last
case i know i know i don't know i don't know so could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer uh yeah sure uh jermaine harris uh that's j-e-r-m-a-i-n-e-h-a-r-r-i-s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr harris could you identify your client a relationship to this property
so my client is lucas caseras and i have his personal representative who's also his architect
as well. Delmaso Rodriguez
is also on the call, should be on the call.
I'll mention that there's a letter of unanimous support from the 42nd Ward RCO.
Yes. Tenetagram, our board member, has a few questions
for you, Mr. Harris. Sure. Hi, good evening. Have you
mailed your documents five days in advance of this hearing? I have.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy.
Okay, thank you.
You may share your screen and proceed with your case.
Okay, let's see here.
Okay, so this is concerning, again, 4632 Master Street.
And this is the property where you see the arrow, the hand, the finger pointing.
This is the property.
And what my client is seeking to do is to make, well, to legalize a two-family.
This is a block that has, it's a mixed-use block.
And it has a lot of, it has only these three residential properties.
And then we have commercial buildings around it.
So going to my exhibits.
it's okay so this is the picture of the posting this is the basement of it there it that's just
being used for storage and this is pictures of what it is what it's being used for as a washer
as well as again just storage there uh this is the refusal uh it's a refusal because it is uh
in a rsa5 zoning district which is just a single family district there's a black and white picture
of it uh this has been as far as my client because my client bought this property in
in 2015 from a sheriff sale so it was bought sight unseen uh but at least as long as he's on it
it's been uh it has been a two family has two separate entrances right here this is the
basement but again the basement is just used uh for storage and that's it so
the first floor is just both the first and second floor are one are one bedroom apartments
this is the bedroom this is on the first this is on the second floor actually
uh this is the stairwell leading down
home. This is the living room. This is another angle of the living room. This is another
picture of the front of the building. This is the other apartment, which is a picture
of the one bedroom
and the
kitchen
same angle
well a different angle
of the
kitchen
different angle
these are the steps
that's leading up
to the second floor
of the apartment
remain there's two front doors am i correct there are all right and one goes to the first floor and
one goes up the second floor is that what you're saying that's correct and you're saying the
basement there's a washer in there but it's just storage that's correct although there seems to be
a door to get in there am i correct there is a door to get in there okay and this is what it is
right here there's a door and a mailbox uh let's see here door in the mailbox and the air conditioning
but this is a picture of what it looks like in the basement gotcha
because i asked them that specific because i knew that that was going to be a question
uh there's a picture of the fire alarm this of the first floor
we have a picture of any images that actually show the interior spaces like the yeah like these
images that show the interior spaces yeah like the actual like the living room the dining room
so right this is the living room this is
so right this is the living room this is and this is for the first i'm sorry this is the first floor
yes and that's the rear that's the door that goes out to the the rear yard
this is the door that goes out to the front i don't believe there's a rear yard
this is the same thing of that same of that same apartment
this is a picture of the second floor that's not the same floor we just looked at
hold on because it looks like it's the hold on same island and flooring yeah let me check that
hook on. I believe that they're different. I believe it's the same. I believe it's the same
finishes, but I can have my client explain that just so because these are the pictures that he
gave me of the inside to answer those particular questions we have we did have
the meeting the community meeting we had it front of the 42nd Ward on the 24th it
was unanimous as to the 42nd Ward then we also have there are several
there are several multi-families in neighboring or adjacent blocks to this
block that are within the 250 square foot area that have multi-family and these are the addresses
This is one is 156 Wyoming, 188 Wyoming, 146 Wyoming, then 4614 Rising Sun, 150 West Wyoming.
Here is the tax clearance.
This is the deed evidencing that my client purchased it from Sheriff's Sale in 2015.
And what I'd like to do, if you would permit me, is I'd like to get the client on the phone, on the call, to answer some of the spacing questions that you guys had and adopt my testimony.
Sure, bring your client on.
Mr. Rodriguez, would you raise your hand, please?
Marshal Rodriguez is coming back in as a panelist now.
okay mr rodriguez can you hear me okay why don't you let me swear him in first okay sure that's
mr rodriguez do we see him
I believe he's a
panelist chair. He just has to
unmute himself.
Mr. Rodriguez, please
unmute yourself.
Hey, chair, I'm going to
try to send him over again. He
did not go over the first time.
Sure, thank you.
for some reason chair he's still not going over i'm just going to mute him and allow him to speak
sure okay hi mr rodriguez
hi can you hear me i can mr rodriguez could you please state your name
and spell it for the stenographer
my name is damson rodriguez spelled d-a-m-a-s-o
his name r-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-t
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes that's that go ahead mr harris okay mr rodriguez did you hear the testimony that i just gave
uh to the this board
yes okay and do you adopt that testimony do you agree with the testimony
yes i agree with it is there any uh
Yes, I agree with it.
Is there any...
Now, are there any changes that you would like to make for the testimony that I gave?
Is there any changes that you need to make?
You don't necessarily...
I didn't want to clarify about the first apartment.
Can you see my screen?
can you hear me and can you see my screen
yes i can see it okay okay so could we walk through because there were some questions as
spacing as what these photos represent uh where they represent within the two apartments
These are one-bedroom apartments, each floor, correct?
It's two-bedroom apartments, each floor, correct.
What does this represent?
Which floor is this for?
And is this a bedroom?
That's a bedroom.
room and which floor is this on and the upper floor okay and then this is the stairwell this
is the stairwell leading up to the upper floor correct that's this image right okay yes what
what is what what is this this looks like a living space common area living space
for what floor is this for
that is for the first floor this is for the first floor okay
and i would imagine this is for the second floor right here since we see a stairwell right here
that's correct sorry for the second floor i guess i just see them black and white that's why
okay everything we're looking at is second floor okay what floor is this right here
that's the main entrance okay for the second floor
and what is this what floor is this for
this is for the first floor
first floor
is this also the first floor
or is this the second floor
first floor
is this part of the first floor as well or is this the second floor
no this is the part of the first floor okay
this is part of the first floor is this part of the second floor
that's the answer for the second floor
This is the entrance for the second floor
And what is this right here
That's for the second floor
That's the fire alarms
Show them the basement
Okay, yes
I know there were questions about the basement
Is anybody living in the basement, Mr. Rodriguez?
no that's only storage do you have a washer and dryer down there
uh yes but that is like so if we like we purchase it and we just leave it there
so when we're gonna use it we just go pick it up from there like
all personal stuff and stuff like that we just storage there
is this the front door right here this that i'm pointing at right here
is this the front door to that basement say that again no that just is a regular door
no that is just a door that is there for storage okay okay
and is this another wall to that basement
that's yeah what the meter is at right on the basement level
that's yeah what the meter is like
okay i guess we would open it up if there's any other questions um all right questions from the
board yeah i have a question does the basement run the length of the building
so what's in the rear of the basement we see the is this the rear of the basement
i'm just too or like what i see because it's dark in there so that's the only way we can
have light to it that's the only way i can see because we can and there they just like
Like I said, the storage, we got, like, one refrigerator, we have one dryer, a couple
of stuff that we save in there, so we just storage everything we can, and we just leave
it there, and that space will walk on it.
In relation to these photos, where is the door that exits to the front of your property
from the basement?
It's right there on the front.
you can see it and there's a bill code door
see it but
no it's a regular
yeah so it's a regular well I mean there's a regular door
but then there's a bill code door
on top of it so you come up out
like you're coming out of a cellar
and then there's a metal door
that you have to open
that doesn't match
the picture of the front
It doesn't, that's why I'm asking.
Can you walk us through how this property was subdivided?
Was it like this when you purchased it?
When he purchased it at the beginning,
it was just like that, combined it into duplex.
That's why it was the purchasing.
And then it's like, they didn't have the knowledge
that it was a duplex.
So they purchased it as it is.
so when they're trying to get the
arenas insurance
we find out that was not legal
so that's why we went through the process
that part I understand
we're trying to understand how it's laid out
you don't have floor plans and the photos are confusing
so if you could
I'm trying to get you to verbally walk us through it
otherwise we're probably going to have to ask you to come back
can you just verbally
explain to us how this is
how the units are separated
You see this. We're looking at a photo now. There's three doors.
Do two of those doors go to the same unit?
So in other words, what she's asking, so you come up the steps, the main steps,
the door on the right takes you where to the second floor or to the first floor unit?
You come up the steps and you go to this first door on the right.
where do you go when you get in that's what she's asking is he still on the call I don't know if
he's still on the call I don't see is he still on the call my soul Rodriguez please raise your
virtual hand chair he's been unmuted and allowed to speak okay so did you I don't think he heard
anything that was said, I think I can repeat myself.
The muscle Rodriguez, please unmute yourself.
Yes. Can I have Lucas answer you there?
Because I have that connection.
Lucas Cassidy, he's right there.
Because I really have a bad connection, I keep going in and out.
Can you hear me?
So the door on the right, what does that take you in?
towards the first floor and the door on the left is the second floor
the door on the left is the second floor okay hello can you hear me yes yeah okay go ahead
lucas okay who's lucas wait a minute wait a minute who's lucas i'm sorry go ahead no lucas
Lucas is the owner and Lucas is the owner and the muscle works with Lucas
together with this.
Lucas,
but Lucas,
I guess they,
wait a minute.
Germain,
Germain,
listen to me.
you gave us the impression that Mr.
Rodriguez or he's an agent for Lucas.
Is that what you're saying?
All right. So, Miss Lucas, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
All right.
So, Ms. Lucas, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes. My name is Lucas Caceres, L-U-C-A-S, Caceres, C-A-C-E-R-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
All right. We've been going through a lot with this.
Could you explain how the house is laid out and what's going on and tell us about the basement?
Yes. So so in the front, you see you have two doors. The right one goes into the first floor.
When you immediately enter that picture with the fire alarm system is on the first floor.
Right. Then you have the living room and kind of a little dining area with the island.
Then you have the kitchen and then the bedroom is behind that. And there's another door that goes to the back, the rear of the house.
on the left side is there is a door to the stairs to the second unit once you enter the unit you
kind of have the uh the kitchen area kitchen area living room then we have a bathroom on the other
side and then on the other side towards the uh front of the building is a bedroom so they're
both one bedroom um apartments and then the basement is you see the entrance there to go
down into the basement once you go into the basement we have some items stored there and
And then there's another door that goes out to the second storage part with the exit out to the rear of the apartment.
I mean, of the property.
So that's the picture that we saw, the Bilco door.
Questions for Mr.
Okay, so Mr. Caceres, I have a few questions.
You purchased this property in 2015?
Yeah, well, my father did.
I'm his son, but he doesn't speak any English, so I'm here basically speaking for him.
But yes, he purchased it from a sheriff's sale in 2015.
You know, listen, listen, listen, listen to me.
Jermaine, you know we need the owner to testify.
And what we need is the owner, and then we'll have an interpreter.
Nobody can interpret for anybody here.
Jermaine, you understand?
All right.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware.
no no and what's we we continue this for or we give it a resumptive hearing date
give me give me a date please
i've got three continuance dates
i don't i don't have it i don't it's your man you got to get you you got we'll order an interpreter
but we need somebody to make a presentation
and we wasted a lot of time
but the one person who really wasn't even connected
I don't know what that was all about
and then Lucas came on
Lucas was okay but you've got to be the owner
My apologies about that
That's okay, we'll figure it out
January 13th, what time?
9 30 a.m. a.m. January 13th thank you thank you is there anyone in the audience that their case
has not been called I see no hands share thanks everyone we've done a decent time but doesn't
look pretty out there I'll tell you that and Nathan thank you it'll it'll get better each
time you come