So that's the background on the company and what it does.
uh onto the property itself it's 2503 shardswood street it's a 750 736 square foot property
i'll show you the outside of it um it is in the early stages of rehabilitation there it is right
there uh aerial photo another photo from the front it's a shot of the street
okay uh it is going to be rehabilitated per the plans on the screen into a two-bedroom
two-story home um the reason we are here is because miss smith is seeking to use the property
as what is called a single room residence i call it that refusal a single room residence is a zoning
designation that allows for unrelated children to live together and to receive care originally per
our refusal, the maximum number of children living in the property at any one time would
have been four. That was a number that was supported by the guidelines of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania for the amount of space available for the care of the children.
However, we presented our original plans to the Brewery Town Sharswood Community Civic
association on january 20th uh as their very thorough uh letter explains at that time there
was concern regarding the uh number of kids in the property they thought that four at any given time
was too many uh so on february 17th we returned to the rco and prevented revised plans lowering
the number of children housed to three so it would be three children and then um there's always a
staff member on site uh 24 hours a day that that that cares for them and uh treats them uh per um
what lay what layla's way does um so at that time we returned to the rco on february 17th
and we got a 30 uh 30 to zero vote in support of our variants um so we believe that the applicant
has demonstrated that there is a need for her services specifically in the city uh as well as
getting strong support from the community, both for the kind of work she's doing and how she
seeks to do it in this specific property. And because of that, we ask that the board
grant this variance. I'd like to call Ms. Tamar Smith quickly to just briefly tell us about
herself and her mission, and then I'll close my testimony.
Can you raise your hand, Ms. Smith?
all right could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
this is tamar smith if you're in the virtual audience please raise your hand
any hands up hey luck
i can see him in the audience but the hand's not going up sir sorry
Ms. Smith?
Mr. Consul, you're an officer of the court. We will recognize your testimony. Questions
from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience? I see no further hands, Mr. Chair. Planning
Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, in 2014, the zoning map was amended on this block from RM1 to RSA5.
We believe the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use is needed and not otherwise
available in this area, and so we recommend that the Board grant the variance, but we would also
recommend a proviso that the specific use be limited to supervised care for children
and that a five-year temporary variance be granted in this case because the use applied
for in the zoning application would allow this to be transferred and used as a SRO for
other under a different owner if for some reason this doesn't work out.
We are comfortable with that.
um am i 2021 004 905 2503 sharjo street i vote yes proviso um supervision of children i think
you sit in and the second thing five year which would go to
um we'll make it 2027 april 1st is that okay tanya
yes chair um uh that would be fine okay so i vote yes with that proviso
Harold Tenere my vote is yes with Proviso. Thomas Holland my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell yes with Proviso. Thank you board I'll see you guys in five years.
Have a good day. Oh my god that's good. 20th is seven okay.
MI-2021-004-900-4233 Glenview Street.
Jen's in as attorney.
Been about to speak, sir.
Good morning.
Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes. Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Would you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client's name is Lynn Wei.
Last name is L-I-N.
She is the owner of the property.
All right, thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Jin.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the referral or refusal,
voters under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with your RCO and do you have a letter
from them? Yes to all questions. Okay you may proceed and please share your screen. Thank you.
Thank you. I am sharing the information we submitted to the zoning board. Can the board
see everything that's on my screen? Yes. Thank you. We have submitted a copy of the refusal,
the support letter from Taconi Civic, prior granted decision from the ZBA, photos plans,
and other related documents. To give a little perspective on the history of why we're here
today, this application was actually before the ZBA about two years ago, three years now,
and was granted by the ZBA for the same exact use that we're now reapplying for. What happened is
that my client had obtained the grant and then forwarded it to someone, an architect,
to go ahead and pick up permits based on the grant of the refusal. That, combined with the
pandemic, apparently the permit was never picked up on time before the grant was fully expired.
before the grant was fully expired, so we're now back before the board again with the same
So we're now back before the...
application requesting a renewed grant for the same use that was previously granted,
and that is an application to use this property as a two-family dwelling. This property is zoned
RSA 5. However, the community is aware, and their letter actually indicates that both the property
itself historically was built as a duplex. It simply wasn't used as a duplex by one of the
prior owners, which may have reduced it back to the RSA 5 zoning when zoning was changed,
but it was built as a duplex and is structured as such. So it is a pre-existing non-conforming
condition. My client actually also purchased it, and this was verified by the community in one of
their questions that they verify that this MLS listing also listed it as a duplex and was
purchased as such. So the property is a pre-existing non-conforming condition of a duplex.
It was a legal duplex. It was built as such. It just simply wasn't used as much as such by a prior
owner, which led to my client needing a variance when they acquired it to maintain it as a duplex.
The community's main concern is they do not want a triplex here, and certainly my client agreed that a duplex would be the final use, and we would certainly not try to convert this into a triplex in any way.
their main concern is that this is one of those elevated buildings where it's two stories above
ground however the first the basement is really at ground level and we're going to make sure that
the basement will not have any living spaces and it's simply used as shared storage by the upper
floor units and that is one of the provisals that the community requested and my client agreed to
the other simply to make sure that it is maintained as a duplex and not a triplex
This was all done at the time and was agreed to at the time. This is, again, a reapplication essentially of the same things that we have previously agreed to and certainly worked with the community on.
And as such, the community certainly does not have any objections to our proposal. I'm going to try to make the plans a little more sized legibly.
So the main concern here is that we were asked to make sure the plans does not allow any bedroom or any living space in the basement.
All living spaces are located on the first and second floor.
Essentially, these are existing situation.
I will show photos in a second to show that they are already in that condition.
The basement will have the washer, dryers, utilities, and outdoor.
it's directly accessible storage and utility for both units, which will also help with
managing any overflow of items from the other two units. The property is already built and
existing. And again, it was built as a duplex at the time. And I'm sorry, I'm going to zoom into the
photos. They're a little blurry. My apologies for that. But essentially, the property has been
existing in this status of duplex for some time this is also consistent with how some of these
area buildings were built the corner ones and the ones like my clients were actually legal duplexes
as you can see this is an existing property in existing condition this is not a new renovation
and we're not looking to convert anything at this point there are two kitchens within the property
this is some of the bedrooms here's one of the kitchens and there's another photo coming up of
the second kitchen in the space and here's another kitchen of the property so we would ask the boards
of favorable review of this application both based on the prior non-conforming use as well as a prior
grant in this matter and the current continuous support of the community this it would be a
hardship for my client to have to convert this property to a single family dwelling at this
point as it was never built as such thank you and I'll be happy to redirect to any part of the
exhibits or answer additional questions well you want your client to adopt your testimony
yes can Lin Wei please raise your hand virtually to be identified
if not i would do as you also the court we take your testimony questions from the board
questions no mr chairman mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you.
Ian, you're breaking up, Ian.
Looks like he's frozen.
Paula, are you still there?
i am but i don't i don't have the recommendation open can the backup go on please
thank you david thank you david good morning chairman bergman david thank you f-e-c-t-e-a-u
with the city planning commission right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank you proceed thank you mr chairman mr chairman
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5
single-family zoning at this location. The proposed use is consistent with the existing
physical configuration of the structure, and so the City Planning Commission recommends the board
grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2021-004-900-4233 Glenview Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman my vote is yes. James Snell my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you.
MI 2021 004899 4820 Chester Avenue.
attorneys from dilworth paxton
miss meredith ferriger has been promoted to panelist
hi could you state your name and spelled for the court reporter
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
But you identify your client and the relationship to the property.
Certainly. My client is 4820 Chester, LLC. That entity owns the property at 4820 Chester Avenue.
That entity is represented here today by Brahim Ingladen.
then. Our vice chair has a few questions. Hi, good morning, Meredith. Do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do, yes. Have you emailed the
exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the
RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, to all of the above. Okay, great. You may proceed and
share your screen and it's up okay i was like wait a minute that was fast
uh good late morning uh mr chairman members of the board as i mentioned my client here today is
4820 chester llc the property before the board is 4820 chester avenue which is a vacant property
that's at the corner of chester avenue and south 49th street my client has owned this property
for close to four years and has been working throughout that time to conceptualize a project
that would harmonize with the surrounding area and satisfy the concerns of the community.
We're incredibly pleased to be presenting the project to you today,
which has received the full support of Cedar Park Neighbors,
as is reflected in their letter that was forwarded to the Board yesterday.
The exhibit packet includes 17 exhibits. We did also submit a revised zoning
plan and revised plan provisive form, reflecting one extremely minor change that I will address.
I'll start first with a basic property overview.
As you can see on the aerial that I have up on the screen here at Exhibit 10,
this property sits right at the corner and is bordered to the northeast by a multifamily complex
that covers nearly its entire lot, as well as a single family home to the southeast that fronts
on Regent Street. Across 49th Street is the start of the concessing park. If you look at the zoning
map now at Exhibit 9, you will see that the property itself is zoned RTA1, which is residential
two-family attached. Again, if we look a little bit more closely at the photographs that I have up
Again, if we look a little bit more closely at the photographs that I have up at Exhibit 17, you can see the vacant lot here on the corner, as well as the existing structure next door at 4818 Chester Avenue.
The next photo here is looking south on South 49th Street. Of particular note, for one of the refusals that we'll address today, you'll notice that the trolley line runs up South 49th Street and makes a right onto Chester Avenue.
You'll also notice out here in the distance the 49th Street Bridge.
in the next photo you'll also see an existing utility pole that exists towards the rear of the
property and again this is a view just across the street here where you where you will see the 49
street station as well as the concessant park now looking across the street from the property on
Chester Avenue, you'll see there are several commercial retail businesses that do exist in
the single-family zoning districts. The rest of Chester Avenue contains a mix of twins and
apartment complexes. Now, historically speaking, as you can see up on the screen, 4820 Chester
Avenue contained an eight-family dwelling. That was true until shortly after my client purchased
the property. Unfortunately the property had suffered such deterioration prior to his ownership
that it was unsalvageable and was forced to be demolished despite the fact that he would be
losing out on that long-term non-conforming use. Now the current proposal that you can see here
on the zoning plan at Exhibit 6 is for the erection of a new three-story structure to
contain 12 dwelling units. The units will be a mix of one and two bedroom units ranging from 600
square feet to 850 square feet. As you can see on the elevations and renderings here at Exhibit 7,
the goal here was really to design a building that would blend with the existing brick structure
next door. This rendering as well as the next one do both reflect several modifications that
the community requested, mostly aesthetic, but the only one that specifically implicates the zoning
is the addition of this defined entry walkway, which you can see here. So that is reflected on
that revised plan that I submitted. Two of the units in this project will be reserved as affordable
pursuant to a community benefits agreement that was reached with Cedar Park neighbors that largely