that's all speculation thank you mr chairman i just have one quick uh witness well before that
Vern, if I may, is if Ellen Goodman is available, I do believe she would have something new and
relevant along the lines of the letter. I would hope so, Mr. Steinberg. Yes, and I do apologize
for the... And I don't mean to be disrespectful for those folks, but we have to stick to the
issue and not speculate. So if Ms. Goodwin is in the audience, could raise her hand and please
just testify to the letter that we submitted.
There's no one listed underneath that name.
I do have a hand up by someone by the name of Charles Block.
He's a developer in the community.
That would be relevant, too, to the issue of the value of the property as a single-family home, Mr. Chair, if you're willing to hear it.
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is Tanya Sunkett.
I apologize for interrupting you all, but, Chair, I just want to be a reminder of the time that we're getting down to the wire.
Thank you, Chair.
thank you mr chairman i have to object to this developer sustain just i mean
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have to object to this developer.
Sustain.
Sustain.
Sustain.
Sustain.
your objection is noted we're going to i'm going to ask right now any questions from the board
i do have to put on one business no i'm sorry i'm sorry hold off tom yes i did i did acknowledge
that burn i apologize thank you let's get your witness on and we're going to move mr toner
please be identified. Ian Toner.
Mr. Toner, unmute yourself, please.
Please identify yourself, spell your first and last name.
Ian Toner, spelled I-A-N-T-O-N-E-R
from Tor Architects.
You're breaking up. You're breaking up, sir. Do you have another device on
near you? No.
Okay, try it again.
It's Ian Toner.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And your involvement with this case?
I am the architect who prepared the initial subdivision plan for our surveyor.
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasia.
Thank you.
Mr. Toner, I'll be very brief.
Did you try to expand the frontage to meet the code subsequent to meeting with the RCO?
Say it again?
Yes. Okay. And were you successful in doing that, or did the Planning Commission say a refusal would be issued?
They said that we would still need a refusal for what we proposed.
Okay. And is the proposed 15-foot more consistent with a better streetscape flow, in your expert opinion?
Yes. An L-shaped lot would be an odd lot for a site like this. So a flag lot makes more sense in this situation.
Okay. And you went to all of the RCO meetings, is that correct?
Okay. And after being told by the Planning Commission that that would not work, you went back to the 15-foot because of it being the least detrimental to the front lot. Is that right?
Would the lot created be size-compliant under the revised plan?
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have nothing else. Do you have anything else to add, Mr. Toner?
I do not. No. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
A question from the board. No, no.
Chair, do we know if Mr. Steinberg had any questions from Mr.
Toner Steinberg? Thank you.
Thank you. Just a couple of questions. Mr.
Toner, Darren Steinberg, you and I know each other.
We work together on other applications. Did you,
were you asked to submit those types of things to the RCO at the at the LUPZ meeting?
We were asked to provide an alternative plan that would be code compliant. And I was told by
members of that committee that there was a solution. And I asked for their input so that I
could help because I didn't believe there was a solution that would be code compliant. And they
never sent me any information on their opinion on what that code compliance solution would be
so we never you never submitted anything you never submitted what was requested of the applicant at
the LUPZ correct I did not because we didn't have an approved plan from planning but you submitted
something to the planning commission after the RCO meetings correct we did so you could have
shared that with the rco but you chose not objection your honor there's no relevance to
to that there is relevance it goes to the already testified it goes to the credibility of the
applicant before the rcos it would have been everyone on this call is it not guys one at a
time guys don't speak amongst each other one at a time i have been only speaking when i've spoken
i have not interrupted anybody i'm done thank you please proceed mr stonberg i i'm done
Thank you. Did you get an answer to your last question? I don't know if I did. I didn't know.
My answer is just that I'm not the one running the case so I provide the information and it's
the attorney's decisions whether to who and what to share with the with the groups. So
and mr toner's alternative was awkward uh based on both of our uh uh review and it was still being
refused by the planning commission this saves the frontage is that correct mr toner yes okay
Yes. Okay, thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman, except, again, to wrap up my case, the potential development and its impact on the sewer system. Oh, Mr. Toner, about that. Can you speak to the sewer system issue that was raised?
thank you i have nothing further mr chairman except
Sure. The source objection to the question, if it's irrelevant to our case, why would it be relevant to Mr. Anastasia's case?
Well, I have to be able to rebut. That's called a rebuttal witness.
Yeah, but you're going down that road of speculation, correct?
Yeah. If he goes down speculation, why can't we, Mr. Chair?
Overworked.
If you'd rather not.
The objection is sustained. Yeah, we're not going to go down that road. Thank you.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the historic designation is prima facie de facto hardship.
The cost to get this building back up is enormous, and my client is willing to do that.
He was always willing to work with the community.
He went through four exhausting meetings.
It was always their intention.
It was initially their intention to purchase, demolish, and split it right down the middle,
which we could have done as a matter of right, but for the RCO coming in and putting the
designation on there after the fact. Again, we're just trying to relocate lot lines.
Anything we do in the future that may or may not impact light, air, view, streetscape has to go
before these folks, and it has to be approved for us to move forward. And with that, again,
this is a lot line relocation i've never seen uh so many folks afraid of uh basically the
relocation of a lot line all right i'll ask again any questions from the board no no planning
commission good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for residential single-family zoning.
This is a 23,883-square-foot lot.
Between approximately 1950 and 1970, four new lots have been created at the periphery of this estate.
The current application is consistent with that pattern.
While we support preservation of historic properties, we note that zoning and historic preservation are two different sets of regulations,
and one should not be conflated with another we recommend that the board grant the requested
variance thank you uh mi 2021 does zero zero one four eight seven five four zero west
moreland avenue my vote is yes confess mr plaza my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
john munlock my vote is yes thank you uh let's uh i think we have sharon i need your help uh
we gotta do uh jen's uh send jen's uh case yes do you want me to read out the mi number and address
yeah please yes please it is mi 2020 002483 1431 to 33 north 20th street um the board heard this
on june 23rd it was held for um lni to produce a revised refusal and planning asks that it be able
to make its recommendation after the refusal so planning should make its recommendation we did
receive the refusal is mr jen available do we need him not necessarily but if he is um present
He should be called.
Good afternoon.
All right.
So please identify yourself.
I'll swear you in.
Zenjen, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
We're in front of the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Again, as Ms. Soleta has indicated, we were asked to get a revised refusal for this case.
Testimony was given previously at the hearing in June.
If the board would like me to go over the application again, I would certainly be happy
to do so, but I don't think it's necessary.
I don't think that's going to be necessary.
I just want to make sure that we're on the same page.
So with that, I think, Sharma, do we need to ask if there's questions from the board?
um no only you only need mr effecto to get the planning very good thank you planning commission
good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning for this
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning for this property.
property
The applicant's property is non-conforming with regard to use and yard, and it is one of the few parcels that was not cleared during urban renewal.
The structure predates the latest neighborhood zoning map changes, which occurred in 2017.
We recommend that the Board grant the requested variances.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002-483-1431-33 North 20th Street.
My vote is yes.
Do I need to say as per revised plans?
There are no revised plans.
You do not need to say that, Chair, but if you could add a proviso stating, I'm sorry,
if you could add a proviso stating as per refusal dated July or July 23rd.
July 22nd, 23rd.
July 22nd, that was held for an amended refusal that we have received.
My vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
With proviso as well.
With proviso.
Okay, thank you.
Sharon, do I participate in this case?
Sorry, I can't hear you.
No, John.
Oh, I'm sorry, John. No, you weren't there for the original hearing.
Thank you. Thanks, John. All right. Are we finished with the 930 list?
Yes. Chair, if you could just ask the question of our attendees.
Is there anyone who would like to be heard and has not yet been acknowledged? Please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Sam Cowell. I'm going to unmute him.
Good afternoon, sir. Please spell your full name.
Sam Cowell.
Spell your name.
S-A-M-C-A-O.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
What case are you referencing?
Mr. Cowell is here for my case, actually.
oh we don't need them okay your case is heard thank you anyone else
I see no more hands chair thank you if that concludes the 9 30 list see everyone back
here at two o'clock all right
we are chair thank you and I'll give Tanya and staff a few minutes to let us know
No, Chair, we're ready to go forward.
Okay, good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Board Secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza,
and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. John Monlack.
Board Administrator, Tina L., and our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Sletta, are also in attendance, as well as our Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
second we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be made
available to the public on the web or otherwise third for anyone participating by phone if you
wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to make an appearance statement,
call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat that. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. And I'd also like to remind everyone,
please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments, questions, or information you need,
please contact our board administrator, Ms. Fatina L.
With that, is Sharon on now?
I am, Chair.