are we ready um a few minutes people are still coming in
Okay, Chair, we have 29 attendees, and we can start when you wish.
Okay. Good morning. My name is Ishmael Shaheed, and I'll be chairing this morning's ZBA hearings.
With me today is Thomas Holloman, board member.
President, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, board member.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Also present here with us today, we have one alternate, LeBaron, is with us, and he's from the city with us.
And we also have our attorney, Hillary Emerson, the board attorney, Lakeisha Dandy, ZBA hearing supervisor.
Before I begin, careful on our virtual format.
Number one, please be advised.
The proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting Tanya Sunke.
number two for the benefit of our court sonographer we ask of the attorney witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying number three if you are participating by phone and you
wish to testify please press star nine to write to raise your hand and star six to unmute to enter
an appearance statement, call 215-270-5548 and leave an email or voicemail of the address
of the property in question. Lastly, the questions answer box on the screen is not for comments
or for testimony. All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tyen Sun.
we move on first we're to our add-ons for 9 30
mr chair we can start with the continuances okay and then move on to our add-ons yes um so we have
multiple requests for continuances um the first request is number one on the list mi-2022-005
222 1604 spruce street this is the first listing
all right moving to can't to continue this okay so that's continued okay next case mr share
um number two mi-2022 005 204 1721 lombard street this is also a first listing
okay we'll like to continue number two okay
moving to uh number six on the list um mi-2022-005-284-109 renard harris this is also a
first listing all right first listen we're going to continue this case okay uh the next case is
number 10 mi-2022-002121202 spruce street this is a request for continuance second listing
continuing granite okay um
are there any other are there any other requests for continuances
in the virtual audience
good morning chair this is patina l i see no hands thank you moving on to the add-ons
No exhibits next.
No exhibits.
Okay, first, we have number four on the list, MI-2022-001-992-4101 Germantown Avenue.
Julio Garcia is the listed applicant.
Charlie and Sookie Cho are the listed owners.
We have no exhibits, and this is the second listing.
second listing second to listen this will we'll continue this again and it'll be the last and final
a second to listen.
We'll continue this again.
continues okay do we have anybody in the audience uh present for this case yes we have charles
richardson good morning mr vice chair good morning mr richardson please state your name
and spell it for the record? Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N,
room 508 City Hall. Thank you. You swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth and the
entire truth. I do, sir. Asking that this case be, if it's being continued again, it needs,
because they have not reached out to the RCO, I checked with them yesterday, that this case
be listed as must be tried.
And if they don't appear the next time,
then you guys can dismiss the case.
All right.
Anyone else in the audience?
I see no handshare.
Case will be continued and must be tried
on the next date given.
Hi, Mr. Chair.
The next case with no exhibits
is number five mi-2022-005-263-854 corinthian avenue we have christopher fisher listed as
the owner applicant no exhibits first listing okay do we have do we have anyone in the audience
to speak on this case i see no hands chair this case will be continued
and the last uh actually second to last case um on the no exhibits list number 15
that is mi-2022-005-273-744 lombard street amy shin is the listed applicant beyond properties
llc slash shin properties llc are the listed owners we have no exhibits this is the first
listening okay do we have anyone in the audience to speak into in reference to this case yes chair
we have amy shin please let her in
hi hi my name is amy yes please state your name and spell the photo record for the court recorder
yes amy shin uh a-m-y-s-h-i-n you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes please proceed
hi um so um i own i co-own the property with my husband and the property was previously uh dry
clean a dry cleaning business but uh they went out of business during covid so um we've been
trying to set up other uh business okay um so this this this case needs to be heard by an attorney
um because this is uh under a business name we have to continue this case uh because it has to
be heard by an attorney because it's in a business name okay gotcha and ma'am um this is the this is
board counsel hillary emerson um we also do not receive any exhibits um there's a set of exhibits
that are required to be received by the board um five days in advance of the hearing and as
the chair indicated because this property is owned in the name of a business entity you must
be represented by an attorney before the zoning board okay okay so so hi my name is james shin
j-a-m-e-s excuse me excuse me excuse me please please state your name to spell it for the record
and let's get you on the record and swear you win sure my name is james shin okay
j a m e s s h i n you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed yeah so um we went to neighborhood zoning meeting they didn't tell
me tell us anything about hiring a lawyer so you're saying that now we we need to hire a lawyer
Any time you come in front of the ZBA board and you own a property in your personal name, you are able to defend and represent yourself.
When it's in a business name and it has different components associated with it, you must have an attorney to represent you on this case.
Hillary, would you like to add anything else to that?
Hillary, would you like to add anything else to that?
No, I was just going to say if you have
No, I was just going to say, if you have further questions, please contact the zoning board office.
The staff will put the email and the phone number in the chat for you.
Okay, sure. Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
So this case right here will be MI-2022-005273 will be continued.
and one more mr chair um number 16 mi-2022-005-179-9568 wally avenue jose munkin
um is the owner applicant um we only received photos um and did not receive the rest of the
required exhibits okay do we have someone in the audience to speak in reference to this case
chair we have mr munkin please let him in
sir please unmute yourself
Mr. Munkin please unmute yourself and state your name
and spell it for the record
Josa Munkin
J-O-S-A
Munkin M-U-N-C-A-N
Thank you do you swear to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed
I have a shed on a property
that was put about
four and a half years ago
after I purchased the home
it was
put six feet and three inches
from the property line.
I hired a...
exactly what we need is we need you to
first contact our office,
administrative office,
and schedule
a hearing because we have to continue this case
because we only have photos so far
outside of the other additional documents.
What happened to the...
I gave them path plan and I gave them in person I was at the zoning board that and there and I submitted all that stuff.
Yeah, Mr. Munkin, there is a and I had emailed this to you a couple of days ago.
There is a list of documents that you need to submit, not just photos and plans.
So there's a list that you need to submit five days in advance of your hearing.
We did not receive those documents, so this case will need to be continued.
I was at the community, and they had a bad plan and plan for the actual shed, including with the pictures, and they emailed me.
I'm sorry, sir.
This is Tanya Sunkit, the board director.
We have stated you are not prepared to go forward.
Please realize that you must reach out to the office to obtain the proper information to go forward with this case.
Thank you so kindly. Chair, you may continue.
Thank you. So that case will be continued.
We have no other cases for continuances, withdrawals, or no exhibits, Mr. Chair.
You can proceed to the add-ons.
Okay. Thank you so much, Hillary.
So number one on the add-on list, MI-2022-002378, 3107 Clifford Street, Allen-Knockinson.
attorney for owner
Ryan Campbell and Carrie Ewing
Mr. Chair
this case we are announcing a change in the
vote time date and time of the vote
just read what's in the
caps Mr. Chair
sure this case will be now voted on on
Wednesday for a vote
um my vote on this case um we did hear from um the audio the open audience of board members and
uh the planning commission so my vote is yes on this vote mr chair we're not we're not yeah just
read we're not voting this case until next week now the clifford street case it'll now be voted
on wednesday february 15th at 9 30. oh okay okay i see it excuse me that's okay so yeah we'll be
pushing this one over to next week and then mr chair just one change the case that we were
initially going to hear first um we're going to need to push it to the end because of time
constraints so we can go ahead and start with number three on the regular list
Okay, so going on to number three, MI2022-005265-7323, Bryan Street, lead diplomat.
73-23, Bryan Street, Lee Demento, the owner's applicant. This is the second hearing on this
case. This is the second hearing on this case? That's what I have here. Second listing. Oh,
second listening okay um hi this is leah di mateo um l-e-a-h-d-i-m-a-t-t-e-o um start my video here
do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do all right i'm going to pass you off to our board member thomas holliman to
read you off a few questions. Okay. And Mr. Chair, before he does that, let me just read
the refusal into the record. This application is for four-family household living and for
visitor accommodations in an existing structure, no sign included. There are three refusals. The
proposed use visitor accommodations is prohibited in the RSA 3 zoning district. The proposed use
multi-family household living is prohibited in the rsa3 zoning district and no more than
one principal use is allowed in the rsa3 zoning district okay good morning madam good morning did
i'm sorry you're breaking up
I'm sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, there you go.
You want to try it again, Tom?
There you go.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Did you email all of the existing documents as required?
Did you email the RNCO?
Did you have a letter?
i think you're asking if i have a letter from the rco and the answer is yes yes
i'm sorry i couldn't understand could you say he's breaking up a little bit so
yeah did you email all the required exhibits five days in advance to our offices uh before
Yes I did. All right please proceed and share your screen. Okay so first I just want to
say that when I emailed the exhibits I also requested to withdraw our
application for visitor accommodation only so I just want to proceed with the residential
household living, multifamily, you know, changing it from three to four units.
So here are all of our exhibits. Here's the deed for the property, which we purchased,
my husband and I purchased in August 19, 2022.
I'll just scroll down here.
Do you need me to go through all the exhibits?
Yes, for the most part.
I got the tax certificate.
I didn't see the refusal yet.
Here's the refusal,
which was read into the record.
And here, you'll note that the ZBA has previously granted a variance for a three-family household living, and that has been active since September 8th, 1954.
So what we're seeking here is just to add one more unit to the residential household living.
Here is our application for appeal, which, you know, also includes the visitor accommodation
request which we're withdrawing today.
Project information form, and here are some photographs of the posting.
which was done on 1-16-23 so you could see they're on the railing in front of the house
And here are some floor plans and interior photographs of the property.
and here are some floor plans and interior photographs of the property
Let me make this a little bit smaller so you can see.
Okay, so this is the top floor here and you'll notice that each unit has a bedroom,
a living space, a kitchen, and bathroom. It also has a washer, dryer, and dishwasher in each unit.
And currently, the top three above-ground units are being rented by tenants, and the basement
unit is vacant. However, the basement unit used to be occupied by the prior owner.
I want to show you here, this is where I live, and here's the property in question today.
So we're very close by, we actually can see the property from our backyard. Here's a street view
showing that there's parking along the street here you notice the property is a twin
we're over here on the left hand side and again the above ground units the three above ground
units are being rented right now there's here's the backyard there's a shared staircase and each
unit has a private entrance. This is a basement unit that's currently vacant.
You'll notice that there's a window right here and the floor to ceiling height of the unit is
seven feet. And this is, you'll notice also that the basement unit has two access points.
One is from the shared staircase that I mentioned before, and one is right to the backyard.
So these stairs are actually right over here on the side of the house.
Here are some photos of the first floor, second floor, and third floor unit.
Here is our letter from the RCO.
I'm sorry, this is a letter we sent to neighbors, excuse me, about the RCO hearing.
Here's our certificate of mailing.
And here is our letter from the RCL showing support for this use.
and here's the property certificate showing that there's a three-family dwelling unit already
the variance has already been approved by the ZBA
from 1953 so here's all the paperwork for that
and this is just a zoning map showing that we're in an RSA 3 and here's the zoning
bi-right summary information. I think that's it.
Okay. Can you hold for just one moment?
Sure. Okay.
Sorry about that.
i think i i've shared everything is there any you have someone and uh swear on to this uh
the owner so you're the owners i guess you'll be swearing to the testimony of which you've
given so let me get any any questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the audience?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Mr. Richardson.
Good morning again, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
So just wanted to say the councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance for the four multifamily units.
But as the visitor accommodations have been withdrawn, she originally had the opposition to that, but there is no opposition to that now.
Got it. All right. Thank you.
Anyone else in the audience?
I see no handshare.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Shahid. This is Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Last name is spelled H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do. Thank you.
Please proceed.
Good morning, Board members. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 3 single-family zoning at this location.
This proposed use is a legalization of an additional dwelling unit in the basement of the building.
Given that the existing improvements to the basement appear to be permanent and longstanding
and that the current owner did not add this unit,
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance for an additional dwelling unit
and affirm withdrawal of the request for visitor accommodation use in this structure.
Thank you.
MI-2022-005265, 7323 Blyan Street, I vote yes with proviso, variants granted for multi-use
family household living only.
Thomas?
James Snell my vote is yes Jim did we get you I was gonna say sorry Mr. Holloman is your vote
with or without the proviso
Thomas Sullivan my vote is yes with the proviso thank you thank you
James Snell my vote is yes with proviso thank you this right here votes passes
thank you
mi2022005268
Ogden Street
Zen Jin is the attorney
Harmony Investment Group
Mr. Jin is coming back in
as a panelist
hillary can you read the uh refusal and please
uh this applicant is represented by council and we don't need to uh read the refusal in on the
council request got it thank you good good morning good morning council uh please state
your name and spell it for the record yes my name is zenjin 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 to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do can you please uh tell us about the client that you represent please uh yes my client is
the owner of the property uh harmony investment group llc and mr bader is here today on behalf
of the llc thank you uh our board member uh thomas holliman has a few questions you need to ask
in this situation with this property uh there is a uh corrected not a corrected but an amended
refusal being applied uh for because of some changes we agree to uh miss uh emerson's aware
of that and i i would otherwise stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal okay hey tom you're going
in now so i'll i'll jump in um have you emailed all of the exhibits five days in advance into our
into our offices uh for this yes yes all right thanks please proceed thank you i'm going to
offices for this case?
Yes, yes.
share with the board the uh information that we previously submitted with this application
this is an application that was before the belmont civic association for review i am going to go to
the refusal uh this again is under an amendment request that the board has authorized authorized
and it's still pending so we asked the board to hold the case at the end pending the the amended
refusal however our original refusal is for a cmx2 zone district to the proposal is to build a
multi-family structure only without the commercial this property is a corner lot and at the location
that it is located in a commercial use on the first floor is not very viable we actually met
with the rco who supported our request with some stipulations which led to the amendment request
one is that they understand of course with the conversion of the commercial unit to a residential
it would become an additional residential unit but they asked that we reduce our original request
of six units to five which we are in agreement with also the community has concerns with roof
decks and ask that we do not have a roof deck on this building which we also agreed with commercial
trash pickup and designated trash area in the rear of the building with mark hands that was also
added to the site plan so the revised building plans basically the community just want to make
sure that the building will be built according to the revisions of the five units and other items
so we're in agreement with all the community's requests with regard to this property it is a
again a large corner property which is in a commercial district and because of its location
and because i'm sorry it's zoned commercially but because of its location everything surrounding
this property is residential and therefore we believe a residential use of the first floor
makes more sense at this particular corner than a commercial use the layout of the property also
with the way it is designed we're leaving the rear yard space it's a rather large rear yard
it meets the open space requirements we'll be placing trash inside that area which will be
enclosed i'm going to zoom in so the board can see better what what the plans look like
if you could just give me one moment
My apologies, I'm having a little issue with the zoom on this.
So we did mark clearly the trash bins in the back for the five units.
It is accessible by all the units, which makes it easier for them to be properly used.
The building is otherwise brick facade and will meet all the dimensional requirements of the code.
We also have provided a handicap accessible unit on the first floor, which actually allows, that's why there's a ramp design, so it allows handicap access.
The rest of the units are essentially bi-level units in the upper floor.
There's a front and a back bi-level unit.
And then you have the first floor, front, back, and center unit.
That makes the total of the five units.
With the community's support of the changes, and given that a commercial use would be difficult in this area,
we would ask the board's favorable review of this request for the variances that we're seeking.
Thank you.
my client is here to verify my testimony and i'm happy to answer any questions or redirect
to any part of the exhibit okay let's get your client on the line yes yes mr bader can you
raise your hand virtually virtually mr bader please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
please please state your name and spell it for the record
my name is chagai bader c-h-a-g-a-i my last name is bader b-a-d-e-r
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel thank you mr bader did you see my presentation
and hear my testimony before the zoning board?
Can you verify what I have represented is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Can you verify what I have represented
is true and correct and adopted?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair.
board member holloman your mike is feeding back thanks um board members the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing cmx2 mixed use zoning at this location however given the
relative lack of commercial activity at this corner city planning commission uh agrees with
the appellant and recommends that the board grant the variance for ground floor residential use
the proposed amended dwelling unit count of five is consistent with the spirit of the zoning code
which would typically permit four dwelling units and one commercial unit. City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the variances with proviso as amended by applicant. Okay so
this record will be closed on this case and we'll be holding this case pending the receipt of the
amendment and the reflected revised plans. Hillary do we have a date when we're going to go back at
this? No, we are going to wait to hear from Mr. Jinn. Yes, I will provide the amended refusal as
soon as it is received. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jinn. Thank you. All right. Next case,
number eight, MI2022005212. 2025 North. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Can we actually move this case
to the end, council has a scheduling conflict.
They should be available by the end of the list.
Okay. Thank you.
Number nine, MI
2022-002210
1814, North Van Pelt Street.
Michael, I don't want to butcher that up,
attorney of owner parish is council available good morning vice chair
michael mclehoney m-i-c-h-a-e-l m-c-i-l-h-i-n-n-e-y council for parish condominiums llc
the owner of 1814 van felt and 1816 van felt there's two that are being done together
okay uh do you swear to tell the truth go ahead mr chair you swear i'm in do you swear to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do all right hillary i don't see uh 1816
that's number 11 mr chair if you could read that one into the record as well
you can hear them together i'm going to also read number 11 into the record mi2022002209
1816 north van pelt street as well and may i share share my screen uh yeah uh so we're going to
ask a few questions good morning good morning council good morning do you read the way
morning do you read the way the reading of refusal and stipulate the accuracy yes we do yes we do
We did meet with the RCO. They have not provided a letter.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so just before we get started, we have not received the RCO letter as of yet.
So if you can get that over to us, that'd be great.
And Mr. Chairman, as part of my packet at Exhibit 16, I did include the email chain with the RCOs.
I've spoken with St. Elizabeth's emailed, text, phone calls, and they have not responded.
So there is no letter to produce, and I'm not sure if they will produce one.
I also spoke with the 32nd Democratic Ward, who's another RCO on this project, and requested that they either submit a letter or participate.
I have not received a response other than Ms. Judas Robinson, who runs that RCO, was going to speak with St. Elizabeth RCO to request a position letter.
But I have not received any feedback from any RCO at this point.
Mr. McElhaney, just a question. I saw the RCO meeting was in June, last June, with St. Elizabeth.
with St. Elizabeth? And was there a follow-up meeting as well? Yeah, so we met with St. Elizabeth
And was there a follow-up meeting as well?
Yeah, so we met.
on June 22, 2022. We had about 15 people in attendance, including myself, the developer,
and the architect. The community had some requests for changes in terms of trash storage
and outdoor space, so we made a revised plan to address those concerns. We had a follow-up meeting,
And these were in-person meetings. We did a follow-up meeting on October 27th. At that meeting, the Miss Bennett from St. Elizabeth's RCO conducted the meeting or had the meeting, but only one neighbor showed up. Nobody else attended.
So we met twice with the community technically, but I don't have a formal vote because they wanted us to come back. So, but we've presented, I say we appeared twice with the community to present our case.
all right thank you all right cool let's work our way through the case excellent i'll run
through the exhibits uh efficiently uh just as a matter of prerequisite at exhibit 11
is a copy of our zoning appeal exhibit 12 are photographs showing the properties posted with
the zoning notice the picture on the screen the vacant lot is 1816 van felt the property to the
left on the screen to the south is 1814 Van Pelt, which is an existing three-story structure.
We did meet with the community. The 14303 notices are at exhibit 13. And again, there were two
meetings, one in June 2022 and one in October. Our deeds to both properties are at exhibit 14.
and the tax clearance that I provided is the tax payment records showing 1814 Van Pelt has no taxes
due except for the current year which are not yet due and 1816 Van Pelt are actually paid through
this year already so we have zero balances at this time the request here for my my client's
request is at 1814 Van Pelt, which is the existing three-story structure. And I'll show you on the
site photos, it currently has structural issues. So the goal is to do a partial demolition of the
property, but save it, build a rear addition, rebuild the rear basically. And the request is
for a three-family dwelling at the subject property. We are zoned RSA 5, which generated
one use refusal. With regards to 1816 Van Pelt, the vacant lot, we are asking to basically do
the mirror image of the existing building on the lot at 1816 Van Pelt. And again, the request is
for use for a three-family dwelling. One use refusal was generated. Exhibit three is the zoning
map for the subject property in the immediate area. The 1814 Van Pelt is highlighted in the
middle of the screen. It is RSA 5. The other uses around the property to the south is a special
purpose district. It's a park and a ball field. And the other uses are CMX 1 and RM 1 in the
immediate area. The second page of Exhibit 3 is an aerial view. I call it the address map
because it shows the addresses of each of the partials on the 1800 block of Van Pelt.
And what I'd like the board to notice is 1814 Van Pelt has the blue dot on it.
1816 is the vacant lot to the north.
And the other properties on this block, there's approximately 58 parcels.
32 are vacant lots at this time.
And of the remaining existing housing stock, many of those are vacant, unoccupied, and abandoned.
And we'll show you those on the site photos.
exhibit four is just a satellite view looking to the west um which is the west side of the block
is where the subject properties are on and again it just shows the vacant lots on the block as well
as the interspersed houses that exist looking at page two of the same exhibit four it's looking
the opposite direction east and on the east side of the block it's the same thing it's a bunch of
vacant lots interspersed with houses some of which are vacant. Exhibit five are the site photos for
the subject property and the block. Page one just shows the vacant lot at 1816 Van Pelt. 1814 Van
Pelt is the three-story house. Again it has an orange L&I violation against it. There are structural
issues that need to be addressed and will be addressed once we have a proper zoning permit
in place so we can secure a building permit the properties to the south of the subject property
uh there's about four or five vacant lots to the south then a single a single structure and then
there's two vacant lots at the corner when you head towards the um to the south is montgomery avenue
so council council go back can you go back to the uh
so council council go back can you go back to the uh yeah right there so when you say you're
I'll see you next time.
going to do some structural uh improvements to the rear of the property are we going to still
stay two stories up to the rear are you trying to go three stories to the rear now so the property
that we own is the red one here on the right at page one of exhibit five that will be a three
story rear addition so we're going to be demolishing the portion at the rear there's some
structural issues at the bottom right of the building you can see where the wall's collapsing
so we have to rebuild the wall um rebuild the rear and we'll be building it up and i'll show
you that on the next exhibit the site plan sure thing looking to the north of the property on the
same the west side of the block there are three houses and then a vacant lot and then three more
houses and then when you get past that going to the north which it leads up to burke street we
have about half a dozen vacant lots and then a freestanding house and to the north of that
two vacant lots and then we get up to 1850 van pelt which there are three houses there
1850 itself is zoned for four units we have two single family two single family houses and then
a vacant lot at the corner and then the east side of the block at burke street we have ground floor
commercial at the corner with apartments above. Then at 1857 and 1855, we have two abandoned
houses that are sealed up, one of which is missing windows. 1853 and 51 are two single-family houses.
And then again, we have about four or five vacant lots in the middle of the block until we get to
1843 Van Pelt, which is an existing triplex that is attached to two single-family dwellings,
existing housing stock and then we have two vacant lots and that goes into two two houses to
the south more vacant lots about three or four vacant lots until we get to 1823 van pelt which
is a clean and sealed building or sealed up building at this point but it did get approval
for two dwelling units to the south of that is a vacant lot and three houses one of which at 1813
is an abandoned structure then we have a vacant lot at 1811 and then 1809 is a structure that
lacks functional windows on the front and it's unclear if it's occupiable it appears to be
partially sealed and then again at the south side of the block on the east side we have five vacant
lots at the end of the block when we go into montgomery and the final photo is a photo looking
north from Montgomery, just showing the block looking north, the on-street parking and the
vacancy on the block. We did submit an original site plan for the property, and the plan calls for,
and I'll zoom in because this is difficult to see, the properties themselves are 16 feet wide,
16 and a half feet wide by 75 feet deep. So they're sizable lots, and at the rear,
there is a four-foot alley that the properties abut with providing access north and south to
Burke Street to the north Montgomery to the south the original plan called for
let's see so to answer vice chair's question there was a existing three-story with a three-story
rear addition scope and the original plan the site plan will show that we have to demolish
a portion of that second floor rear because of structural issues to rebuild it the the plan is
the structure is dimensionally compliant in terms of height and area the rear yard that we're
providing is a nine foot rear yard which is code compliant and the original steps accessing the
yard exited at the the rear of the first floor after discussing with neighbors the issues that
they brought up were um trash storage and open air for the units on the second and third floor
so the revised plan removed these stairs at the rear and we have this side yard it's not a a code
a zoning code side yard i'll call it a court where we have four feet six inches off the property line
and we decided to instead of an egress well there we're going to have steps that'll be the exit
point on the revised plan and i'll show that on exhibit seven is the revised zoning plan
so we removed the stairs at the rear we put the stairs on the side of the property where it abuts
with 1816 so it'll be a mirror image structure and that will allow access from the first floor
to get to the rear of the property for trash storage access outdoor space and the upper floors
this is where we'll be able to have outdoor deck space and outdoor trash storage for each of the
units and at the top of this plan i do have the floor plans and i guess i'll start with the
basement the basement is mainly the back of the building right that addition area is crawl space
that addition area is crawl space, no living space. The front of the building will have just
no living space the front of the building will have
a family room, rec room, and mainly utilities in the basement of this structure.
The first floor ends up being two bedrooms, one bath. Exit entrances for all the units are from
the front of the property on Van Pelt. Entered into a living room, dining room, kitchen with
the two bedrooms washer and dryer in unit and then the deck the steps leading out are in this
court area that I referenced and what that does on the second floor look into the exhibit to the left
above the exit for the first floor we'll be able to create a deck within the property line so
there'll be outdoor space for the upper unit and this little box to the top of the screen is what
will be a trash closet but it'll be outside the building so the door is outside on the deck
um it'll allow it to be secured and keep any of the trash out of the unit itself so that it's
that was a request of the neighbors and it's worked well in similar properties that we've done
projects we've done with my architect in this neighborhood and it's been well received so
we're doing that here and then the the second floor unit again is a two-bedroom one-bath unit
full washer dryer and then on the third floor we end up with a two-bedroom one-bath unit as well
it has that same outdoor deck space it'll be smaller than the second floor unit but it has
the outdoor deck space trash storage closet and within the the property line there is outdoor
space at the rear of the third floor unit that'll be overhanged by the porch so it'll be outdoor
space at the rear so we were able to get outdoor space for all three units deal with the trash
storage and at the front of the property we also included the ability to add a trash enclosures at
the front and secured containers if necessary if the trash closets are not sufficient we'd be able
to make sure there's trash at the front of the property and that is reflected on the revised
zoning plans that we submitted to the board at exhibit eight is just the revised proviso plan
form just detailing all these changes one thing i do want to call out is our rendering of the
property the goal here is to save the existing housing stock so 1814 would be saved rebuilt
and we'd match it at 1816 we'd match that cornice line going down the block and hopefully the as
the block infills with development this block needs development vacant land lots of abandoned
houses and this will allow us to rebuild what was there keep it historically and contextually
appropriate and still bring quality housing to this this neighborhood which is what we're hearing
the community wants and my clients definitely interested in bringing quality housing to the
area the front of the properties we will have egress wells at the front provide light and air
to the lower unit as well as a means of safety egress at exhibit nine i just included additional
copies of the floor plans but they were pretty clear on what i just went through um with the
revised zoning plan so with with that members of the board i would submit that the subject block
that we are dealing with on the 1800 block of van pelt is severely underdeveloped and needs
investment the vacant land the abandonment and the other multifamily uses on the block it would
create a hardship to require a single family to be built on the property on this block at this time
and we would request support for the board and the grant of the variance for each of the properties
for three family dwellings at the properties. My client is on the call today Arian Tamalari
if the board would like him to raise his hand to adopt my testament. Yes please let's get your
client on arian please raise your hand chair we have someone with the name john last name ending
in th uh let him in please sir please unmute yourself you're able to speak yes hi my name is
area on summary e-r-j-o-n-p-h-o-m-o-l-l-a-r-i you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do and proceed council and members of the board just to correct something i
said earlier we started with a nine foot rear yard and our revised plan actually increased the rear
yard to provide more open area to 11 feet nine inch rear yard creating more open space and the
third at the third floor level that ends up being 14 feet nine inches of open area so so you are so
you are adding additional uh space to the rear of the property correct we went from nine feet
rear yard to 11 feet nine inches to create more open space okay mr tamalari did you hear and see
Mr. Tamalari, did you hear and see my presentation today?
my presentation today.
Yes, sir, I did.
And were the statements I made true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
That is correct.
And would you adopt my testimony and statements as your own?
No further questions, members of the board.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair shaheed ian hegarty on behalf of the
philadelphia city planning commission board members in 2014 the zoning maps were amended
uh in this area from rm1 to rsa5 in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
Again, the appellant has failed to support their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances of either of these properties.
We reject the appellant's claim that the presence of vacant land or buildings on the block constitutes a hardship for these properties.
Vacant land does not prevent use according to zoning.
We note for the board that 1833 North Van Pelt Street on this block was constructed in 2021 as a single-family ground-up construction dwelling on the same block.
which demonstrates that single family use is indeed viable here city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the variances for both 1814 and 1816 north van pelt street
thank you if i can okay yeah you want to i would just submit that the economic environment that
our city was in three four years ago is very different than today which is why you see a
a block that has had no development other than multi-families that got approved after that one
single family house was constructed the planning commission disregards the other multi-family uses
on the block and this is a situation where there is a hardship and this block needs investment which
the planning commission's position would prevent further development of the block thank you
MI-202200-2210, 1814 North Van Pell Street, I vote yes with proviso, one page stand by ZBA
for February 8th, 2023.
I also vote yes on MI
22002209
1816 North Van Pelt Street
also with proviso, one page, stand by ZBA
February 8th, 2023.
Thomas Howellman, my vote is on both
and also with proviso on both.
James Snell. My vote is yes to both
and on both provisos on both
as well. Thank you.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
Number 12, MI2022005216
5110 Haverford Avenue, Vern Anastagio
Attorney for owner.
Vern, are you there?
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
So we did have one use of refusal with this.
A multifamily household living is prohibited in the RAE S5 zoning district.
Letter of opposition from the 44th Ward RCO is attached.
Councilor, please state your name and spell it for the record.
George Verne Anastasio, 2016 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please tell us about the client that you represent, please.
I represent Mr. Poisson. He's the owner of the property.
okay uh i'm gonna pass you over to our board member thomas halliman to read you a few questions
thank you good morning council good morning do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stimulate to his accuracy i do did you email all of the exhibits and documents that's required
five days in advance to this hearing and did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter
meet with the rco and do you have a letter uh yes to everything yes with one caveat and i'll get
Oh, yes, to everything.
into that at the beginning of my presentation thank you please proceed thank you mr chair
before i do proceed i want to take note of the letter of uh non-support from the rco 44th ward
I received that on Monday or perhaps yesterday, and then we had met with the RCO December 28th, and we had not heard back after that meeting.
They had given us some guidelines on what to do with the plans.
We resubmitted plans, did not hear anything back, and then this letter.
So then I did speak to Mr. Willie Jordan yesterday about the letter, asking him, you know, I thought we were sort of trying to work through whatever issues there were.
He did give me three additional items that he wanted to see fixed on the plans.
Brian Letterer, our architect on the plan, on the development team, quickly made those changes and we resubmitted to Mr. Willie Jordan.
but we did that about yesterday afternoon haven't heard from him since so what i'm asking respectfully
is that we be able to present this case today but uh if you could hold the vote
for a week to give mr jordan the opportunity to weigh in on the new plans that he just received
yesterday because i do believe based on our conversation that we uh we addressed the three
outstanding items that were causing him to send a letter of non-support no problem council thank
you i appreciate that with that it's 5110 haverford avenue uh this property um is zoned rsa 5 although
it's never been rsa5 uh it's never been a single family uh residence and let me show you here
it's a vacant lot at the moment and what we would like to do is have
it's a three-story building and we would put three units the first floor unit is
almost a thousand square feet there would be a rear yard with trash storage which is dedicated
on the plan the second floor would be over 700 square feet nice size two-bedroom apartment with
an open concept living room dining kitchen and a specific trash closet for storage in addition to
closets in both bedrooms, which it was important to the RCO that we add some closets.
We have an additional closet here in the third floor living area, in addition to a trash and
storage closet for dedicated trash storage, so that each unit has dedicated trash storage.
Our initial plans had a roof deck, but that no longer exists on the third floor.
The items that we were asked to address yesterday were to eliminate the roof deck altogether.
We had a trash corral in the front.
We were asked to move it to the rear yard, and we were asked to add closets to each unit.
We've done all three of those things.
As far as blocking is concerned, the property in and of itself will line up nicely with those properties that remain.
There is a top floor that would be set back.
And just bear with me for a moment.
My computer is freezing up.
As you can see here, first floor unit is 969 square feet, second floor unit is over 700
square feet, third floor unit 732 square feet. Nice two bedroom units on what is a pretty
big, busy, commercial-oriented, mixed-use streets.
Let me show you.
I mean, this is the area that we're looking at here.
Not necessarily a quiet residential area.
Very few single family homes. Here's our property in question, which is the vacant lot. Across the street is a large church. We've got a bar, a laundromat, several multifamily dwellings, a vacant lot, other boarded up properties all on the same block.
Very few single-family homes.
Here's our property in question.
here's a two-story building with four apartments in the two-story then two empty vacant lots and
then a vacant structure here on the corner so a brand new ground-up single-family development
on a lot of this size on a block intersection that is anything but a quiet residential block
would be extremely difficult to market and sell in this spot what we do believe we're offering
is three quality products housing products that are in the 700 to 900 plus square footage which
will attract a nice client with an approachable price point and that's one of the reasons why we
went with the triplex obviously we can go to 38 feet and we do line it up nicely with the adjacent
properties council are there are there any other three-story properties on this block
They're all two-story, but our heights will line up with the two-story, as you can see.
It's just a few feet above, so it's not inconsistent with the streetscape.
And then the top floor, of course, is set back, so you won't be able to see it.
So this is, again, you only have two stories here, and that closely lines up with the other two stories.
The third floor is set back, which you will not be able to see from the sidewalk because of the setback.
And we did not get refusal for the setback, obviously, because we met the requirements for that setback.
And no height requirement of variance either. This is the vacant lot as it stands. As you can see, it's either commercial oriented or multi commercial mixed use.
And of course, several vacancies and other vacant lots.
because of the location of the property being at an intersection that is anything but supportive
of single-family residential, because our variance is not for height or anything other than
for the multifamily dwelling, and because the size of this lot, the location of this lot,
Does not make it marketable or conducive to build from the ground up a single family residence and then rely on someone to either rent the entire house or buy the entire house, given the current conditions.
we do respectfully request granting of the variants.
We also, just to note again, parenthetically,
that we've met now as of yesterday
and would have been done sooner
had we gotten the letter sooner.
We've now met each and every condition of the RCO
to garner their support,
which is why we ask,
we hold off on the vote for a week
to hear from the 44th Ward.
Thank you, counsel.
Let's get your client on the line.
Mr. Poisson, can you raise your hand?
Sir, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Please spell your name.
State your name and spell it for the record, please.
Hi, good morning.
My name is Poisson.
Excuse me.
Peter is in Peter.
O is in Oscar.
I is in India.
S is in Sam.
You is in Unicorn.
O is in Oscar.
And it's in Nancy.
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed
counsel thank you mr chair uh boy did you hear my presentation to the board today yes is it true
and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i do
Thank you.
thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Thomas, you're on mute.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Question from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Shahid.
Ian Hegarty, on behalf of the Philadelphia State Planning Commission, board members,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family zoning at this
location. However, given the adjacent non-conforming uses, the city planning commission recommends that
the board grant the variance. Okay, so we're going to actually close this case. No more additional
requirements except the letter for the RCO. And Hillary, is it okay to say we can vote on this
next week at the 930?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
As long as the RCO
documents are in.
Correct. We'll hold the record
open for a follow-up
letter from the RCO.
Otherwise, the record is closed and we'll plan
on voting this next
week unless we receive requests
from the parties to extend the vote further.
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasio, you got
anything else you want to add?
Thank you very much, Mr. Shahid. Appreciate it.
No problem. You have a good one.
You too.
Number 13, MI-2022005302, 2002 Fairmount Avenue.
Attorney for owner, Xin Jin.
Mr. Jin is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
good morning good morning we've already got you in this this uh spell your name it's data for the
record we've got you already one time yes zenjin z-h-e-n-j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite
1838 philadelphia pa 19103 on behalf of the applicant all right our board member is going
to ask you a few questions good morning counsel do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
I do. I do want to point out there is a correction.
Do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
i'm going to share with the board the documents we have previously submitted
um can everyone see the exhibit yes thank you uh this is an application for a
use the original refusal uh which is correct i will show that in a second is for a use
of a RM1 property next door to an existing property that is a restaurant as an accessory
kitchen. It's essentially a property that will be used solely as a kitchen accessory to an
existing restaurant next door. There are two separate properties. So this is being zoned
as of itself. We did get a corrected refusal in this case. In fact, it just came in last night
per the ZBA council's request to L&I.
The corrective refusal indicates for commissaries
and catering service.
My client's not actually doing catering service,
but it is to the kitchen would cater
to the restaurant in that sense.
So I just want to make sure
that is the correct categorization
because this is an accessory kitchen to a restaurant.
To better understand what we're trying to do here,
The community letter of support actually states it pretty clearly, what my client is trying to do.
We have an existing restaurant at 2000 Fairmount Avenue, and this is 2002 next door.
2000 has two residential units on the second floor and a business on the first floor.
2002, which is also owned by my client, is right next door, zoned REM1.
However, surrounding 2000 and 2002 are additional commercial uses, and therefore, it is really sandwiched in the commercial use section of the block.
And because of that, the community says that they are in support of our request because we're not going to have a negative impact on any residents.
And this use would also be consistent with what was used next door, which is a popular pizza restaurant.
The RCO did enter into an agreement with my client with regard to some.
RCO did enter into an agreement with my client with regard to some property updates and repairs
to the facade. That will be done pursuant to a community benefits agreement that he's entering
into with the RCO. But this is the actual building in question. We're talking about what used to be
Stephen's Day dry cleaners. This property will be used as a kitchen. There's no outside service.
There will not be any customers or anybody entering.
It's purely a kitchen, and it will service this existing restaurant, which is right next door.
And that's really the gist of the variance request here.
There's no real specific plans to be discussed here other than this entire space, which is the 2002 Fairmount Avenue, will be used as a kitchen space.
So it'll be set up as a commercial kitchen, venting to the roof, but there'll be no other uses of the property at this point.
So that is essentially our request before the board, just to use it as a kitchen.
Because this is a commercial use, again, we have a refusal due to the RM1.
We would argue that, of course, there is a hardship to simply maintain RM1, and they're trying to expand a non-conforming use, and expansions of non-conforming use is generally favored in zoning situations.
So we would ask the board's favorable review of this application, considering that both the community and my client has shown that it would not impact any residents in the area in a negative way.
My client is here, Mr. Savas.
He can verify my testimony, and I'm happy to redirect to any part of the exhibit for the board.
Sure. Let's bring your client in, please.
Sure. Savas, can you virtually raise your hand to be identified?
Sir, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Hello? I'm here.
Yes, please state, please spell your name and state it for the record, please.
My name is Savas Navrosidis, S-A-V-B-A-S, N-A-V-R-O-S-I-D-I-S.
Do you agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Savas, did you see my presentation and hear my testimony before the zoning board?
Yes, I did.
Can you verify what I have represented is true and correct and adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Justin Navarro.
Please let him in, Lakeisha.
Mr. Navarro, you're free to speak.
Good morning.
Your name is spelled for the record.
My name is Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O, N-A-V-A-R-R-O, and I represent the Spring Garden Civic Association and its zoning committee.
Do you agree to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
I wanted to confirm that we, the Civic Association, in fact, has entered into an executed CBA with the applicant, and we are excited about the board's approval of this variance as it will extend and provide for a prep kitchen for the very well-attended and very popular 2000 and Fairmount property, which is known as Fairmount Pizza.
So we're also excited with the fact that the property owner has entered, as I indicated, into a CBA, which will make the properties that he owns along that stretch of Fairmont Avenue more compatible with the Spring Garden Historic District.
So we encourage the board and the chair to approve the variance as requested.
Thank you for your time this morning.
Thank you.
Any more questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
thank you chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
board members the proposed commercial use is consistent with the prior documented use and
with the physical configuration of the building city planning commission recommends that the
board grant the variance okay mi2022003502 2002 fairmount avenue my vote is yes with
proviso per amended refusal dated february the 7th 2023 thomas holloman my vote is yes with
with a with proviso james snell yes with proviso thank you congratulations thank you
approved with proviso james snell
number 14 mi2022005180 1841 north 22nd street attorney for owner henry clinton
Mr. Clinton is coming back in as a
panelist
Good morning
Henry Clinton here
Good morning counsel how are you please
state your name and spell it for the record
Henry Clinton H-E-N-R-Y
Clinton C-L-I-N-T-O-N
Do you agree to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do sir
Can you please give us a little bit about your client
My client is
Al Blackson
b-l-a-c-k-s-o-n he's on the call and he's going to reside in this property great i want to push
you over to our board member uh thomas holliman to ask you a few questions good morning council
morning sir holliman do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to accuracy
see i do with one exception uh we had submitted for a front loaded garage and the refusal does
not reflect that but we presented the plans to the community with the front loaded garage
okay did you email all the exhibits and documents that's required five days in advance to this
hearing did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all the above please proceed and
share your screen. Thank you, Mr. Holliman.
I think it's loading.
That's what it indicates on my screen, Mr. Shahid, that the screen is loading.
Maybe I should go in and start again.
yeah perhaps
don't see anything yet
and when i hit stop share nothing happens
first time this has happened we have someone from the it uh team that can weigh in
I know it looks like it's it's loading now it's no bigger than my normal presentation so
don't know what you're saying
on this one
okay let me read the
refusal into the record
exceed maximum permitted
38 feet
allow 50.8
to propose
so you want to can you see that now Mr. Shahid no they can't see anything as of yet
Mr. can you try sharing your screen again yes
this sunken is that any better it's showing you have no visual new visual
no yeah i don't want to hold the board up here i don't
uh do you want to try coming um going out and then coming back in yeah maybe i should do that
Ms. Dandy. Sorry about that, Mr.
Shahid.
Let me start from the beginning, if I can.
yep now what's up okay thanks a lot miss sunken and miss dan i appreciate it uh so uh good morning
So, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, and members of the board.
mr chairman vice chairman and members of the board henry clinton here on
Henry Clinton here on behalf of the owner, Al Blackson, who is on the call with me.
This is my presentation package, which contains a table of contents, exhibits AA to A10, which I ask to be admitted into the record.
And at the end of the presentation, I'll go through the other multifamily properties that are existing on this block.
This is a request for a three-family unit on a block that has more than 50% of the existing
properties of a multifamily nature, which I'll show the board at the end. The refusal,
which does not include a refusal for the front-loader garage, even though the plans indicate
that, is for a three-family unit. The original proposal was for four units. We met with the
community group and we dropped that down to three units. The other thing that we did is we were able
to eliminate one of the refusals. The roof deck setback is now at the required depth. Before it
was at eight feet, excuse me, just three feet. Now it's at five feet. So we really have two
refusals. One has to do with the use. We're asking for multifamily in a single family
zoning district. But you'll see there's over 15 existing non-conforming uses on the block,
all of which are multifamily. And the other issue is with regard to height. We're asking for
above the 38-foot threshold because the fourth floor is set back. As there's a garage on the
first floor, my client who's going to move into the facility in this building wants to use that
garage for an electric vehicle. And he needs to have the internal lines run inside the garage
because we no longer have electric boxes at the curb like we did several years ago.
So this is the letter of non-opposition from the 32nd Ward RCO.
And these are photographs of the block. So my client's lot is right here. On both sides,
my client actually owns both of these multifamily properties. One is a six-unit building and one
is a three-unit building. There's about 27 or so existing homes on the block, and more than 50%,
15 or 16, are multifamily. The remainder of the lot, as you can see, are vacant spaces and open
spaces. And most of these multifamily units have been in place since about 1968, when I show you
the zoning records which will support that again this is multi-family at 15 at 1843 and 1847 excuse
me 1839 1843 again just some more photographs to give the board perspective of the block
many vacant lots
the original plans that submitted uh were somewhat uh unusual in the sense that there
was a rear fire escape ladder on the back of the property um and the property didn't really
provide for a second means of egress unfortunately the architect who prepared these plans passed
away my client ended up submitting these plans and when he did i think that was the mix-up when
he submitted the plans he may have not described the project properly because we didn't get a
refusal for a garage and also he did not uh as far as i know get streets approval and that's why
the refusal doesn't refer to the garage nevertheless we're going to proceed with
the presentation. And we do have a revised proviso plan indicating that the number of
dwelling units have been reduced from four to three. We are now in conformance with the setback
of the deck. And we've added a stair tower to the rear of the property for a second means of egress.
And adding that stair tower, we have a letter from the architect indicating that even with the
stair tower, because the lot is so big, it's 96 feet deep and wider than 16 feet, the addition
of the rear stair tower does not in any way affect the 25% open area requirement for this
particular lot. And I think that's one of the reasons why there's so many multifamily on the
block. It's a really deep lot, 96 feet, and have a single family property on these lots would
really be, would not be feasible and not economical. In fact, I think the zoning code
changed in around 2014 and 2015 from RM1 to RSA5. This is a cutaway of the property.
This is a cutaway of the property. Basically, the basement is going to be utilities, one bedroom on the first floor, one bedroom on the second floor, and then the owner is going to live on the third floor and he's going to have two bedrooms.
So despite the fact that it is a large structure, there's really only four bedrooms, and the one-bedroom units will provide affordability for folks in the neighborhood who will be able to rent a top-shelf project, brand-new, new construction, and still maintain their contacts with the neighborhood.
I'll walk through the floor plans, start at the first floor.
First floor, we'll have a garage and one bedroom in the rear with rear access, open space to the rear yard.
And there's also going to be an area for trash storage in a closet on the first floor.
And every unit does have a closet for trash storage.
This is the second unit with a rear front balcony, trash storage, and an egress stair tower in the rear.
Third and fourth floor listed as the owner's apartment.
As I said, he owns a property that's on either side of this project.
He's going to have a large living area, a one bedroom on the third floor, and one bedroom
on the fourth floor, which is a setback from the front, the required eight feet, so that
there's no visual issues with regard to passersby or pedestrians.
The rest of the documents are the pro forma documents you would see in a typical zoning
presentation or application for appeals, indication that the taxes are fully paid.
And then what I wanted to do was show the board the numerous existing multifamily properties on this block.
And I'll just walk through this, maybe not all 15, but just to give the board a flavor of what I was talking about.
So this is 1847. This is an adjacent to family dwelling. It's been in existence since 1968.
This is an existing three-family dwelling at 1845, and the owner is the same as my client.
1843, adjacent to this property, this is a six-dwelling unit that was approved as of right back in 2016 because there's no calendar number.
the prior property at 1845. This was a zoning matter in September of 2015, and the board did
grant a three-family dwelling then. Again, I'll go through some of the zoning records because the
table of contents does list them all in a nutshell, but not to belabor the point. This is a three-family
dwelling in existence since 1968, 1839, 1835, two family dwelling since 1968, 1833, two family
dwelling, 1831, two family dwelling, 1829, three family dwelling since 1973, 1806, down the other
under the street since 1986, been a two-family dwelling. 18, I skip one there, not all purpose,
1808, two-family dwelling since 1968. 1812, two-family dwelling since 1967. So again,
Mr. Vice Chairman, I don't want to go through all 15 unless the board wants me to, but this is a
summary of the attachments, indicating that there are already four triplexes on the block,
one six-unit building adjacent to this property, and the remaining properties are two-family.
Okay. So in summation, we basically have a situation on this block where there's many
undeveloped lots. The ones that are developed are majority multifamily. It's a large lot that
doesn't really warrant or is not feasible for single-family usage. The client is going to
occupy the property and have an electric vehicle in the garage on the first floor.
There is no really disharmony with the neighborhood. They're in non-opposition of
the project. They're aware that Mr. Blackstone already owns two properties on the block.
They were complementary with regard to his sanitation policies and just the general overall upkeep of the properties.
And that resulted in a non-opposition vote.
And that resulted in a non-opposition vote.
With that, I'd like to rest, ask that my exhibits be admitted, and certainly we'll entertain any questions from the board or from the virtual audience.
Sure. Can we get your client on?
Sure. Mr. Blackson, can you unmute yourself and raise your hand?
We have a caller phone number ending in 9543. You're free to speak.
Morning. Mr. Blackstone. Hello. Yes, Mr. Blackstone. Yes, sir. Please state your name
and spell it for the record yes sir uh my name is al blackson that's a-l last name blackson b-l-a-c-k-s-o-a
do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed
council uh mr blackson were you on the call when i presented your project to the zoning board
yes sir if you had the opportunity uh to adopt my testimony would you adopt that as true and
correct and as your own i do thank you very much questions from the board no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair shaheed ian hegarty on behalf of the
philadelphia city planning commission board members in 2014 the zoning maps were amended
in this area from RM1 to RSA5. This was done in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive
plan. With regard to the proposed height variance, the appellant has not shown evidence that denial
of the proposed variance would result in economic detriment or that the proposal is consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood, both of which are required to establish hardship. With regard to
the use variances, the proposed multifamily use is consistent with adjacent non-conforming
properties however we feel the appellant has failed to support the hardship claim for front
loaded parking with evidence of unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property
city planning commission recommends that the board deny these variances if the board is inclined to
grant the variances we recommend at the very least that the board that deny the variance for front
loaded parking as a desire for electric vehicle is not grounds for hardship thank you may i do
comments, Mr. Shahid? Sure, counsel. Thank you. I understand, and I did mention during the
presentation that the zoning code was changed in 2014 to single-family homes. My client or I are
aware of any single-family homes being constructed on this block since that change, which I think
leads one to the conclusion that multifamily is going to be the mainstay on this block because
the lots are so big and because there's so many other multifamily properties on the block.
With regard to the height, there's no living quarters or nothing is going to be in the basement.
It's going to be mechanicals.
And because of the garage on the first floor, which I understand the Planning Commission is not in favor of, the height of the building has to be what it is as submitted.
The last floor, the top floor, is set back so that visually from the street, you will not be able to notice that there is a fourth floor.
So with regard to the garage, again, there are numerous vacant lots on the property.
I mean, on this block, I think the community group, not that I want to speak for them,
may be inclined that they want to see additional development going on on the block.
And the use of the garage for an electric vehicle certainly is something noteworthy
as we move away from gasoline power to electric power.
And so with that, I would like to address and ask the board to look kindly upon this application.
Hillary, did we receive the RCO revised with the front loaded garage?
Mr. Chair, we have received no RCO letter in this matter.
And we're holding for we're going to hold for an amended refusal anyway.
but we'll also leave the record open
if the RCO wishes to
permit a letter. Otherwise, the record
is closed. Ms. Emerson,
just one thing. Judith Robinson
of the 32nd Ward
said that she sent a letter
in today to
the ZBA and I asked her to send me a copy
which she did just before 930
and it's part of my package
I have not
seen that yet so if you're able
to forward that to me as well um i don't know that but that has come to us so if you could
forward that um then we'll just leave the the record open um for the amended plans
um then we'll just leave the the record open um for the amended plans only the amended refusal
rather only understood thank you mr emerson thank you mr yep so mr clinton mr clinton we'll hold
this uh case until the uh rco letter comes in and then also this case is going to be held because
of the amended on the curb cuts of the street understood thank you sir all right we're going
back to number eight mi2022005212 2025 north fourth street steve masters attorney for count
Mr. Masters is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you, Letitia.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E-M-A-S-T-E-R-S.
I'm with the law firm of JustLaws.
Do you agree to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Please give us a little bit of information on your client.
Sure. I represent Letitia McCracken, who is with us in the virtual audience today. She's the property owner of 2025 North 4th Street.
Thank you. Mr. Holliman is going to ask you a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required?
Five days in advance to this hearing, did you meet with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of your questions.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
All right.
Thank you so much.
I'm going to share my screen.
Good morning again, Mr. Chair, members of the board. We are here on a zoning variance application to legalize a triplex at 2025 North 4th Street.
The refusal here is simply one use refusal. The zoning district is for single family at RSA 5 and we're proposing three families, which is not allowed in that district.
We have a letter of support from the North Square Community Alliance. And we had a very good meeting with the RCO. As we'll see in a moment, the character of this block has changed profoundly since the early days when it was a single family block.
And for the most part, the properties that are surrounding our property here are either all multifamily or they're vacant. And there's just not any viability for creating or building a single family home on this block.
For that reason, the community voted unanimously to support the project, and they did have a, they had some specific concerns with the open vacant lot right next door to our property.
They asked our client to clean the adjacent lot, I'm going to make this a little bigger if people can see, to remove all the construction debris, to restore, replace the existing fence, and to follow rules and regulations on trash collection day.
We'll see in the photos that that has all been done, and that was done within days of the RCO asking us to do that.
We have petitions in support, and these were attached to the RCO letter and we also have them separately in our exhibit binder. We have 14 petitions in support. Many of these residents are on the exact block that we're talking about today.
Okay. And this is our, our exhibit binder or a tab with the petitions. So in terms of the plans, I'm going to make these bigger here. So we're not proposing any changes to the, there's no construction or renovation. In fact, the, the, the, the, the renovations have, have occurred.
So we have the basement is just for utilities.
We have the basement is just for utilities on the first floor we have unit a it's a one bedroom bedrooms in the back, the living room is in the front, the second floor, we have two studio units studio unit C is in the front studio unit B is to the back.
and um the third floor we've designated as a multi-purpose recreation room and that is
available to all three of the units in the building um to be shared um it will have a
little bit of an area for for people who want to have you know some kind of a social gathering for
that's a little kitchenette it has a it has a bathroom um and uh that's uh that's what's going
be happening on the third floor. For our elevations, we have
this is the side, the front on view, I'm sorry, and then this is the side view of our elevation
drawings. This is the existing facade.
And then a series of photos here. So again, the existing facade, this is the lot that we'll see
has been cleaned up. We're going to start with the basement with the utilities, and then it's an
unfinished basement. It will remain unfinished. From the basement, we go up the stairs to the
first floor. The first floor has a living room, kitchen area, a hallway, bathroom, and then this
is the hallway ends up in the in the bedroom. The first floor also has a private patio area in the
rear this is the closet in that bedroom a view from the other side of the bedroom
now we go up the stairway to the second floor unit b is a studio on the second floor
that's where the bedroom would be the bathroom
another view of the bedroom and that's the stairway that'll go up to the
to the multi-purpose room
going through this hallway we get to unit c it's the area for the bedroom
and the kind of like the everything's going on in there there's the kitchen
bathroom and then the third floor this is the multi-purpose recreation room
this is another view from the back wall this is the bathroom in that third floor
here we have the fence that has been restored as requested by the RCO and the debris has all been
removed. Another view showing that all of the debris has been removed.
Some more views showing everything was cleaned up.
And then our zoning posters, these are on the front window.
These are the close-ups.
So in our RCO presentation, we presented this chart that shows all the multifamily zoning
variances that have been issued for that block 2001 to 2020 North 4th Street.
Anything that's in the light blue is a duplex. The vacant lots are magenta and a triplex is indicated in yellow. So starting at the beginning of the block in 2001, we have a vacant lot. Then we have a duplex. We have two duplexes.
we have across the street a vacant lot then on on the even side again we have a duplex
all of these um have the zoning calendar numbers and the year that they were granted
by the zoning board uh the the corner uh properties are um are their accommodation
rmm1 and cmx2 the rest are the rsa5s we have two vacant lots of 2007 and 2009 and then
We have two vacant lots of 2007 and 2009.
And then we have more duplexes at 2017 and 2020.
We have more duplexes.
Chart continues on the second page for the portion from 2021 to 2057 North Forth.
We have more vacant lots at 21 and 23.
Our proposed triplex is right next to, as we saw, the vacant lot at 2023.
Right next door to us is a legal duplex that was created in 2000.
And then we have five additional vacant lots that are to the other side of us.
We have our tax clearance.
Our deed.
Scroll through that a little bit more.
Our project information form.
And this was the RCO notice, it was an in-person meeting, and we mailed it to 214 addresses,
And these are all of the addresses that were part of that mailing.
I'm going to conclude my presentation and ask for my client, Letitia McCracken, to raise her hand to be acknowledged.
I see no hands at this time.
Wait one second, please.
I have Sloan Foulkes.
Mr. Foulkes, you're free to speak.
Good morning.
This is Sloan Foulkes, Office of Councilmember Ketsy Lozada, 7th District.
My name is called S-L-O-A-N-E-F as a fire or L-K-S.
Okay. Can you hear me?
Okay, sorry about that. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir, I do.
All right.
The applicant having met with the according RCO and receiving a letter of support, the council member has no opposition to this request. Thank you.
Thank you, sir, Mr. Folks.
Is Ms. McCracken available?
She's out there.
There's no hand raised or no one with that last name.
Oh, excuse me.
I see her.
I can make her able to speak, but her hand wasn't up.
Ms. McCracken, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ms. McCracken, please state your name and spell it for the record.
Ms. McCracken, you're still muted. Please unmute yourself if you would like to speak.
Okay, Mr. Masters, you're attorney of the court. We can accept your testimony.
Okay, yes. I'm not sure what the technical issues are for my client, but if she had been able to
to testify she would have adopted
and my testimony today
and affirmed that it was true and correct.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Shahid.
Ian Hegarty on behalf
of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the proposed use
is consistent with the comprehensive
plan recommended zoning of rm1 city planning commission recommends that the board grant the
variance mi2022005212 2025 north 4th street my vote is yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
all right thank you council congratulations thank you so much
all right so anyone out in a virtual audience case have not been heard as of yet
i see no hands chair all right thank you all thank you smooth morning uh see you all at two
o'clock okay great job mr chairman yes great job thank you
Thank you.
You can begin, Chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Ishmael Shahid and I will be chairing this
afternoon's EBA hearing.
With me is board member Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Also board member James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman. We all have, we also have
the Baron with us from the city
office. Also present with us is Hillary Emerson, our board
attorney, and
Lakeisha Dandy, ZBA hearing supervisor. Before we begin,
here is our virtual format. Number one,
please be advised the proceedings are being recorded. A video
will be available by contacting Tanya Sumpton
at tinyasunctit at phila.gov number two for the benefit of our court stenographer
we ask that all attorneys and witnesses to id themselves before testifying number three
if you are participating by phone if you wish to testify please press nine star nine to raise your
hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your name
and email address and someone will get back to you to answer your question. Lastly, the question
answer box on your screen is not for comments or testimonies. All comments should be directed to
our executive director, Tanya Shunkett, and we will begin the two o'clock list, starting with
continuances. Hillary? Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair. We have a few continuance requests for
the GPM list. One moment, please. The first request is number 7 MI-2022-005-219. That's
4212 Parkside Avenue. This is the first listing.
Let's continue that case.
All right. Thank you. The next case, number eight, MI-2022-005-210-4206 Parkside Avenue. This is also the first listing.
This case will be continued as well.
And number 11 on the list, MI-2022-005-205-4204 Parkside Avenue. This is also the first listing.
Okay, we will be continuing this case as well.
Okay, great. Are there any other requests for continuance in the virtual audience?
Good afternoon. This is Fatina L. I see no hands at this time.
Thank you. Moving on to the no exhibits case, Hillary.
Yes, we have we have one case and I see the attorney for the case, Mr.
Vaccaro, raising his hand on that case.
Number nine, MI-2022-005-231.
You can bring on Mr. Vaccaro. Mr.
Vaccaro, you're free to speak. Okay. Good. Good afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Please state your name and spell it for the court recorder.
My name is Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, attorney for the applicant.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please give us a brief description of your client.
My client is an individual named Kakaberi Kubidinze, the owner of 90 Red Lion Road.
This application was meant to be withdrawn. There was a mistake in the underlying application. We refiled it in September of 2023, and it's actually scheduled to be heard on February 22nd.
So this individual case that scheduled for today was was intended to have been.
So this individual case that scheduled for today was was intended to have been withdrawn.
I guess it just never got withdrawn. So, council, we don't have any exhibits on file as of yet.
When can we look to see them? But we're going to have to contain continue this case.
Mr. Chair, it's it's OK. We can we can. He's asking to withdraw this matter.
We can withdraw here at bar. OK, cool. Thank you, Miss Emerson.
all right do we have anyone else out in the virtual audience that case is for continuance
i see no handshare okay we'll move on to the add-ons
number one mi202-200-5078 1940 wharton street
Sean Wellington.
Mr. Whelan is coming back in as a
panelist.
This was going to be
so this was just coming in for a vote
and we're going to push this back to next week.
I just wanted to let Mr. Whelan to know that.
And we'll vote on this
next week at the 2 o'clock session.
all right moving on to the regular list
am i two zero we do have another hand raised from one user all right let them in
we have a calling user please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Miss, you can press star six to unmute yourself.
Hello, hello, hello, wait a minute.
I was just calling, I was waiting for 1940 Wharton Street,
but the chair let us know that it's going to be voted on next week at the same time.
Yes, at 2 o'clock.
Okay, thank you very much.
Any more hands, LaKeisha?
Chair, this is Patina L, co-host.
There are no further hands.
Thank you, apologize about that.
No worries.
All right.
Regular list.
MI-2022005272, 5301 Chester Avenue.
Alan Nockmson, the attorney.
Mr. Nockmson is coming back in as a panelist.
One refusal is for multifamily use of house living.
is prohibited in that RSA5 zoning condition.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Nockamson, please tell us about your client.
Yes, my client is a property owner of record, which is Can Properties 1 LLC. And then the virtual audience is, excuse me, Khan. The virtual audience is Sabas Khan, who at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask him to virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and to adopt my testimony as his own.
no problem council uh mr our board member thomas hollandman is going to ask you a few questions
good afternoon council good afternoon do you agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do i do you know all the exhibits and documents
have required five days in advance and did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter
yes in all respects thank you please proceed and share your screen all right thank you
so i'm here to present 5301 chester avenue uh this property is at the corner of 53rd and uh
chester uh it's in the southwest district uh section of the city uh during my presentation
we'll review the notice of refusal. So this is an RSA-5 property with a long history of
multifamily use. And as you'll see in my presentation, there are many properties
within the vicinity of ours, which is similar to nature, RSA-5, but have a multifamily use
RSA 5, but have a multifamily use as well. We did receive a letter of support from the Earth Keepers
as well.
We did receive a
Inc., which is the coordinating RCO for this matter. They were also, you'll see their letter,
they referenced the many letters of support we received from nearby neighbors. So not only do
we have a letter of support from the coordinating RCO for this project, but also the people who
be most directly impacted by this project are the nearby neighbors next we'll review the use
registration permit for this property you'll see that this property does have a long history of
multi-family use and that use registration permit shows that that this was a seven unit at one point
and then it's not uncommon for this zoning board to grant a similar variance request we'll review
requests that were made by 5303 Chester Avenue and 5307 Chester Avenue. And under similar
circumstances, this board has granted variances for multifamily use on RSA5 properties. Next,
we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings,
our RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal, our deed for the property showing that
Khan, Properties 1, LLC is the owner of their property, and our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, in the virtual audience is Savas Khan, who virtually raised his hand at the conclusion
of my presentation, be sworn in, and then adopt my testimony as his own. And of course, we'll be
more than happy to take any questions from the board. So notice a refusal. So yes, this is an
RSA5 property. It's a significantly sized property of 1,764 square feet, and we only have
one refusal. All we're trying to do is restore this previously multifamily structure to its
natural beauty inside and out. As you can see from the notes to the ZBA, seven non-housekeeping
units were approved by the same zoning board in 1982. And then a layer of support from the
Earth Keepers, Inc., which is the coordinating RCO.
Again, they have three whereas clauses.
First, whereas this property has been a tremendous eyesore and extremely dangerous in the community
at large, and they embraced the opportunity for this property to be transformed to something
which was seen in the past.
The second whereas clause stated that there have been several multifamily projects located
on the 5300 block of Chester Avenue,
which have been approved by this board previously.
And the third whereas clause,
they referenced the 24 letters to support,
which we presented to them during the community meeting
and which we have in our presentation packet as well.
For all those reasons, they support this project.
And then there's, you know, again,
just a tally showing their support of the project.
And then just, again, I do a key map,
makes it really easy showing where those letters to support in relation to the property so number
of the you know letters that we do have you'll see we're green we're in the corner 53rd and
chester and you can see that you know where those letters to support were generated i asked my client
to essentially focus on the people most directly impacted within the affected area uh and i think
this map shows a good job of what we have done in terms of community outreach and then i'm just
to go really quickly through those letters but you know obviously this was in your presentation
packet which was delivered to the cba more than five days from the day of the hearing so if you
had a chance to review it you would confirm that those were the addresses that were on my map
that we created and then use registration permit again is reflected in the notice of refusal that
at one point this property uh had seven housekeeping units in 1982 and this one
reflect the previous multi-family uh usage of this property and then it's not uncommon for this
zoning board to grant similar multi-family uh variances 5303 in uh you know in 2021 granted
for nine units and then 5307 also in 2021 uh granted for four units and then maps of the area
As you can see, we're at the corner of, excuse me, Chester and 53rd Street with Springfield as a connecting cross street.
And then you can see from a Google Maps perspective where we are.
As you can see, there's a bus stop right here.
So there's ample public transportation as well.
And then photographs of the property.
As you can see, structurally, it's beautiful.
And, you know, we're not trying to demolish a property and create a newly constructed property.
We just want to restore this property.
uh and the beauty of this property you'll see from the rendering we did create you'll kind of
uh and the beauty of this property and you'll see from the rendering we did create you'll kind of
get a feel
get a feel of what we're looking to do here but it's a really beautifully beautiful architecturally
significant structure so is that the current picture of the property yes yes if you go back
two slides it looks like you said someone else on the block what's the addresses that did get
the approval 5303 which is next door and that was a double wide lot so it's just a lot okay yeah
5303 was a double wide lot and then 5307 which is so it was 5303 and 5305 and then 5307
was another uh approval so the two neighboring properties received it um and i do want to say
that like we do have more updated photos i believe we got this from google earth of what the condition
was in the past year it's just taken so long for our hearing so i do think with the orange notice
posters, you'll kind of see what we've done. We have tried to clean up the property from an
exterior point of view while we've been waiting for this zoning approval process with permits,
of course. So this is the side of the property from 53rd Street. Garbage is going to be stored
in the rear. As part of this process, we are also, there's multiple forms of egress in the lower
level, and one of them is like in the rear. So those steps were very important to make sure that
we confirm that we're going to use those rear steps and the and the floor plans uh reflect
that as such so this is our orange notice poster as you can see it doesn't show like the full
height of the building but you can see even from here we're starting to restore the facade of the
building to its natural significance and then this is from again the uh chester street side as well
i think it's maybe the 53rd street side because it's corner property we needed an orange poster
on both sides and then this is chester avenue uh to the right of the property chester avenue
to the left of the property as you can see it's a porch neighborhood and we're keeping it as a
porch uh south 53rd street to the right of the property uh south 53rd to the left of the property
and then there are plans and drawings this is our rendering of what we hope that this property is
going to look like refurbished and restored so obviously very pretty keep you know keeping the
significance of the porch and again you know this unique uh roof line as well and just repointing
the brick and things like that and then these are just our floor plans again three units uh
on this property, excuse me, four units on this property. Each floor has its own unit
of, oh, let me just go back. I'm trying to make it small enough, but large enough.
Trying to show here, there's multiple forms of egress in the lower level, which was important
to the community. So there's their front egress, as well as lower as rear egress for that lower
leveling in it and then just our meeting notice we had our meeting sometime we had our meeting some
time ago uh november 1st of 2022 at 6 30 p.m uh 106 uh addresses were notified of this meeting
list of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses proof of email to the rcos as well as
this board as well as the planning commission as well as the uh the council members zoning aids
and then our application for appeal showing that con real estate investment llc filed this uh you
know they filed a notice of refusal the project information form showing that they own their
property as well and then our certificate of tax clearance there's technically a balance of 462
dollars and 80 cents but as you can see it's just for the 2023 tax year and those funds are not due
until march 31st of 2023 otherwise we have paid our taxes every single year and thus we are tax
compliant uh with that being said i would ask that uh mr khan uh virtually raise his hand to be sworn
in okay mr khan please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
yes sir good afternoon mr kine please state your name and spell it for the record
sabas ken
spell it for the record please s-a-v-a-s last name ken c-a-n
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Continue, counsel.
Yes. So, boss, you heard everything I had to say today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And is it true and correct?
It is true.
It is true.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no, excuse me, Chair.
Minister Enoch, I mean, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
good afternoon good morning chair and members of the zoning board of adjustments i'm minister
enoch e-n-o-c-h amen a-m-e-n ra r-a-e-l you're going to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i affirm thank you yes earth keepers is what's the coordinating ratio
in the subject matter and we request that the application for the multifamily household
11 be granted and is based on the following the app the applicant is an expert when it comes to
the subject matter and without being redundant as as part our um letter of support we request
the honorable board to grant the application with that being said i yield my mic thank you
any other callers in the virtual audience i see no handshare thank you planning commission
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Thanks, Ron.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right.
Property is indicated for residential on the city plan.
Given its documented use history, we have no objection to the granular rights.
Thanks, Ron.
M-I-2022-005-272
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. This is Hillary. We do have someone with their hand raised, presumably regarding this case.
Okay, let's hear them.
Chair, we have Kevin Washington.
Mr. Washington?
Please unmute your phone.
Are you there, Mr. Washington?
Chair, you can...
You went out. What'd you say?
I said, Chair, you can continue.
Okay, no problem.
MI-2022-005272, 5301 Chester Avenue.
My vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Congratulations.
Number two, MI2022005285, 3712-14 South 11th Street.
Attorney for Lieutenant Jerry Klein.
Mr. Klein is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
good afternoon mr chair members of the board jared klein it's j-a-r-e-d
last name is klein k-l-e-i-n from blank rome 130 north 18th street in philadelphia
thank you do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do please give us the uh connection to you and your client
certainly i am very very pleased to be here on behalf of the nfc champion philadelphia eagles
who are the tenant at this address okay uh our board member thomas holliman has a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy i do agree to waive the reading and i stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal that
there was an address clarification that i had explained to miss emerson so i i will note that
for the record okay did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in
advance the rco do you have a yes we met with the rco we had a letter and all that was provided to
the board five days in advance thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you very much
So, as I noted, we're here for...
So, as I noted, we're here for 3712 to 14 South 11th Street. That lot is also known as 1020 Pattison Avenue.
Just to briefly clarify for the board, because of the way the Eclipse system works, and there's an exhibit in my packet that shows this, 3712 South 11th and 1020 Pattison come up as the same parcel.
We were limited in how we could get the application into Eclipse.
So we would ask that if the board is inclined to look positively on this, that they just
confirm that the address is an AKA of 1020 Pattison, so there's no confusion at further
permanent.
So what are we looking to do?
So I said I'm here on behalf of the Philadelphia Eagles, who are donating some space in the
lower level of Lincoln Financial Field to a non-profit called Popcorn for the People.
I'm sure that the board members have heard of the Eagles Autism Foundation.
This is in conjunction of that.
Autism and autism care is a very important issue to the Eagles and their ownership.
And so what they're looking to do is donate a small portion of their lower level for the
manufacturing and distribution of popcorn.
The operator is going to be a business called Popcorn for the People, which specializes in neurodiverse employment and provides job opportunities for those that are on the autism spectrum.
And so we think it's a very good use for a small portion of the inside of the building.
Just to orient the board, obviously, this is what we're talking about here.
As I mentioned, 3712 South 11th and 1020 Patterson both come up with the exact same parcel.
So I wanted to point that out for the board.
Obviously, photos of the exterior of the structure need very limited introduction.
We did post on all four corners of 10th and Patterson to ensure that there was proper notice for whomever wanted to attend.
The actual facility itself is going to be in this lower level area of the stadium.
These are the plans here.
It's going to be a very small manufacturing site with the limited opportunity for manufacturing that will be sold both inside the stadium and some off-site sales to third-party retailers.
Obviously, that will happen on non-game days.
And so the traffic impact will be limited to, you know, one small box truck coming in and out of the stadium area on days when there's going to be very, very little other traffic there.
Just to contextualize where the space is within the general context of the building, this is the concourse here, and there's some mechanical rooms along here.
And this space opens right out into the loading dock of the stadium.
A little bit about popcorn for the people.
Just as I mentioned, they specialize in neurodiverse employment opportunities and are very active in this space about getting positive job opportunities to that community.
We did meet with the Veterans Stadium Neighbors Association.
Their letter of non-opposition is here.
As soon as they realized that we were talking about a space inside, you know, completely
contained with the Lincoln financial field, there's really no impact to anyone, and nobody
lives close enough to where this activity is taking place to really have any neighborhood
impact.
I will ask at this point, Chris Fink, if he could raise his virtual hand, to adopt my
testimony.
Mr. Fink, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Christopher Fink, C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R, Fink, F-I-N-K.
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you continue
counsel thank you very much uh mr fink did you have the opportunity to hear my presentation
this afternoon yes uh do you adopt my statements as true correct and your own if you've been given
the opportunity to more fully testify yes thank you very much uh mr sherry i don't have anything
further. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions from
the virtual audience? I see no handshare. Planning Commission.
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for special purpose sports stadiums on the city plan.
We recommend requests for various programs.
MI-2022-00528485, 3712-14, South 11th Street, a.k.a. 1020 Patterson Avenue. My vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Congratulations Mr. Klein. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Number three, MI-2022-005270. 3329-33 East Thompson Street. Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist.
this is for a uh legalization of a first story first floor addition to the rear facing web
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of New York, Allen.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Well, we already had you in there.
Can you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holloman is going to ask you a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Oh, wait, I actually don't. I apologize. In one respect, I don't. I have an objection to the refusal with respect to the maximum occupied area. I dispute that there should be a refusal in that respect, but we'll review that during our presentation.
okay did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance
to this hearing did you meet with rco and do you have a letter uh yes in all respects
thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
uh so good afternoon again uh alan occamson i'm here to present 3329-33 east
Thompson Street. This property is located in the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia.
In the virtual audience is Donna Rae Lee, one of the owners of the property. At the conclusion of
the presentation, I would ask that she virtually raise her hand, be sworn in, and to adopt my
testimony as her own. We'll review the notice of refusal first. Again, this is, as you can see
from the building structure before uh this was a garage structure which had an addition
and we're essentially just legalizing the addition with a proviso to be included for storage and
materials inside but not outside of the structure we have a letter of support from the port richmond
on patrol and civic association uh better known as propac as well as the district council member
Councilman Squilla. We also have a petition from nearby neighbors and letters of support
from nearby neighbors. Donna Rae Lee and her father are well known in the Port Richmond
section. The Robinsons have been living in this area for generations, so they're well
known to this community, and that's why the community supports them in this endeavor.
even though we object to the refusal about lot coverage we did you know prepare a map showing
that there are nearby properties with near or full lot coverage so even if there was such a
refusal which there's not you want to be out of character to have full lot coverage in this
neighborhood we'll then review maps of the area for the rest of the property or plans and drawings
or our serial meeting notice or application for appeal or deed to the property as well as
or certificate of tax clearance. Notice refusal. So this is an RSA 5 property. As you can see,
we're legalizing one-story rear addition on the first floor and a one-story rear addition
on the above, on the second floor. And really, even though this property is listed as 29-33
uh east thompson street it goes street to street from east thompson street to web and really the
East Thompson Street, it goes street to street from East Thompson Street to Webb.
structures that we're talking about are on web street and you'll see that as well
and we're planning or we're hoping to use this as a storage facility so my client again is well
known in the area he's he's a contractor by trade he he stores many of his construction materials
in this structure and again that's the use that he's seeking and that use technically is prohibited
in the RSA 5 zoning district although again you can see all these structures are like disconnected
detached garage structures where again everyone's storing their materials. The second refusal has to
do with the maximum occupied area where 75 percent is allowed and 100 percent is proposed but you'll
see from our drawing, I see from the photographs that we're taking 100% of a small percent of the
lot. So we're not taking 100% of the lot, we're taking a portion of that lot, a very small,
small portion of that lot. And then the letter from Propact, again, the one proviso is that
no outside storage allowed, which we have no objection to. And we would ask that this would
be connected as part of the board's vote and would be ultimately connected to the zoning permit as
well. And then Council Member Squilla, because Kobach supports it, his office is in non-opposition
with that for buy sale as well. And then again, nearby neighbors, the people that would be most
directly impacted by the issues of the property have no objection to it. And again, it's not a
character to have two-story structures on the web street we're asking for which is not part
of the refusal but just saying what we're doing is not out of character to what's around there
and then you can see in addition to petition we have letters to support of nearby neighbors
and then again not as part it should be part of our refusal but you know if this board feels like
the refusal regarding lock coverage is appropriate under the circumstances which we don't disagree
um there are many properties nearby which have full lock coverage or near full lock coverage as
you can see by the circles on this map and this is where we are in relation to that
and then also what you'll see too is the fact that we go from east thompson street to web
but you can see really the only building structure that's here that one that's
at issue today is the one on Webb Street.
And then maps of the area, as you can see,
like we're in the RSA 5 district.
Again, you can see from a Google map perspective
where we are in the Port Richmond neighborhoods.
And then photographs of the property.
So this is our structure looking from Webb,
from East Thompson Street, and this is Webb.
So you can see we don't have full-on coverage
of this property.
And then this is our structure
as well. As you can see, these are two-story structures. We're two of the three structures.
We're not all of them. We're these two structures. And then there's a third structure here. But we
are with what you would expect in this part of the neighborhood. We're not being refused for
the garage that's there. And we're not being refused for any dimensional variances other
than I think the misapplied variance for lock coverage. And then we just wanted to show you
the orange notice posters this is from east thompson street and this is from web street so
you can see that we posted on both sides of a public uh public base uh streets and then this
is east thompson street to the right of the property east thompson street till left of the
property web street to the right of the property web street till left of the property and then this
is just an aerial view again just to highlight the fact that we have nowhere near full lock
coverage these are our building structures and you can see there's so much open area right there
and then just our plans and drawings kind of just showing you know again these two
garage structures where we're going to store our materials inside and where we agree not to
store any materials in any other part of our open lot and then the rco meeting notice was just we
had a meeting december 7th it was a well-intended meeting based on the communications with the
community uh they ultimately became in support of our project with that one 143 addresses were
notified of that meeting list of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses our applications
for appeal showing that rayner robinson and her father don excuse me rayner robinson and his
daughter, Donna Rae Lee, owned the property and filed the application for appeal along
and filed the application for appeal along with the notice of refusal and the project information
with the notice of refusal and the project.
form and then deeds of property showing that rayna robertson and her daughter and his daughter
donna ray lee are the owners of this property and then the certificate of tax clearance showing that
the only year in question as owed is 2023 um and again 2023 taxes are not due uh until may uh march
31st of 2023 so my client is tax compliant with respect to this property with that being said
um i would ask uh that my client virtually raise your hand
okay can we get your client to raise their hand oh so then miss lee yes how do i do uh how do i do
that you're on you're on you're good uh okay state your name and spell it for the record
Donna Rae Lee, D-O-N-N-A, capital R-A-E, capital L-E-E.
Thank you.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Continue, counsel.
Donna, you heard everything I had to say about your zoning matter.
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission yes this is uh ron bednar city planning property
is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopt the district plan recommends no
change to the existing zoning at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with
evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent
it from being used in conformity with the code. Therefore, we recommend the request of evidence
not be granted. MI-2022-005270, 3329-33 East Thompson Street. I vote yes with proviso.
No exterior storage of equipment in the rear of the property.
James Snell my vote is yes with proviso thank you congratulations have a great day
number four mi-2023-000090 1513-17 Pond Street David Orfaniti
Mr. Orphanides is coming back in as a
panelist. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Council.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides.
His last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S
Orphanides.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
Please tell us your connection to your client and a little bit about your team.
So my client is the owner of the property, 1513 Pine Street, also known as 1513 to 17
Pine Street, which is the owner of Z1 1513 Pine, LLC.
I have with me Tom Famoletti, who's a member of the LLC on behalf of the ownership.
and then I have a copy of, excuse me,
I have Gabe Deck, who's the architect
for the project with Nome Architecture.
May I share my screen?
You've got a few questions first
from our board member, Thomas Howland.
Certainly.
Thomas Howland.
Certainly.
Good afternoon, Council.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
i stipulate to his accuracy i do sir i do sir did you email all the exhibits and diamonds
required by the answers hearing did you with the i i know what those questions are i'm not sure if
the issue is on my end or mr holliman's end but the answer to all of them is yes thank you please
please share your screen thank you thank you
can everybody hear me okay because i was having problems hearing mr holliman
yes we can hear you okay thank you um this this uh hearing today is a request for reconsideration
uh following a decision by the zoning board that was issued uh following a hearing back in
uh following a decision by the zoning board that was issued uh following a hearing back in september
of 2022 on the 21st of september um the the project involves the property in question 1513
pine street which is located on the northwest corner of pine and south hick street you can see
the properties right here pine street runs obviously east to west hick street runs between
Pine Street and Spruce Street. The property is zoned RM1. It's a 6,006 square feet lot,
square foot lot. Because it's RM1, as a matter of rate, it would allow for 13 dwelling units with
no off-street parking with available bonuses, including the green roof deck, as well as the
the mixed income housing bonus. It could generate 22 dwelling units, up to three bedrooms each if
they're unrelated people, and a height of 45 feet. We were here in September and we're here today
because we have a height variance. The height of the proposed structures that we're proposing here
at the lot is 46 feet six inches. So one foot six inches more than would be available as a matter of
right with available bonuses. Rather than the 13 or 22 dwelling units that are proposed,
my clients are proposing five single-family dwellings with two-car off-street parking each,
so a total of 10-car off-street parking. There are, based upon existing conditions that you can
see here in the photographs, that show existing curb cuts on Pine Street as well as on South
Hicks Street. The property is presently used as a parking lot. We'll be accessing the proposed
off-street parking from a single curb cut on Pine Street, so reducing the cars that go in and out
of the property onto both Pine Street and onto South Hicks Street. At our last hearing, we
presented information that showed that all of the properties, the 12 properties to the west of us
all the way up to 16th Street are four stories and about the same height as what we're proposing
today. And I've drawn a line across the photographs that you have here. The abutting
property, which is a nine-unit condo, has a little faux cable at the front, but that doesn't run the
full depth. It's basically just a false front or facade. The properties on the opposite side of
Pine Street are also all four stories of a similar uniform height as to what we're proposing, except
on the corner of 15th and pine where you have the taller building that's located here at that time
of our hearing in september we made the argument and the presentation that what we are proposing
the additional height was more in keeping with the fabric of both sides of the block of the 1500 block
of pine street than what would be required by right without any of the bonuses which is 38 feet
And even with the bonuses, as I indicated, which is 45 feet, we showed renderings that showed what a by right building would look like in context, the buildings located next to us, where you can see it's just lower and doesn't continue versus what we were proposing, which is much more in keeping with the heights of the buildings.
It's in line with the buildings beside us.
We had originally gone to CCRA in June of last year, in the summer.
For our first meeting, we talked about the height.
We talked about the impact that the additional height would have on surrounding properties in terms of air and light.
They wished to see a shadow study.
Actually, this is a rendering we originally showed them back in June.
um there were some non-zoning related questions that had to do with the facade along pine street
we're faced with the kind of the odd situation of trying to not turn our shoulder to as i like to
say to one street or the other which is kind of tough when you're a corner property but how to
um you know all of the other houses these are all single family homes are gonna they're gonna front
on on south hick street and then what to do with pine street where there is a considerable amount
of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. We came back in July and met with CCRA again. We provided the
shadow studies, which I presented back in September, that showed that there was no appreciable
difference between, in terms of shadowing, between what we were proposing and what could happen there
as a matter of rate. And we also showed renderings that showed an additional entranceway to the
corner unit um to provide so like to reduce that shoulder that cold shoulder to pine street even
even though there'd be two entrances, this would go into the garage for this corner unit
though there would be two entrances um this would go into the garage for this corner unit
and worked up the rendering a little better, I think you can see from what was originally
presented. There were still some questions at that time regarding the proposal, whether or not
this was something that was acceptable to the community. We were looking and scheduled to
meet with them at the end of August of last summer. That meeting did not happen. Unfortunately,
we could not meet with them again before the scheduled hearing on september 21st um their
hearing is that was the following like monday or tuesday um be that as it may we came before the
board both the ccra had at that point not changed their position at least formally as of the july
meeting um although we had had discussions with um people with neighbors and with ccra regarding
the changes we had made and their acceptance or whether they'd be acceptable to the community
in advance of the hearing. But they had issued a letter of opposition at the time of the hearing.
It issued, Councilman Johnson had also issued a letter of opposition at the time of the hearing.
We had support or non-opposition from the property located directly, the condo building,
directly to the west of us, 1519 Pine Street. We submitted their letters, but we did have
opposition from the abutting portion abutting property owner to the north who spoke at the
hearing as well as a property owner across the street uh what we could not convey at the time
of the hearing was that there kind of there wasn't a full understanding of the changes that had been
made since we started the process where everybody stood following our meeting we were able to secure
and i provided to you in my package a letter of non-opposition from ccra dated september 28th
change in their position. October 5th, there's a letter of non-opposition from Councilman
Johnson's office. And then taking the appearance list that we received from the zoning board staff,
we went through and aside from those people that appeared that were already in support or
non-opposition to the project, we did contact the property owner across the street as well as the
abutting property owner to the north of us that had spoken up in opposition to the project. And
we now in our package have letters of support or non-opposition from them as well. And all these
updated letters of non-opposition or support are in tab five of the exhibit book. So those
additional exhibits were presented today for today's hearing. So we feel that there was a
change and there was a material fact that was not known at the time of the hearing, which was that
people actually in the end, or actually even at that time, but without the benefit of an additional
meeting or additional information or communications, were not opposed to the project. We've provided
that information to the board now. We did post the property with the notices for today's hearing
and a copy of the original notice of refusal. As you can see here, it's 21 days in advance
on both the Pine Street and South Hick Street facade.
And we have run an updated tax compliance for the property, still compliant.
Our 14303 notices for last summer's meetings are attached at 28,
tab 28 of our exhibit book.
We didn't have any additional meetings with them after these were issued
and we met with them.
The remainder of the information that I've provided,
including we met originally with the Historical Commission,
run the both the by right 38 feet and our proposed height by them the general consensus was although
you know you have different heights on hick street some extremely tall much taller than us some lower
that this building that we were proposing fit in better with the um with the fabric of pine street
and that whether it was 38 feet plus a 42 inch parapet plus decks and pilot houses which would
be allowed as a matter of right without any bonuses, the 45 feet plus all that with the
bonuses or the 46-6 feet that we're proposing, that the properties on Hick Streets were still,
which are mostly two stories closer to us, were still going to be a lot shorter than what was
proposed and that the difference was not that significant. The remaining of the materials,
although it's a substantial exhibit book, are largely those materials that we provided to you
back in september aside from the exhibits that i've just outlined um i did include the 11-21-22
notice from the zoning board granting our request for reconsideration originally we were scheduled
for a hearing on march 29th and the board rescheduled the hearing for today and with that
we uh respectfully request that the zoning board uh based upon reconsideration of this matter and
based upon reconsideration of this matter and based upon the surrounding conditions the
based upon the experience.
revised position of both members of the community the community organization and the council person
for the property we respectfully request that the board changes position for one of denying
the request the single requested variance uh to one of granting it and i do have revised plans
largely based upon CCRA's comments, adding that entranceway on Pine Street, dressing up the Pine
Street facade that we would like to have stamped today. And that's at tab six, along with the
revised proviso plan form that we originally submitted back in September. And they call out
the changes you can see over here that we made to the Pine Street facade that are reflected in the
revised rendering per the comments we received from CCRA and with that I would like to have
both my client and Gabe deck adopt my statements that I've made to the board today be sworn in
and then adopt my statements and then I'd obviously answer any questions that the board
might have he's actually inclined to raise her hand Tom and Gabe could you raise your hand please
hands virtual hands mr deck and mr tom you're free to speak
hi this is gabe deck okay you have to be sworn in first kate please state your name and spell
it for the record gabriel deck g-a-b-r-i-e-l last name b-e-c-k of nom architects
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do continue counsel hey gabe uh good afternoon uh did you hear the statements that
i made to the board today yes i did and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes they are and would you adopt them as your own yes i would thank you and then tom
family tom family here state your name is spelled for the record tom family t-o-m
last name familletti f-a-m-i-l-e-t-t-i
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do continue counsel hi tom uh did you hear the statements that i made to the zoning board today
i did and they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
they are and would you adopt them as your own i would thank you tom
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
Questions from the virtual audience? Yes, Chair, we have Richard, last name ending with A.
Okay, can we bring him up please? Sir, please unmute yourself.
Please state your name and spell it for the record. Richard Amder, A-M as in Mary, D-U-R.
do you agree to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed
okay hi i live across the street across pine street 1514 pine i'm directly facing the proposed
building um i appreciate the fact that mr orphanetes changed the the shoulder what he
called the shoulder of the building which i look which i which is facing my front window
So that's nice.
That's a good thing that they're concerned about that.
However, I was never contacted about this variance at all during any phase of this project.
The only way I know about it is through the orange sign that we saw.
I'm concerned about raising the height of this structure.
There's not that much sky that I can see out my front.
i'm on the first floor of the 1514 pine i own the unit there it's a condo building with five units
facing north uh so there's not that much sky that i can see that i mean that i will be able to see
with the lower height of the building if it goes up i think pages 22 and 26 of your presentation
showed the pictures of the different sizes of the structures and it would significantly
affect my light into my apartment, I think. And also the feeling of walking down Pine Street
would change to being more like a canyon type of experience with the taller building. So I'd like
to just register that so so what's your address 1514 pine street 1f so this is the list of
So this is a list of address. This is the list that we receive from the Planning Commission when you punch in the address. So I see 1514 Pine 4F.
address this is the list that we receive from the planning commission when you punch
I mean, these have gone out twice, I think, but yeah, hold on one second. I mean, again, I mean, we we try to go through the addresses afterwards and make sure that there aren't multiple units that aren't reflected.
in what we received from the planning commission.
But obviously the zoning code speaks to us
getting the list of addresses from the planning commission.
So this obviously wasn't intentional
if you weren't on the list.
Obviously you're here today.
You would have seen the orange notice
for the hearing back in September.
I don't believe you appeared at that,
but I mean, your points are well taken.
So without going through, I only see the only 15, 14 I see jumping out at me is the 4F.
But again, this is the list from the Planning Commission's website.
So I don't know what their problem.
Maybe Ron could speak to that as far as making sure all of the units within a particular apartment building or condo building are included in the list.
I can't speak to what they do.
but you can see that um you know i think you had you think you passed it on the previous page um
it's actually coming up it looks like 15 12 dash 14 oh so maybe oh maybe that's where that's where
it is okay that's oh well no that's spruce okay and he's on pine the next page these are all
yeah so that's the um that's the mat that's that's that's this building um what is it
are you for are you for the project are you against the project i'm for the project overall
i i'm very happy to have some new neighbors in a nice in five very nice looking units
i just don't think it should be that tall if possible so i i would just say two things first
of all, in terms of the canyon, you already have, if there is a canyon, there's already a canyon
because every other building on your side of the, his side, you know, this gentleman's side of the
street, then on the opposite side of Pine leading to the west is as tall as what we're proposing.
The other thing that's, we did a massing, Nome did a massing plan, and I can have Gabe speak
to this, but what's interesting is, is that with the bonuses, again, having, you know, 22 unit
multi-family dwelling um is the blue is what you could have by right and what you could see is
while the roof height would be slightly lower 45 feet versus 46 six foot and a half taller what
you ought what you have is in the in the guardrail and the here you have the guardrail and the parapet
of what we're proposing at 50 feet whereas a by right you'd have a guardrail for the deck at 52
feet and then the pilot house which could be built up above the roof deck would be 58 at any pilot
house or houses would be 58 feet six inches whereas we're only at 56 feet so in actuality
we are slower than what could be developed here as a matter of right in terms of the overall height
of the stroke the overall height not necessarily the roof height but what the world sees on to the
outside of the building um with the with the railings for the decks and the pilot houses
and obviously far less intense in terms of the density with the number of dwellings i understand
the concern now you also have and i said the terrain but it's the drake which is behind us
and you know that is a extremely you know right behind us overshadowing everybody and then granted
it's a little further to the north over at Spruce Street. But I mean, you could see here
what the terrain, you know, how much taller that is compared to, you know, the buildings that
surround it. So, and here you can see their property, his property across the street, but you
see all of them are tall. All these are tall. We're just adding on the end something that's
in the end, the roof is a little bit taller, but the overall building itself is actually
going to be lower than what could be done as a matter of right legitimate concerns so richard
do you have anything else you want to add uh yeah i'm going to lose my view of the drake
if you do this probably entirely um what what was on page 22 could you go back to that and
compare that to page 26 please page 22 right
20 page 22 right one second
I don't know, it's a good one.
22. i mean 22 is here are you talking tab 22. no page go page up keep going uh go to the next
there were some pictures you showed maybe i got the page wrong are you are you talking
the stitched together photos we had of this no there was another one of a close-up of the
building of the proposed building a sort of computer generated image two different heights
you showed uh the second this is this is the by right building this is this is without this is
without any bonuses this is without any bonuses what does that mean i mean what what does without
any bonuses so so if you just so this is what is permitted and as actually this is what's permitted
by the zoning code for rm1 so it's a 38 foot roof with a 42 inch parapet and then decks and pilot
houses beyond so this is like the lowest building but the zoning code allows for greater height
and greater density with the provision of certain things that the city the city council and the
mayor have decided through community input as well as the input of the planning commission
is beneficial to the city as a whole. And for lots that are over 5,000 square feet in area,
you can gain some extra density in terms of the number of dwelling units if you provide a green
roof. The other thing is if you provide 10% of the units as affordable units, which is defined
in the zoning code what percentage of the AMI, average median income, that would be. You can get
an additional seven feet of height and additional density as well. So this is basically without any
of the available bonuses. And then what you have here, what we provided here is that if you took
the buy right, the 38 feet, but then agreed to do a green roof, agreed to provide the affordable
low-income housing or moderate-income housing number of units to the building, this is what
you end up with. So instead of having a roof at 38 feet, which was shown in that one rendering,
the by-right rendering, which again, we showed the by-right rendering of 38 feet, and then we
showed what we were proposing to the historical commission. And again, the overall consensus was
let's keep the heights on pine street consistent because whether it's 38 feet 45 feet 46 six feet
they're going to be taller than what's on hicks until you get over up to the drake um and until
you get to 335 to 317 which is on the opposite side closer up to spruce behind the cvs um but
here you see running the numbers that again where the roof height with the with the by right with
the bonuses is a foot and a half lower in the end you end up with a roof deck railing that's
two feet taller and you end up with pilot houses that are two and a half feet taller
so your view will be your view will be even more blocked with a buy rate with bonuses than it would
with what we're proposing okay but thank you council so excuse me i'm sorry what you're not
showing there is the 38 foot version and that would be much more in line with the that's not
what I'm telling you is the 38 foot version is probably wouldn't be what would be built here
if it were developed as a multi-family what but you're not doing uh housing uh which of those
criteria do you meet to get the the bonuses you just need to provide so for the green roof you
just need to have i think it's 60 percent of your roof to be of your roof area to be green
that vegetative roof is that what you're doing no that's what we would do if we were doing this
if we were doing this one down here that's what we would do and the other thing is the only let
me finish and to get the additional height you need to provide 10 of the total units so if we
had 22 units two or three of the units would have to be for people either for rental or for sale
depending on what you were doing in the building that made no more than the than the percentage of
AMI that's set forth in the zoning code and I forget what it is it's I think 60 percent for
low income I forget what it is for moderate income but in either case that's what would be
satisfied. Richard what we'll do is we'll take we'll take your comments into consideration
with our decision. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next. Anyone else out there in
virtual audience yes chair we have wade albert okay please allow him to speak
good afternoon please state your name and spell it for the record
good afternoon please state your name and spell it for the record
mr albert please unmute yourself oh sorry about that i apologize can you hear me now
yes we can hear you now please state your name and spell it for the record
absolutely wayne albert w-a-e-e last name is a-l-b-e-r-t you swear to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Please continue.
If you can speak a little louder, it would be better. Thank you. I'll try to get close to my computer.
So I am counsel for the
Central City Residents Association, and I just want to confirm
that what Mr. Orfanides described as the history of this case,
I agree with that, and that Central City Residents Association
as the coordinating RCO removes its opposition to
this this project and we now take a non-opposition stance thank you thank you anyone else out there
in the virtual audience yes chair we have someone with the last name ending in chin please allow
chen to speak hi my name is waitling chen w-e-i-l-i-n-g last name chan c-h-e-n
thank you do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do proceed we're coming from the side neighbor side neighbor we're at 345 South Hick
Street we are happy with the project but same concern as Richard is we have concern about the
height so I want to clarify I understand they are saying that they're doing is it going to be
total 45 feet high and up to the roof deck that would be 48 feet is that correct
no council no that's correct so so sorry ma'am so were you at the hearing in september uh no
sorry i was not here september i didn't get noticed okay well so we need to go through
the list of addresses. I don't know. But no, it's okay. I'm here now. I'm not sure about that.
But you would have seen the orange notice facing your property though, correct?
That was posted. So there's no doubt about that. So again, ma'am, so what we are proposing is a
height to the roof and actually also the roof deck surface, because the roof and the roof deck
surface are going to be one and the same, of 46 feet, six inches. What could be done with the
bonuses is five feet but the bonuses i described to richard is 45 feet and then the roof deck
surface would actually be at 48 6 which is two feet taller than that's what you can do as a
matter of right because you can build the roof deck up to 48 inches above the midpoint between
a high point and a low point of the roof we are intentionally keeping our roof deck surface
at the same level of the roof but as a matter of right you can build it up up to four feet above
that so that's why with the buy right if you were we were trying we're trying to keep it as low as
possible except where we need it which is the roof but in terms of what you see to the what the
outside world sees we're lower than what the buy right would be with the bonuses that we would
otherwise be getting here so again what you'll see in terms of what surrounds the roof deck
with this buy right built property you know what we're allowed to do with the bonuses we would
otherwise apply for and just we wouldn't have to go through any of this process the idea is we think
single families fit in here better than a multi-family you got single families across the
street yes you have some of the brownstones and whatnot on pine street that have been converted to
condos and multi-families but it's largely there's single families particularly on your block of south
hick street we want to keep the single family not put in 22 unit apartment building but what you end
up here is the pilot houses, which are going to block your view, are going to be as well or more
are going to be even higher, two and a half feet taller. The roof deck railing is going to be two
feet taller than what you would do with our proposal, which is in front of the zoning board
right now, which is at the top. The other thing I would point out is in terms of Richard's comments
is what level is Richard's unit? Is it on the ground floor, second floor, third floor? Because
to be honest with you if he's at the ground floor or the second floor the difference between
particularly if he's at the ground floor at 38 feet or at the 45 foot with the bonuses his view
of the drake is going to be blocked more than likely in any event i mean if that's what he
wants to be looking at the drake um anything beyond that's going to be blocked as well so
um but did i answer your questions um yeah thank you um and you know like i said we are very happy
um yeah thank you um and you know like i said we are very happy to see a project and development
in the area and in the community it would be beneficial um but i am on like the second house
in on hicks so you know we do i mean we hope you know the best for you guys and your project but
we we're just not sure how that hype would affect us um because we're the second one in and that
will completely block that's we're like in the middle of you guys i understand and it's gonna
it would be worse it would be worse for you with the if it were a by right building with the bonuses
that it would otherwise be developed as and then if it happens by right then the things that we
negotiated with ccra which were really good points might not happen you might have the cold shoulder
without the entrance on pine street none of this is a threat but i'm just saying whether my clients
develop or somebody else develops it i mean they spent a lot of time between the historical
Commission taking their comments and the very good design comments we received from CCRA that
have made a really beautiful, tasteful building. I think you would agree with that. With, you know,
five doors across from you, so with beautiful entranceways. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your
comments. Anyone else in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. We have Scott, last name, ending in M.
please allow him to speak hello good afternoon please state your name and spell this for the
record scott mcconnell s-c-o-t-t last name m-c-c-o-n-n-e-l-l do you swear to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed mr mcconnell i echo what
Richard mentioned um I live two floors above Richard so I'm on the third floor of 1514 Pine
Street so I would be able to look pretty much directly out at the area of the building that we
are discussing right now um and yes I I do love being able to have people over and show them um
not only the Drake but the view of Center City um through my window and um I believe that the
proposed solution would uh drastically reduce that that view okay thank you thank you for your
comments again anyone anyone anyone else out there in the virtual audience yes chair we have diane
last name ending in r please allow her to speak
ma'am please unmute yourself good afternoon please speak your name and spell it for the uh court
recorder.
Ms. Diane, last name
ending in R, please unmute yourself.
You're unmuted. You're free to speak.
Hi, my name is
Diane Donato.
R-E-G-I-N-A-T-O
I live on
1514 Pine Street on the second floor
Do you agree
to tell the entire truth
and nothing but the truth
Proceed
I live on 1514 Pine on the second floor
and I agree with Richard and Scott
I do believe that the
additional height
I'm concerned that it's going to
diminished the light as well as the view. I believe if you were inside the property
looking out, you would understand the concern. And I was not contacted either. I just saw
the notice. And I have to say your notice sign has been knocked over along with your
fences for quite a number of days. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else
in the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
this is uh ron bednar city planning property is indicated for residential use in the city plan
we uh recommend that the request for variance be granted provided that the height be limited to 38
feet on hick street that's that's that's physically not possible i mean i would just say how can you
limit the height to 38 feet on hick street and at a building that's at a corner because then it
won't be it can't be 38 feet then at pine street so i would so council what we're going to do is
we're going to hold this um and the commissioners and i will uh meet internally and we'll try to
vote on this next week at the two o'clock hearing. Hillary, is that okay?
just excuse me yes mr chair that's fine and the record will be closed okay yeah it won't be
Just excuse me. Yes, Mr. Chair, that's fine. And the record will be closed.
closing the record and mr chair i just asked the board i know there's been some additional people
that weren't at the hearing in september that have been here today i just asked the board to
again look at tab five with all the letters of support non-opposition we have from the immediate
abutting neighbors and other neighbors that are located across the street as well as those from
CCRA and Councilman Johnson's office. Thank you very much. Thank you. Number five, MI-2022-005218,
1537-39 Ridge Avenue, Vern Anastasio. Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
just putting my notes together
take your time
that was a long one
can you say
say your name and spell it for the record
Vern Anastasio
A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O
2016 Spruce Street
Philadelphia
swear to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
yep I do
please tell us your connection to your client
brief introduction
I represent Ridge Rams
the company that owns
the subject property
thank you
our board member Thomas Holliman
questions
do you agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate
do you email all of these documents that's required to this hearing did you meet with the
rco and do you have a letter all but the letter uh try as i might we've met with them back in
november and then again in december but i don't have a letter okay proceed and share your screen
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, this is 1537-39 Ridge Avenue, new construction on Ridge.
CMX 2 is the classification, as is the entire corridor before it gets to CMX 4.
And when my clients built these properties and began to use them for temporary uses, residential uses, visitor accommodation, 2.5, it was in fact, it was a permitted use for limited lodging in the 2.5.
area. Subsequent to that, as you know, the city changed its rules, and we are here now seeking
the variance for the visitor accommodation. This is the property in question. They have,
in fact, attempted prior to going the temporary limited lodging option to lease the apartments,
Having a difficult time leasing this part of Ridge Avenue is just not as much in demand for apartments as one would have thought.
As a result, we have two commercial spaces and we've got 10 rooms, which we would be able to like to use those 10 rooms for visitor accommodation.
Let me show you the zoning map to give you an idea where this property sits. It's absolutely surrounded by either RM1, which is Residential Multifamily, as you know, or CMX 2.5.
And then right down the block is CMX4. Right here is the Divine Lorraine Hotel, which, as I believe you know, was, in fact, residential apartments.
But as a result of the market drying up, not being able to rent those apartments, this, too, is now going to visitor accommodation as a full-fledged hotel.
So, because it's in an area that would otherwise promote visitor accommodation, because it
is within 500 feet of mass transit, so this is deemed transit-oriented.
So this is deemed, you know, a transit oriented sort of development, because when they started this, limited lodging was, in fact, permitted under 2.5.
And by the way, not one 911 call, not one 311 call in the time that they've done this operation.
They connected with Luna Hospitality, which is a regional online company that strictly vets their folks who are coming in.
They are the property management team, 24-7 on call.
They've never had a problem with any of the neighbors, with any trash issues, or with any sort of L&I issues or calls for quality of life.
For all those reasons, I'm respectfully requesting the granting of this variance.
As I said, when my client started out, this was a permitted use, and I believe we only
have to look to the divine Lorraine to understand the pressures of the rental market over here.
They themselves are going back to a hotel, and my client would like to be able to have
this fully furnished and continue used as a visitor accommodation.
We find long term, so long as they're vetted, that those folks who occupy visitor accommodation
buildings care for the property more, cause less waste.
And of course, there's no move in and move out traffic or problems, no bed frames on
the sidewalk when folks move out.
It just takes for a more pleasant experience, especially in a commercial corridor like the Ridge.
So with that, I'd like my client to raise their hand.
I see no hands at this time. What's the name of your client?
Quinn Lee.
Quinn Lee.
I'm not showing that person.
We only have a dentist lead currently logged on.
Not dentist, no.
Wait a minute.
We have somebody with the last name Chin.
Did they raise their hand?
Yes, please.
Person with the last name ending in Chin, you're free to speak.
It's either Irene or KeeFan Chen.
Yeah, KeeFan and Chen is the one who's free to speak.
They're not muted right now.
Thank you.
KeeFan, are you there?
KeeFan Chen, you're free to speak.
Seems like he's having technical difficulties, Chair.
and you're muted, Chair.
Chair, you're muted.
You're still muted.
Oh, I was on mute. I'm sorry.
Okay, Counsel, we'll take your testimony
as your officer of the court.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
No questions.
Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about no RCO letter.
Again, we met with them in November and December, and I have followed up with Feltonville asking for the letter as recently as this morning.
Okay, thank you.
Any questions from the virtual audience?
I see no handshare.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan.
We have no objection to the grant and the variance.
Okay, no problem.
Thank you.
MI-2022-005218, 1537-39 Ridge Avenue, I vote yes, with provisos.
Commercial space at the front.
On the first floor in the front remains and temporary variance for visitor accommodation use will be expire 3-1-2022.
for visitor accommodation use and will be expire 3-1-2026.
Thank you. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snow, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you counsel, congratulations. Thank you, have a good evening.
number six mi-2022-005301 3233 west hunting park avenue jerry klein the attorney
mr klein is coming back in as a panelist thank you good afternoon again mr chair
Jared Klein from Blank Rome. Thank you, dude.
Can you spell your name for the record? Certainly. It's
J-A-R-E-D, last name Klein, K-L-E-I-N. And I was
previously sworn in, so you don't have to swear again.
Give us a little information about your client, please. Sure. My client is
the St. James School, which are the equitable owners
of 3233 West Hunting Park. They're under agreement of sale to purchase.
Thank you. Board member Thomas Holloman has a few questions to ask.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance of this hearing?
And did you meet with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holloman. So this is an application for a use change without any construction at 3233 West Hunting Park.
Just to contextualize this for the board, Hunting Park runs behind and then perpendicular to West Clearfield, where the St. James School currently exists.
this application is seeking to take the former home of the Royal Electric Supply Company
and convert that building into an educational use for the benefit of the St. James School.
And so the plan is to change the interior of the building,
leave a small portion as rentable warehouse space as an income stream,
and to convert the rest of the building into educational facilities,
a gymnasium, some offices, some classrooms, some storage space, all the things that would
sort of go along with a general educational use.
This is the Royal Electric Supply Company building here.
St. James is over here.
This is Hunting Park Avenue that runs behind, and this is Clearfield here.
So as you can see, the portion of the building that's going to remain for some warehousing
use has its own entrance and loading dock off of hunting park the educational use is going to be
the rear of the building that primarily faces clearfield uh so there are there are two two
entrances if this building were being addressed today it would probably get a west clearfield
address but at the time the lot was created this this small uh frontage on hunting park was was
chosen the site is zoned uh i1 so it's limited to industrial use um though this is a large site
that is now surrounded by RSA 5 uses, we think that creates the hardship, the context of the
surrounding area. You know, what would be allowed as an industrial use would not fit very well with
the RM 1 and RSA 5 that surrounds it. Certainly would have at the time the Royal Electric Supply
was built there, but the times have changed and the neighborhood around it has changed with it.
This is the building, as seen from Hunting Park, and then views of Hunting Park Avenue up and down from our location.
Photos and posting that were done on the frontage of the Royal Electric Supply Company building.
And this is the key plan.
As I said, this is a use change only, so we don't have detailed architectural drawings because we're not building anything.
But the idea is to use office and classroom space, leasing a small portion to be left as a lease and warehouse, and then the St. James entry, a gym, school storage, and office classroom uses.
As I mentioned, we're under agreement of sale to purchase the lot.
A copy of that was included in the packet of materials that were sent to the board.
And we did have a meeting with the RAH Civic Association.
Their letter of support, their vote was 62 in favor and zero opposed.
and their letter with a little bit of context is on the screen for you.
And their letter with a little bit of context is on.
As they note, because it's a school that has limited funding,
the redevelopment is going to take place in several stages.
The first one is going to be the use of this existing building
and then building out the interior as funding and circumstances allow.
With that, I'd like to ask David Kasevich to raise his virtual hand
so that he might adopt my testimony.
David, are you there?
I am here.
Excellent.
Can you state your name and spell it for the record?
David, D-A-V-I-D, Kasovich, K-A-S as in Sam,
I-E-V as in Victor, I-C-H.
Do you swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. David, can you just tell the board your position with the St. James School?
Absolutely. I'm the head of school and one of the founders here at St. James,
and I serve in the executive director kind of role.
Excellent. Did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon?
I did, Jarrett.
And do you adopt my statements as true and correct in your own if you've been given the chance to
more fully testify? I do.
Great. Thank you very much. We're happy to answer any questions the board may have.
Thanks. Thanks, council. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no handshare.
Planning commission.
Ryan Bednar, city planning.
The property is currently thrown at residential and industrial on the city plan.
City plan has no objection to granting the business.
Thanks.
MI-2022-005301, 3233 West Huntington Park Avenue, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
Okay. Likewise. Number 10, MI-2022-005240, 2842-44th Thomas Street. Joseph Counsel.
The attorney.
Joe Counsel.
Good morning or good afternoon. Pardon me.
Good afternoon. How are you, Counsel?
So state your name and spell it for the record.
It is Joe Consul.
That's J-O-E, last name C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please tell us your relation and connection to this client.
The owner is Maureen C. Moore, and she's on the call.
Thank you so much.
Our board member, Thomas Holloman, has a few questions to ask you.
Do you agree to waive the reading and refuse to speculate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required?
Did you meet with the RCO and you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Good afternoon, board.
Pardon me?
All you.
All right, cool.
So 2842 to 44 Salmon Street.
It's the corner of Salmon and Auburn Street.
Maureen Moore bought this property on July 15th of 2015, or pardon me, July 26th of 2015.
Just prior to her purchasing it on July 21st of 2015, this was approved for use as a two-family dwelling.
She bought the property a week later and never pulled the licenses needed to maintain this use approval.
So you can see it was approved there.
It was approved there in the system.
The reason I bring that up is because this property is, from the looks of it on the outside, as you can see in this picture, two sort of separate units side by side.
It's one address. As far as we can tell, it's been this way for 100 years, two properties right next to each other that now have one OPA number and are a single family zoned home.
However, the properties are separate on the inside completely.
However, the properties are separate on the inside completely and, in fact, share separate basements.
There's not even a common basement space, and I'll go through those photos in a second.
Here's another shot of the front.
But the reason we're here is we are seeking to get the approval for the variance that was approved in 2015, right prior to Miss Moore purchasing it.
And obviously, that was the reason why she bought it. And her being green to the permitting of the city, she did not get what she needed in order to maintain this variant. So three years went by, it expired, and now she's trying to get it back again.
And we, the original RCO was ProPAC, but for some reason this time around, it was South Port Richmond Civic.
We got their support as well.
It was a well-attended meeting, and there was 19 in support, three in opposition, but it was a well-attended meeting.
Again, scroll through some pictures.
this property has never been anything but this as far as all of the sort of old school neighbors
that showed up to the meeting attested to you know appears to be two properties but it's one
address and we need to be able to get two licenses for the property hence our variance request
there's that shot again just showing the meters the here's the inside of the left face if you're
looking at the property the inside of the property to the left they we're calling that 2842 because
the address is 2842 to 44 so that's one some other shots here's 2844 the internal of that property
and some shots of that internal as i said the basements aren't connected the systems aren't
connected for all intents and purposes it's two properties and uh always has been that way so
again we're including all of our necessary documents at the end tax clearance here's
the previous approval from propac in july of 2015
and the floor plan that had been submitted at that time with that application not very
detailed but it kind of gives you an idea of the breakout of everything each unit has
its own laundry area one of them has an extra toilet actually they both do
With that, I'm going to call my client, Ms. Maureen Moore, to raise her hand and adopt my testimony.
Ms. Moore?
There are no hands raised at this time, Chair.
Maureen, can you raise your virtual hand? I'm texting with you, so I know you're here.
I see her.
Yes, I have her.
Ms. Moore, please unmute yourself.
I have.
Good afternoon, Ms. Moore.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Good afternoon.
Maureen, M-A-U-R-E-E-N, Moore, M-O-O-R-E.
Thank you.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good afternoon, Ms. Moore.
did you hear my testimony right now regarding uh your property i did do you agree with what i said
and do you adopt it as your own i do i have nothing further questions from the board no mr
chairman no mr chairman uh council i have one question uh yes sir i don't see that we received
the rco letter from you uh it was in the packet um hillary did you receive it later uh yes it was
it was in the packet mr chair the letter there was a recommendation of support from the south
port richmond civic association i got it up on the screen now chair oh yeah i think i think you
go through it i just know it was here okay uh questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission uh ron bednar city planning properties
currently indicated for residential in the city plan we recommend the question variance be granted
okay thank you mi-2022-005240 2842-44 solomon street i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Congratulations, counsel.
Thank you. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
All right. Do the same.
Is there anyone in a virtual audience case
has not been heard for the two o'clock list?
I see no handshare.
We'll take a five-minute break
and for staff to, you know, exercise their legs for a second.
We'll get started in another five minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I don't know.
Thank you.
Thank you.
we have everyone here everyone's back
yes mr chairman yes sir this is the court reporter yes sir i'm here we're recording
okay start are we recording yes we are recording and everyone is in chair thank you
good afternoon my name is ishmael shaheed and i'm chairing this afternoon zba hearing with me
is board member thomas halliman president mr chairman board member james snell
present mr chairman we also have our alternate on the line the baron leonard palmer
Also present here is Hillary Clinton, Hillary Emerson, excuse me, board attorney, and Lakeisha Dandy, a ZBA hearing supervisor.
Before we begin, here is our virtual format.
Number one, please be advised that the proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting Tanya Sunkett, Tanya Sunkett at phila.gov.
Number two, for the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
Number three, if you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, please press star nine to raise your hand or star six to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548 and leave an email in the address that you're speaking upon, and we will get back to you.
Lastly, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sun.
we're going to start first with our continuances hillary are you there yes i am mr chair
um so uh number eight um needs to be continued uh due to a lack of exhibits um that is mi dash
2021-004-660-1233 East Luzern Street. This is the third listing.
Thank you. All right, so we're going to continue that.
Okay, and then we also have a withdrawal. That is number four on the list, MI-2022-005-389-4001
Grant Avenue. Okay, we'll go ahead and continue that as well. That's a withdrawal, Mr. Chair.
I mean, withdrawal, excuse me, yes. Okay, that's a withdrawal. And then we have one case.
Well, let's first ask if there are any other requests for continuance or withdrawal.
I see no hands. I'm sorry, your hand just went up.
okay uh i'm sorry jojo last name ending in v please speak hi good afternoon
Good afternoon. Please state your name and spell it for the record.
good afternoon please please state your name and spell it for the record my name is jojo joyce
My name is Jojo Joyce Vargas, J-O-J-O, that's the first name, last name, Joyce, J-O-I-S-E, space, V-A-R-U-G-H-E-S-E.
Okay, and what property are you calling in regards to?
9722 Valley Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19115.
We haven't called that yet. We'll be calling that shortly, sir.
Okay, sorry about it.
Please hold on. Give us one second.
All right. So do we have anybody else in the virtual audience that needs to continue or withdraw the case?
I see no other hands, Chair.
All right. We'll go to our new exhibits. Hillary?
Yes. One other note, there was an interpreter who was present for 1233 East Luzerne Street.
That individual can be dismissed.
we are not sure what their name was but someone was here for interpretation they can be dismissed
um going to the no exhibits list uh number one mi-2022-005-386-2416 north clarion street
there's no exhibits and this is the first listing the enlisted owner of the property is dn capital
llc okay see no hands at this time okay you want to continue that we're going to continue this case
all right that is that is all the cases on continuance withdrawal no exhibit
All right. We have no add-ons for the 330, so we're going to go straight to our regular list, and we're going to jump to number six.
You hear this one first. MI-2022-005423, 9722 Wiley Avenue. Jojo Jose?
he's coming back in as a panelist
thank you
please state your name and spell it for the record again please
sure good afternoon sir
my name is Jojo Joyce Vargas
first name J-O-J-O
last name Joyce J-O-I-S-E
space V-A-R-U-G-H-E-S-E
do you swear to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do
Our board member Thomas Holloman has a few questions to ask you.
Good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Did you meet with the RCO and do you have a letter from the RCO?
so um i met with um um the rco uh two times the first meeting they scheduled was on december the
13th and they had some technical issues uh on the zoom and they rescheduled me on 1 24 and i did try
to press and then it didn't work they couldn't hear anything but i could hear them so um jack
his name heathen that letter uh i said this morning um stating that it needs to be um rescheduled
okay all right we'll proceed and share your screen and we'll work through that as we get
through the uh work ourselves through the case
not a share
It's a green share button at the bottom of the button.
So we posted for a variant.
Mr. Holliman, can you press mute, please?
I'm sorry.
All right.
I'm sorry.
Absolutely.
So for a variance to go the front Porsche and the carport.
And this is the drawing.
And I do have the refusal letter.
All right.
This is a tax clearance form that submitted and the deed.
And this is the front of the house, the picture.
And this is the refusal letter that we received.
Okay. You have all three refusals, 25 feet, 30. Okay.
And this is a project information form and this is a zoning permit that is
we applied.
This is a hearing letter that we received and we have to appear for this hearing today.
and i do have the um rco letter that uh jack sent this morning
it's it's not it's not a uh letter this is what uh um jack sent that this morning i believe
mr chairman i uh what does it can you summarize it yeah they just saying that they did not have
they did not hear the presentation of the application to conduct a vote um do you have
a letter from the councilwoman's office or the councilman's office no i don't i don't have
anything this is all jackson okay mr chair this is hillary um in light of this information um
i would suggest that we have a resumption here resumptive hearing on this matter um since it
It does not appear that there was, at least the RCO is saying there was not a meeting.
I know the applicant is indicating that he did attend a meeting, but I think we should
have a resumption, resumptive hearing at which time we can take public testimony on this
matter.
We could take the Planning Commission's perspective, the recommendation today, but I think we need
to have a resumptive hearing for public testimony in this matter.
Totally agree. Okay, so we'll continue through, Jojo, and we'll go ahead and hear the case out
and we'll hold it to hold a presumption hearing. Okay.
You have anything else you want to share with us before we move on?
So, I mean, all I have the other one is just a screenshot of that
a zoom meeting that i took you know uh because i could hear i mean i can show you
all right good enough questions from the board
no mr chairman no no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning property is indicated
for residential on the city plan we have no objection to granting events right uh so we're
going to actually hold this case sir uh we're going to have a presumption hearing uh so we can
actually get some some unanswered questions answered uh so hillary should he reach out to
get a new court date the new date i was just going to ask lakeisha if we had a resumption date
available sorry to put you on the spot lakeisha um um no what can um he can just uh reach out to
office and he can just be required
to post again. Okay.
We will do that.
Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir.
So going back
to the regular list,
number 2, MI-2022-002118.
2305 Peloton Street.
2305 Pelletron Street.
Xin Jin is the attorney.
Mr. Jin is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Yes, my name is Xin 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. Thank you. You've already
sworn yourself in, counsel. Can you please give us your advice and give us a client?
My client is the Commonwealth Improvement Fund LLC. The representative for that is here with
me today, Mr. Gitterman. Thank you. Our board member, Thomas Holliman, has a few questions to
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance?
Did you meet with the RCO and do you have an RCO letter?
Yes, yes to all questions.
Thank you.
please proceed and share your screen thank you i'm going to share with the board the
exhibit package that was previously submitted can the board see my exhibit on the screen
yes thank you so we have submitted a copy of the refusal this is an application for the
erection of a new structure at this location to be used as a two-family dwelling this property
is zoned RSA 5 and therefore it was refused for the purpose of RSA 5 zoning district does not
permit multi or two-family household living. We did meet with the community with regard to this
application. The community issued a letter saying they do not support. However, if you look closely
at the way the community's letter is written, what the community's particular concern with this is
They have concern over local hiring and high rent and increase of taxes in the area.
From a developmental standpoint, some of the opposition actually stated that they would support the application provided we hire residential union carpenters or partner with carpenters unions, sponsor carpenters from the neighborhood or involvement in apprenticeships or sponsor a neighborhood child in addition.
Now, my client actually had no objections to these requests. At the time of the meeting, we gave the contact information, my client, to the neighbors who brought up these issues. However, unfortunately, until the letter came, no one actually reached out to my client to work with him on that particular request of condition.
Again, the neighborhood's particular expression of opposition isn't as directly in the particular use that we're requiring or requesting, but rather their main concern is that developments in the area has not been generating work for the local residents.
However, it does come out as a not support in this particular case.
I want to point out that this property is located a few blocks away from American Street.
It is on Pellethorpe, which is between West Dauphin and York Street.
This is an area that has actually quite a lot of vacant lots.
Development in the area is just starting.
And this kind of a development, unfortunately, with the single family development would actually
be just as, if not more difficult to have a rental value or rental price that would meet
the community's concerns. My client actually wanted to do a duplex partly because it would
split the size up and hopefully make the rental value a little more palpable. It is unfortunately
still not the case, but that is part of the reason a duplex design was proposed. This is also one of
the wider lots. Right before the corner, it is actually 18 feet wide rather than 16 feet wide.
The proposal is to have a new construction with brick facade. The property would be used as a
duplex. It actually would be split into two units. One unit would be the second and third floor. One
unit would be the first floor and cellar. This is again a wider building and the entire building
would have the necessary open space as normally required by code and meet the height
requirements under the code. The proposal isn't super dense.
requirements under the code. The proposal isn't super dense. One unit would be a one-bedroom
unit with the living space in the basement, and the second unit would be a three-bedroom unit
above. And that's generally, I'm sorry, a two-bedroom with a unit in the basement and a
upper floor unit with three bedrooms total. So that is the essential proposal here.
again with the area that we're in a single family development would be difficult and certainly would
not be very rentable with the size of the building that would be created from that development my
client again is here to answer any questions verify my testimony and i'll be happy to direct
to any portion of the exhibit for the board if needed thanks client uh thanks counsel let's get
your client on the screen. Sure. Mr. Gitterman, can you please raise your hand? Yes, how are you
everybody? Good evening. I'm sorry, Chair, I believe you're muted. Oh, I'm on mute. Please
state your name and spell it for the record. Yes, my name is Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H. The last
I'm Ms. Gitterman, G-I-T-E-R-M-A-N.
Do you swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Council.
Thank you.
Mr. Gitterman, did you see my presentation
and hear my testimony before the board?
Yes, I did.
Can you verify what I represented are true and correct
and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
uh council is there two exits from the uh i i will put the uh plans back up for your reference
um i there's the first floor unit had the rear exit but the upper floor exit is through the front
my apologies
answer the question the basement doesn't have two exits uh the basement i i don't believe there's
only there's two exits thank you thank you
any other questions from the board i'm sorry i'm sorry this is the reporter could i ask
attorney jen to repeat his response sure i don't i do not believe there's two exits from the basement
no more questions from the board mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
I see no handshare.
Planning Commission.
Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted comprehensive plan.
Recommends no change to existing residential single-family zoning at this location.
There's no unique physical circumstances or conditions of this lot that would prevent it from being used in performity with the code.
2329 is a new single home that was built in 2021.
Therefore, we recommend a request for variance not be granted.
MI-2022-002118.
2305, Phillip Hunt Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor.
Number three, MI-2022-005393, 2546, page 3.
Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
Ms. Nichols is rejoining us as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Good afternoon, Council.
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Lynn Nichols, L-Y-N-N, last name Nichols, N-I-C-H-O-L-S.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Right.
Please let us know your connection to the client that you have here.
Yes, I represent Darnell Qasim, who is the owner of 2546 Page Street.
All right.
Our board member, Thomas Holloman, has a few questions to ask.
Do you agree with the reading of the reviews and stipulates the exact same thing?
yes yes did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required
this hearing RCO and do you have an RCO letter yes to everything RCO letter thank you please
proceed and share your screen can everyone see my screen
Thank you.
Before I proceed, is there anyone on the call from the community?
May I ask?
Is there anyone in the audience for 2346 Pace Street?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
In this packet, as you can see, we have the application for appeal, the project information
form, the deed, tax clearance, the notification, the addresses that were notified, proof of mailing.
This is our community letter. Just for your information to the board,
We did have a meeting scheduled for January 24th. At that time, members from the community were not on the call. So Ms. Robinson, who is the chair of the RCO for this location, asked us to reschedule. And we did. We accommodated that so that we could have a meeting where, at her request, members from the community could get on.
She didn't know if they just were involved in other things. So we had our second meeting on Monday, February 6th at 6 p.m., at which time there was someone from the community on the meeting who at that time we didn't hear what her concerns were.
Ms. Robinson said she would reach out to the person and get back to us. Earlier before this
meeting, I emailed Ms. Robinson and asked her if she had any feedback for us and if she was going
to get on this call so that we would know what their position is. So at this time, we can't
represent what the community's position is. In this picture here, as you can see, I apologize,
This is the zoning notice. This is the other picture of the zoning notice. Here we have the refusal. This is a front view of the property. On the left to the right is a view looking across from the property. This is a view on the left here looking to the right of the property. This view on the right is looking to the left of the property.
there's a vacant lot next to the building and here we have the plans I'm going to actually
show them in a separate screen this project is a request to make this a duplex the owners of
the property are young entrepreneurs who are from the neighborhood and they recognize that there's
a need for affordable housing and the best use of this property would be as a duplex
What they propose is that the first floor apartment would be approximately 838 square feet, which would include the basement of the property, which would only be accessed by the first floor tenant.
and in the basement there would be utilities, the laundry. In the rear of the property they
proposed to have an exit door and on the second floor the second unit would be approximately
443 square feet that would accommodate a tenant to live on the second floor. They recognized that
in this area young people want to move here but they want more affordable housing. So this project
would not increase any congestion in the area, nor would it represent harm to public utilities
or in any way cause any extra congestion. And so as I stated, they're seeking to
have a duplex in this property so that they can accommodate affordable housing.
The total square foot of the property is approximately, as shown on the plans, 1,281 square feet.
So there is enough space to accommodate a duplex in this property.
At this time, I would like to call Darnell Qasim.
Mr. Qasim, is he in the virtual audience?
Yes, he has to mute himself, please.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Mr. Cossum.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kossam.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Who states your name?
Please state your name and spell it for the record.
Darnell Kossam.
First name is D-A-R-N-E-L-L.
Last name Kossam.
C is in Charlie.
O is in Oscar.
S is in Sierra.
O is in Oscar.
M is in Mike.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Kosom, have you heard my presentation here today with regard to your project at 2546 Page
Street? Yes. And do you agree with and adopt the testimony that I've given here today with your
with brought to your project at 2546 Page Street? Yes. I have one more question. Here I'm showing
a petition of support. Did you obtain these signatures from neighbors in the area who
Yes, I did. Yes, and they expressed their support of your project? Yes. As it's shown here? Yes.
Now, can you just briefly describe to the members of the board why it is that you
want to convert this into a duplex? So, my plan to convert it into a duplex is,
one, so I can have more affordable housing in that area. I'm from Strawberry Mansion,
and I've been trying to just clean up the neighborhood,
I think that I can do a pretty good job
of making the block look better.
And with me being there and having tenants in the house
because most of the block is abandoned,
it may motivate people to want to come to the neighborhood
and start to live there again, or the block.
Thank you.
I have no further questions of Mr. Kosom.
Are there any questions from the members of the board?
uh yes i have one question before i ask the board uh now i didn't see the uh tax clearance
oh yes i apologize uh mr chair it is right here the tax clearance is here i did send it to hillary
we just got it earlier today hillary did you get it i emailed it
miss nichols i don't believe i received it for some reason so if you could resend it that would
be greatly appreciated all right when we um do you want me to send it again now i thought when
you're done when you're done it's fine okay all right i'll resend it um and i also sent you the
petition of support did you receive that i have not seen any emails from you today okay no if you
sent that today i did not receive that i sent that yesterday but i'll rescind it again okay
Thank you. Thank you. I'll make sure to double check my junk folder. It didn't go in there.
Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Counselor, how many two family units, buildings, is on a block?
To my knowledge, hello, was that a question to me or to Mr. Cosim?
To my knowledge, Mr. Holloman, we aren't aware of any two-family units at this time,
but Mr. Cosim, as he stated, he's concerned as someone who's lived in this area that the
development isn't attracting individuals to want to live in a single-family property.
He's got another property not too far from here where he's going to develop it as a two-family
dwelling thank you are all the council are all the properties on that block in the average around
uh 11 to 1200 square feet um i don't want to answer that because i'm not familiar i believe
as far as i can see visually they look the same size but i don't i haven't done any research into
actually looking at the actual square footage no problem jim do you have any questions
no mr chairman all right questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission this is ron bednar city planning the property is
indicated for residential use on the city plan are adopted district plan recommends no change
the existing single family residential zoning at this location the applicant's hardship is not
supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property
that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code. Therefore, we recommend
You went out, Ron. We didn't get your recommendation.
All right. Our recommendation is not to be granted.
May I respond to that briefly?
Sure, counsel.
Thank you. As I stated, Mr. Cosim is
Thank you. As I stated, Mr. Kosom is from this area and his awareness is that the properties in this area, most of them are not occupied.
And he knows that young people want to move into the area.
And for him, his hardship is that he knows that he wouldn't be able to rent this property to a single family.
He would only be able to develop it with people who can afford to live here as a duplex.
Thank you.
Do we have any opposition from the council's office?
Hillary?
Mr. Chair, I think we should hold this one maybe for two weeks since the RCO meeting was just this week.
um and it was it was not communicated to to council or the applicant what the the position
was um so i think we should we should wait for a couple of weeks to get the the position letter
from the rco um and i i don't know if there will be one from the council office as well but we have
not received one to this point the one thing i'm sorry the one thing is robinson was asking us
about was trash she didn't seem concerned about the duplex as opposed to trash so that's the one
thing i can give you a comment about okay all right so we'll do is we'll hold this uh case and
we'll vote on it in two weeks um on the three o'clock on the 3 30 hearing we'll vote on the
the 2 p.m. 2 p.m. last. Yes. Okay. On the 22nd. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council.
All right. Number five, MI-2022-005422, 2315 Parrish Street. Jennifer Blazetto.
Hello, Bizzitlo.
Bizzitlo.
Apologize.
No problem.
Please state your name
and spell it for the record.
Sure. My name is Jennifer Bizzitlo.
B-A-Z-Y
D as in dog,
L as in Larry, O as in Oscar.
You swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please
give us the connection to your client sure i am representing um zubin hensler through his llc
home cone audio who is the proposed tenant of the ground floor unit at 2315 parish
okay our board member thomas holliman has a few questions good afternoon council do you agree to
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do i do all documents as required
five days in advance to this hearing did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter from the rco
yes thank you and share your screen
Okay, so, as I said, my name is Jennifer Bezidlo, I'm here representing the proposed tenant of the ground floor unit at 2315 Parrish Street.
I've submitted a packet of information that I'm just going to scroll through here for a second.
The first is our refusal.
This is an RSA five zoned property
that's historically been commercial.
I'm going to get into that later,
but that's basically the cause of our refusal.
Our lease here, which is a three-year lease
that will be ending approximately the end of May in 2026.
We are agreeing to a three-year temporary.
We'll talk more about that later too.
Lots of leases, here is the proof
that the taxes are current on the property.
This is just what's due for 2023.
This is the letter from Fairmount Civic.
And as you can see, they were in support.
It was 28 to two to two people that took no position.
We'll get more into that later as well.
And we do also have letter,
this was all the addresses that were notified.
We have a letter of support from the only attached neighbor, which is 2313 Parish.
They were unable to attend the meeting because they have a newborn, but we did do outreach and they supported it.
We also have a letter of support from the local Democratic committee person who is an affected neighbor as well.
This is the prior approval in 2019, which was for the legalization of the two units above and a fitness studio at the time on the first floor.
This is the prior approval in 2019.
Separately, I submitted the complete zoning archive. I'll come back to that, but I didn't want to have to scroll through 50 pages as we were talking.
um that was the notice of decision this is the zoning map um and then this is the aerial view
i'm going to come back to all this just want to show you that we have it photographs of the
posting of the property um we also have this is the front of the property side and rear
this is the interior the current interior of the first floor this is the stairway main stairway
we'll get back to that and this is the plans of the first floor which basically just showed this
is the commercial entrance it's a couple of rooms a bathroom in the back and exit to the yard in the
back so um i want to go back to the photo okay so um 2315 um parish uh it's located in the corner
of Parrish and Judson Street in Fairmount. The building currently consists of two two-bedroom
apartments, one on the second floor, which is actually where my client lives, and one on the
third floor as well. This building was, and there's a vacant commercial space is what we're talking
about on the first floor. As you can see, there's a commercial entrance and a residential entrance.
This, as far as I can tell, this building was constructed in the early 1900s as a mixed-use
commercial property. And the zoning archive shows that since back to 1959, there has been a commercial
use on this first floor. Before this was the approved fitness studio. Before that, it was a
dry cleaners. So despite its RSA 5 zoning, this is not a single family home. It is a mixed use
commercial which I want to go back to the zoning map if you can see on the zoning map
a lot of these corners on this block in this area are zoned commercial mixed use.
This one just happens to have been categorized as RSA 5 despite its long-standing history of
commercial use. So therefore any business that would go in here would generate a refusal.
Our proposal is to use this space for process.
It's going to be just for Zubin.
It's actually quite a small business to process and edit audio for podcasts and a couple of other audio projects.
So we're not talking about a traditional commercial recording studio where you might have bands coming in or renting out the space, anything too loud.
This is really just mostly computer work. And I'm going to have him explain it better after I go through some more like the legal stuff here, because I'm not an audio expert and he is.
um but um i just wanted to point out a couple of key factors again uh we are just asking for a
three-year temporary um to run coincide with the lease uh understanding that other uses in this
use category might affect the neighbors um more um so this was we started off with that and we
fully, we fully agree to that. The other is that I pointed out that Zubin has been living
in the second floor since about June. And hold on one second. I just wanted to go back to
something else about the lease on page 10 here. Hold on. So the lease itself is for a small
personal use audio studio, primarily for podcast work. So that's the scope of what's allowed by
his lease, and that's the scope we are applying for here. So like I said, it would be three-year
temporary coincide with this lease. Zubin has been living above the second floor since about
June of last year, and he's been doing a lot of this work in a home office with the neighbors,
no complaints from the neighbors, no noise complaints. In fact, the neighbors above that
just live there are making more noise than he is doing his business, as a lot of this work is
rather quiet and on the computer. And I wanted to get back to this photo of the stairs and why this
is important. So what originally attracted Zubin to this space, and he can explain the acoustics
of this better, is that there is only one attached dwelling unit other than his apartment, which is
which is the 2313 next door and then we have this area of buffer with no other
attached buildings in the back and how the layout works is that the wall that is
And how the layout works is that the wall that is that the commercial space and the attached building have this void of air, which you can explain the acoustics of this better.
But this is one of the best ways to insulate sound is to actually have this staircase with this air gap that prevents noise transfer that might happen to adjacent properties.
um so as you can see again on the plans you have this stairwell that's buffering
the connection between the two properties in addition to just the wall in addition to any
other sound reducing techniques that might be implemented um so we believe that this use is
in harmony with uh the surrounding neighborhood as you know we have a lot of these properties in
the area that are corner commercial. This building has had a commercial use on the first floor. It's
not going to cause any additional congestion as it's going to be primarily used by Zubin who
already lives in the building. So he's already a resident. It's mostly needing more space to do
what he might have otherwise just be doing in his apartment or if he had a larger apartment.
And, you know, again, this is, we're asking for a limited time, a limited scope, which will further reduce any possible impact to the community.
I'm going to go back to the letter of support.
We did meet with Fairmount, in addition to doing outreach to direct neighbors as well, which I can have Zubin explain that to.
He did extensive outreach.
He's been a very good advocate for himself.
um voluntarily but we did meet with them um and we did have a good amount of support
uh again 28 uh attendees in support only six opposed um and for near neighbors there was two
opposed um and two in support um so um like I said and then I had additional two letters
of people that did not attend the meeting who were near neighbors who were also in support
um i'm just trying to think uh with that um i oh all that they asked was they did want a three-year
temporary which we talked about and for the if possible you know to have the description that's
in the lease be what's approved uh so excluding radio and television broadcasting um we're okay
with that. So if I can ask Zubin Hensler to raise his hand so he can be sworn in and adopt my
testimony and talk a little bit more about his business, that would be great.
Zubin, please state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Yeah, it's Zubin, Z-U-B-I-N, Hensler, H-E-N-S-L-E-R.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do. All right, Zubin, let's just first have you adopt my testimony.
Did you hear my testimony here today? And do you believe it to be truthful and accurate?
Yes. And would you adopt it as your own? Yes. All right. So can you just tell us a little bit
about more about you, your business, the scope of work that you plan to do here,
and any outreach you've done to the neighbors? And yeah, just tell us a little bit more about
what you've done and what you propose to do. Yes. So I'm an audio engineer. I mostly edit
and mix and compose for podcasts, museum installations, and albums and other types
of audio work. What I'm proposing is basically to do what I would traditionally do in a home studio
and what I have been doing in the additional bedroom in our apartment, but just do it in
this downstairs commercial uh space that's below my apartment um i think it's appropriate for the
neighborhood because it will be very quiet it will be the types of thing that many people do
at home um and i've spoken to my immediate neighbors through the walls um we're all on
the same page and the basic approach will be to just figure out what volume of work that i do
that they're able to hear and then stay below that.
So I think it will have little to no impact
on the surrounding community
and being almost entirely a personal workspace
or maybe having one or two people there
to work with me at a time
will have very little sidewalk impact or anything else.
As well, as Jed mentioned,
the reason I was excited to find this space in particular
is because of its unique arrangement.
with the immediate neighbors
in that there are these air gaps between any shared wall
any shared wall and then my apartment is above so there are no shared walls with any neighbor
and then my apartment is above.
So there are no shared walls within.
uh which is a big deal in in a city for doing this type of work so it it seemed like an ideal
location to be doing it and having been doing the work in my apartment and having no complaints
i feel confident that um i'll have no issues great i appreciate all of that um and and all
the surrounding neighbors do have your contact information at this point as well as mine to
reach out if there was any potential issue correct yes great and i'll just ask and you've
been doing this work for a while right this is not something new for you you're yeah very long time
yeah okay questions from the board no mr chairman no no mr chairman questions from the virtual
audience. Chair, we have Patricia Wilson. Please allow her to speak. This is Patricia Wilson,
2302 Parish Street. She can name and spell it for the record. Patricia Wilson, P-A-T-R-I-C-I-A,
Wilson, W-I-L-S-O-N, from 2302-2302 Parish Street, which is right up the street and across the street,
right across from Bache Martin. You know, I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. I do. My first, I am going to make a statement here, which is as, as by
virtue of asking for a use variance, I have not heard any testimony that would indicate that there
is a hardship here. And I would say that prior, the prior business that was there, and even the
dry cleaner that has been spoken about were both businesses that were complimentary to the
neighborhood. Though I understand that Mr. Hensler has reached out to the various neighbors,
what I haven't heard and I would ask testimony for is that this does not benefit this neighborhood.
This is turning this space into commercial office space for a personal use. Most of the other
commercial spaces in the neighborhood have become residential. Those that are commercial
are complementary to the neighborhood and also provide services to the neighborhood,
whether they be coffee shops, whether it be the Lumos yoga studio. So what this gentleman is
asking for, you know, certainly by law, he has not exhibited or indicated or testimony to any
hardship here that would allow for the granting of the variance. I would argue that this will,
in fact change the character of the neighborhood. So even though this is a temporary use, I would
not want to, in this wonderful residential neighborhood, get on the slippery slope of
a commercial use. Certainly, if this board proposes to grant this temporary use, I would
indicate that it is not in the public interest. It will, in fact, change the character of the
neighborhood. And that in this case, though he may be a wonderful gentleman, what I haven't heard
is testimony that absolutely will restrict the number of users that is going to be Mr. Hensler
that now I'm hearing, well, it's Mr. Hensler and maybe a couple people that he's bringing in with
him, that should this board go so far as to grant this use, despite the fact there is no hardship
here, this use variance, that they would put significant restrictions on the hours of operation,
significant restrictions on the number of clients and or employees, because, you know, I hope you
recognize this is not in the public interest, regardless of support based on the particular
individual. I would go further as to also say, should you also determine to provide for a
temporary use? Doesn't need to be three years despite his lease. It could be one year and be
revisited so that, in fact, everything that's been testified to here proves to be true. Again,
you know, incredible residential neighborhood up the street from a school. Businesses that have
opened in the commercial spots and or have remained there are absolutely conducive to
and are complementary to the neighborhood. This is basically turning a residential use
into a commercial office space. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am, did you attend a community meeting?
I did not. I did not get the notice until afterwards and, you know, just said, okay,
you know, just said, okay, I'm going to register as a party protestant here. And I'm, you know,
I'm going to register as a party protestant here.
going to give testimony so that in fact, the board can hear how a neighbor feels.
Okay. I have a couple of questions for, I'm sorry, what was your name again, Patricia?
Patricia Wilson.
Okay, Patricia, this has been, you acknowledge that this has been a commercial space before,
correct? I understand that, but it has been commercial with complementary use for neighbors.
Okay, and you do understand that any commercial use of this space would require a zoning variance
as it is only zoned for single-family use currently, correct? I understand that, and certainly in this
neighborhood, many of the commercial uses in this neighborhood or many of these corner properties
have become residential because it is a neighborhood in high demand. Great, so I just
want to say as a hardship here this building is only zoned for single family use but is designed
with a commercial space on the first floor and has been in existence for over well we're approaching
over 60 years we're approaching 70 years here so any use that isn't any use here even if it was
converted to another residential unit would require a zoning variance so the hardship is
basically to this dimension of this old building and long-standing commercial use. This is not a
suitable single-family home at this point. And I would disagree with you because the legal
definition of what a hardship is goes along with the property. Many of the properties in Philadelphia,
including in this area, have gone from multi-use to single-use. So I would disagree with you. A
Residential use is more appropriate here, and a legal definition of hardship is with the property, not a use at the property.
It is a unique characteristic of the property.
I have an additional question.
Were you a neighbor in 2019 when the fitness studio and the apartments above were approved, and did you object to that?
No, because that is a complimentary use utilized by those in the neighborhood, including my daughter. And as you've seen down the street, the yoga studio that has opened, when you put a complimentary residential use there, it's a little easier to say, okay, if we're going to agree, despite the fact there is no legal definition of hardship here, then okay, it helps the neighborhood.
This is a partial use that helps an individual tenant.
So, Ms. Wilson, so you're a no on supporting this project?
I am a no on supporting this project.
Okay, thank you.
It's duly noted.
Anybody else out there in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use.
The city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential-only zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property and will prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request for variance not be granted.
MI-2022-005422, 2315 Parish Street, I vote yes, with proviso, temporary variance for
two years, ending on 3-1-20-25.
Thomas Holliman? Thomas Holliman? My vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell? My vote is yes with Proviso. Thank you. Congratulations. Move on to the next case.
Number 7, MI-2022-005411, 8301 Rising Sun Avenue.
Matthew Lilly, the attorney.
He's coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Matthew Liley, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-L-E-I-L-I.
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do
uh can you please give us the connection to you in relation to your client yes i represent
christine roberts and pamela scott who are the property owners of 8301 rising sun avenue and
the applicant uh board member thomas holliman has a few questions to ask good afternoon council
good afternoon counsel do you have do you agree to waive the reading of the
So do you have, do you agree to waive the
refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do did you email all the exhibits and
documents as required five days in advance to this hearing did
you meet with the rco and do you have an rco letter
yes thank you please proceed and share your screen
thank you
okay good afternoon as i stated i represent um christine roberts and pamela scott who own
the house at 8301 rising sun they live there i submitted to the board the exhibits that you see
the real estate tax balance the notice of refusal and the rest i will go through
um this application is to legalize construction that was done in 2009 um the contractor that my
clients hired was supposed to obtain the proper permits and failed to do so and so we are here
today um for you is the tax clearance as i stated um the refusal um this is an rsd2 district it's a
single family well actually it's a duplex but it has a previous variance for a duplex use
in a single family detached district the refusal generated is for not having enough front yard
depth i'll go through the site plans to demonstrate it further but the zoning code requires a front
yard depth of 35 feet this is a corner lot and so there's only a front yard depth of 18 feet
along rising sun avenue and 19.77 feet along hoffnagle place
we did meet with the fox chase homeowners association
it was overwhelmingly the neighbors were overwhelmingly in support of the project
a poll was taken 23 were in support of the variance
um there is a standing standing bylaw of the rco not to support variances that are to legalize
existing construction and so their official stance is no position on the matter
however they did indicate again there were 10 affected neighbors who were in support 23 members
who were in support of the variant so no one in attendance that night was actually opposed to the
variance. In addition to that support, my clients circulated a petition among their neighbors
and they did receive the support of several of the very close neighbors
on Hofnick Place and Rising Sun Avenue. Okay, so just for a frame of reference,
this property is in Fox Chase. It's a suburban-style neighborhood, mostly single-family
detached in the immediate surroundings, although there is multi-family apartments that I'll show
you pictures of on Hofnagel Place. You can see from the zoning site plan here exactly what's
been added onto the property and what was existing. The existing house is demonstrated by
uh the unhatched area on the site plan um we see here a first floor addition that was put
on the hofnagle place frontage and a small foyer that was added on the rising sun avenue frontage
um on rising sun avenue this comes out six feet from where the previous house line was
so in essence the property when it was built it of course was built to the zoning code as it
existed then but it has since changed and so the property line despite only being six feet
in front of the property line it is generating a refusal that it's 19 feet
from the street or from the property line um on the hofnagle place side uh this is the addition
that was made on the first floor with the single hatch mark and there was a second floor addition
made with a double hatch mark that you can see there and it might be a little clearer if i go
through the um the floor plans again this is the foyer that was added on um on the rising sun
avenue side and that is forward six feet from where the property was before
And on the Hofnagel Place side, we see this portion was added to the side, and it's no closer to the street or to the property line than what existed previously.
and on the hofnagel place side we see
And a second floor addition was also made, again, no closer to the street or the property line than what existed previously.
um there's also elevations that are included in the in the exhibits just to show you pictures
of the property this is a picture of from rising sun avenue it's again a detached style home
suburban surroundings it's very well constructed with high quality materials this foyer that you
see in the front was added in the construction in 2009 which is being sought to be legalized
again you can see the foyer there that extends six feet from the property from the original property
you can see here this picture taken from hofnagel place this portion this side here is what was
added onto the property. And you can see what was added on is actually recessed a bit, a few feet
from where the original structure was. And so on Hofnagel Place, that doesn't encroach into the
front yard any more than what already existed. Just some further pictures of the construction
that was done. And you can see in this picture there's actually a detached garage structure that
again is a pre-existing non-conforming use that is closer to the street in the front yard line
than anything that has been added on to. Some pictures of the surrounding neighborhood show
that the house is in conformity with its surroundings. This is the multifamily housing
that exists on Hofnagel Place, which is at the cul-de-sac at the end of or adjacent to the
property. Like I said, this construction was done in 2009. It hasn't presented any burden to the
community. It hasn't increased congestion. It hasn't burdened public utilities. And a unique
aspect about the property that leads to the hardship is, of course, the corner property
requiring that there be a 35-foot setback on each side, resulting in this box, which shows the
allowable built building area excuse me um and we you can see that the property line is actually
set back from the street line the curb line by about 20 feet on hofnagle place and by 14 feet
on rising sun avenue so that's an additional space from the street so on the rising sun avenue side
there's 18 feet to the property line but there's 14 additional feet to rising sun avenue so that's
32 feet to the curb line. And then on Hofnagel Place, again, there's a 20-foot right-of-way
in addition to the almost 20 feet front yard depth, which results in almost 40 feet to the
curb line at Hofnagel Place. As I stated, my clients relied on their contractor to obtain
the proper zoning permits and they failed to do so.
And with that, I will ask my client to Christine Roberts,
if you can raise your hand.
Ms. Roberts, please unmute yourself.
Hello.
Hello, Ms. Roberts, please state your name
and spell it for the record.
Sure. It's Christine, C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E. Last name is Roberts, R-O-B-E-R-T-S.
And my wife, and my wife.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do. Thank you.
Did you say something? You said your wife is with you?
Yes, and she's on my date also.
Do I need to swear her in if she's going to talk?
No, Christine can affirm the testimony.
I have no other questions.
Ms. Roberts, did you hear my statements today?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct, the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they are.
And do you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
uh any questions from the virtual audience i see no handshare planning commission
Any questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
property is indicated this is ron bednar city planning the property is indicating
for residential on the city plan we have no objection to the ground thanks ron
mi-2022-005411 8301 rosinson avenue my vote is yes yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes
thank you council congratulations thank you are there is there anyone in the virtual audience
case has not been heard for the 3 30s
i see no hands chair all right good great job everyone thank you all for helping me out through
the process as well i'm looking forward to you all next week enjoy your weekends
thank you thank you good night all right yeah great job good job take care