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?