but the truth yes I do could you identify your client the relationship to the property
certainly I represent OCF Realty LLC they are the tenant of the property and this is a sub
sublease to try to get a a gym use at the property okay our our vice chair has just a few questions
for you sir good afternoon counsel do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to attack your seat yes i do have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits into our
offices five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed to share your screen
Thank you very much.
So again, Sean Whalen here from Vintage Law on behalf of OCF Realty.
You're looking now, I hope I see, at the existing one-story warehouse building at the corner of 19th and Washington.
We see that, sir.
This application is just for a change of use in there.
There is no additional construction or height or anything of the sort added at this point.
So, again, this just gives you some context.
You have Washington Avenue, the large chocolate factory redevelopment over here.
Here's 20th.
You have this property right here in a long line of single-story uses.
Again, just shows consistent line of use.
And the reason why we're here today is because this entire parcel and this entire block, along with several other blocks on the north and south side of Washington, remain zoned I-2.
I know this board from myself and other attorneys has seen a slew of cases talking about I2 uses and how even the PIDC reports state as far back as 2010 that I2 uses are no longer feasible on Washington Avenue.
And the change of use, the change of the neighborhood up and down Washington Avenue creates a hardship for any property here to continue to use an industrial use.
Accordingly, we received a refusal, one refusal, which states that the proposed use personal services, this is to put in a gym, which falls under the personal services category, is prohibited in the I-2 industrial zoning district.
one thing that I would note you see a lot of ICMX here this use personal services is
actually allowed by right in both IRMX and ICMX use so it's only disallowed once you get up to the
the heavy industrial uses like I2 as the chairman stated we have a letter of support
As the chairman stated, we have a letter of support.
I have to actually point this out just because I've never seen it before.
It's certainly not a case I've handled.
The proposal is unanimously supported by the RCO.
And in fact, it was a thirty nine to zero vote in support.
So I wish all my cases were were so resoundingly applauded.
So what you have here is this is the building right next door.
Open Box Athletics is operating a CrossFit style gym right next door.
They are currently seeking to expand their property or expand their offerings into that corner property that you saw.
So you can see kind of the general layout, how they handle their business.
they're exceptionally well loved in the neighborhood hence the 39 to 0 vote and what
they're doing is this building over here that you see they actually even two years ago had a
horrible fire and lost their business and then rebuilt and now are hoping to expand into this
use so we are seeking a variance just over that one use to allow a gym here
um the uh the property itself is approximately 85 by 105 it's almost a square uh building going up
19 or um up washington and up 20th and as i said before it's an existing one-story
commercial warehouse which obviously lends itself to the hardship argument and there is no new
construction. We were just converting this user, adaptively reusing, I would say, this property
and converting it to a now feasible commercial use or even light industrial use, which is personal
services. The property certainly conforms to the public health, safety, and welfare.
I think putting in a gym by definition is almost, you know, guaranteeing health, safety, and welfare
increases and is widely supported by the neighborhood. Again, this meets the least
minimum variance test in that we are simply trying to change the use and we're not impacting
the existing fabric of the property or the block in any way or seeking to overbuild the property.
So with that, I would also just say that I mentioned it in the beginning,
Even the city's own agencies, PIDC, as far back as 2010, has recognized that this avenue, this corridor of Washington Avenue, is no longer feasible for heavy industrial uses, which is what the I-2 underlying zoning district is meant for.
And that's evidenced also. There's a West Washington Avenue overlay district, which actually prohibits virtually all I-2 uses.
So there are an extremely limited number of uses that could be feasible up and down this block.
And essentially, as the board has seen, almost every building on this block and up and down adjacent blocks has required a variance.
So with that, I would like to call Ori Feibush.
Good afternoon, Mr. Feinbush.
Mr. Feinbush, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Feinbush.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Of course.
Ori Feinbush with OCF Realty.
My last name is F as in Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you very much, Chairman. Mr. Fybush, you're here on behalf of OCF Realty, correct?
That's correct, yes.
And you heard all of the testimony I already presented today?
Yes, I did.
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
I would, yes.
And would you adopt that testimony as your own?
Yes, I would.
And do you believe there's anything else pertinent that the board needs to hear?
No, I'm just, I think this is as much of a feel-good neighborhood story as possible here. These are just individuals that live in the neighborhood that wanted to open up a small business and just continue to push through adversity after adversity to make themselves successful and just really a testament to just a wonderful story all around.
All right, fantastic. Chairman, I offer Mr. Feibus or myself to answer any questions you may have.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i've seen no hands chair planning commission it's uh ron bednar city planning while this
property is currently indicated for industrialized city plan given the circumstances of the property
Circumstances of the property, we recommend, of course, for Venice be rented.
we recommend the course of advantage be granted thank you am i
Thank you.
MI 2022-007-200, 1935 Washington Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Number 11, MI-2022-003-674, 44-48 Manheim Street.
Augusta O'Neill is the attorney.
We have a letter of support from the 12th Ward RCO based on revised plans.
They noted also that the FACE CDC and Wakefield 49ers also participated in the meeting and were in support of the project.
Okay. There's a letter of opposition from Solow, but Solow does provide provisos should the board
approve it. Ms. O'Neill is coming back in now as the panelist here. Okay.
Counsel, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
so can you actually also identify i have another
you're breaking up miss o'neill
what do you want me to identify
i'm just trying to get this up can you just give me one minute one minute you're sure take your
All right, sorry about that.
Is it Neil?
Ms. O'Neal, do you have on two devices?
Ms. O'Neal, would it be okay if we came back to you and by then you could have it straightened out?
I think we're going to have it straightened out momentarily.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. How about now?
You're still bouncing all over.
Miss O'Neill, this is Tanya. Do you guys have volume on all devices?
you might only need volume on one that might be why there's like an echo and it's better
can you hear us now it sounds better now i think they can hear us but we can't hear them
so the device that you're using is the one that needs the audio
okay can you hear us now we i heard that yeah i think they can still hear us but we can't hear
them because i okay
this is crazy chair we can give them a minute to fix theirs and you can continue
okay all right we're going to go to the next one or how do you want to do this
yes sure that's perfectly fine good good and we'll get back to them later
Number 12, MI-2022, 006-762-601-North 37th Street, Lot A, Meredith Ferrelinger is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Councilmember Gauthier is also in support of this project.
Chair, Ms. Ferlinger is coming back in as a panelist now.
Will she be able to go over this, what we have on the screen?
She's not going to be able to share her screen.
There she is. We're good. We're good. Thank you.
Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street Suite, 3500E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Sure can. My client here today is Charles Lomax, who's here on behalf of Lomax Real Estate Partners.
Now, Mr. Lomax is a member of 3,600 Haverford Avenue Affordable Partners, LLC, which is operating pursuant to the authority granted via a redevelopment agreement with the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority for this lot.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in to our offices all the required documents to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have, yes.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much. You should see my screen, I hope.
We do.
Great. Before the Zoning Board of Adjustment today is a request for a fairly minor modification
to a portion of a project that the Zoning Board approved several years ago.
The exhibit packet that I have before you today includes 17 exhibits that I will briefly walk
you through. First, allow me to orient you to the specific lot. As you can see up on your screen at
zoning map at Exhibit 11, this particular property is at the corner of Haverford Avenue,
North 37th Street, and Mount Vernon Street. Now, more broadly speaking, this project that was
approved by the board several years ago included nearly the entire block that is CMX2 and a portion
of the block that's just to the north that's RM1. Now by way of background this project results from
a 2017 RFP that was issued by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority seeking to revitalize
the site, the broad site, into active use to benefit the Mantua community. Now as I mentioned
the overall project encompasses nearly the entire two-block parcel from Wallace Street up at the
north, all the way down to Haverford Avenue, and from 37th Street all the way to 36th Street.
You can get a better sense of these two lots, these two large parcels at the aerials that I
have up at Exhibit 12. There is a very small piece of land that sits mid-block that is not included.
Now, the entire project that was approved several years ago includes a grocery store
just under 150 residential dwelling units, retail space, office space, a radio station,
and parking. You can see the general site layout that was approved several years ago at Exhibit 6,
and I apologize, I'm not sure why the quality was downgraded with the PDF, but you can get the
general sense here, lot C all the way along 36th Street is the lot that was approved for a radio
station and some parking. Just west of that was approved for residential. Lot A is what is before
the board today. And just to the north of that is where there was parking approved for this grocery
store. Now, overall, the project seeks to address recommendations from the Mantua Transformation
plan, which was accepted by the City Planning Commission back in 2013.
Now, as I mentioned, the request before the board today only concerns the lot, which is
labeled on the screen as Lot A.
So as you can see on the zoning permit that I have up on the screen, which was issued
back in 2020, the lot was consolidated into one new lot.
It was then approved for a new structure of 65 feet high to include a grocery store, retail use, 72 dwelling units on this particular lot, bicycle spaces, and three parking spaces with loading.
and three parking spaces with loading. Now the applicant today is now proposing some minor
Now, the
modifications to that proposal, and these are detailed on the refusal that I have up on the
screen. So the changes are detailed in the bold text. These changes stem from two main factors.
First, the prospective grocer for the space has changed, which has resulted in some modifications
to the overall site layout to accommodate the needs of this particular operator.
Additionally, instead of a partial mezzanine floor at the second level,
the project now includes a full second floor to accommodate a medical center.
There are some other minor modifications to occupied area, rear yard depth,
location of bike spaces, and an increase in the curb cut width.
However, none of those changes resulted in any additional refusals.
Accordingly, the only change that requires zoning board relief today is a very slight increase in height from 65 feet to 69.94 feet, and a special exception for that group medical use.
now regarding the height as i mentioned the zoning board did previously approve a variance
for the proposed height of 65 feet we submit that all of the arguments that we presented
during the original zoning hearing still apply with equal weight to the newly proposed height
which we submit is de minimis and it's an increase of less than five feet to ensure that the newly
identified gross or tenant can adequately support its operations at the site. Furthermore, this very
slight increase in height will also accommodate the creation of that full second floor for that
medical use, which is also consistent with the goals of the Mantua Transformation Plan.
Now, as it relates to the group medical practice, we submit that the proposed request for a special
exception, complies with the requirements of Section 14.3037 of the zoning code.
The proposed medical center use will not cause any detrimental impacts to the neighborhood
beyond what might normally be expected from the proposed use, relating to factors such as
congestion, overcrowding, and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. A floor plan of the
proposed medical center is provided at Exhibit 9 and is also up on your screen. This actually
shows the first and the second floor, so you can see the proposed grocer space as well.
I've also included in the exhibit packet at Exhibit 10 a brochure for the Greater Philadelphia
Health Action, Inc. This is a community-serving medical facility that was founded in 1970.