Is there anyone else in the virtual audience that wants to testify?
Here we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter? Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman
cindy bathroom 508 city hall i'm not going to get into whatever whatever swear me please
I'm not going to get into the reasons why changes to the RCO, the coordinating RCO.
The coordinating RCO has issued a letter of support, and based on that letter of support, the Councilwoman has no objection to granting the variances.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
We appreciate your time.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with the phone number ending in 3552.
Caller, can you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Good morning.
Can you hear me now?
Could you state your name?
I believe you've already been sworn in and spelled again for the court reporter.
yes i was sworn in this is adrian fernandez my name last name is spelled f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z
from the affected rco swamp widow neighborhood parcels association rco all right proceed
okay um we are opposed to this project because there's been inadequate and um
non-compliant notice of the public meeting before the public hearing
um there were there were a lot of problems why this project um the uh the hearing was delayed
and there were one or more continuances all of the continuances were due to actions of the
applicant slash applicant party um the major reason was that the applicant scheduled the
ZBA hearing without applying for a CDR that those transactions were documented and it was David
Fecto that said that that CDR had to be scheduled before any ZBA hearings to take place. There were
no public meetings at that time. Before the first, I think it was about a year ago, before the first
ZBA hearing was scheduled. So each delay was due to the CDR not being scheduled,
the owner not being available, and I also believe there were too many addresses that
were being assigned to the first RCO coordinator, which was NCP RCO. We received no proof of mailings
as we should receive. There was a lot of private communication between Allegheny West Foundation
after they were reassigned as the RCO coordinator and the applicant, and our zoning code has no
provisions for private processes with you know in the RCO process everything is public with the
affected RCOs and with the affected neighbors so if there is a meeting say with just RCOs
all the RCOs have to agree to that and planning has improved their RCO notification and they have
um they have placed a note there to make rco coordinators aware that all rcos have to be part
of the entire process and that statement is is uh verified in the zoning code as section 14303
e1 and it's um it gives specifications for neighborhood meetings and stresses that all
affected RCOs have to be consulted by an RCO coordinator. An RCO coordinator just being one
of those affected RCOs that is scheduling the meeting to make things more efficient. But we're
all equal without hierarchy. In this case, for this address, there were five affected RCOs and
169 affected neighbors. I know of no affected neighbors and only Allegheny West Foundation
which is one of the five RCOs that were notified and attended the meeting, there are some emails
about that that could be provided to help to understand that. It's also possible that there
were two refusals, and the dates of those refusals being that if there was a change refusal,
that change refusal was not part of any private meetings or alleged public meetings. So that's
also a problem because the public meeting should only be held on the actual refusal that is the
active refusal if it was updated, if it was amended or corrected. We have no presentation at all.
We have no presentation at all.
There was one for CDR.
At the CDR, I was the only testifier.
It's possible the council office may have testified.
There were no neighbors testifying,
no affected neighbors and no
other affected RCOs were testifying.
So that was also, but notice was sent out
by planning as required.
There were changes that were recommended.
from the two CDR meetings, and if those changes were reflected in drawings, and I believe
they were because we had not seen them, those changes were not presented in a public meeting
before the public hearing, which is a problem because we're not aware of what this hearing
is really about if we don't have the last refusal and if we don't have the last drawings.
As far as the senior housing, yes, neighbors do want senior housing, affordable senior housing. Yes, they do. However, we have to be, we have to have verification that that will be certified, whether it's through the state process and or a deed restriction, and that needs to be discussed.
if that has to be a proviso that also needs to be discussed in a public meeting because it is a very
critical manner because conversion of 99 units on one corner to neighbors that are not senior
even with seniors that's a lot especially with a daycare but if they're converted
that could be a nightmare of negative impacts in our community
um the this project proposes um 99 units um and a daycare center so therefore you have a lot of
traffic and parking uh issues that were also um not discussed uh with the affected parties the
public and the affected addresses because there was no notice of a public meeting and if mr burn
can supply that afterwards, we would appreciate that for all the public meetings and the private
meetings that HILA just happened. We never met the owner. Tim Russell made numerous attempts to try
to, I think she did meet the owner, but tried to get the owner to come to meetings. And we were
told the owner was in Africa. And that's one of the reasons why it was difficult to schedule
meetings when she was the first RCO coordinator that was appointed. And I imagine there was some
back and forth between
NCP, RCO.
Mr. Chair, I need to
object to the
Why don't we do this?
Object to the hearsay.
I know, I know. You're going to have a chance
to go talk.
Mr. Landis, why don't
we start to wrap this up?
Okay, I've not given any hearsay
at all. I'm only speaking about what I have
knowledge of. What I don't
have knowledge of, like presentations,
updated after the CDR
and if the refusal was changed.
I believe there's a refusal in August
and it may have been one in December of 2021 also.
But everything I'm speaking about
is what I have knowledge of.
Thank you very much for...
All right.
Thank you for calling.
We appreciate it.
Thank you.
Why don't I see if there's anyone else?
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Here, I see no other hands at this time.
Mr. Anastasio, why don't you? Thanks. I just want to make sure that we're very clear. I've provided
certified evidence today that on two separate occasions, my office mailed notice of both
community meeting and zoning board of adjustment hearing to 169 individual households. I've
submitted that evidence in writing today as part of my exhibit packet. That's number one. Number two,
Two, the CDR will not meet with us unless they are advised by the RCOs that a meeting has taken place.
So, again, we would not even be here and the CDR would not have either even met with us if we hadn't had proof of a meeting with the registered community organization.
The only private meeting that was brought up, and I only brought it up, was with North Central, the first RCO, which was summarily removed from the process for whatever reason.
We're not going to get into.
But everyone knew about these meetings.
Everybody got mailed.
Everyone knows about this hearing.
and because the location next to a train track would make it impossible to build single family
homes here because the industrial classification of the property is antiquated because we offer
Because we offer underground parking to accommodate the staff, and because the senior housing is a much-needed amenity that the community is desperate for after decades of disinvestment, I respectfully request the granting of this variance.
underground parking to accommodate the staff.
Thank you.
Could you ask your architect how many pages should the board vote for this, the entire board?
Is the architect there, Mark?
he's here yeah could he come back one please
i've got uh 10 sheets thank you mark hillary is that okay
that is fine mr chair um if the board grants i will need a separate pdf of those 10 sheets
so that I know what needs to be stamped.
We'll make that happen.
Thank you.
MI 2021 003 722 1901 was, yes.
I haven't testified, sorry.
Oh, I'm sorry, David.
I'm sorry, David.
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean that.
I would never want to bypass you.
I'm sorry.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
And I apologize for interrupting.
Good afternoon.
Good morning Chair and members of the Board, David Vecto City Planning Commission.
The case completed its Civic Design Review in November of 2022.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the Planning Commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change from I-1, medium industrial, to ICMX, industrial and commercial mixed use at this location.
The applicant has shown that a hardship exists that would prevent the building from being used as currently zoned or as the property is proposed to be zoned.
However, staff notes that the promised affordability of these units cannot be enforced by any city agency.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the dimensional and use variances.
Thank you. MI 2021-003-722-1901 Westmoreland Street. I vote yes. Proviso. Approved use is adult
care on the first floor with multiple family household living above and also revised plans
10 pages approved by ZBA April 5th today.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes, Mr. Vice President.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, Mr. Vice President.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Counsel, you have the three votes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience whose 9.30 a.m. case has not been called?
i've seen no hands at this time chair uh mr chair we can call number 12 1737 virgin street
we did receive exhibits for that and they are complete i'm sorry mi201-001-28-1737
bergen street mark fineman is the attorney this is a resumptive hearing hillary
i believe so we had a hearing before but we needed amended refusal we don't have the amended
refusal yet but council can testify today as to what is being requested under the amended refusal
we will get any testimony from planning and the public okay thank you mr fineman can you please
raise your hand he's coming back in as a panelist now chair okay
Good morning, Mr. Feynman.
Mr. Feynman?
my apologies i was on you know my my apologies i don't almost bypass you i'm really sorry could
you say your name please and spell for the court reporter yes thank you very much good morning
mark feinman f as in frank e-i-n-m-a-n uh esquire representing the applicant um property owner which
the applicant um property owner which is l and a installations llc and this is the truth the
which is L-N-
whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do and uh all your paperwork's in i'm right that is correct
right so why don't why don't you give us a summary because this is a resumptive hearing right
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. In October 12, 2022, we presented testimony at that time, along with the exhibits.
The property is a twin ranch style home in northeast Philadelphia in the Bell's Corner section of the city.
The application was for the legalization of the removal of one off street accessory interior parking space in the existing semi-detached structure and for one new off street accessory surface parking space.
Essentially, what had occurred here was the owner of the property had rented out to tenants as a family.
They were living in that property.
One of the family members of the tenant was injured in an accident and became paralyzed.
As a result of the paralysis and being confined, for the most part, to a wheelchair,
the family came to the landlord and asked whether or not they would be able to make some
revisions to the configuration of the property to enable them to stay there with their family
member living in the basement and not having to deal with steps and those issues that would be
encountered because of the paralysis. There were changes made, but they were not done with a permit,
And that's how this all surfaced. And and as a result of that, there had to be submission for the change that was refused.
And this appeal resulted from that. We went through the process.
We presented photographs. We presented the diagrams and showing essentially what had been desired and intended was to convert the basement quarters into living quarters.
Changing the interior garage into the bedroom area and sealing off that garage door.
When we presented last time, during the questioning, it became apparent that one of the issues that arose was that there are kitchen facilities that were placed into the basement area.
and therefore it was recognized that there needed to be an amended application submitted
to reflect that this area would be a residential dwelling area
and that the original application needed to be amended for that purpose.
There was a letter that was sent on October 13th to the Zoning Board of Adjustment
seeking permission to amend the actual application.
However, there was not one sent to L&I.