Thank you.
Here we have 31 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Bevised proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property question.
And finally, the question-answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpkin.
Let's look at our schedule this morning and continuances that we have.
Number eight.
Number eight, MI 2023-000-507-2172 East Firth Street, the case is continued.
Number 10. MI 2023-000-499-536 Green Lane. This case is continued.
Are there any comments relative to the cases that I continued?
Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host for today. I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Any other requests for continuance?
Chair, I see no hands up at this time.
Okay, thank you. And I also have two cases that we have no exhibits.
Number three, MI 2022-004-799-1711 Spruce Street.
Kawana Curry is the illicit applicant.
We have no exhibits.
This is the second listing. No one appeared at the first hearing.
Chair, I have no hands up at this time.
Thank you. MI 2022-004-799-1711 Spruce Street. This is the second listing. We have no exhibits. No one appeared the first time. I vote to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2022 004-677-7256 Saybrook Avenue.
This is the second listing.
Chair, I see no hands up at this time.
A minute.
Chair, just a moment.
We have Craig Melodosian with the hand up.
Craig Melodosian.
Good morning, sir.
Could you state your name, please?
Could you state your name, please, for the record?
Craig, C-R-A-I-G, last name Melodosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chairman Bergman.
Proceed.
I'm the coordinating RCO for this.
I know that we had a previous continuance.
I'm not sure if there's a language issue here. The woman is a foreign national and did not seem to comprehend the necessity of having a legal counsel as she was an LLC.
I'm not sure if there's a language issue here.
The woman is a foreign national.
She has an outstanding violation for having erected a porch on the front of the building. We've looked at it. It obviously can't be demolished.
We normally would approve it if she could just, I guess, coordinate whatever she needs to meet with us.
So perhaps we could give her an additional opportunity rather than dismissing it at this time.
Thank you for taking the time to call in.
We appreciate your comments.
So MI 2022, 004-677-7256 Saybrook Avenue.
This case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
Number one, MI 2022, 001058, 332 Delancey Street.
At the request of counsel for the applicant and the Protestants,
the vote in this matter has been postponed to Wednesday, August 2nd at 9.30 a.m.
Number two, MI 2022-006-988-1124-28 Dickinson Street. The resumptive hearing in this matter
has been rescheduled to Wednesday, July 26th at 9.30 a.m. We're going to go to our regular list.
We're going to start with number five.
MI 2022-003-749-261 South 24th Street.
Robert and Jessica Burke are the owner applicants pro se.
This application is for use as a visitor accommodation in an existing structure.
The proposed use of visitor accommodation is prohibited in the RM1 zoning district.
Chair, Jessica Burke is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I apologize.
I entered.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Take your time.
could you state your name and spell please for the court my name is jessica burke um j-e-s-s-i-c-a
b-u-r-k-e my husband is also on the call um we're on different video cameras he's in philadelphia
and i'm in denver and where i'm in i'm in denver and he's in philadelphia now so can you can you
handle it yes yeah okay sure do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. I do. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you. Good morning, ma'am. Have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five
days in advance of this hearing? Yes, sir. And I've corresponded with attorney Emerson. I believe
she could confirm that you've received everything. Okay. Thank you very much. Please proceed and
share your screen. And just for a note, there's a letter of opposition from the Center City of
Residence Association, but we also have eight letters of support from neighbors, four from the
200 block of South 24th Street. Okay, proceed. Thank you. And I share, okay, let me just get my,
I had this pulled up. If that's okay with you, I'll share my screen here shortly.
see the green share button on the bottom yes yeah there you go got it coming up coming up
proceed perfect let me see if i can expand that a little bit for you my husband and i um own a
property at 261 South 24th Street. It's this white one here. It's near the corner of 24th and Spruce.
My husband's a physician at Penn. He travels back and forth from Philadelphia to Denver. I'm here
with our three kids. He works there. We moved back to Denver to be with family during COVID,
and we've been using the property as a place for him to stay. When he's required to be in
in Philadelphia twice a month.
We've been, prior to the legislation being passed,
Prior to the legislation being passed, we had been short-term rental using the property when
we had been short-term rental usage
he wasn't staying there, but we are on site or were until this legislation changed twice a month.
My second slide just sort of shows that timeframe of us purchasing the home. We renovated it.
We moved to Colorado. We've been involved in the concept of trying to legally and
appropriately regulate short-term legislation and short-term rentals in Philadelphia from the
beginning. I met with Representative Squilla back in October of 21 when he was proposing and thinking
through the way to move forward with all of this. We've attempted to move through the whole process
legally applying as appropriate. We don't qualify because we're a unique situation where our primary
residence with our family is in Denver, that route that is available in Philadelphia is not
available to us. We must have a zoning variance in order to continue to use our property
to rent it short term when Bob's not there. Oh, that went all the way to the end. Sorry,
I'd like to go back through. Okay, so then my next slide. The intent of the legislation,
this is a statement that Representative Squilla gave us back in October when we were first
supposed to testify before you guys, is that the intent is to address nuisance properties
and to weed out bad actors. Not only do we have this statement from Representative Squilla,
but I did submit and can show we've been super hosts. And I only bring that up to say that we
We're not a bad actor.
Our neighbors like us, we like hosting.
We have a kind of historic, very tiny,
but historic property that's cool for people to see
as part of Philadelphia's history.
There is nothing in the legislation, as I pointed out,
about owners who have a property
as a secondary residence and use it.
This is not supposed to be an investment property for us.
We're just trying to let Bob stay there
and rent it when he's not there.
Um, if we don't get the variance, our property won't be owner occupied. We would have a renter
there. Um, we have two neighbors who've been there for more than 30 years, but we're the
longest homeowners other than that. Um, and what we're doing right now is 30 day rentals because
that's longer than 30 day rentals. Um, which is because that's what is allowed legally,
but it does effectively eliminate our ability to use our home. So Bob is staying in a hotel right
now. I also wanted to point out sort of where we are on a map and sort of the support that we do
have. I would note that none of our neighbors oppose. We did have a couple who didn't submit
letters of support, but we had many who did submit letters, most who did submit letters of support.
And you'll see how close we are both to existing sort of CMX 3 and other CMX zones.
We're on a sort of smaller street when we're one of four row homes on our side between us and this CMX.
That purple section on the map kind of in the upper left corner of the picture is actually a parking lot.
So we're not I don't we don't change the character of the block in any way.
certainly that nothing changes if we look at it. And the homes between us and the existing
zoning that works for us support. The third one, we just couldn't get. They don't oppose. They just
didn't come. And then this is sort of that same map just shown on a street level to give you a
sense of how close we are to zoning that works for short-term rentals and how you see that.
I see MX on the left is that parking lot that I mentioned, and that tall building is already
CMX3, and then they're just those were one of those little row homes on the right.
It's a lovely block.
So I hate, I'm reluctant to show this slide.
I'll move on because I did submit the statement that the RCO gave.
Dave, the reason I moved past that slide is that that's my opinion of their view, and
they did not provide a reason for refusal in our first refusal, and I corresponded with
them over the last month asking for their reasons for refusing, and I submitted that,
I believe, and I know I submitted that, and my view of summarizing that is that they basically
My view of summarizing that is that they basically said their policy is to refuse all of them in the zone and that the legislation says there shouldn't be any.
said their policy is
But there was nothing specific about us that was they're doing no, they just aren't doing it.
It's everybody that they're treating this way.
So in summary, we're responsible homeowners and residents.
We have a lot of neighbor support for our zoning variance requests.
We're very responsible as short term managers.
we've been there a long time it's a variance is consistent to zoning around us and our situation
is unique because while we aren't primary residents we do live in the property very regularly and the
intent of the legislation is not to exclude homeowners and residents from renting your home
in the short term. Questions from the board? No Mr. Chairman.
no chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
yeah we have france pierre okay
france pierre please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning mr pierre could you
state your name please and spell for the court sonographer yes good morning mr chairman fellow
board members that's france pierre that's f-r-a-n-t-z last name pierre p-i-e-r-r-e
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do and you're from the rco am i right no i'm here from the council member johnson's office
Oh, good, good, good. Proceed.
Yes. So given the RCO's letter of opposition, as well as the near neighbors, almost unanimous support, the council member does recognize that.
And due to that, he will defer to the ZBA board members to make the best decision.
Thank you very much for your taking the time to call us. We appreciate that.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, S-A-R-A-H-B-A-N-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, please.
The comprehensive plan represents no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity
with the zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable the viable economic
use of the property. The Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the
variance. Thank you. MI 2022-003-749-261 South 24th Street, I vote yes for a temporary variance
That will expire 8-1-27. That's 8-1-27.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you.
Okay. Number nine.
MI 2022-004-780-4712-Ella Street, Noel Garcia, this is pro se, this is for documentation and legalization of two non-accessory parking spaces and a mechanical rolling door.
No other use is prohibited at this lot. Sizes and location are shown in the application.
The proposed use non-accessory parking is prohibited in the RSA by residential.
Chair, we have someone calling from a Samsung device.
They're going to come back in as a panelist, Chair.
Right.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Could you state your name, please?
Yes, my name is Noel.
Spell for the court stenographer.
Yes, my name is Noel Garcia, N-O-E-L, last name Garcia, G-
My name is Noel Garcia, N-O-E-L, last name Garcia, G-A-R-C-I-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
I will note that the letter of support from the 42nd Ward Committee, the RCO, and there's a letter of non-opposition from Councilperson Lozada.
good morning sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i think my expediter um eb regis
um send them yes okay thank you i believe we did receive everything thank you please proceed
and share your screen all right i bought um 215 east wyoming avenue back in 2000
could you share your screen first we can't see yours we need we need to see your documents
All right. How do I, because E.B. Regis is on the other side. She's still wondering who's going to share my expediter, and I don't see her.
Well, she can share the screen, but she can't testify.
That's fine. I'm going to testify.
She needs to put the screen up.
The person with the last name Reyes has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Hello, good morning. Thank you for letting me in. Hello?
Yes, but just put the screen up. All we need is a screen from you.
Okay, can you see my screen?
We see your name. We don't see your screen.
Okay, give me one second, please.
Okay, we see the screen. Sir, can you see the screen?
mr garcia do you see the screen yes i can see it okay start testifying sir
okay um i bought 4712 ls3 with my house on 2018 um
i saw that there was a lot of parking issues and uh blocks i mean we have schools we have there's uh
Right across from 4712 Ella Street, there is a park, baseball, basketball, swimming pool.
And I always had trouble finding a parking room around my house.
I have two artistic kids that, I mean, as you know, I mean, I also had problems before where they would just open the door.
you know what I mean and just run to the house um I have the um this is why I'm here today to try
to get a permit um for the two parking um on my garage for a garage for two parking the lot is
actually um attached to my house which I'm living at allow I'm the lot I'm not using it for nothing
else just i mean i'm using as a as a yard for my kids to play on garcia why don't you show us a
picture you have a picture of the of the lot sure that's um exhibit um number four
that's the rolling gate that's the lot
and that's your lot next to your house yes
my my yard is actually um opened up to the lot i'm the only one to have um a way to my lot
the other yards right next to my house is not is um it's fenced
i also have the deed that i'm the the owner of the lot which is exhibit number two okay
um we had a community meeting meeting exhibit three
and i was supported by um three
And I was supported by three people, even though we send a letter to a lot of people, a lot of neighbors.
And exhibit number five was just the proof of postal mail.
I also have the copy of the letter that was sent to them.
Back in 10-30-22.
And I have the Sowning Board Revise of Plans, exhibit number seven.
I have the blueprints layout.
mr garcia what happened was you redid it you put a fence up right you put the gate up and then
someone came out and complained that it wasn't zoned properly is that right yes it was yes but
i mean i when i did it i mean i didn't know that i mean i had to get i mean i live in i mean i used
live in puerto rico and puerto rico is different than here we used to do yes all right you went
to the 42nd ward you presented they gave you a three zero vote and the council person is in
non-opposition is that right yes okay questions from the board no chair
hello this is evie reyes um the rco that supported the um you don't remember you don't
testify okay i i said the rco supported the council persons in non-opposition yes okay um
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair hi planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA single-family zoning at this
location. The appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict
conformity with the zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable the
viable economic use of the property. The city planning commission recommends that the board
deny the variance. Hillary? Yes, Mr. Chair. Can we make this a temporary variance? Yes, we can,
Chair. So that way, if they have removed it, the variance doesn't go along to the next person,
okay? Well, I mean, yeah, it would need to be renewed by whoever, but yes, we can do a temporary
variance for um we want to specify specifically for um the use well actually would go with
everything right so really mi 2022 004 780 4712 ella street i vote yes for a temporary variance
that will expire 8-1-2027
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2023-000-561-527 West Rockland Street.
The application is for two-family household living in an existing structure.
Letter of support from the Logan Civic Association.
Chair Alejandro Zapata is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Alejandro?
Yes. Good morning.
Good morning. Could you state your name and spell it for the court sonographer, please?
One second.
Okay, my name is Alejandro Zapata.
A-L-E-J-A-N-D-R-O-Z-A-P-A-T-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you please turn your video on?
Could you please turn your video on?
I'm just wondering.
That's what I'm trying. Give me one second.
Okay. Okay. Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Okay. Good morning, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Please proceed and share your screen.
So I bought this property 527 West Rockland.
Can you see my screen?
Yes, we see.
The property back in 2019, no, 2020, I'm sorry, as an existing duplets to family with violations.
So it also had a made safe property that was marked unsafe.
Excuse me one minute, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Zabahada, there's another owner listed.
Who is the other owner of the property, your uncle? Okay. All right. Thank you.
So the property was marked unsafe. So in the meantime, since COVID, everything was slow.
So I was taking care of the make safe first. And by the time I finished the make safe,
the use
the use spire
I applied for the
you applied for the
I applied for the
for the two families
for the use permit
for the building permits
so this
this was originally
a duplex, am I right?
And then the use expired.
Could you show us pictures of it, please?
When I applied, it got refused.
And they voted 10-3
in your favor.
Since 1944, it's been
a duplex.
Back in 2017,
it also got granted.
But like I said, since I was doing the
Maysafe, it got expired and
That's where I'm at right now.
When he shows, do you have the photos there?
Yeah, that's where it's kind of going slow.
And the utilities are already separated, right?
So that's, this is, this is the picture after the maid safe.
You can see the picture the way it was before.
So the property pretty much was marked unsafe because of the back of the house.
It was pretty much not black.
You don't see the picture in a second.
So that's how it looks right now.
The inside was already like this as well.
You're also at the end of the block, am I right?
Yes, at the end of the block.
let me show you the the picture of the uh the way it used to be before
hold on a second so that's all the photos you have no no i don't i'm trying to show you the
way it was before me.
All right.
So, Mr. Zapata, it's already been, it's all
always been zone a duplex,
right? But it
expired. Am I right?
Yes. Okay.
Questions from the board?
no mr chairman
No, Mr. Chairman.
no chair
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 508 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance.
Thank you for taking us the time to call in.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no other hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning at
this location however the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of the
property the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance thank
you MI 2023 000 561 527 West Rockland Street I vote yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
Thank you, Mr.
You have your votes
We're going to number one on the list
000363
17 McKean Street
Eric Carroll is the attorney
for the owner
There's a recommendation of
support from the East Point Breeze
neighbors
chair eric carroll is coming back in as a panelist now
good morning mr carroll could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
good morning chair bergman my name is eric carroll uh eric c-a-r-r-o-l-l i represent
the owner applicant marco maestri right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do our vice chair has just a few questions sir
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
okay the subject property here is 1615 mckean street we're on uh mckean street uh west patch
yunk about a block north of patch yunk um and the cross street is bancroft street which is just
just west of 16th street as you can see uh the ground floor is a garage and then there's a second
floor that traditionally has been residential apartments, and that's why we're here today.
This building, and this whole block for that matter, is zoned I-2, which prohibits residential
use. My client is here seeking to legalize the existing apartments and have a variance so that
the upstairs can be residential. This is the deed. My client, Mr. Maestri, bought the property
in early 2022. The prior owner operated the building as a ground floor auto body shop or
or auto repair shop.
He was also the owner of the building
and the owner of the business.
He rented out the two top units.
And our understanding is that that situation
had held for some decades.
When we applied for zoning, we got one denial.
And as you can see, that was because the use
was not allowed in this particular residential district.
I've attached the project information form
as one of the exhibits.
These are the plans.
Let me just blow these up.
As you can see, the first floor, which is the middle diagram, is an existing auto body shop.
It's about 35 feet frontage along McKean Street and then 70 feet along Bancroft Street.
Right now, the whole building is unoccupied.
My client wants to renovate the two upstairs units.
So there would be two units. There's an entrance on the west.
So, there would be two units. There's an entrance on the west side, leading to a stairwell that goes up to the units.
Each is two bedrooms with a living area, kitchen, bath, washer, dryer, utility room.
As you said, this situation already exists. My client just wants to renovate them.
They were pretty old and dilapidated. And once hopefully you approve the variance, we'll get that we'll get that rented out.
Reduce that. Posted zoning notice. We did go before the Point Breeze Neighbors Association.
in advance of that meeting i sent out as required 155 notices to the neighbors
at the meeting four people showed up two of whom were board members
all four voted in support what that tells me is that nobody was really in opposition to this
and i'll show you are you looking at a street street view right now yes okay as you can see
this is, as I said, this is McKean and Bancroft. This entire block is set up the same way. So if
you go along Bancroft Street, you can see the same thing holds for the entire block all the
way north to Mifflin Street. You got a garage on the first floor, and then some sort of living area
or residential space on the upstairs. This whole building, this whole block is zoned I2, but you
have this residential use, almost 100% uniformity. As we said, we just want to legalize the
existing use, but there really is no other existing use. The hardship we have is that
the upstairs unit is 30 feet, 35 feet by 70 feet. So even if we were going to try to shoehorn some
sort of, you know, backroom office operations for the garage downstairs, there's not many
auto body repair shops of that type that's going to need that kind of office space. If these aren't
residential, they're going to be unrentable. So we're here today to ask your support. We hope
you vote for the variance legalizing the long existing use of the upstairs residential units.
Mr. Carroll, was there utilities upstairs separated for each department?
Yes, correct.
All right. Could you bring your client on, please?
Sure, Mr. Maestri.
here we have marco maestri he's been allowed to speak all right sir could you state your name
please and spell for the court stenographer yes mr chairman marco maestri m-a-r-c-o-m-a-e-s-t-r-i
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do proceed counsel thank you mr master you are the owner of 1615 1617 mckean street is that
correct that's correct okay and did you listen to uh every my presentation just now i did was
everything truthful and accurate to your knowledge yes it was if you were to testify here today would
you adopt my testimony as your own yeah yes i would okay thank you mr my questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
here i see no hands at this time planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to rm1 our chip claim is supported with
evidence of unique physical circumstances of the property the city planning commission recommends
that the Zoning Board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2023, 000363, 1615-17 McKean Street,
I vote yes. Thomas Holliman, I vote yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2023, 0005364645 North 13th Street.
Peter Elliott is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the Logan Civic Association.
Here we have Peter Elliott.
They are coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members of the board.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Elliott, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello.
My name is Peter Elliott, P-E-T-E-R-E-L-L-I-O-T.
P-E-T-E-R-E-L-L-I-O-T, attorney number 327465, and my law firm Greenberg-Trorig represents the
Attorney number.
applicant in this case, 13 Homes Opportunity LLC. I am also joined by my colleague Kevin Greenberg,
Esquire, on this call. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? I do. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you. Good morning, counsel. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy? I do. Have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing? I have done that and I corresponded with attorney
Emerson. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay. So, Chair and members of the Board, we have two projects before you today. This is the first, 4645 North 13th Street. So, by way of general introduction, 13 Homes Opportunity LLC is the owner for this property.
and it's an LLC that strives to eliminate societal prejudice and inequities.
So 13 Homes is committed to providing affordable and workforce housing using high-quality building
materials and renewable and sustainable technologies. The 13 Homes team attending
today is comprised of Leslie Hollins, who is the real estate manager, Chrissy Garrity,
who is counsel, and we're also joined by Sean Frisch, Justin Chase, and Sarah Bryant,
who are also on the team. And we are also joined by Raymond Rolla, who is our architect for this
project. So this is a simple use variance for the legalization of an existing two-unit residence
in a property zoned for single-family homes. So this is in the Logan section of the city,
just north of Roosevelt Boulevard and just to the east of Broad Street.
um so here is a north view oh zoom in for you so our property is the orange property here
um this is a north view of the site this is a south view orange property on the left
and this is the current zoning map of the area. As you can see there are two large parks in the
area and Broad Street runs down the middle of the map. So next I want to show you some
photos of the condition of the property. So this is it again. This is the orange
building. So this is in the Logan section of the city in Councilmember Bass's district.
The property was designed to be and currently exists as a two-unit use,
and 13 homes acquired this property in July of 2021 with the plan to rehabilitate it and
and utilize it for workforce and affordable housing.
The intention is to make housing available for local residents to stay in the neighborhood.
So this is the upstairs unit.
So you can see the walls have been significantly damaged.
And this is the rear of the property, which we cleaned out.
And we're proud of cleaning it out. It took some effort.
So now let me introduce Leslie Hollins, who is the real estate manager for 13 Homes.
and i would like to make her available to testify if that's all right
mr ellen let me ask you a few questions first yeah please the right the remainder of the block
is there also multiple families homes as far as we are aware there are several uh existing
multiple family units we're not sure as to the legality of all of them right 13 homes does
actually have a property across the street at 46 42 which is multiple units and so we are on the
block and we're this plate this was also designed as multiple units when you bought it although it
was in bad shape yes it was it was purchased that way and the intention here is to
Yes, it was it was purchased that way. And the intention here is to just rehabilitate it and make it available as affordable and workforce housing.
Why don't we bring on the real estate manager and let her adopt your testimony?
Great. Leslie Collins, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
hi um my name is leslie hollins um last name h o l l i n s swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel leslie did you hear the testimony
that i gave today about 13 homes yes and do you agree with everything i said yes
Yes. And would you adopt what I said as your testimony here today?
Yes, I do. Thank you.
Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson. Just state your name for the record.
you've already been sworn good morning again mr chair charles richardson office of councilwoman
cindy bathroom 508 city hall councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance thank you very
much anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands planning commission thank you chair bergman
sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing residential single-family zoning. However, the proposed use is consistent with
documented prior use of this property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning
board grant the variance. MI 2023-000-536-4645 North 13th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Counsel, can you stay on, please? We're going to go to your other case.
Wonderful. Thank you very much.
So number 12, MI 2023-000-550-1321 West Wing of Hopkins Street.
Letter of recommendation from the Logan Civic Association.
Peter Elliott is the attorney.
Mr. Elliott, just for the record, state your name.
You've already been sworn.
Peter Elliott for the applicant, 13 Homes Opportunity, LLC.
This is the second project before you.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, I did. And I coordinated
with attorney Emerson on that. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
I believe my screen is being shared right now. Please let me know if it's not. It's not being
shown. No, you're up. You're good. Oh, it's up. Okay, great. So good morning, chair and members
of the board. This is the second project that we have here. And so just so you understand,
this owner, 13 Homes Opportunity, LLC, sees these projects, although they're a few blocks away,
as kind of a scattered site project. So just with that in mind, 13 Homes is the mission-driven LLC
that strives to eliminate societal prejudice and inequities. They're again going to be providing
affordable and workforce housing at this location. So 1321 West Wingo-Hawking Street is also located
just to the north of Roosevelt Boulevard, just to the east of Broad Street. I will show you
some images here. So this is looking east, sorry, this is looking westbound,
and this is the property here, or eastbound, I'm sorry, that's eastbound. This is westbound,
and you're looking at Broad Street here and this is the property here.
This is the existing zoning map. This is the property here and there's a park right here
and this is Broad Street running up down the center of the map. So
here are some images of the exterior and interior condition of the property.
exterior and interior condition of the property.
So 1321 West Wing of Hawking, this application is also a simple use variance for the legalization
of a downsize from three units down to two units. This is in the Logan section of the city in
council member Bass's eighth council district. It was designed to be and currently exists as a
three-unit use. In October of 1949, the zoning board granted a variance for two-family dwelling
in addition to a third-level rooming house. The proposal here is to combine the third-level
rooming house with the second level unit, and to maintain the first level unit for a total of two
units inside of the property. And the reason for that is that the third level, the owner determined
that it was just too small to really provide the quality affordable and workforce housing that they
are committed to providing. So you're looking at the second floor unit here.
And then these are the stairs to go up to the third floor unit that's looking back down the stairs, and this is the condition of the third floor unit.
so at this time um if there are any questions from the board i can take those
i can also make the architect available for questions and additionally why don't we have
why don't we have the the real estate manager to come on again at dr testing absolutely let's do
that. Leslie, would you please raise your hand? Hi, Leslie. Hi. You've already been sworn. Just
for the record, state your name. Leslie Hollins. Right. Proceed, counsel. Leslie, did you hear
what I said regarding 13 Homes Opportunity LLC today? I did, yes. And would you agree with
everything that I said about this project? Yes. And would you adopt the testimony that I gave
today as your own? I do, yes. Thank you, Leslie. Questions from the board? No, Chair. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
yes chairs we have charles richardson they've been allowed to speak hi mr richardson just
state your name for the record you've already been sworn charles richardson of councilwoman
cindy bass from 508 city hall councilman no objection to granting the variance thank you
for calling in uh planning commission thank you chair bergman sarah bond philadelphia city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change the existing residential single-family
zoning however the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of this property
the city planning commission recommends that the board that the zoning board grant the variance
MI 2023-000-550-1321-Wingahokken Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheem, I vote yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much.
Number four, MI-2022-006-900-9100-Frankford Avenue.
Clementa Amazon is the attorney for this.
Clementa has been promoted to panelists.
There's recommendation of support from the Upper Holmesburg Civic Association.
good afternoon could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
of course my name is clemente amazon spelled c-l-e-m-e-n-t-a last name is a-m-a-z-a-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do could you identify your client the relationship to this property
Of course. My client is the member of the owner of the property, and it should be Deepak. I believe he's on here now.
What's the name of the person?
Deepak, D-E-E-P-A-K.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Of course.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
I'll just go into full screen here.
And can everyone see my screen?
We can.
All right, perfect.
So again, my name is Clemente Amazon, and I will be presenting 9100 Frankfort Avenue.
Within my presentation, I will go through the amended zoning refusal.
I also have a copy of the original refusal, our application for appeal, photos of the property,
the survey, the proposed site plan, as well as the landscaping plan, elevations. We did meet with the
community on May 22nd, and we do have a letter of support, an email indicating support. We did not
receive the formal letter. We did include that within our presentation materials that we submitted
on Friday, as well as the tax clearance and the deed showing that my client does, in fact, own the
property. So with that, we have the first refusal, our original refusal will come later. So
So for this particular property, it is an existing gas station.
What we are looking to do here is to add two pumps as well as a car wash.
Unfortunately, my client is competing with the Wawa across the street, and it is deeply impacting his business.
He's a small business owner.
So in an effort to gain more traction and to get a little bit more business, he's looking to add the car wash onto the property.
I do stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal.
However, I will say that the refusals that we received tend to view the property as a parking lot, which it is not.
It is a gas station, and we're looking to also add on a car wash.
As such, we do have several landscaping refusals that are included here, as well as stacking lanes and a rear yard.
So as you will see in my presentation, we do have landscaping within the property.
there is also significant greenery that is creating a buffer in between the residential
zoning. We're attached to an RSA 2 district. The property is zoned CMX 2. So we are not negatively
impacting that residential district in any way. As a matter of fact, it's also a commercial property
that you will see in my presentation as well. So we do also have screening. So that addresses the
first two refusals as you'll see in the presentation for the greenery and excuse me
interior landscaping was not feasible just because this is a gas station as well as a car wash so
it wouldn't be feasible or safe really to provide interior landscaping so exhibit two is our
original refusal we did revise or we did reach out and realize that some of the refusals were
not properly included within our initial refusal. Our application for appeal.
And here's a view of the pumps. We are currently renovating to allow for multiple pump distribution,
meaning we are going into the sub tanks to see if we can have one pump, as you can see here,
to allow for multiple types of gas to be pumped at any time.
and we did post the property showing that the zba hearing would be today at 9 30
with the information of the property owner oneness enterprises llc deepak verna is a member of said
llc and there is a mini mark that's located on the property we don't have any intention
to change that use in any way all we're looking to do here is to add the car wash
additional photos of the property a zoning map as i mentioned we are zoned cmx2 and we
abut a residential zoning however along four corner property as well along frankfurt and
academy road and this is the residential district that we have this refusal for and this is our
property right here as you can see there is quite a bit of landscaping as is we do have trees that
are in between the two lots and this property is currently being used as an event space and they
have a parking lot that is pretty much abutting the car property so we're not negatively impacting
the property that's adjacent to us or to the rear excuse me so we don't believe that the refusals
that we have really reflect the character of the neighborhood as it is currently
and here's just a zoomed in view showing the event space which is tucked into the rear of
the property here at the parking lot and there is a lawn in between and you saw the greenery in
between the two lots as well additional views of the property along frankfurt avenue and
additional views of the property along frankfurt avenue and this is the wawa across the street
again we are looking to compete because they tend to have a bit more foot traffic everybody
does love wawa but we're hoping that we can get a little bit more attention with the addition of
the car wash and here we have the plans i will go through those in a bit more detail in the following
slide so here we have the plans there are curb cuts that currently exist on the property along
frankfurt avenue so we would have our attendees attend excuse me enter through frankfurt avenue
along this curb cut and they can then wrap around and there is parking that's available for
individuals that will be going into the mini mart there's also the parking parking that is available
we will have two employees one employee for the mini mart as well as an employee to direct the
flow of traffic as needed and signage to allow everyone to know which way they can enter as well
as exit there is ingress and egress along academy road as well and these are the two gasoline pumps
that we are looking to add and here we have a view of the landscaping we do have trees that will be
and they are in compliance with the requirements for a parking lot although again this is a gas
station we do have landscaping along frankfurt avenue as well as academy road but we don't have
any interior landscaping as it is a gas station so it would not be appropriate or safe for the
particular use that we are proposing and this is just another map showing the landscaping that we
are looking to include along frankfurt avenue and here are the elevations just showing the way that
the cars would be able to enter into the car wash this is going to be a quick wash we don't
anticipate that cars will take more than a couple minutes to go through the wash at a time
and when there is oil that or excuse me gasoline that needs to be delivered they would enter along
frankfurt avenue and wrap around to access the sub pumps
and this is a notice that we sent to the community on april 6 regarding the community meeting that
is scheduled for april 20th a copy of the refusals that we provided at the time that we sent notice
that we had not yet obtained the amended refusal however we did include it during our presentation
to the board as well as the community, a list of the properties that were notified of the community
meeting, our certificate of mailing. And as I mentioned, we did not receive a formal letter.
However, Dan, who is the head of the Upper Homesburg Civic Association, did send us an email
indicating that there was unanimous support from the RCO board and 19 votes in favor from meeting
attendees and only four in opposition. So we did receive overwhelming support for this particular
project. And our tax clearance certificate showing that no fines are due or real estate taxes
are due along the property, as well as indeed showing that my client does in fact own the
property. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board may have.
You want to bring your client on, please, and adopt your testimony?
Of course. Deepak, if you're on, if you could just raise your hand so that you may adopt my
testimony. Chair, Deepak Verma has been unmuted. Sir, could you state your name and spell it for
the court stenographer? My name is Deepak Verma, last name V-E-R-M-A. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel. Deepak, did you
hear my presentation today yes and was it true and correct yes and would you adopt it as your
own testimony yes thank you questions from the board no mr chair no chair questions or comments
from the virtual audience here i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission in 2018 the zoning map
was amended to commercial mixed use at this location in accord with recommendations from
the comprehensive plan the appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence
of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property the planning commission recommends
that the zoning board deny the variance thank you council you want to respond i would just say
that we cannot provide interior landscaping the refusals that we received were as a result of the
property being viewed as a parking lot we do have significant landscaping in between our property
and the commercial property to the rear it is not a residentially used property so a lot of the
reviews that we have don't reflect the current character of the neighborhood nor the use that
we're proposing which is a gas station as well as a car wash not a parking lot um am i
as well as a car wash, not a parking lot.
MI 2022-006-900-9100-FRANKFORD-AVENUE, I vote yes with proviso.
Her amended refusal dated 4-10-23.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number six, MI-2022-006-541-2400, Carl Street.
Leo Movahill is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
Letter of support from the East Kensington Neighborhood Association.
Chair, the person with the last name, Movahill, has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly. It is Leo, L-E-O, last name Mulvihill, M as in Michael, U-L-V as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L.
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?
Yes, my client is H-K-T, as in Tom, Enterprise, L-L-C.
They are the owner of the property, and I have Chantel, who is one of the members of the LLC, on the line with us today.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
so my screen should currently be sharing members of the board so this is property at 2400 coral
street it's at the intersection of coral and east york in the east kensington neighborhood of
philadelphia it's a three-story structure on the ground story was a cafe uh the second story is
the story that we're going to be talking about today and the third story is a long-term rental
now my client at this property had been using this as a short-term rental legislation changed
now we're seeking to legalize a short-term rental it's a two-bedroom unit it runs just
under market rates in the area my clients really dedicated to providing a safe space for people who
wish to come travel to philadelphia i have a nice place to stay in the middle of a really wonderful
neighborhood and that's why we're here today the hardship specifically is that the legislation
changed under my client my client's property is zoned cmx1 but with the support of the neighborhood
which was 20 to 1 in support, if I recall, we would ask your support today as well, members of the board.
This is a copy of our refusal. We did receive a refusal for visitor accommodation being prohibited in the CMX1 district.
At page 2 of my presentation packet is my client's application for appeal.
Page 4 is my client's project information form.
This is an area zoning map, members of the board. I'm going to zoom in first to the upper map from Philadelphia Atlas. My client's property is being indicated by my cursor right now, the CMX1 property in red, again at the intersection of Coral Street and East York Street.
Generally speaking, it's RSA5 properties. There are some other commercial mixed use, some RM1, some industrial properties in the area as well, which are mainly a holdover from the area's industrial past.
At the bottom of this page, members of the board, is a screenshot from Google Maps showing,
just generally speaking, the layout of the streets themselves.
So, copy my client's deed to page 9.
At page 15 of my packet, members of the board, this is the letter that was sent out June 7,
2023, notifying all the community members of the community meeting for this property.
This is the letter of support from East Kensington Neighbors Association. It's dated 621. We just received it yesterday and I got it into Ms. Emerson just in time.
But as you can see, members of the board indicating with my cursor towards the middle of the page, we did have 20 members voting in support, one in opposition, one in non-opposition.
my client's commercial activity license members of the board tax clearance
then we have photos of the property as well so this is just the photos of the short-term
visitor accommodation members of the board it is a two-bedroom unit one of the bedrooms has
two smaller beds the other has a larger bed so this is the smaller bedroom with the two beds
This is the dining area and hallway, bathroom.
bathroom
living area and seating area kitchen area oh that should be sideways there we go kitchen area
as you can see it's nicely furnished members of the board
this is the larger bedroom at page 32 of my packet
This is an exterior seating area for the folks that wish to do so.
Washer-dryer.
Again, the smaller bedroom at page 43.
Page 44, we have exterior photos of the property showing the postings, both of the refusal and of the zoning notice itself, advising everybody of today's meeting.
previously on the ground floor this was a cafe that cafe is currently undergoing some changes
right now there may be something else going in there in the future but it is currently closed
this is the view from york street
further back and then we're going to do a 360. this is looking eastbound on york members of
board you can see mini mart on the corner with some residential units above and largely residential
down the block this is looking from coral street and again we're doing that 360. this is page 61
members of the board looking northbound on coral again this is largely a residential neighborhood
as you saw in the zoning maps again there's that mini mart that we saw in the previous pictures from
york street this is an exterior building sketch page 69 page 70 is just the addendum showing the
first second third floors and their relative sizes to one another like many typical three-story
buildings in philadelphia the ground story is the largest second's a little smaller third smaller yet
now this is the layout of the unit itself so this would be the roof
and this is the apartment that's the two bedroom which would be the short-term rental
this is the seating and kitchen area bathroom the washer dryers towards the middle
As you go towards down the hallway, we have bedroom number one with a closet, and we have the other bedroom with a significant closet as well.
So members of the board, this has been operating as an Airbnb or other short-term rental unit since approximately July of 2021.
We're just seeking to legalize this.
the hardship is simply that this is and has been operating as a short-term rental it
with the changes in legislation my clients are kind of shifting and we're seeking to legalize
what it was so the change in the legislation itself is ultimately what led to the hardship
in this circumstance so overall with the overwhelming community support the fact that
my client has been in this property for quite some time managing that cafe until it unfortunately
if you had to close. We would ask for your support as well in granting the variances for this
property. If we could get Chantel, if you could raise your hand to ask to be unmuted. We can have
you answer any board questions and get you to about my testimony. Chair, we have Chantel Todman.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak. Yep. Hi, could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court stenographer.
My name is Chantel Todman,
C-H-A-N-T-E-L-L-E,
Todman, T-O-T-E as in David,
M as in Mary, A, N as in Nancy.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Proceed, counsel.
Great.
Now, Chantel, you've heard my presentation today
to the zoning board?
All right.
Is there anything you'd like to add at this time?
Nothing at this time.
And with respect to the testimony that I presented to the zoning board today, would you adopt that testimony as your own?
I would, and it's true and accurate to the best of your knowledge. Yes. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for you, but the board members might.
Questions from the board. No, Mr. Chairman.
No, chair questions or comments from the virtual audience.
Here, I see no hands at this time.
planning commission
thank you chair
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan, excuse me, recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed use zoning. The appellant has not shown that the property cannot be used in strict conformity with the zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable the viable economic use of this property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
bergman sarah bond philadelphia city
planning commission the comprehensive
MI 2022 006541 2400 Carl Street I vote yes with temporary variance that will expire 8-1-27.
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with proviso. Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you council. Thank you members of the board have a good day.
Okay, let's see here.
Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called for this morning's list?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Okay, I think we're done for the morning.
Thanks, everyone.
See you at 2 p.m.
All right.
Good job, everyone.
Thank you, everyone.
okay we're ready to go keisha yes sir good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will
be chairing the 2 p.m zba hearings with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed
present mr chairman our board member thomas holliman
present mr chairman and our board member james snell
Also present is our executive director, Tanya Sunkett, and our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is now for comments or testimony.
All comments should be referred to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon. Our continuance. Number nine, MI 2023-001-070-70-80 East Worcester Street. That case is continued.
And number 12, MI-2023-001-265-2203, Natrona Street.
That case is continued.
Is there anyone has comments relative to the cases I've just continued?
We have any hands?
No hands.
Any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
I also have two cases that have been withdrawn.
MI 2023-001-121-1406 Cecil B. Moore Avenue.
That case has been withdrawn, is withdrawn.
alt. 5. MI 2023-001-212-2022 Glenwood Avenue. In that case, it's also with withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
Number one, MI 2023-000-471-2829-59 North 23rd Street.
I vote yes.
We would also like to read into the record a statement relative to this.
The board would like to note for the record that granting the requested variances with the expectation that the applicant will continue to work with the community regarding any potential negative impacts of the illuminated sign, as stated by counsel with the applicant at the July 12th hearing.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, there are revised plans.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, there are revised plans in this matter.
Also, there's also a proviso.
Revised plans, four pages, stamped by CBA on July 19, 2023.
And we also need to note for the record that Mr. Shahid has recused himself from this matter.
And Mr. Shahid has recused himself from this matter.
Thank you.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Number two, MI 2023 001042 10 South Front Street. The vote on this matter has been
rescheduled to Wednesday, July 26 at 2 p.m.
3. MI 2022-003-437-6900 Chester Avenue, Parcel B. At the request of the applicant, the vote
in this matter has been postponed until August 30th at 2 p.m. The record will be reopened for
the limited purpose of counsel for the parties updating the board regarding any additional
discussions that have occurred between the applicant and the community since the July 12th
hearing. Any additional information that the parties wish to submit for the board must be
received by the board by close of day business on August 28th. Number four, MI 2023-004-65447
to 49 West Plain Lane. I vote yes with Proviso. Her amended refusal dated 7-18-23 and also
Proviso's interior trash storage and interior mailbox and mail storage.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes with Proviso
Thomas
I believe I do not vote
Okay, oh okay, thank you Tom
Thank you. All right, we're going to go to our regular list.
Number one, MI 2023-001-053-2516 Frankfurt Avenue.
Al Nockmson is the attorney.
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Fatina L.
I'll be your co-host for this afternoon.
You're welcome. Mr. Nockmson has been promoted to panelists.
We have a letter of opposition from East Kensington Neighbors Association, a letter of support from the Fishtown Kensington area's business improvement, and a letter of opposition from Council Member Squelett.
The applicant has provided a petition signed by five neighbors, four on the 2500 block of Frankfort Avenue.
Mr. Nockamson, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-R.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i did could you identify your client relationship to this property uh yes my client is uh 25 16
frankfurt ave llc and in the virtual audience is its member ryan kim our vice chair has a few
questions for you
good morning count good afternoon counsel do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
who were stipulated towards accuracy?
I did.
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case
filed these in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
I apologize my screen is a little slow today.
Let's see.
All right, so I'm here to present 2516 Frankford Avenue.
As you can see, this is a proposed four-story structure on Frankford Avenue with a much
lesser structure setback on Amber Street.
This is a renovation project, and you'll see that there's a building here already that
there's a building here already that was merely renovating this is also a cmx2 property
that we're just merely renovating.
This is also a CMX 2.
so we have during our presentation we're going to review the original notice of refusal which
did not include the commercial use we met with the the frankfurt bid and based on their
recommendations we changed the course of our project by including the commercial component
which increased some of the refusals at the request of the Frankfurt Avenue bid.
We did eventually get that revised refusal, which is Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4 is our correspondence from the East Kensington Neighborhood Association.
It was a closed vote, 7, 4, 10, not in favor of this project.
I will say this with our conversations with the Board of East Kensington Neighbors Association.
They were a little bit surprised by the outcome of the vote. Again, this, I think it's a responsible project. You know, this was vetted by the Frankfurt Avenue bid before this project.
There was another project that night in front of the East Kensington Neighbors Association, so I think it's one of those situations where we were caught in the crosshairs of another project and people who are angry about that project, and unfortunately some of those people voted against us for our project, but does not go to the merits of the project.
We did circulate a petition, you know, of people who are directly impacted on that block.
Again, Frankford Avenue is a commercial portal.
So the individuals on that block are mixed between businesses as well as residents.
You'll see that.
One of our refusals has to do with lot coverage.
Just to reiterate, our property is a non-conforming lot as is right now.
We increased the non-conformity by increasing the lot coverage.
original we increased the lot coverage even more at the request of the frankfurt avenue bid
um and you know you'll see from the pictures that first of all it's not out of character
to have this type of like non-conformity in this part of the neighborhood where many of the
properties on frankfurt avenue do not conform to to the lot coverage requirements under the
Philadelphia codes. But also, the fact is, is that our property right now is a non-conforming
lot. Then one of the other refusals dealt with the height variance. Again, the height variance is,
you know, one that's not uncommon on Frankfort Avenue, and we'll show you three projects where
this board has granted height variances on Frankfort Avenue. We were also asked to increase
the height of the property by the frankfort avenue bid because they wanted a more prominent commercial
space on the ground floor which we did which we then got authorization from the zba and we have
a revised refusal but there's no harm in terms of us having both a lot of coverage issues as well as
issues in terms of the height in terms with regards to the requirements under the code
because the property to the left of us and right of us
are not being affected by light and air.
And we'll show you that as well.
Then we'll review maps of the area,
photographs of the property,
our plans and drawings,
our RCO meeting notice,
our applications for appeal.
Then our deed to the property
showing a 2516 Frankfurt Ave LLC
as the owner of the property.
And then our evidence of a tax clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation,
I would ask that Mr. Kim virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in,
and he can adopt my testimony as his own and we can take any questions from the board.
So the original refusal for the CMX2 property was for five dwelling units. And we have,
and we have, you know, as part of that request, we asked for an addition on the front part of
the Frankfurt Avenue property and other modifications throughout. We received several
refusals. First, it's not, we're not getting a refusal because we're asking to create a
multifamily structure where a multifamily structure cannot be created. It's just the
fact is that our lot size is not adequate enough to meet the five unit count. Right now we have a
three, the property is comprised of a three residential units and one commercial unit,
but this property is in desperate need of TLC. And in order to justify the expense that we would
have to incur, we have to increase the unit count. So originally, we're only going to have
five residential units. At the request of the Frankfurt Avenue bid, we increased that from
five residential units plus one commercial unit. But the first refusal has to do with a residential
component, where three units are allowed on the code, and we're asking for five. Again,
And we're asking for five, again, to justify the extensive renovations which must take place here, we need that extra unit count.
to justify the extensive renovations, which must...
Plus, the Frankfurt bid was welcoming of this increasing unit count to help support their commercial order.
So, again, this is something that is not uncommon to have this variance of this sort.
And it was requested of us to increase the density even further by having five residential units in the commercial component.
The second refusal, which was eliminated, you'll see, was for the commercial component.
And then the height, as you can see under the original refusal, was 42 feet high, where you'll see later 44 feet is now being requested.
And you can see the maximum occupied area, again, not much different than what's currently existing.
We have an occupied area of approximately 81% right now, which would, again, run afoul of the requirements of the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
We asked for an additional 5% of coverage, which, you know, again, increased the nonconformity.
But then we were asked further, based on the request from the Frankfurt Avenue bid, to increase that lot coverage even further.
Then we got an authorization letter from after our meeting with the Frankfurt Avenue bid to change our project in three respects.
Increase the building footprint, increase the building size by two feet, and add a commercial unit on the first floor and lower level.
And based on that request, the ZBA's administrator allowed us to make a resubmission to L&I, and then we received a revised refusal.
Again, we got rid of the refusal regarding the lack of a commercial component.
We do have the two same refusals regarding lot coverage and unit counts, where three
units are allowed, residential units are allowed as a right ratio for five.
And the lot coverage issue got even greater that variance request, but at the request
of the community.
We did meet with, we did have a community meeting through the ECNA, East Kensington Neighbors Association. And as you can see, it was seven people in favor and 10 people in opposition.
Some of their issues had to do with directly what we were asked to do, you know, about, oh, we're concerned about the 44 feet in height, we're concerned about the law coverage.
They misstated that we're going to six units, we're only doing five residential units.
But, you know, ECNA's bylaws require the ECNA to either support, propose, or not take a position based solely on the community votes.
Again, when we met before the meeting with ECNA, they thought that this was, the board members thought that this was a responsible project, and they were quite surprised that we did not get support from the community.
But here's the Fishtown District's, you know, letter of support.
It kind of outlines exactly what I said before about what they wanted to accomplish through this project.
Increased density is going to help support the commercial border.
They wanted a more prominent commercial space, so we had to increase the height even more.
And, you know, they weren't concerned about the occupancy of the building structure.
And then we did get a petition.
We really just focused on the businesses and individuals who'd be most directly impacted.
So we only focused really on the people other than one signature, the people on that block.
And then just, you know, so you can see, it's not out of character to have lock coverage above 75%.
And we took circles of every single property.
This is ours, by the way, current condition.
You can see that we have lock coverage issues, but it's just this block.
And again, it's not out of character to have this type of variance or non-conformity.
And then this is just an aerial view of our property.
As you can see, there's only like a sliver.
there is open areas like 19% of our lot. Again, no one can get into that area either. And as you
can see, there's a one-story commercial structure here. So if we increased a lot coverage, it's not
going to be an issue. If we increase the height, it's not going to be an issue. Same thing goes
to the property to the left of us. We're not going to affect anyone's dramatically, anyone's light
and air under the circumstances. And again, we're basically a corner property, so we're not going to
have much of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood either. And then nearby height
variances. So in 2019, this board granted a height variance for 2547 Frankfurt. Here's a zoning
permit. I also included the notice of refusal so you can see that, you know, the basis of that
zoning permit and the granting of the variance. Same thing goes for 2566 Frankfurt Avenue. We'll
Same thing goes for 2566 Frankfurt Avenue.
We'll get another property on this block where this board granted in 2016 a height variance.
get another property on this block.
And then we are Frankfurt Avenue to Amber.
So we found another property on this block on the Amber Street side where this board granted a height variance at 2559 Amber Street.
And again, here is the notice of refusal.
So here you can see it's 46 feet high, which is even higher than we were requesting.
And then maps of the area.
Again, we're not taking an RSA 5 property to increase density.
This is a CMX 2 property on a prominent commercial corridor.
This density will help support that commercial corridor.
And then again, here's a map of the area.
And then photographs of the property.
As you can see, this is a three-story structure.
Currently, it's configured to have three residential units and one commercial unit.
That's the structure from Frankfurt Avenue.
This is the structure from Amber Street.
And then this is Frankfurt Avenue to the right of the property,
Frankfurt Avenue to the left of the property,
Amber Street to the right of the property,
Amber Street to the left of the property.
Zoning notice posters on facing both Amber Street as well as Frankfurt Avenue.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, we're trying to do a complete reboot without demology in the property.
And so it looks very prominent.
we're proposing it for it to look very prominent on frankfurt avenue very pretty a lot of light and
air um again focusing on the commercial order and then if you look here um it's a regular
shade block too but you can see from excuse me you can see from here that we're set back first
of all on the uh second uh on the amber street side it was important for us to be respectful
of the fact that amber street is not as prominent as as frankfurt avenue so from it keeps this
two-story facade of 20 feet high and it's set back 10 feet on amber street
and then this is our floor plans and just to quickly go through it
You have a commercial component on the ground floor and the lower level at the request of the community group, the Fishtown bids.
And then you have a unit, which is a bi-level unit that's facing Amber Street that has direct access, just like it has now.
So we're not really changing the configuration of that unit.
You go up a flight of steps on the Frankfurt Avenue side, and there's two units.
When you hit the landing, there's unit number, well, considered unit three, but really residential unit number two to the left, which is a one-bedroom, one-bath.
And then you go to the right, and there's another one-bedroom, one-bath.
And then the other floors, the third and fourth floors, have their own units up here.
And they're two-bedroom, two-and-a-half-baths.
This is our hearing community meeting notice we met on June 14. 121 addresses were notified, a list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal on behalf of 2516 Frankfurt Ave LLC, as well as the original notice of refusal, our project information form,
And then our deed to property also showing 2516 Frankfurt Ave LLC is the owner.
And our certificate of tax clearance, actually my client overpaid.
So they're in a positive for this.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Kim virtually raise his hand.
Ryan, Kim, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Could you state your name, please?
And spell for the court stenographer.
Ryan Kim.
R-Y-A-N-K-I-M.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yeah, Mr. Kim, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning method.
And is it true and correct?
and do you adopt it as your own testimony uh yes thank you questions from the board
no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
they are wrestling no hands at this time planning commission thank you mr chairman david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Fecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir. In 2016, this property was rezoned from residential multifamily to commercial mixed use in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The appellant has shown that the maximum occupied area variance is substantially similar to the existing condition.
Regarding the unit count, the appellant could have built four dwelling units within 45 feet of height if they had used the mixed income housing bonus.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance for maximum occupied area, but deny the variances for height and unit count.
M.I. 2023-001-053-2516,
Frankfurt Avenue, I vote yes proviso per amended refusal dated 7-10-23.
Thomas Holliman, I voted yes with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number two, Mr. Nockamson, please.
MI 2022-001-118-1521 West Oxford.
Letter of support from United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association.
Could you identify your client?
You've already been sworn, Mr. Nockamson.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Alan Nockamson.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is 1521 W Oxford LLC and in a virtual audience is, excuse me, its member, Dr. Sean Malink.
All right, our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to read the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
All right. 1521 Oxford Avenue. Just waiting for the screen to come up. Okay.
Similar presentation packet. We'll review the notice for refusal, the letter of support from
the United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association. Again, our refusal, this is an RM1 property.
If this was not in the overlay it is, this would be allowed as a practice project. Because it's in
the overlay, we're slightly short of the lot size requirements. And then because we're asking for
more than three units, parking is required, off-street parking is required. Under similar
circumstances, this board has granted variances to allow for additional unit count. And again,
it would be out of character to ask us to put off-street parking on this lot because we would
have to do by way of a front-limiting garage, which would take guys off the street, but also
would not be in character with the neighborhood as a whole. And we would just be taking one parking
spot off the street, putting a curb cut where someone would not be able to park on the street
for one parking for one car that would come off the street which would be a net gain of zero uh
maps of the area photographs of the property our plans and drawings our rco meeting notice
our application for appeal deed to property showing that 1521 w oxford llc is the owner of
the property and our certificate of tax clearance uh at the conclusion of my presentation i would
ask that mr malik virtually raise his hand uh be sworn in and then he can adopt my testimony as
zone. Notice refusal. Again, this is an RM1 property. We're trying to put a quadplex here
and we're getting refusal, even though this lot is 1,560, 16 square feet of record, although my
architect says it's 1,575. If this was a straight RM1 property, we wouldn't be here today. We're in
the north and central Philadelphia overlay district sub area. And because of that, it's required to
have for the first four for the first four units instead of 360 square feet of lot size per unit
425 square feet so we're slightly short plus when you ask for more than three units you need to
provide a parking of a ratio three parking spots for every 10 units again this is meant for larger
again this is meant for larger properties which we're not we don't have the ability to put up a
properties which we're not we don't have the ability
side driveway no one wants a front loading garage takes eyes off the streets and for
the reasons i stated just doesn't make sense and then that's what the letter of support says like
we want this block developed it's not developed right now and maybe the impediment is the fact
that we have this overlay so we're working with the community making sure that you know we're
responsible builders and landlords as well, which will provide a good housing stock for rentals.
And then we looked at the properties nearby where this board has granted similar variances
in the past, and we found seven other instances which were within essentially a block radius.
And then what I did was compare the lot size of those lots, comparing it to the units that
were requested and approved. And on average per unit, it's 348.12 per unit of lot size.
We're doing 392.25 square foot feet per unit. So actually we're asking for less of a variance
than the other property owners who had variance as granted by this board.
and then these are just the backup permits just you know that we found a public record regarding
those seven other properties and then map to the area again this is not an rsa5 property where
we're trying to you know increase the density this is accounted for to be multifamily if we
were in the overlay we wouldn't be here and then photographs the property it's currently a vacant
lot proof of posting for today's hearing and then west oxford street to the right of the property
West Oxford Street to the left of the property.
And then our plans and drawings are pretty basic.
You know, you have four units.
Essentially, you have, let's see,
you have one on the first floor,
one on the second floor,
and then you have, it splits between two,
there are two buy levels,
one on the third and fourth floor
and another on the third and fourth floor.
And then our RCO meeting notice, we met on May 10th, 87 addresses were notified of the meeting, proof of billing to those addresses or application for appeal that showed us that 1521 W Oxford LLC was the applicant, the notice of refusal, our project information form, deed to property showing 1521 Oxford LLC as the owner of the property, and then finally our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, with that being said, I would ask that Mr. Malik virtually raises his hand.
Malik, could you state your name as spelled, please, for the court stenographer?
Yeah, we don't have an Emily. We have someone with the last name Malik or Malik.
Yeah, please send him, put him through.
Christian, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, as bell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Krishan Malik, K-R-I-S-H-A-N.
Last name is M-A-L-I-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Prasheed.
Yes, Mr. Malik, have you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter?
And is it true and correct?
Correct.
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair i see no hands at this time planning commission thank you chair bergman and board
members david effecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential multi-family zoning at this location the appellant has allowed three
dwelling units under the terms of the north central philadelphia zoning overlay the appellant
seeks a fourth dwelling unit but has not shown that an economic detriment will accrue if they
were held to three units. The city planning commission recommends the board grant the
proposed variance from the parking requirements in the code, but deny the proposed dimensional
variance, which would enable a fourth unit. Mr. Chair, can I respond? Sure. Yeah. So again,
you know, Mr. Malik did look to see if, you know, even if, you know, having three units
you know, having three units is economically feasible. And, you know, he would testify
is economically feasible and, you know, he would test.
that he couldn't. That's why he's part of this process. It's not just a parking requirement.
It's not economically feasible to build, given the current conditions of, like, high interest rates
and loss of construction. And that's why he's seeking the relief on those home imports.
okay um mi 2023 001 118 1521 west oxford street i vote yes
thomas hall my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
we're going to go on to um number three and number seven
Number three, we're going to hear them both together, Mr.
Nocklinson.
So number three, MI 2023, 001-050-3220 West Norris, and MI 2023, 001-051-3222 West Norris
Street.
Letter of Opposition from Strawberry Mansion on both.
Mr. Nockamson, just state your name for the record.
Oh, yes, Alan Nockamson.
You've already been sworn, and our vice chair,
and could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, it's Reese & Riley, LLC, and Mason Edward, LLC,
and they're the owners of the property.
In the virtual audience is Kevin Matheson, its representatives.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed to share your
screen
All right, so I'm here to present 3220 West Norris Street and 3222 West Norris Street, which are separate zoning matters, but for economy purposes, I'll present them together.
During my presentation, we'll review the notices of refusal.
Essentially, we're doing this.
We're looking to put a duplex on each property, where each of these properties have a long history of multifamily use.
Actually, the history is triplexes, not duplexes.
You know, we thought it would be better to have them as duplexes to make them larger units.
We do have correspondence from the Strawberry Mansion CDC.
We've been asking them for that correspondence since our meeting many weeks ago.
And we'll discuss that letter at length.
I think there's some discrepancies in terms of the voting process, as well as what they're saying in a letter is not incorrect.
I respectfully disagree with them.
Our property history.
You'll see that, you know, the history of triplexes on these properties and then nearby recently granted variances.
So it's not of character for this board to grant variances under similar circumstances.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, which are going to show that we mimic exactly how things look on that block.
So we're matching the history of that property where there were triplexes, but now we're doing duplexes, but multifamily in nature.
And then you'll see in the property, we mimicked what the properties look like.
And then we were very mindful of many other requirements of the Strawberry Mansion CDC,
as well as the residents.
And we'll go through that as well.
Our RCO meeting notices, we had two notices because we had two properties with separate
appeals, but we met with them twice.
And we'll discuss that as well, where we met with them the first time.
and they were very complimentary of the fact that we met a lot of their aesthetic requirements
and they acknowledged during the first meeting that of the past of this being triplexes it was
actually asked upon us well why can't you just make them triplexes and we stated it didn't make
sense you know given what we are seeing in marketing conditions to make them three units
we rather prefer to make them for two units make them larger make them more available to people in
community. After the RCO meeting notices, we'll look at the applications for appeal, showing my
clients, you know, filed the appeals, the deeds of property, showing the clients own their property
and then the properties, and then the certificates of tax claims, showing the clients a good standing
with the city of Philadelphia with regards to real estate taxes. Again, the virtual audience is Kevin
Matheson, the representative of the companies that own these properties. And then the notice
And then the notice of refusal, right?
of refusal right so these are straightforward these are
So these are straightforward.
These are RSA 5 properties.
But again, we'll look at the history of these properties.
We're not asking for refusals that you wouldn't normally see in this part of the neighborhood,
you know, for the multifamily nature, given the history of the property is refusal number
one, because we're asking two-family dwelling.
The second refusal has to deal with the maximum occupied area.
And you'll see from, you know, maps from the city, all the lots on that block that have building structures on them are non-conforming in this respect.
That's 3220.
3222, we have, again, two-family household living.
We have refusal as to the multifamily nature.
We also have a more unique refusal is to say that we're that whereas the neighboring setback of the property is zero and we're proposing four point four feet, three inches.
So what's that saying? Someone filled in a porch area to the right of us.
We're not filling in our porch area. We're having a porch like everyone else has a porch.
So that's a very unique refusal, which I think the board should, you know, again, I think even the community would acknowledge is not the reason why they're for or against this project.
And then the correspondence from the Strawberry Mansion CDC.
Again, we just got the letter like probably like an hour or two ago.
We've been asking for weeks.
Like we met with them on May 25th and they didn't take a vote.
So it was very strange.
Like they didn't take a vote after we left.
there was another project they said they were going to take all the votes at the end of the
meeting and maybe they just forgot to take the vote i you know we do a lot of work in strawberry
mansion the people there are you know good people the board members they're honest um but i think
what happened is just they just got to take the votes and you know we had one the first meeting
everything was great you did porches this is a porch neighborhood you did a brick facade you did
You have cornice lines that match the cornice lines of the neighboring properties.
You have flintels where the windows are.
You don't have an egress well in the front.
And that's misstated here, saying that we do have one of the reasons why they're in opposition, saying that we have an egress well.
We do have an egress well in the back.
We think it's important to have an egress well in the back.
You know, again, we think that it helps when people are able to have room to live.
And we envision that people in unit number one, which is a bi-level on the first floor and the lower level, we envision those people to have a place where they can have an office, an extra living area, like a living room, and, you know, and have the laundry facilities down there.
And the board and the community were like, well, we don't like egress wells.
We fought hard about egress wells.
Aesthetically, it's not in our community.
I reiterate it, it's a safety concern.
So I understand if you don't want the egress well on the front,
whenever I have clients who are looking for variances in Charlotte Mansion,
I indicate no egress wells and no roof decks because they fought hard for those things.
No egress wells, excuse me, in the front.
But in the back, for safety reasons, it's necessary to have an egress well.
But another thing which was not brought up during the meeting was that they have a concern about us converting this into rooming houses, which is not my client's business.
So anyway, a vote was never taken.
I asked multiple times where the letter was.
Eventually, I was told that one of the board members canvassed the neighborhood.
I don't know where he went.
I believe he's online.
but I don't know who heard of those votes of 15 against and to and support. I don't know how many
of those people actually heard my presentation. So I think that's unfair to not take a vote and
then to take to canvas the neighborhood where some of the members of the community may not
have heard my presentation. And then I just think there was some misinformation about like the fact
that we're trying to convert this
or there's concern
of us converting it
into a rooming house.
If we were doing group living,
we would have to come back here.
This would not be allowed
as a right.
This is an RSA-5 property.
And I would have told them
at the community meeting,
if they asked me that question,
I would have presented that to them.
But to make matters worse,
within an hour before the hearing,
my associate, Alex Goldberg,
got a frantic phone call
from a community member
stating, oh my God,
you're having a community meeting today at two o'clock I can't attend and they mentioned the
And they mentioned the fact that it was it was being stated to members of the community that they should come oppose this project because they want to prevent rooming houses from being built in this neighborhood.
fact that it was it was being stated to members of the community
Again, that's what we were told. So, again, I think that misinformation is there.
I think it's really important to be able to take votes when when after the presentation at a community meeting with people who show up or verified, like who I can present information to and hear our presentation, the pros and the cons and the debate back and forth.
that's what the RCO process was made for. And that's why L is codified. Anyway, so this has
a history of significant history of multi-family use. Again, 3220, triplex. 3222, triplex.
Then it's not uncommon for this board to grant variances otherwise. 2009 at North 31st Street,
around the corner was approved for variants.
Same thing with 1942 North 32nd Street for variants.
And then maps of the area.
Again, there's a mix of zoning,
diversity of zoning, even as neighborhood.
Yes, we're RSA 5,
but you can see that we are surrounded by R&M 1.
And then again, we're near a park
and typically near parks,
you have more density from a planning perspective.
And then you can see here the other variants
with the lot coverage issues.
So you can see this prop.
So this is on Atlas.
Atlas hasn't taken the city,
I guess according to the city records,
they haven't taken off the fact that we demolished
or these properties haven't,
the building structures have been demolished.
But you can see the building structure
that's on here that's shaded
would make this a non-conforming lot.
So previously this was a non-conforming lot.
And then you could see all the properties
on West North Street.
None of them really have significant open area, so they would all be not a good form.
So our refusal about open or occupied area should be approved by this variance request to be approved by the board for that reason alone.
And then photographs of the property, as you can see, these are two vacant lots.
They have been vacant lots for some time.
Hearing notice posters, one on each lot, 3220, 3222.
And then West Norwich Street to the right of the property.
As you can see, the property, these properties or this block is a porch neighborhood.
And as you can see from the architecture of these surrounding properties, we really did try to mimic that in our design.
And this is what's going to sell out to the property.
And then here's our plans and drawings.
Again, what did we do?
We looked at the property to the left and right of us.
We managed to match the height, put a cornice, like a brick cornice there, did lintels with windows you would expect of the traditional Philadelphia homes.
Our roof lines match completely for the porches.
We have porches here.
No window wells in the front because that's something that's been asked about time and time again.
And we have respected the community's wishes in that regard from an aesthetics point of view.
but from a safety point of view we think it's imperative to have at least one window well in
the rear we don't want a situation where we're where someone gets significantly hurt or dies
because they're they're stuck in a basement whether it's finished or unfinished it would
just be very irresponsible and we don't have any roof decks because that's what strawberry mansion
has asked of city council and they pass an ordinance in that respect and we don't even
think about putting roof decks there because that's been asked and uh you know of us many
times to remove them so whenever i have a client if they have a roof deck it's not even presented
to the community we do revise plans immediately and then this is again our rear yards we have a
significant our rear yards mimic the rear yards tell left and right of us and then you can see
here too from the site plan how far how deep these um these building structures go we mimic the one
to the left of us and the one to the right of us we're less deep and then just these are four
plans again very simple we have you come up the covered porch there's a vestibule area we make a
right this is unit number one it's a first floor and lower level one of the reasons why we had an
extra community meeting they wanted a larger bedroom in the front we accommodated that we
agreed to do that um we then um you know we met with them again i i thought that we were fine i
no vote was taken we haven't heard from them um and you know i think one of the reasons why they're
opposed to it has nothing to do with this variance we're not doing rooming house you go to the upper
level upper units that's a three bedroom two bath that's why we didn't want a three unit we wanted
to have diversity of housing within our property.
This is basically a starter unit for someone who wants
This is basically a starter unit for someone who wants to move into the neighborhood or someone who wants to stay in the neighborhood and potentially downsize.
But the three-bedroom on the upper-level unit is for a family, to keep families in Shorebury Mansion area.
Because we've heard time and time again, many of these multifamily structures that are being proposed are mostly one and two bedrooms.
but what about families and that's why we wanted two units because we have a three-bedroom apartment
in the upper unit again we had a community meeting i misstated it was june 22nd because i was going
to be based on the letter the original meeting was met in may the the secondary meeting was june
22nd 149 addresses were notified list of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses
Same thing for the other property at 3222.
Separate notices, separate mailings.
Same thing, separate applications, project information forms.
And then the deed is actually the same.
And then certificates of tax clearance.
So with that being said, I would ask...
Alan, before you call him,
could you tell me what the block looks like?
Is it a lot of single homes, single family?
It does have a composition of single family homes, but I believe there is some vacancies there as well. These properties, which we can't afford, we can't, this is the harsh truth. We cannot afford to build these homes other than as a duplex.
It was asked about to make it a triplex, but we can't honestly build this if it's going to be a single-family home.
And again, I thought we had support.
I don't know why a vote wasn't taken, but the answer is many of the homes on that block are single-family, but there are variances in multifamily on the connecting blocks.
Right. Okay.
Bring your client on.
Yes. Mr. Matheson, can you virtually raise your hands?
I don't see anyone with that name with their hand up.
Was he for both of them?
He was. He's his same client.
Okay. All right. You're an officer of the court. We'll accept your testimony.
Questions from the board.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Reverend Tyrone Williams, and he's been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
My name is Reverend Tyrone Williams, first name, T-Y-R-O-N-E.
Last name, Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do, sir.
Please proceed.
Are you a neighbor, by the way?
Are you a neighbor?
No, I'm actually, I am the program manager for the Strawberry Matching Community Development Corporation.
I'm also the chair.
I'm also the chair of our monthly RCO meeting held every fourth Thursday of the month.
We met with Mr. Knuckleson around these two properties, May the 25th, I believe, and we met him again in the 4th Thursday in June.
At that time, there was a presentation for the second time on these properties from Mr. Knuckleson, but I want to clear up something about the first meeting.
We weren't really in agreement in the first meeting.
This is why there was a second meeting.
The community, from talking with the neighbors and the vote that was taken, was that they were sick of being invaded.
That was the word used, because it is two-rooming homes, nothing to do with Mr. Nakasim and his client, but two-rooming homes have sprouted up in their block without them knowing, going home and a room, and they are sick of not being informed,
or having a voice as to what goes on in their block.
Now, in that meeting, they were on the line,
and Mr. Knucklesom, as I explained to him earlier,
Mr. Chair, we do not allow the presenter
or the developer to be in or on the line during voting.
That is community business.
Vote was taken.
It was 15 to 2.
Mr. Knucklesom said to me earlier,
that he some people wanted it yes there were two people on the line said why not some people
wouldn't mind have an apartment versus a single family home that was a conversation but that
wasn't the consensus of that block that block feel as though they under invasion
of that block that block feel as though they under invasion from not being respected and so
this is the way that they had their voice they voted no to the project we at the cdc support
the community as well i want to remind everyone of the overlay which it was mentioned and and
it was refused by zoning for those reasons that it was all five and they wanted to do something
else so um we uh at the cdc stick with what the community want and and we oppose the project um
thank you uh excuse me chair before he go um may we swear him in i don't think he was sworn in oh
i i did sure oh yeah no i swore him in okay thank you yeah sure uh reverend thank you for calling
in we do alan do you have a question yeah yeah so my my understanding and i think mr uh excuse me
Reverend Williams spoke to my associate Alex Goldberg our understanding is we're not expecting
a vote to be taken in front of us some groups do I don't think it's right because people feel
pressured but my understanding is that no vote was taken that day and then they canvassed the
neighborhood after the meeting where they got 15 people not in support of this project and two
against and again again this language of being an invasion and I think that's the issue is when you
don't have a forum where you can have a discussion back and forth, and then people vote based
on that. I think we're not trying to do boarding houses. We're not trying to invade. These are
formerly multifamily structures, and we're trying to actually lessen the density because they were
previously triplexes that were trying to make them duplexes. Thank you. And thank you, Reverend.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Chair, we have someone by the name of Calvin
Williams they have been unmuted and they can speak now. Hi Mr. Mr. Williams could you state
your name and spell please for the court stenographer. The name is Calvin Williams
C-A-L-V-I-N-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. You swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. Yes I do chair. Mr. Williams are you a neighbor? Yes I am a near
neighbor please proceed yes uh i just wanted to first say that i i wish our uh rco organization
had the same opportunity to have lawyers and people to be able to check facts and check all
the needed information to us to present ourselves we're just a poor little lonely uh community
people trying to survive i think the reverend did fine and i think you're doing fine so
Okay. I just question the notion that the housing in our neighborhood has been granted
multi-home status. Our history in Strawberry Mansion dates back further than 10, 15,
20 years ago, period. It has always been a single family neighborhood. And that's all we try to do
here to preserve what we've gotten used to when we bought into this community as single family
units. Now, we do feel like a type of invasion has come upon us with the housing, multi-faceted
housing that's going on. And we're getting squeezed out of our traditional parking. We're
and treat traditional, all the things in our neighborly things. And I also don't think that
if you build it, they will come. And my person, my small block, people, single families has been
coming in and moving in when home's been going up for sale. I say that if you build it, there come
some of the price tags that's been on some of the properties in our neighborhood in the range from
200 to $300,000. I will say to you, if you build a single family unit on those blocks,
you will get a buyer, you will make a profit. In order to put all these multi things in here
to bring all the density into our neighborhood, it's something that we're not looking forward to
at all. And I know we'll be coming before you in the future too, on some of our other blocks that
are totally been single family for almost five generations of family living there. And to get
this invasion has been a very hard thing for us to swallow. I'll cut it short here and say that
we are not opposed to development and all. But there's nothing in my mind that's telling me
that you cannot build a single family unit there and someone will come and buy it and the LLC
will make a profit. An LLC is not a homeowner. They don't come out and put out trash. They don't do
It's not a homeowner. They don't come out and put out trash. They don't do, they don't keep up those things. Anytime you get more than one family and it becomes a problem. I'm gonna cut it short because I'm getting a little bit emotional. And thank you.
they don't
Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to call and thank you for your insight.
Jeremy Bergman, can I make a response, a short one?
So how about, could we do this? Can we see if there's anyone else in the audience, please? Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
chair we have strawberry mansion community they've been unmuted and allowed to speak
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter good afternoon chairman
my name is bonita cum can you hear me just just try to go a little louder bonita please can you
hear me now i can i can't yeah my name is bonita cummings i am the director of strawberry mansion
community concern and rvco i was in attendance at hold on hold on one minute do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and could you spell your name
please for the court reporter it's b as in boy o-n-i-t-a cummings c-u-m-m-i-n-g-s please proceed
I was in attendance at both meetings for 3220 and 3222 West Norris Street, and there was an expressed opposition even before the attorneys left the call of what was felt from the residents or near neighbors of that particular block.
We also don't want the window wells front or back because what we're experiencing is we have to micromanage that they then become apartment units out of the basement that was never cleared through the zoning board.
So we don't have the manpower in our communities to micromanage these processes of these window wells.
So we ask them to remove, to have no window wells.
There is a market for single family homes. We are not being allowed to keep that market in our communities by feeling forced to just allow these totally multifamilies and creating such transient communities.
So we're asking this body to support the opposition of the community at this time, because we do feel that we have a RSA-5 community.
We would like to preserve that. And so this was opposed at those meetings.
Thank you very much for taking the time, and we appreciate your insight. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Hi, Planning Commission.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Alan, proceed.
Two seconds.
With Mr. Williams, I agree with him.
You shouldn't increase density for RSA-5 properties if it has a history of being RSA-5.
So when you have four or five generations of single-family use, that's appropriate to be against that.
But when you have a history of multifamily use for a property, whereas three units and we're going down to two units,
That's a little bit different. That's what we're asking for. And then in terms of, yeah, units, you know, single family homes and survey management sell between $200,000 to $300,000. It's not feasible to build a single family home for $200,000 to $300,000. That's the issue. And so, you know, we have to responsibly build in Philadelphia for properties like that.
As far as Ms. Cummings, two things. First of all, she's the one who stated during the community meeting, why can't we do a triplex? I'm not saying she was in support of the triplex, but when I indicated we have a triplex history, she's the one that stated in the community meeting, well, then why can't you build a triplex?
And I indicated that we want to have a three-bedroom unit for a family.
And in terms of the window wells and about the illegality of creating another unit in the basement, first of all, we're not trying to do anything illegal here.
But if we wanted to add a third unit, we would have to come back in front of the zoning board.
This is a client of mine who is going through the variance process.
If he wanted to do it illegally, he would not be part of this process.
Thank you.
Thank you. Planning Commission, please.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. David Vecta with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and board members, I'm going to read the same testimony for both properties.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
In April 2021, the city issued a zoning permit for a single-family home on each lot.
Nothing about either property has changed since then.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of either property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
that would prevent it from being used from inconformance with the zoning code the city
planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variants for two dwelling units
on each lot thank you um i appreciate that i'm sorry can i just respond to um the comments you
you can yeah so yes was there zoning permit issued as to both properties for single family
use in 2020 yes mr matheson was looking at a single family home because this is a very
difficult process. No one in their right mind wanted to participate in because of the length
of time and how expensive it is. He couldn't build it. He still can't build it. Three years later,
we're still here. And that's the issue. So that's the hardship. It's not economically feasible to
build a single family home. And you already mentioned when the price point for a single
family home is $200,000 to $300,000. I appreciate the testimony on both sides.
So I'm going to read them both together. Number three, MI 2023-001-050 and MI 2023-001-051-3222, West Norris. I vote no to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no to both.
James Snell, my vote is no to both.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is both. My vote is no to both.
Thank you, Mr. Nockmson.
Number
let's see here.
Number six.
MI 2023
001 062
244 West
Green Street. Brandon Saverin is the
attorney.
Letter of support from the
Upper North Coalition of Community
Councils.
Yeah, Brandon Saverin is coming back in
as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, counsel. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yep, Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A-V as in Victor, R-A-N as in Nancy.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you identify, please identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is JJ Rental Company, who is the longtime owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case, five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Okay, let's see.
Well, thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the board.
So the property I am here speaking about is 244 West Grange Avenue.
My internet connection is a little dicey.
so if you need me to repeat myself at any point, just let me know. The subject property is at the
southeast corner of West Grange Avenue and North American Street, so this is in the Alney
neighborhood. To the right of us would be North 2nd Street, which is pretty much like the major
thoroughfare in this area. To the left on the map along Grange eventually would take you
all the way west to the Fern Rock Transportation Center and Train Yard, and then further out to
Broad Street, just to give you some context. This aerial image of the property is from
atlas.phila.gov and is marked as Exhibit 6 in my exhibit binder. So I'm just going to show you
before I show you the notice of refusal, some photos of the property also from Atlas. This is
Exhibit 14 in my packet. This is the property from the Grange Avenue side before a fire that
occurred in late 2019. And you'll see that the bottom was a grocery store that was operated by
the property owner, and the top was one apartment unit. So there were two units, one commercial,
one residential. This is before the fire in 2019. Here is after the fire in early 2020.
What happened since, and this is the same vantage point in 2022, I believe around when we filed this case, is that my client obtained a make-safe permit to stabilize the property.
You can see that new windows replaced those boards upstairs.
New metal doors were put in in the grocery store space.
New metal doors were put in in the grocery store space, but my client cannot act on the
but my client
building permit that it has since gotten to renovate the ground floor until we determine
what the new use of the ground floor is going to be.
And my client nor the community wants to reinstall a grocery store in that space.
Instead, it wants to make it a second apartment unit.
This, real quickly, still in Exhibit 14, is the same series of photos from the broad side of the building on American Street. So here it is before the fire. Here it is right after the fire. Here it is more recently.
the graffiti will be we're moving forward so again we're sort of paused here until we get
a decision from you today I will now show you the notice of refusal at exhibit 2a zoom in a little
bit excuse me so what this tells you is that we only have one refusal it's because we're in the
RSA 5 district and two family use is prohibited. What you can see in this notes to ZBA line that
the examiner wrote is that a variance was granted for that grocery store in 1982. But because there
was a fire and the ground floor has been vacant for over three years, it's our belief that L&I,
if pressed, would determine that that variance has lapsed. So because of that, we actually can't
reopen the grocery store either without a variance. The only thing we would be able to do
without a variance, which would incur additional interior demolition and additional expense to my
client, which has already faced a hardship because of the fire, would be to combine this into
one dwelling unit. But that doesn't make sense given the location of the stair and doors in
the property, which I'll show you in a moment. And just that the general history of the property
has always been as two spaces. So let me walk you through that history. In Exhibit 12,
I have a series of all of the zoning permits that I could find that have ever been issued
to this property. So this one is from 2000. Basically, this was pulled to enable the grocery
store to sell sandwiches because that's considered takeout food. But the permit basically states that
there already was a grocery store and it's going to continue to function as a grocery store as of
the year 2000. Going back, here's a permit from 1982 that came from the zoning board. That's the
variance I mentioned where the grocery store use started. Here's a 1962 zoning permit at which time
the space was described as a candy store rather than a grocery store. And here's a zoning permit
from 1959 in which, again, the space is described as a confectionary, which I take it to mean that
was a candy store. And what the applicant wrote at that time to L&I was this type of store existed
on the premises before 1930. So given that the zoning code was not established until 1933,
for as long as the city has been tracking uses through zoning permitting, this property has
always had two spaces. It has never, at least per the city's records, been a single family home.
Moving along, I want to discuss the RCO process. So at Exhibit 9C, I have our letter of support from the coordinating RCO. It describes the vote, and I was in person in attendance at this meeting with the rep of the property owner.
the vote was almost unanimous it was 36 to 1 it looks like in support of the project
and then Mr. Jackson who heads the zoning operation of the RCO wrote a little note here on the second
page that really talks about how badly this RCO did not want that grocery store to come back
there were no personal attacks I'll give them credit it's not as though they were saying that
my client had ever done anything wrong. But the block is otherwise residential, and they just
don't want a grocery store there again. That's stated in this explanation. They were totally
fine with having two units, two residential units, and they were really excited to see the boards.
Well, there are no boards anymore, but to see that metal door taken off the property
And for this to reopen is fully residential.
I believe that I have plans that I'll show you really quickly.
I believe that I have plans that I'll show you really quickly.
These were drawn up, even though it's a change of use application, so we're not required of zoning plans.
These were drawn up as future building plans, if you are to say yes to our variants today.
And it just demonstrates to you that there's three doors to this building, and one of them leads directly into the existing staircase.
case. So one of the many reasons this property doesn't make a good single family home is because
you have a door that unless it's filled in, and it's nice to have these doors for, you know,
egress purposes for safety, you have a door that leads right upstairs to someone's bedrooms.
And that's kind of bizarre for a single family home. It's not an attractive setup. And it,
You know, it sort of has you looking over your shoulder if you're either in the front of the downstairs space and you really have no eyes on the access to the upstairs.
So I can talk to you through the floor plans at greater length if desired, but I'll skip it for now.
These are drawn by our civil engineer.
And then the last thing I wanted to point out, because I know it's.
to the birds you're breaking up are there other dresses in this area oh okay is that any better
mr chairman that's better mr chairman okay sorry thank you for letting know um so lastly this is
exhibit 13 um it just points out um what the uses of the other three properties at our corner are
and per either rental licenses active rental licenses or if there is no rental license
the most recent zoning permit all three of those properties that are at our corner besides us
are duplexes so this is 5800 American Street active rental license for two units this is 5801
American Street active rental license for two units and this is 248 West Grange which is right
across from us. No rental license on Atlas, but therefore I went to the zoning permitting as sort
of the next best source of info that most recent zoning permit is for two-family use. So what we
want to do here is write in context with our surroundings. With that, I'm happy to take
questions. I noticed you didn't say anything about it, but do you have the letter from the
council person so i have an email mr chairman we have it says letter of support from council
member phillips yeah you know um what happened here is that give me one second get some page 43
there we go um what i have is an email from um jameel duncan um who says that a letter of support
it was sent to the zba okay do we have we have one right uh yes mr chair this yes mr chair this
is hillary we did receive one um brandon i'll forward it to you thank you hillary okay great
okay all right you want to call your client
brandon you froze um so it's the um owner's representative uh and any better mr chairman
Well, your face froze for a little bit there, but I can hear you.
Why don't you pull the owners right?
I have Damaso Rodriguez.
Let me know if he's in the audience.
Mr. Rodriguez?
Damaso Rodriguez.
Damaso Rodriguez has been unmuted, chair, and allowed to speak.
Sir, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
My name is Damaso Rodriguez. My name is D-A-M-A-S-O, last name R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-C.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Damaso, firstly, are you authorized to speak as a representative of the property owner today?
Yes, sir.
Okay. Were you able to hear my testimony in this zoning case today?
Yes, sir.
Was my testimony true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own testimony?
Okay. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, that's the general chair.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
here i see no hands at this time planning commission thank you
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Board Members.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The appellant seeks to convert a ground floor commercial unit into a residential unit.
The appellant has shown that the proposed variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief from the code,
And the proposal meets a comprehensive plan recommendation to shift commercial uses from residential blocks to commercial corridors in the Upper North Planning District.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed use variance for two dwelling units.
MI 2023, 001-062-244 West Scrange Avenue, I vote yes.
thomas holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
mr saverin please stay on the line here okay so um mi2023 001 045 3238 north 16th street
um just state your name for the record because you've already been sworn
okay um my name is brandon saverin right um could you identify your client
relationship to the property yes um my client is um tayoga and temple llc
they're the owner of the property and our vice chair has a few questions for you
good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refuser or stipulate to his
that person? Yes, I do, Mr. Vice Chairman. Have you emailed in all the required documents and
exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you. Brandon, before you start,
the Temple part of the LLC has no relationship to Temple? No, none at all. So, okay. Yeah,
I'll address that, but you know, proceed. Okay. And just to make, make everyone avail, uh, known
letter of support from Nicetown Tioga improvement team with provisos, um, vote was six to five.
Okay. Thank you. Share my screen now. Um, so, um, as you stated, Mr. Chairman, um, and this is,
It's not the first time I've advised a client to leave Temple out of the properties on the, oh, I'm so sorry. Is that any better? Mr. Chairman, give me one moment.
yep okay okay um so
orland street so it's
we're not brandon we're not here um it's vacant okay i'm gonna i'm gonna relocate
closer to the internet signal give me literally 10 seconds
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can you hear me any better?
We hear you now.
Okay, if it happens again, just let me know.
And what I'll do is actually go to a different building
and I'll come back later in the hearing.
But in any event,
so this property is at the Southwest corner
of 16th and Westmoreland.
It's a vacant lot that my clients purchased last year.
So this is on the block of 16th Street that's directly to the north of Allegheny Avenue.
And as far as the Temple portion of the name, no, the property nor the owner has any relationship to the university.
They picked that name because maybe about a half dozen blocks away is Temple University Medical School and Temple Hospital.
The main campus with the undergrads are about a mile and a half from here.
So this project is not intended for college students, nor do I think it'd be super attractive to them.
But in any event, so what you're looking at here is Exhibit 6 from my packet, which is an aerial image of the block from atlas.phila.gov.
But in any event, so what you're looking at here is Exhibit 6.
And what I'm going to show you in a moment is that there's a lot of land vacancy on this block.
In fact, the church that is where my cursor is in the middle on the left has since been demolished.
So it's even greater than this image represents.
the subject property has been vacant since at least 1996 according to atlas it's a 3267 square
foot property that's 25 about 25 feet wide we're planning a 35 foot tall building that would fit
into the context of the few buildings that are on the block this is what the block looks like
if you were to step outside and look down to the right towards the rest of the block.
There's a couple buildings near us. Half of them are abandoned, half are occupied. But beyond those
buildings, you've just got a tremendous amount of empty space all the way down to Allegheny Avenue
where there's some multifamily buildings. So kind of an interesting situation. One of the most
vacant blocks I've ever been involved with a project on. And then I'm going to jump to,
I think it's exhibit 14. Yes. So that this is the same aerial image, but what I did here
is I put labels for every property on our block to just tell you what's there,
because we're proposing a 10 unit building, which I'll show you in a minute. So I wanted to put that
in the context of our surroundings. So there, as I mentioned, 11 of the 19 properties on this
16th Street block are vacant land or vacant buildings that, you know, per the city's records
are uninhabited. And then among the eight buildings that are there, I think all but one
of them is multifamily. So directly next door to us is a four-unit building. The only occupied
building across the street from us is three units. There is one single family home, a couple doors
down. And then you kind of have, you know, open space all the way down to the southern half of
the block. There's a 27 unit building that I don't think construction has started, but I did see the
building permit on Atlas. And then there are some apartment buildings that are already built. So you
have an 87-unit building on the corner with Allegheny on the west side. You have a 62-unit
retirement home per the zoning permitting on the right side corner northeast with Allegheny.
And then in the southern corners with Allegheny, again, all multifamily buildings,
typically several dozen units each as are labeled in my exhibit here. So this is an interesting
context. I mean, the zoning is RSA 3, and this is probably a good time for me to show you
our refusal at Exhibit 2. The zoning is RSA 3, so that's a really tough zoning designation. Not
only does it command single-family use, but it commands a lot of open space. Half the lot is
supposed to be left unbuilt in RSA 3. So that's much more strict than RSA 5. And we just can't
design a project, particularly on a property as large as this one, that complies with the zoning
code. If we were to attempt to build a single family home, which is not economically feasible,
Yes, maybe we could comply with the dimensional rules of the open lot area and parking and all these things you see listed here.
But to build a multifamily building, which really is required in terms of what the demand is in this area, what the context is, and what my client can finance in terms of literal money financing, construction material cost and construction labor cost.
What we end up with is a relatively modest multifamily building that we did our best to meet the dimensional rules, but still, you know, fell short with the ones on this screen.
Now, as I did mention, we are obeying the height limit.
So it's only a 35-foot tall building, and we are giving the board today a two-page proviso plan, which I'm going to show you.
This plan is at Exhibit 11.
And what we did in consultation with the RCO, because we had two meetings.
What we did in consultation with the RCO, because we had two meetings, is we did reduce the project to 10 units. That's what this change cloud is about here. There is no roof deck on the building, and it provides three surface parking spaces in the rear, accessed from Westmoreland Street.
I do have the architect on the line, but in the interest of time, I'll just do my best job walking you through the elevations real quickly.
This is the front elevation, the 25-foot wide frontage on 16th.
This is the side elevation on Westmoreland, which is quite long.
There's going to be a door here that leads into the entrance lobby and the main stairwell.
That is going to serve four units on the first floor and then three units on each of the second and third floors. Those units range in sizes, about half of them are what I'd call bigger, you know, in the 900, 1,000, 1,200 square foot range, and about half of them are smaller, you know, studio or one bedroom, 500 square foot units.
One of the units is going to have an independent access because it is an ADA type B unit. This was also a change made in consultation with the coordinating RCO. So the idea here is that a wheelchair user can, with no level change, come right in off the street.
We still did want to elevate the building to match the style of the surrounding buildings and again could do so without exceeding the 38 foot height limit.
There are extensive egress window wells on the front side and that is to promote safety.
I have floor plans. I'll come back to them at the drop of the hat if you'd like in a minute.
I will go to the RCO letter real quickly. This is at Exhibit 9C. So Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team was the coordinating RCO. It was a close vote. The RCO, as they normally do in my experience, wanted to respect the vote, is supporting the project, has asked us to do some things on what I'd call the economic side.
So it's, you know, within your discretion as to whether to enter these as provisos, but we have agreed to them, you know, personally with the RCO.
One of those will be to hammer out a community benefits agreement that discusses job opportunities and caps on rent.
I think that that is essentially my presentation.
I'll stop sharing my screen.
I'm more than happy to take questions.
I do have the architect as well, as I mentioned.
Why don't you bring your client over to a doctor?
So my client's name is Nadal Hassan.
Nadal, if you could raise your hand.
I could you state your name?
We have a Nadal Hassan.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
I could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
there you go
hello my name is um nadal hassan hey nadal could you nadal could you spell your name please for
the sonographer oh i apologize yeah sure uh n as in nancy i d as in david a as in apple l as in
Larry, last name Hassan, H-A-S as in Sam, S as in Sam, E as in Elephant, N as in Nancy.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Nadal, are you authorized to represent the LLC that owns this property?
Did you hear my testimony in this zoning case today?
Was my testimony true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Would you therefore adopt my testimony as if it were your own?
Thanks, Nadal.
All right.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Richardson. As you know, you've been already sworn. Just state your name, please.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
The Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance based upon
Yes, sir. The councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance based upon the RCO's letter.
Thank you very much for calling in. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Here we have someone with the phone number ending in 3552. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Proceed. Could you state your name, please?
Yes, this is Adrienne Fernandez of Swamp Little Neighborhood Process Association, RCL.
Spell your name, please, Adrienne, for the court stenographer.
Okay, I'll spell my last name. It's F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Okay. For this address, 3238 North 16th Street, we are opposed to this variant.
There are six affected RCOs for this address with one of them serving as RCO coordinator.
However, the RCO coordinator did not follow the zoning code for scheduling neighborhood
public meetings and also did not follow the Planning Commission regulations and instructions.
So therefore, the other five RCOs, including Swampwood RCO, did not participate in any of
the meetings or any agreement to do a CBA for this address. In most cases, we had other
RCO meetings already scheduled so um the coordinator did did not make any attempt to
consult with us so we could have the meeting on dates we could um all plan to be available so um
therefore we're asking for um enforceable provisos for this address uh let's see about
well I'll just name them. The first one is a limit of 10 units because this area is the variance for
multifamily is overused on this block even though there's a lot of vacancies almost all those
vacancies under redevelopment plans whether for variance or for not or not for variance by right
because Swampadour RCO along with Tauly United and North Central Philadelphia RCOs we gave
extensive meetings for over 18 months about the unusual increase in multifamily variances in this
area and on this block. Traditionally, the multifamily is restricted largely to Allegheny
Avenue, which Brandon did indicate in a large number of multifamilies that have been there for
decades. And now those multifamilies are trying to turn the corner where are mostly RSA3s,
whether you go north or south from Allegheny Avenue.
And it's just becoming too crowded.
Neighbors are complaining they can't even keep up
with going to all the meetings,
basically asking to make their lifestyles
more invaded, more crowded,
parking and traffic and other problems
that come with multifamily, especially trash.
So the first proviso we're asking for is a limit of 10 units.
The next one is that all trash and recycling
is stored indoors,
except for collection days.
The next proviso we're asking for is no rooftop decks
or other rooftop structures.
The next proviso we're requesting is bike parking
or any bike parking must be placed inside the property lines.
Also proviso for no basement living.
And the last proviso we're requesting is a limit
of 35 feet height because this one block
will have close to 100 multi-families
where there were probably about 30 single-family homes.
And that's everything that we need to let you know.
Thank you for taking the time to call in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see all the hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David DeTecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change from residential single-family 3 to residential single-family 5 at this location.
Under the proposed zoning, parking would not be required, and the open area required would be less than with the current zoning.
Under the proposed zoning, if the lot could be divided, the appellant could build one dwelling unit on each lot for a total of two dwelling units.
So the City Planning Commission could support two dwelling units in this proposal.
However, the appellant has not shown that a unique physical condition or circumstance exists that would require 10 dwelling units to be built on this property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variance for 10 dwelling units.
Mr. Chairman, could I quickly respond?
Mr. Chairman, could I quickly respond?
You can.
You can.
Well, first of all, I just want to say thank you for your patience as I hoofed around my
house.
So now I'm standing next to my router.
But in terms of Mr. Fecto's comments, none of the other parcels on this block, to my
knowledge, are subdivided in such a manner that they're that shallow.
What we're, you know, attempting to do is basically keep a lot that is the same shape, more or less as the others in its context. And single family home use, you know, in addition to just not being possible economically, and in my opinion, not sensible on such a large lot, on a corner, it's just, it's not, it's not in context.
I mean, there's one, as far as I'm aware, single family home on this block. That's just not where we are. It's an apartment area. And then as far as Ms. Fernandez's comments, I was not aware of any of that friction between perhaps her RCO and the coordinating RCO.
But as far as the suggested provisos go, I think we, by nature of the plans, comply with all of those. We have no units that are solely in the basement. There are a few units that have some space in the basement, and I don't know if it's been fully determined whether there would be bedrooms down there.
But if there were, the basement's partially above ground and every single unit has code compliant egress window wells in the zoning plan. So I think we're in a pretty safe position as far as that goes. That's all I have for you.
Thank you. MI 2023.
Mr. Chair, just a quick note. If you are inclined to grant this, the provisor suggested by Ms.
Hernandez about the maximum of 10 units should absolutely be included along with the revised
plans that have been suggested.
Yep. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. MI 2023-001-045.
3238 North 16th Street. I vote yes. With proviso. Revised plan, two pages, stand by ZBA, July 19th, 2023, maximum 10 units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snow, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
So thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 10, MI 2023-001-069-2500 Grant Avenue.
Number one, Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Chair Alan Nockmson is coming back in as a panelist now.
Mr. Nockmson, you have already been sworn.
Could you just state your name for the record?
Alan Nockmson.
All right.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is to Coney One, doing business as Bluegrass Billiards Bar and Grill.
And in the virtual audience is Dominic Monaco.
Right. And I see there's a letter of support from Northeast Community Civic and also a letter of support from Council Member Driscoll.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Councilor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
Thank you.
All right, so this is a very straightforward zonie variance.
I represent Bluegrass Billiards and Sports Bar, and they received a temporary variance in 2018,
and we're looking to have a permanent variance now for this restaurant establishment.
So we'll review the notice of refusal.
We have a letter of support from the community as well as the district council member.
Just some background information on them.
Just some background information on them. So, you know, showing that they have a valid liquor control board license, food preparation and serving license, a little bit about them that we got off the Internet to give flavor as to who they are.
So, you know, showing that they have a valid liquor control.
The use permit showing that the board in 2018 did grant a five-year temporary variance because this was a new business venture in this neighborhood, wanted to give them the opportunity to show that they're a responsible operator, which they are, which is based on the fact that we got a letter of support both from the community as well as the district council member.
maps of the area, photographs of the property inside and out, just floor plans, our RCO meeting
notice, our application for appeal, our redacted lease, an option to extend the lease. Currently,
our lease is valid through August 31st of 2028. And our Certificate of Tax Clarence, again,
in the virtual audience is Dominic Monaco, the owner's representative. Notice of refusal.
So all we're doing is trying to essentially put a pool hall here.
This is a ICMX backslash CA2 property.
We're basically in a shopping center.
Letters of support from the community.
Again, they were overwhelmingly in favor of this.
I actually was doing another project in front of the Northeast Community Sympath Alliance on a whole separate matter.
And I referenced the fact that this newer matter is coming.
with the Billiards Hall, and they're like, oh, we love the Billiards Hall.
We all go there.
It's a great place.
So I was happy that they said that because it made it a very smooth transition to get
their support.
And because we got their overwhelming support of the community, we also got the support
of the district council member as well.
And then just, again, we have a valid liquor license.
We have a valid food preparation and serving license.
Again, you know, where, you know, my clients are a well-established builder's hall place
in the Northeast Philadelphia.
They have 50 pool tables, six ping pong tables, many flat screens.
They serve food.
They have some arcades.
They have parking, which is important, obviously, where they're located in their clientele,
and they're open seven days a week.
This is their menu, as you would expect, just bar food.
And then they're well-regarded in the area.
So they have 441 reviews on Google at a 4.6 rating.
And it all speaks well about how they manage themselves, their foods, their operations.
And then the use permit that, you know, again, was previously issued for a five-year variance.
We're asking for a permanent variance, and I think we've proven ourselves over these past five years to obtain one.
And then maps to the area, again, where we are.
We're nowhere near residential here.
As you can see, close by, same shopping center, a giant, a nifty-fifty, Walmart, public storage, Marshalls.
So not out of character in what we're offering in the surrounding area to what we're asking for.
Here's photographs of the front of the property, the notice posting as well, proof of posting.
You can see we're in a facility with much, much parking.
I think. Blue glass to the right, blue grass to the left. Just more interior photos of the billiards hall from different angles. Ping pong tables, arcade. Plans and drawings. You just walk in. There's a little hostess station. There's a bar, billiards around, ping pong tables in the rear, kitchen, bathroom, another bathroom, and then the office.
RCO meeting notice we met in April regarding this matter.
Again, it's not a very dense area.
Only 19 addresses were notified in the meeting, but 12 people attended the community meeting.
So it speaks volumes about how involved this community is, proof of mailing of that notice, or application for appeal, notice of refusal, project information form, redacted lease.
So I'm going to quickly go, you know, just go past the lease.
But, you know, showing that my client has the right to remain in the hall.
You know, they have more extensions, but, you know, their most recent extension that they exercised was August 31st of 2020.
Certificate of tax clearance showing that the property owner owes no taxes to say, real estate taxes to say about out here.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Monaco virtually raise his hand.
Please warn him.
Sir, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court's stenographer?
Dominic Monaco you've been unmuted and please wait for the chair
Dominic Monaco, you've been unmuted, and please wait for the...
sir could you state your name and spell it for the stenographer
I'm having a problem hearing you could you repeat that yes could you state your name
and spell it please for the court stenographer yes my name is Dominic Monaco
B-O-M-E-N-I-C-M-O-N-A-C-O
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, please.
Yes, Mr. Monaco, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I heard you.
And is everything I stated true and correct?
It is true.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I do adopt it, yes.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
here i see no hands at this time hi planning commission thank you chair bergman and members
of the board david vecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the industrial and commercial mixed use zoning at this location the proposed use
assembly and entertainment is what a reasonable person would expect to find in a shopping center
the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use variants for assembly and
Assembly and Entertainment.
Thank you.
MI 2023-001-069-2500
Grant Avenue No. 1, I vote yes.
Thomas Tollman, my vote yes.
James Stout, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Mr. Nockmson, I have one more for you here.
MI-2022-007-648-1872 Conlon Street.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Alan Nockmson.
Did you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, the property is owned by Ogon's Real Estate Holdings LLC.
And in the virtual audience is one of its members, Niti Jandar.
And I would make note that there's a letter of support from the Oak Lane Worcester Community Coalition.
The applicant has also provided 12 form letters of support signed by neighbors, nine from the 18 and 19 House of Park of Conlin.
Our vice chair has 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 all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case? Bob, these in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
so this is a very straightforward project 1872 common street it's configured as a two-unit
dwelling it's been a two-unit dwelling forever my clients bought it unfortunately with the rental
licenses lapse was unaware that you know they wouldn't be able to get those rental licenses
renewed without going through this project process because this is an RSA 5 property.
So we'll review the notice of refusal, the letter of support from the Oak Lane Worcester
Community Coalition, as well as the letters of support from nearby neighbors. Our use
registration permit, which shows that this property has had a long history of multifamily
use as a two-family dwelling. Then it's not uncommon, not only for the property itself,
but just some of the surrounding properties to have a multifamily use it was then the next thing
we're looking at is the listing on redfin it was advertised as a duplex then maps of the area
photographs of the property in the surrounding area um internal drawings which are going to
confirm showing that it's configured as a two-unit dwelling our plans and drawings our rco meeting
notice our application for appeal that we filed for the cba our deeds of the property showing that
Ogans Real Estate Holdings LLC as the owner of the property and our certificate of tax clearance
showing that my client does not owe any real estate taxes to the city of Philadelphia with
respect to this property. At the conclusion of my presentation, I'll ask that Mr. Jandar
virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and I will ask him a few questions. Notice of refusal,
this is an RSA 5 property, but in name only. This has been a duplex for some period of some
significant period of time. And it's just merely because the rental license is left,
given the zoning classification, we have to go through this process.
But our support from the community, as the chairman stated, the coordinating RCO on behalf
coordinating the RCO on behalf of the community stated their support of this project and then
of the community stated their support of this project.
again we met with as many of the nearby neighbors that you know would enter the door and you can
see 1874 Conlon and some other properties on Kemble Street and some other properties on
Conlon Street are all in support of this project so 1870 Conlon as well so the property to the left
of us to the right of us they are both in support of this of this legalization of the two units
And then the user restoration permit, you can see as far as 1968, that's as far back as we have records, showing that this has a two-unit history.
And then here are the rental licenses, showing that the rental licenses were good through 2012.
My client never purchased the property with the intention to have it without rental licenses.
As soon as they purchased the property, that's when they were notified that they had to go through this process.
and then again not uncommon to have multi-family use nearby seven other properties in close
proximity um also are multi-unit in nature and then the red fit listing as you can see here
uh it talks about this duplex offers again it was advertised my clients a duplex they didn't know
anything better um maps of the area you can see we're on common street you know google map as
well showing where on Colin Street. Photographs of the property. This is the front from Colin.
This is the back from Colin. You can see the postings as well from both angles, all three
angles. Colin Street to the right of the property. Colin Street to the left of the property. Interior
photos. So basically you walk into the front door and there's two doors. The first floor,
this is a common hallway, a common, I guess, you know, vestibule area, pretty large. But here's
unit number one, the door is open. Unit number two, there's a door here, you go up a flight of
steps, and you'll see that from the pictures, as well as the floor plans. So again, walk into a
common area, you go into unit number one, which is shaded in blue, you go up a flight of steps,
go to unit number two, which is shaded in pink. Not changing anything about the property,
just trying to legalize it.
We had a community meeting on July 12th at 6 p.m.
82 addresses were notified in the meeting,
listed the addresses,
proof of mailing to those addresses.
The community also wanted us to hand deliver
these notices, which we had someone do as well.
Applications for appeal,
we filed the ZBA,
Sean Nefko, Gons, Real Estate Holdings, LLC,
you know, had filed this zoning appeal
along with the notice for appeal
or project defamation reform,
DTSA property showing that Ogun's real estate
owns LLCs, the owner of the property,
and finally, certificate of tax claim
showing they owe no real estate taxes
with respect to the property.
I would ask that Mr. Jandar virtually raise his hand.
Maybe he's going in.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it, please?
Mr. Jandar, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. It's Niti Jamdar. That's N-I-T-I-J-A-M-D-A-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yeah, Mr. Jamdar, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning map.
And is it true and correct what I stated?
And do you dot what I stated as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
He's been admitted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Richardson, just state your name for the record and proceed, sir.
You've already been sworn.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call in.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no other hands at this time.
Hi, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This rowhouse was converted to two-family use prior to the issuance of a rental license in 1968.
The appellant has shown that the legalization of this two-unit dwelling is the minimum necessary to afford relief from the requirements of the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed use variance for two dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022-007-643-1872 Conlin Street, I vote yes.
007-643-1872, Conlin Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Knackensen.
Thank you. Have a great afternoon.
Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called from the 2 p.m. list?
Chair, I see no hands.
We're going to take a five-minute break,
let the court reporter get set,
and then we'll be right back and we'll finish the 3.30 list.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm back, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Thank you.
You're muted, Chair.
LaKeisha, everyone back?
Yes, Chair, and we are recording, so whenever you're ready.
I'm ready, okay.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the 330 CBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Chair.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at philo.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question to answer box on the screen is now for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
For continuances, number one, MI 2023, 000489, 4400 North A Street, this case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances or any comments relative to that case?
Chair, I see no hands at this time. Wait a minute, a hand just went up, Chair.
Rafael Feebo has been unmuted and allowed to speak, Chair.
Hi. Hi. Could you state your name? Could you state your name and please spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Rafael Alvarez-Febo. That's R-A-F-A-E-L space A-L-V-A-R-E-Z space F-E-B-O.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What case are you involved with, sir?
I am the lead for the RCO Esperanza Housing and Economic Development who heard the case.
We sent a letter to the zoning board and the council office regarding 4400 North 8th Street.
Hold on, hold on, hold on, sir. Hold on just one minute here.
4400 North 8th.
Okay, so that's the case we're continuing, sir, right?
Right. And the attorney had a pressing matter. We're going to continue it.
Okay. Excellent. I just wanted to know the reason why.
Sure. Sure. Thank you. And we appreciate you calling in. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Chair, I don't see any hands at this time.
Okay. So number six, MI 2023-000-368-5017-Rosehill.
Michael DeJesus is the owner. We do not have any exhibits. This is the first listing.
Michael DeJesus, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
So MI 2023 000 368 5017 Rose Hill Street. This case is continued. Mark must be tried.
rose hill street this case is continued mark must be tried we're going to go to our list
mr chair um this is hillary um can we just go a little out of order um from what i what i had
given you can we actually start with number two and then go to hold on one second three and eight
uh actually do two and four two two and four first mr wards cases thank you sure thank you
Number two, MI 2023-000-560-3001-73 Arms Street.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
We have letter of support from Impact,
letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
Chair, Sean Ward is coming back in as a panelist now.
good afternoon mr ward good to see you could you state your name please
and spell for the court sanographer my name is sean s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d esquire
uh attorney for applicant and i would like to thank uh the board for the uh courtesies right
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
every time could you identify your client in relationship to the property
uh chair could we identify for myself which which case i'm presenting it as a caster yeah sure so
So it's 3001 to 73 on ORMES Street.
Orm Street.
I represent 2410 Germantown Avenue, LLC.
And with me today is George Groves in the virtual audience.
And I am attorney for both owner and applicant.
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?
Yes. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed
and share your screen. I got it. I got the wrong. Bear with me, Chair. I have the wrong.
that. Let me stop share. Mr. Chair, are we seeing my Orm Street? That's it. That's it. Yep,
Mr. Chair, as always, I submit my typical exhibit packet. This is for the property of 3001-73
Ormes, spelled O-R-M-E-S Street. We're here. There was an application filed for personal vehicle
repair. They are not permitted in the ICMX district, and therefore, we seek special
exception approval. A2 is the application of appeal. A3, project information form. A4,
proof of ownership. As far as tax clearance attached to the packet, we are not tax clear,
But pursuant to subsequent submissions to Hillary as board counsel, she has advised that we are tax clear based upon representations from the Revenue Department.
A6 is the site plan.
A7 are photographs, including posting, the property, aerial views, street views.
A8 is the RCO letter of support.
We met with Impact CDC, and there is a letter in unanimous support of the application.
A9 is a district council letter if submitted.
I don't know if they got it in.
But as far as relevant zoning history at A-10, in 2021, there was zoning approval for
Zoning approval for the erection of an attached structure with 19 garages with accessory parking.
erection of an attached structure with 19 garages.
A-11 is the zoning map and A-12 is the aerial photograph.
Not to belabor the application.
Hold on a second.
Mr. Ward, we do have the council person's non-opposition letter.
Yeah, Mr. Chairman, this comes down to an application. You know, there's 19 garages on this block. And, you know, the owner has had numerous requests for some auto repair facilities in various units.
Rather than have each applicant go through the process, you know, which, you know, as the board is aware, could wait, you know, could take some time.
We are seeking a zoning approval that would allow auto repair in these units.
They are substantial units.
You know, here's an exterior photo and it's all new construction.
um as you can see uh you know you know a a a very uh attractive construction and then inside you
have uh you know various you know large spaces um you know yeah there is residential use on the
back street but all of the activity would occur in the front of the building which is across
us from, you know, I submit a non-residential use. So here we are, you know, and then here is the
impact board meeting, you know, letter, which was submitted to you as chair back on June 6,
indicating unanimous support uh so you know unless there's anything more that the board
needs to hear from us um you know again you know it's it's it's in a mixed use uh area
There is some RSA-5. It's ICMX. And this is the reuse of vacant, vacant ground, you know, that was, you know, in this neighborhood, you know, resulting in a lot of illegal dumping and whatnot.
So unless unless there's anything more.
Is your client here, Mr. Ward?
Yes, he is. I believe George Groves.
George, if you can raise your virtual hand if you're here.
I'm here.
George Groves has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Groves, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
George, G-E-O-R, Groves, G-R-O-V-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, to hold truth to nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
George, you've heard my representations to the board?
Are they true and correct, to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And do you adopt them as your own testimony today?
Awesome.
Questions from the board?
No, chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
here i see no hands planning commission this is uh this is ron bednar city planning first name
ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do proceed sir this property is currently indicated for industrial
commercial use on the city plan or adopted 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 variance not be granted.
um mi2023 000 560 3001 to 73 arms street i vote yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes we're going to number four
Mr. Ward, you're there too
MI2023
000066
2155 Caster Avenue. You've already been sworn, Mr. Ward, just state your name for the record.
Caster Avenue
You've already been sworn
My name is Sean, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D, Esquire Applicant's Attorney for 2155 Caster Avenue.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
uh my client is sterling paper lofts llc that's s-t-e-r-l-i-n-g paper lofts comma llc
and with me today is george groves and we have a letter of support from the harrogate civic
association and they list provisos have has hillary covered that with you
uh i i believe i submitted to hillary the the provisos okay so uh thank you uh 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 absolutely have you emailed in all the required documents and
exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case as in advance of this hearing?
Correct. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, Chair, are we seeing my screen as 2155 Caster? Yes, Sterling Paper Lofts.
Awesome. All right. Thank you so much. Again, for the record, I've submitted my typical
exhibit packet. This one for Sterling
Paper Lofts, LLC at 2155
Caster Avenue. A1 is the notice
of refusal. This was an application for the retail seal
as permitted in CMX3.
It was a general application
for those uses, but we'll get to how we
narrowed that down. Obviously, there was a refusal. These uses are not permitted in the I2
district. And therefore, we seek a variance for specific uses as provided herein. So A2 is the
application of appeal, A3, the PIF. A4 is proof of ownership, A5, tax clearance,
ASEC site plan, photographs. With regard to the RCO letter of support from Harrogate,
we had a very, very good meeting with them. And it was not our intent for a blanket CMX3 use.
What we did was we narrowed it down to, you know, I think six uses when it comes down to it.
They include child daycare, educational facilities, library and cultural exhibits, assembly and entertainment.
And then we noted that, you know, if it is a nightclub or a private club, it still will require a special exception.
And eating and drinking establishments, including prepared foods, takeout, sit down restaurants and personal services.
We would submit that. Mr. Ward.
Ms. George, this is Hillary. I'm sorry to interrupt. I had just checked all of these uses against the use tables in the code, and assembly and entertainment, just the general category, requires a special exception in CMX3, so if we're looking at uses that would be permitted by right, that is not one of them, but all of the rest of the uses listed in the RCO's letter are.
So I just wanted to let you know that.
Well, at the time we looked at this, you know, we got a refusal that these uses were not permitted.
So, you know, and basically, you know, Mr. Chair and members of the board, we are looking to have approval in advance.
So that way, when prospective tenants come to our, you know, our building, we can say, yeah, you can do this here.
As opposed to each of those filing an application and possibly getting a refusal or referral, and then six to nine months later, you know, they get their, you know, approval if they're going through the process.
So just to finish out my record as far as the documents, so A-9, if submitted, district council letter, A-10 is my problem.
We do have one from Councilman Squiller.
We do have one from Councilman Squiller.
Oh, that's great.
I never got a copy, but A-10 is the relevant zoning history.
You know, again, you know, March of 2022, business and professional.
April of 2022, business and professional.
And then May of 2023, there was a lot line adjustment, but the use remained the same, business and professional.
A11 was zoning map and A12 is the aerial photo. So not to belabor the point, I think the board understands why we're here. And I will not belabor the point and take up more time that's necessary on this application.
and i do have a george groves um who has previously been
sean could we just see what it looks like just out of curiosity oh i'm sorry anyone a second
so this would be the uh site plan um and then
it's the old sterling paper
on Aramingo Avenue
and we have since
been working to rehab
this historic building
and it was probably
one of the greatest employers
in that area
for years
so again
here's the structure on the right
sterling paper
you know this is this is uh again looking up the i believe castor avenue right
okay uh right next yeah right across the street by the way i i failed to mention this
is the heintzman recreation center and that is where the uh you know the rco civic association
meets. The city just spent, you know, millions of dollars to rehab Heintzman. And I'm not sure
if they had the ground cutting, you know, the ribbon cutting yet, but Heintzman has been all
restored rebuild and we are let me go to
okay so here's here's heintzman we're right across the street so okay yeah we we are redeveloping
this building right across from the newly renovated rebuilt heintzman so um you know
So we're hoping this will be the impetus for further improvements, private or public, in this area.
Okay. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Bring your client on again.
All right, George, can you raise your hand? Be sworn.
I mean, you already have been sworn.
Here, George Gross has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Grove, you've already been sworn. Just state your name for the record.
George Groves
G-R-O-V-E-S
Proceed counsel
George you have heard my representations
to the board
Are they true and correct? Did it best your knowledge
information and belief?
Yes sir
And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you
Unless there's anything else
I have nothing else chair
Questions from the board
No chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
here i see no hands planning commission ron bednar city planning where the property is
currently indicated for industrial use on the city plan and physical circumstances site we
recommend aggressive variance be granted hillary do i have to list these as uh provisos
it can be one proviso with all of the uses listed mr chair
but we do need to list them individually
so it's clear what's been approved
so MI 2023
66 2155
Castor Avenue I vote yes
with proviso
to approve the following
CMX 3 uses
child care center, educational facility
library and cultural exhibits
prepared food
takeout restaurant
sit down restaurant
personal services is that it hillary yes mr chair wait we're missing assembly and entertainment
that that is not a by right use in the cmx3 zoning district so we can't add that one they'd
so we can't add that one they'd have to come get a special exception well they have to come
have to come get a special exception well they have to come
either i don't know what it is in icmx but it's not a by right using cmx okay all right all right
understood all right all right so i vote yes with the proviso i just listed
thomas holloman my vote is with
james snell my vote is yes with provisos
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with provisals thank you counsel we're going to go to number three
mi 2023 000 486 49 11 north 6th street um this application is for
use as a two-family household living in an existing structure.
The proposed use of two-family household living is prohibited
in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Chair, if he has been promoted to panelists.
Sir, could you spell your name, please? Could you state your name and spell
for the court stenographer?
Okay, hello. Can you hear me?
Hi, could you spell your name, state your name and spell for the court's demographer?
Yes, my name is E.B. Reyes, I-B-I. My last name is Reyes, R-E-Y-E-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
good afternoon have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes yes all right thank you
please proceed and share your screen okay give me one second please um
okay good afternoon my name is evie reyes i'm the owner of 49 11 north 6th street
um i purchased this property in the middle of the pandemic my first property in philadelphia
oh um this is a refusal i'm here the reason for the refusal for two of two family dwellings um
second place this is application for the appeal
and this is a deed stating that I'm the owner my name Evie Irma well Irma Rice Olazaba
I'm a single woman um this is the I attended the meeting the neighborhood meeting I had 45 people
supporting and this is the picture of my house and this is the proof of
mail in that I sent out I believe it was about 60 to 100 and I sent out
letters and this is the letter that I sent out to the community
and this is the floor plan of my, um, property.
Another for another floor plan of my property. Um,
there's a first floor and second floor, um,
another floor plan. And this is the tax clearance that I,
um, my certificate of tax clearance.
Thank you so much.
so let me ask you a few questions when you bought this property was it already a duplex
the person um yes it was constructed a duplex the agent the real estate agent told me it was
for two family dwellings right okay and is the utility was utility separated and things of that
nature um yes the um yes the peak yes the literally is separated yes okay all right good
all right thank you um questions from the board
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
They've been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Aye, Mr. Richardson, just state your name, please.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Bass.
No opposition.
All right.
Thank you very much for calling in.
We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Here, I see no further hands.
Planning Commission.
So we're on Bednar City Planning.
Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Given these circumstances, we recommend request for variance be granted.
Thank you.
M-I-2023-000486-4911 North 6th Street, I vote yes.
MI 2023-000486.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
You have your votes.
Thank you so much.
Number eight.
Here we go. Number eight, MI 2021-003-544-5007 North 5th Street. Natasha Hentz is the owner applicant.
this application for assembly and entertainment and existing structure the proposed use
assembly and entertainment requires special exception approval in the cmx 2.5 zoning area
there's a letter of support from the new 42nd ward with provisos chair natasha henson's coming
back in as a panelist now hi could you please state your name hi could you state your name
is spelled for the court stenographer natasha hentz n-a-t-a-s-h-a-h-e-n-t-z right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and this is your property yes
okay our vice chair has a few questions for you good evening ma'am do you have you emailed in all
the documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing. Yes. Thank you so much. Please proceed and share your screen.
Green dot at the bottom. Oh, am I not? Is it not recording? We don't see it yet.
we good yes okay um this is so i'm um applying for the special exception um i am looking to
create um a space where people can have baby showers um intimate events um
um and it is in the cmx 2.5 so i had to i'm asking for the special variance
yeah so this is the d that i'm the owner um
this is the notice of referral uh proposed use as assembly requires special exception
application um the application for appeal try to do
and then the second page of that
and the pif project information form
the notice that i had to place on the door for the meeting
this is the outside of the building
inside the bathroom is located right there and then further back is the kitchen it's not really
a kitchen it's just a refrigerator and that's about it and this is just like the further back area
and this is where the trash cans and all of that will be placed back there the alleyway
in the project information page
and this is the letter of support
and then this is the meeting summary
is that four people at the meeting yes okay five including myself um i believe that's it
five including myself um i believe that's it okay um questions from the board no chair
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
this is hillary um miss henson i have a quick question um is is the assembly and entertainment
use that you're proposing is that on the first floor and is there another use on the second floor
um the first floor yes that's what I'm asking for the provision for the second floor is um
a rental is it one one dwelling unit
what is it like one one one apartment I'm sorry one apartment yes on the second floor yes correct
okay all right Mr. Chair I would just um recommend if this variance is granted that
we include a proviso specifying the use of the first floor with a single family household living
above just to clarify what's what the use is at this property thank you
um questions or comments from the virtual audience chair we have charles richardson who's
been unmuted and allowed to speak mr richardson you've been here numerous times today yes sir i
I had to state your name, sir.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance with the applicable provisos that have been offered.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Sir, Ron Bednar, City Planning.
This property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use.
proposed special exception will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond
what normally might be expected for this use. City Planning Commission recommends the board
grant the special exception. MI 2021 003 544 5007 North 5th Street. I vote yes. First floor special
exception for assembly and entertainment. Second floor residential use. Thank you.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisor.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisor.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisor.
Number five, MI 2023-003-348-5120 Marion Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
It's a reconsideration hearing.
The hearing is limited to the presentation of evidence and testimony regarding multiple family dwellings in the immediate area of the subject property, as well as whether it would be financially feasible to build a single family dwelling at this property.
The testimony and evidence from the March 22, 2023 hearing on this matter is incorporated into the record for this hearing.
Mr. Clinton.
Chair, Henry Clinton's coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Mr. Clinton?
Mr. Clinton, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's stenographer?
Sure. Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Advanced E Enterprises, the principal of which is ANAT, A-N-A-T, Madar, M-A-D-A-R, and she is on the call.
Okay. And you heard my comments earlier?
Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. So your first, your presentation for your applicant, please.
Can I share my screen?
Yes, sure.
is that visible mr chairman it is it is all right so i i do understand that the board's direction
and i'll get right to it first of all i'd like to uh thank the board graciously for giving us
Thank the board graciously for giving us the opportunity to represent. Both my client and I understand it's not casually granted. This is my table of contents, some of which were already part of the initial presentation back in March, which included a letter of support from Faith Community Development, non-opposition from SOLO, and non-opposition from the Councilwoman, Cindy Bass.
the opportunity to represent both my
These are the refusal, which is the single issue is we're requesting a two-family dwelling,
and this is in an RSA 5 zoning district.
These are the letters which were already in the record, 17 to 0, with the coordinating RCO,
and then another RCO voted non-opposition, but everyone at the meeting voted in support.
these are the chart of values of the properties in the area. So what we're asking for is to have
a two-family property on a corner property that has been vacant for a minimum of 20 years.
The market value of the properties according to the OPA assessment rolls, and as the chairman
knows, the assessments are equal to the market value, are all in the $90,000 to $107,000 range.
That's for the purchase of an existing property on this block.
There's one outlier at 5133, but the bulk of the properties are all in the 107 or less category.
This is an aerial photograph.
The property is right here.
And if you look around the neighborhood in this quadrant, I think that is the only vacant lot.
And we believe it's been vacant because the cost of construction would certainly exceed the market values of the properties in the neighborhood.
And on point with what the chair asked, we went around the neighborhood.
We looked at the three-story and also multifamily units in the immediate walkable area.
And I'm going to go clockwise.
At Knox and Mannheim, there's a three-story property. Right down the street on Knox Street, 5136, there's a duplex. And I have documents at the end that support each one of these categories. On Hansberry Street, there's a three-story on 155, 157, 159 Hansberry.
There's three stories across the street on the even side of the street.
There's two duplexes still on Hansberry and still on the 100 block of Hansberry.
We have a corner store with a mixed use and we have 130 Hansberry is a duplex and also directly caddy corner to our lot, which we hope to develop is a three story property.
These are the back supporting documents of what I just went through, indicating the duplexes in the neighborhood, Hansberry.
These are aerial photographs.
Not only do the zoning records support the multifamily, but also when you walk the neighborhood and look at the mailboxes and or bells on the front entrances of the property, it's supportive of what the zoning records indicate.
This is 152 Hansberry. Again, the photograph indicating that it's a duplex. You can see there's two doors to that property. 156 Hansberry duplex, two mailboxes, which conform to the zoning record.
there's a duplex at 51 36 box excuse me nox this is the store i pointed out handsbury and nox
it's mixed use with the two meters store on the first floor apartment above
and then i want to walk through this three-story homes in the area because i believe that was one
of the questions at the march presentation are there any three-story homes in the area
I pointed that out on the aerial view. On the 100 block of Hansberry, there's multiple three-story properties, Knox and Mannheim, another three-story property, and also on the 100 block of Hansberry, right around the street, which is also a three-story property.
I didn't include this as a duplex, Mr. Chairman, even though there's two meters on the side, because the zoning records didn't support that.
So I'm not trying to point out that someone may not be kosher with their use, but there are two meters on the side of the house.
And we believe that also may be a duplex, but I don't want to represent that.
The remaining documents are duplicative of what I showed the board in the past.
The other thing that did not occur at the March hearing was there were a number of individuals who were ready to testify, did not get the opportunity.
There were a number of individuals who were ready to testify, did not get the opportunity
for whatever reason, but I understand they're back on the call to voice whatever concerns
that they may have, because that was one of the issues that I raised in the motion for
reconsideration.
And not to read into it, but in my motion for reconsideration, I indicated that there
were individuals besides the RCOs, which were the one RCO in support, one RCO in non-opposition,
there were individuals in the neighborhood who didn't, I think they didn't raise their hand
because they thought it was going to be okay because of the support that we had, but unbeknownst
to them, they should have raised their hand, and hopefully they have their hands raised today,
whether they're in support or in opposition. So in summary, I like to say that, you know,
asking the board to look kindly upon this variance because it's a long vacant corner lot
and it's going to undevelop for at least 20 years.
Sale prices, market value assessments in the area
are in the $100,000 range.
To build a building like this
or even a single family home
would cost double that at a minimum.
We're not altering the essential character
of the neighborhood.
There's other, there's at least five duplexes
and five homes that are three stories.
We're not impairing the development
of any adjacent properties.
We're taking a blighted lot off the vacancy rolls and making it a livable structure.
We're bringing more people to the neighborhood and onto the street.
We have no issues with height, open space.
As you can see from this site plan, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, we're matching the elevation of the property next door.
We've included brick along the side facing Ashmead Street.
The depth of our house matches up with next door.
There's a huge rear yard. So we're trying to conform with the footprint and the elevations of the other homes in the neighborhood so it doesn't stick out.
The other thing is we believe it's in harmony with the code. We believe it's in harmony with what the community wants and what they've expressed, because the chairman may not remember there was a prior application in 2021 for this exact same property.
but it was considered, I believe, by the board at that time, an overbilled.
So my client withdrew that, went back to the community with the entire revised plan,
which resulted in our original presentation in March of this year.
So with that, I would rest and entertain any questions and also have my client adopt my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Bring your client on, please.
Ms. Madara, can you unmute yourself?
Oh, wait a minute.
She just put her hand up.
at Lees.
She may be
participating.
Why, could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. My name is
Anat Madar, A-N-A-T
Madar, M-A
D like David,
A-R like Richard.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. Proceed, counsel.
Good afternoon, Ms. Medar. Were you on the call, on this Zoom call, when I presented your project?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the board?
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Rod Ripner.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Rod Ripner, please unmute yourself.
Can you hear it?
Could you state your name and then spell for the court stenographer?
Rod Ripner, R-O-D, Ripner, R-I-P-N-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, of course.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Proceed.
Okay, so I live in 130 Ashmed, which is exactly across from this lot.
And I was actually in all the meetings, including the community meeting.
First of all, I want to say the developer did come to most of our requests.
We really came forward to try to make it, you know, match the neighborhood look and make sure that everything works.
you know, match the neighborhood look
and make sure that everything works to our demands.
First of all, thank you for the developer.
And as part of the community,
we always, all of us, we voted yes,
but we would love to get this slot built up.
And of course, as a duplex, we approve it.
Okay. Thank you for the taking the time to call in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Zakiya Jenkins.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Ike, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, name Zakiya, Z-I-K-E-Y-A, last name Jenkins, J-E-N-K-I-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you in favor of the project?
I am in favor of the project.
And are you a neighbor?
Yes, I was at 159 Watansbury Street.
Right. Thank you very much for taking the time to call in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have the phone number ending at 7798.
Caller, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name and then spell for the stenographer?
Yeah, Edon Shlomo, E-D-O-N, last name Shlomo, S-H-L-O-M-O.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Are you in favor of the project or against?
I'm in favor.
Thank you very much.
I did attend a last CBA, but I think the lawyer mentioned we were at a community meeting as well, and it was very much in favor of the developer with us on a lot of our requests, and we thought that it was going to pass, so I wasn't sure how to raise my hand, so I wanted to make sure I attended.
Thank you very much for taking this time and calling in. Is there anyone else in the first audience?
Here we have Charles Richardson. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Proceed, Mr. Richardson. For the last time today. I hope so.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Bass. Just reiterating the fact that the Councilwoman
supports the granting of this variance. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the virtual
audience planning commission excuse me chair i'm sorry the hands were up i was just having trouble
unmuting myself okay we have sean butler i'm mr butler state your name and spell for the court
reporter please uh my name is sean s-h-a-w-n butler b-u-t-l-e-r you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Are you a neighbor? Yes. Are you in
favor or against? I'm in favor. Thank you so much for taking the time to call and tell us that. Is
there anyone else in the virtual audience? Mayor, we have someone with the phone number ending at
1655. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak. All right, could you state your name,
please and spell for the court stenographer.
Caller with
the phone number ending at 1655.
Please unmute yourself.
Chair, they've been unmuted on our side.
They're not unmuted.
Is there anybody else with their hand up?
Chair, I see no one else at this time.
Planning Commission.
I have a question.
We already have
a testimony on the record?
Ryan, I don't remember.
Hillary may have it. There was
prior testimony from you.
We'll stand by that.
Okay. Thank you.
And Mr. Chair, just for
the record, the prior
testimony, sorry, give
me one second. The prior testimony
from the Planning
Commission, I believe, was
in opposition.
That's correct.
Thank you.
And my 20, 23, 0, 0, 3, 3, 4, 8, 51, 20, Marion Street.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Have a great day.
All right, you too.
Number seven, MI 2023-000484-2426, Cedar Street. Justin Crick is the attorney.
2426 Cedar Street.
Justin Crick is the attorney.
There was a meeting held 425-73
by the old Richmond Civic Association.
We do not have that as of yet.
Streets has approved the street.
We do have the streets approval.
Chair Justin Crick is coming back in as a panelist now.
Hi, Mr. Crick.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N.
Last name is K-R-I-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, tell the truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Gabriela Flores Rabinowitz.
She is the record owner of the property, and she is on the call.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
So do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I will state that they were sent on Sunday in anticipation of an RCO letter of support based on correspondence, but that is when they were submitted.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
members of the board we are here today on a variance seeking off-street parking
at the property at 2426 cedar street the the applicant is seeking to basically re-establish
a parking garage that existed and prior to her purchase of the property the applicant purchased
this property in 2018 the historic record for the property shows that there was a a front loading
garage with access off of Cedar Street that was removed and converted into first floor
living space by a prior owner back in 1987.
As you can see, the creation of this one interior space did generate the refusal as off-street
parking in this district is prohibited unless access from a shared driveway or rear alley,
while at this time we are looking for access from the proposed street frontage.
We do not know what the comment is, or I believe it was just an errant leftover from the examiner,
but that's why this referral looks like, the refusal looks as the way it does,
but it is simply just the refusal for the front street parking on Cedar Street.
The property, for geographic purposes, is between East Hagrid and East Boston,
but as you can see, it has a much wider frontage than many of the other on that block,
and that is because you can see here this one-story portion of the real estate
that allows for the wider frontage and that is where the
garage was previously housed and where the owner would like to replace the
garage door for the off-street parking. So again in 1987 a permit was filed for
the renovation of the removal of the garage door and installation of the
single door and side windows. When Ms. Flores-Ravenowitz purchased the property
in 2018, it was represented to her by the seller and agents that this property
did allow for the reconversion back. She realized after the
purchase that that would require a variance and that is what we're seeking
today. So this would remove one off-street parking to allow for one
off-street parking. We are showing property views of the street so you can
see that it is a one-way street so that in either case there would only be
cars coming from one direction and a need to visibly keep an eye out for
cars coming from the one direction which would be this way from East Boston
Street. The plans show that the curb cut would be placed in front of the house
allowing for the turning radiuses that are shown here we did obtain streets
approval which is attached and I will go through that but the proposed rendering
would show the the garage back in place of where those two doors were and the
garage located along this side of the property again we did complete the
driveway sightline distance measurements and angles showing for the one-way
Street and obtained the street's approval for this as a prerequisite provided we obtain
this variance.
This is a very straightforward application for the off-street parking.
With that I'll show you an exemplar page of the deed, copy of the posting, and then
and then this is where we get into actually i'll jump to the end if you don't mind
this is where we get into actually I'll jump to the end if you don't mind.
just to show that we do have a zero tax bill on the property but if i may um we met with the
the coordinating rco the old richmond civic association on april um 25th i believe and
there was a big turnout we sent notices and proof of mailing is here to 193
neighbors near neighbors for this property and there was no opposition at that meeting
i have here some correspondence from right around that time where i communicated with the rco you
know thanked them for orchestrating last night expressing that and confirming that there was
no opposition looking for a letter of approval or non-opposition i have followed up several times
over the last several months to which no response has been received at this time. That has included
voicemail and telephone. So with that, we believe that since there was no opposition
and that the literal interpretation of the zoning code creates a hardship where this
property did have a previous use that allowed for this on this block and that the creation of the
garage and the removal of one off-street parking for this is the minimal necessary to uh to affect
uh to provide the offered relief uh we would hope that the if we don't know at this time whether or
not the rco has submitted something a further communication was put out there today seeking
some sort of answer but we would hope that the board can move forward on the representation
that there was no opposition at this meeting that was well attended i do have miss uh flores
Rabinowitz available to adopt my testimony okay and if you could you state your name please and
spell for the court stenographer dear Gabriela Flores Rabinowitz has been unmuted and allowed
to speak hi this is Gabriela Flores Rabinowitz g-a-b-r-i-e-l-a-f-l-o-r-e-s-r-a-b-i-n-o-w-i-t-z
right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Proceed, counsel. Ms. Flores-Rabinowitz, have you heard my testimony to the board today?
I have. Would you agree that my testimony was true and correct to the best of your knowledge and
belief? I do. And if you had the, would you adopt my statements today as if they were your own
testimony? I would. Thank you. Questions from the board? No.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
here i see no hands at this time all right planning commission
so ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for residential use on a city plan or
adopted district plan recommends no change the existing zoning at this location applicants
hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property
would prevent it from being used
and conforming the requirements of the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request of variance
not be granted.
Counsel, what I'm going to do is
before we vote, let's wait one more
See if we can get a letter from the
RCO. I want to
get them on paper if we can. If not, we're
going to vote. Thank you.
We'll do this next week.
2 p.m. Hillary?
Mr. Chair. July 26th,
at 2 p.m um 26 2 p.m very good i may uh respectfully i may only be able to be via phone
that day but that's fine yeah you we we won't you know we'll no more testimony this is closed
except for a possible letter from the rco is that right hillary that is correct mr chair
okay would i be able to reserve the right to if the rco puts on other testimony
or is it just a letter they they would only be submitting a letter there's there's it's not it's
not a resumption hearing we're only holding the vote for one week excellent understood okay thank
you and number eight mi 2023 000 397 734 jefferson street meredith ferlicker is the attorney
chair meredith farler girl is coming back in as a panelist now okay so we're going to hear this
case we're going to resume it july 26 at 3 30 p.m for any additional public testimony in light of
a discrepancy between the hearing date on record on july 12th and the hearing notice that was
On record, on July 12th, and the hearing notice that was distributed.
distributed.
And Meredith, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer, please?
Sure thing.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Meredith Ferlger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, with Dilworth Paxson, 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 and a relationship to this property?
Certainly, my client is Turpin LLC, the owner of the property, and our representatives of that entity are Gary Levin and Dave Ostrow, one of them.
I noticed we have a letter of support from APN.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, yes.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I sure did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
The board should at this point see my exhibits up on the screen.
As mentioned, the proposal before the board today requests a new six-unit multifamily dwelling in
North Philadelphia, just east of the Yorktown neighborhood and just west of Old Kensington.
In your packet at tab 13, you will note a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, APM.
The board has my exhibits, which contain 14 exhibits.
The zoning map shown here at Exhibit 7 shows that the properties at 734 and 736 Jefferson Street sit right at the corner of North 8th Street and West Jefferson Street, which is just about a half of a mile east of Broad Street.
The properties, as you see, are zoned RSA 5, and they abut several other zoning classifications, including RM1 directly to the rear, ICMX across North 8th Street, and CMX2 directly across West Jefferson Street.
The subject properties before the board today were previously zoned RM1 as recently as 2018
and were zoned for multifamily at the time my client purchased these properties in 2016.
On the aerials at Exhibit 8, the board will notice several new developments just to the
rear of this property along North 8th Street. All of these developments are exclusively multifamily.
Further illustrating the mixed character of this particular area, the board will also notice
directly across North 8th Street, as I'll point with my cursor, is a very large industrial use.
The west aerial that I now have up on the screen more clearly shows the adjoining multifamily
properties on North 8th Street, and the property you can see with the little red teardrop.
At Exhibit 14, I have presented some additional street-level photographs showing the existing
condition of these long-time vacant lots. You will again note in these photos the newer
developments immediately to the rear of these two properties. The next photo will give you a better
sense of that heavily industrial use directly across the street.
On the opposing end of North Jefferson, you'll notice the Prestige Pavilion,
which is a mixed multifamily and commercial property. And in the next photograph, you'll
see the subject properties are shown here to the right. And you will also notice the newer
multi-family infill development that is mid-block. Directly across the street here,
you can see with the graffiti on the building, is another mixed multi-family and commercial property.
My client's proposal, I'll bring up the zoning plans, is to consolidate the two lots and erect
a new six-unit dwelling on the new combined property. The zoning plans are up on the screen
at Exhibit 5. We've also included floor plans at Exhibit 6. The proposal will include four
two-bedroom units that are roughly 700 to 850 square feet and two one-bedroom units of around
500 square feet. The trash will be stored in each unit and can be serviced via an
The trash will be stored in each unit and can be serviced via an exterior trash area in the large rear yard.
The elevations that I have up on the screen, also at Exhibit 6, show that the proposal has been designed to be reflective of the style of newer development just two doors away, as well as those just south on North A Street.
Now regarding the refusal, because the properties are currently zoned RSA 5, we are required to seek a variance for the proposed multifamily use.
The applicant submits to a hardship in erecting new single family homes on these lots for several reasons.
First, as shown on the deed at Exhibit 3, my client purchased these properties in 2016 with the expectation of eventually developing a multifamily project on these lots.
The recent rezoning has frustrated that expectation.
More critically, the applicant submits to a hardship, given that the rezoning of this area does not reflect the character of the neighborhood and the existing uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
Notably, the predominantly multifamily and industrial uses surrounding this property would make erecting any single family home on these lots unviable.
unviable. At Exhibit 9, I have included zoning permit history for most of the immediately adjacent
properties, but I've also summarized all of those findings on the exhibit list for
easier reference. As the board can see, nearly every single property surrounding this property
contains between two and five units, including quite a few just north on North 8th Street
that were recently granted variances as a result of the rezoning effort.
Further supporting the hardship presented today is the recently approved project that was granted
variance relief just across the street at 1422 North 8th Street last November.
And for reference, you'll see that that location is noted with my cursor in this existing building, just diagonal on A Street from these properties.
That project was just approved for 62 dwelling units and a vacant commercial space.
accordingly this evidence submitted today establishes that it would be a considerable
hardship to establish any single family use on these properties at this time the proposed six
unit development is most consistent with the multifamily character of the surrounding
neighborhood we also submit the requested variances are the least minimum variance
there are no dimensional refusals associated with this request the density of similar
multifamily properties in the surrounding area ranges from two all the way to 62 units just
across the street. While the area is redeveloping, as you can see in the photographs, the remaining
industrial uses in this immediate vicinity necessitate a higher density proposal to ensure
that these units are marketable and consistent with surrounding structures. We submit that the
proposal will not increase congestion. The property is in a heavily transit-oriented area,
not too far from North Broad Street. Given the vacancy in the immediate neighborhood,
there is still available on-street parking. This proposal will not impair light and air and is
designed to be three stories similar to the adjoining structures. Accordingly, we submit
that the proposal and the requested variance complies in full with the requirements of code
Section 3038E.2. And a full analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at
Exhibit 10. And at this point, I'll bring up my client to adopt my testimony. Dave, I believe that
you are with us today. If you could raise your hand. Hi, sir. Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court stenographer? David Ostro, D-A-V-I-D-O-S-T-R-O-W.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. David, you are one of the members of Terp and LLC, correct?
That is correct. And have you heard all of the testimony that was offered before the board today?
I have. Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you
I have.
Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt that testimony as if it were your own?
I would.
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission?
The Ron Bednar City Planning property is indicated as residential on the city plan in 2017.
The zoning map was amended single family at this location in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity with the code
And that a variance is therefore necessary to enable a viable economic use of the property. City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning variance be denied.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, respectfully, as always, I would I would disagree with that.
And just based on common sense alone, putting legal standards aside, common sense would would dictate that new single family homes are not going to be built across the street from such a heavily industrial use.
It's just not realistic.
So we understand you disagree.
So this case will be resumed on July 26th at 3.30 p.m. for any additional public testimony in light of the discrepancies between the hearing date announced on the record, July 12th, and the hearing notice that was distributed.
Thank you all.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 3.30 case has not been called?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to note in the last case, we will leave the record open until the resumption hearing in case anybody wants to submit any additional information. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Thanks, everybody. A little better than last week. Thank you very much.
Good job, Chair.
All right, here we go.
Good night.